# Sticky  Beta Quadra - Hangout Thread



## LibertyPrime

I just realized through the Cradle video...I may have a nose fetish :\...odd. Ashley's (the pianist/keyboard) vocals are what i love about the song, but now looking at the video I realize...I really like her kind of nose :S...uhm..


----------



## Inguz

Cantarella said:


> Lmao really? I can't stand metal.


Theatrical, dramatic, dark, exaggerated, aggressive


----------



## Bardo

Inguz said:


> Mmh, all so cute. I also consider black metal in essence to be Beta NF.


I think classic, thrash and power metal is more beta in general. All the ex goths I've met have had Fi somewhere. There's more Si involved in the more extreme alternative scenes than you might expect, if you think about it alternative scenes are boiling over with conformity.


----------



## Inguz

Bardo said:


> I think classic, thrash and power metal is more beta in general. All the ex goths I've met have had Fi somewhere. There's more Si involved in the more extreme alternative scenes than you might expect, if you think about it alternative scenes are boiling over with conformity.


Wouldn't power metal be more Delta?


----------



## TwistedMuses

I somewhat feel like I do not belong in this quadra actually. Too many differences.


----------



## bombsaway

Bardo said:


> There's more Si involved in the more extreme alternative scenes than you might expect, if you think about it alternative scenes are boiling over with conformity.


Si dominant recovering goth reporting for duty.

The two people I know who would still be considered goth are in Beta and Delta. The former looks like a cross between Nick Cave and Stevie Nicks. The later is more steampunk and dresses like a Victorian Gentleman. Neither really listen to black metal, though.


----------



## Inguz

TwistedM said:


> I somewhat feel like I do not belong in this quadra actually. Too many differences.


What are those differences?


----------



## TwistedMuses

Inguz said:


> What are those differences?


I cannot really describe them actually. Just feeling like it.


----------



## LibertyPrime

TwistedM said:


> I somewhat feel like I do not belong in this quadra actually. Too many differences.


Try Delta.

@Inguzwouldn't you say beta quadra is more along the lines of this? At least imo IEI:


----------



## Inguz

FreeBeer said:


> Try Delta.
> 
> @_Inguz_wouldn't you say beta quadra is more along the lines of this? At least imo IEI:


Hm, I'm getting Gamma vibes (ILI). Good song.


----------



## Inguz

Some Beta music


* *













* *













* *













* *













* *


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> Hm, I'm getting Gamma vibes (ILI). Good song.


o.o awww damn...hmmm


----------



## Inguz




----------



## LibertyPrime

<.< WHAT ABOUT ?


----------



## GreenCoyote

Hey just met an ESTP last night and thought I would share with the rest of the Betas.

I saw this guy walking from the bar and he seemed like he needed someone to say hi to him so I did. afterr that he came and talked to me and got me to hang out with him. He was at the bar I was at earlier but I didn't talk to him much there. anyway. he got into a fight with the bouncer because he told the bouncer that he was making him uncomfortable and the bouncer after a little back and forth got angry and tried to grab the guys drink which at that point the ESTP got the bouncer around the neck and had him on the ground. 

Anyway we hung out and he bought me a drink. We talked until morning about random stuff. asked about his girlfriend guessing she is an IEI or something and he told me all these little tips to survive in a hostile environment. can't remember what they are right now but they were good tips. I could tell he was ESTP because by the end of the night he was pledging his allegiance to me saying he would knock anyone out who ever decided to mess with me.


----------



## Cantarella

SLEs are hilarious. I work with one who is always messing with the customers when he takes their order. Sometimes he takes it too far and they get offended, but the SEI and I are always giggling like idiots until then. And they're generally very loyal, which is probably what draws me to them so strongly in the beginning. SLEs, don't ever change.


----------



## Promethea

my favorite fictional eie, gul dukat


----------



## Abraxas

Promethea said:


> my favorite fictional eie, gul dukat


What do you think Elim Garak would be? IEI? ILI?


----------



## Promethea

Abraxas said:


> What do you think Elim Garak would be? IEI? ILI?


I never got much of a read on him and I just spent the past 15 mins watching clips and interviews to try to get some idea - nadda. lol


----------



## cyamitide

Abraxas said:


> What do you think Elim Garak would be? IEI? ILI?


I would guess him to be an SF, and pick alpha over gamma. 

Garak relies on his unofficial connections to conduct his business, in contrast to Dukat, whose power in that clip is more aristocratic in its origin -- he's stressing his rank and position to make the other guy comply: "I am not just any Cardasian, I'm Gul Dukat, commander of the Second Order" -- so I'd place Garak into one of the democratic quadra. His way of interacting reminds me of a few people whose type I think is ESE, but I could see SEI or SEE in him, too.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

This is the only quadra thread I haven't posted in yet and I feel the need to share my affection impartially. So hey beta.

I once thought I was IEI but then they took my N card away.


----------



## Promethea

So help me out.. 

I was thinking up names for the quadra threads.. @RogueWave came up with 'the goth table' for beta
and i was thinking 'the war room' for gamma
and 'the playpen' for alpha
but I can't come up with anything for delta.

Halp?


----------



## Promethea

Mostly Harmless said:


> This is the only quadra thread I haven't posted in yet and I feel the need to share my affection impartially. So hey beta.
> 
> I once thought I was IEI but then they took my N card away.


 @Inguz tried to type me as esi instead of lsi tonight but i wouldn't let em ; P


----------



## Abraxas

Promethea said:


> So help me out..
> 
> I was thinking up names for the quadra threads.. @_RogueWave_ came up with 'the goth table' for beta
> and i was thinking 'the war room' for gamma
> and 'the playpen' for alpha
> but I can't come up with anything for delta.
> 
> Halp?


Gamma shouldn't even be the war room. That's too civil.

It should be like, "the battlefield."

Invoke mental images of carcasses lying out in the sun, death and destruction, camera pans up slowly to give a view of the scale of the massacre. William Barber's "Adagio For Strings" playing in the background. The sound of mothers weeping amidst the burned out village in the middle distance, old balding men in dirty overalls sifting through rubble for tidbits of their belongings - a broken picture frame, a torn fedora missing the feather - one of them hugs his wife. A group of helicopters passes overhead and everyone reflexively looks up in fear even though they are marked as friendly.

Cut to the inside of a sniper scope, cross-hair hanging over the chest of the old man and his wife. Change perspective to show the sniper's face gazing down the barrel, breaking the cliche by being light-hearted and full of spark. He lifts the gun and twists to face his comrades, and everyone seems in good spirits. One of his chums eats an apple with a knife and has a shit-eating grin. They seem to love the carnage and the thrill. It's hard to say which side they're even on. Every single one of them would have to be a monster to be enjoying themselves at this moment. One of them gets into an argument with the other near the campfire over "who's rations are these" and accusations fly back and forth that don't seem serious. They get into a fight and one of them is laughing as he beats the shit beat out of the accused. A third guy breaks it up and winks at the guy who started it with a smirk.


----------



## Abraxas

I have decided that the beta quadra is basically the gamma quadra, but normal-mode difficulty instead of hardcore insanity mode where if you die even once your save gets deleted.

If I were to give it a name, I would call it "The Gentleman's Fight Club."

Alpha would be... "The Dance Dance Revolutionaries" because if you don't like DDR (you're forgiven if you don't know about it, but as soon as you know about it, you will love it, no exceptions), then you're not an alpha. There has never existed a more reliable way of knowing a person's type than this. Do not dispute me.

Deltas... what are delta's like again? Maybe "The Justice League of Nowhere" since they're (I assume) passionate about something, and yet basically fucking invisible and seem to prefer to be.


----------



## Promethea

Abraxas said:


> I have decided that the beta quadra is basically the gamma quadra, but normal-mode difficulty instead of hardcore insanity mode where if you die even once your save gets deleted.
> 
> Discuss.


Pass the dutchie to the left and perhaps I will discuss.


----------



## Abraxas

Promethea said:


> Pass the dutchie to the left and perhaps I will discuss.


*googles dutchie* >.>;

... *gasp!*

That's controversial! I don't do things like that.


* *




In public.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Abraxas

<.< this is my old WoW addiction acting up right now or why do I associate Gamma with this(?):










...well ok, blood elves are Beta, but still XP... aww I miss Undercity...;_; and mah priest.



Promethea said:


> So help me out..
> 
> I was thinking up names for the quadra threads.. @RogueWave came up with 'the goth table' for beta
> and i was thinking 'the war room' for gamma
> and 'the playpen' for alpha
> but I can't come up with anything for delta.
> 
> Halp?


o.o the dinner table?


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> <.< this is my old WoW addiction acting up right now or why do I associate Gamma with this(?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...well ok, blood elves are Beta, but still XP... aww I miss Undercity...;_; and mah priest.
> 
> 
> 
> o.o the dinner table?


Definitely your WoW addiction.

If I could like, abstractly categorize the humor of the different quadras it would be like this:

Alpha = Silly, but silly.
Beta = Silly, but serious.
Gamma = Serious, but silly.
Delta = Serious, but serious.


Delta humor is like Russian cartoons.




Now I tell Russian joke. It go laik dis:

One day shoe meet shoelace. One is meaningless without other.

The end. Laugh now, please.


Meanwhile, alphas:


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Definitely your WoW addiction.
> 
> If I could like, abstractly categorize the humor of the different quadras it would be like this:
> 
> Alpha = Silly, but silly.
> Beta = Silly, but serious.
> Gamma = Serious, but silly.
> Delta = Serious, but serious.
> 
> 
> Delta humor is like Russian cartoons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I tell Russian joke. It go laik dis:
> 
> One day shoe meet shoelace. One is meaningless without other.
> 
> The end. Laugh now, please.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, alphas:


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Abraxas

<.< so making fun of something very serious to lighten the mood and ease tension woud be beta?  I always do this, its how I react to stress. I like to make these sudden punchline type jokes (w8 thats not the one...hmmm) in stressful situations, with a serious face I might add. It works for me, I mean I almost break out laughing despite the situation being very crappy. 

I have been told its funny, but sometimes really inapropriate lol.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


>


Lmao. I laughed so hard at that, you don't even know. It's like, 3 in the morning where I live.

Yes, exactly. That's how I imagine deltas.

... Huehuehue.

I'm just waiting for one to read our little interaction here and be like:


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> <.< so making fun of something very serious to lighten the mood and ease tension woud be beta?  I always do this, its how I react to stress. I like to make these sudden punchline type jokes (w8 thats not the one...hmmm) in stressful situations, with a serious face I might add. It works for me, I mean I almost break out laughing despite the situation being very crappy.
> 
> I have been told its funny, but sometimes really inapropriate lol.


I think so, from what I've read so far across the webernets.

I myself have the tendency, whenever I regard a situation as being very serious, to try and crack a joke which is, itself, meant to be taken seriously, but at the same time, just happens to be funny. I dunno what to call that, like, edgy humor? Like, it's serious, but at the same time, I try to talk about it like it's ironic or ridiculous in some way. I always bring up controversial things and then try to turn it upside down and I tend to offend a lot of people doing so.

One of my favorite comedians is Louis CK, for example. Watch this short clip and you will see what I mean. I actually sound almost exactly like this guy in person. Whatever type he is, is probably my type. Lol.






I think he's basically making fun of a delta at the end. The security guy he talks about. Lol.

I should post a video of myself talking to someone else. Someone ought to volunteer to do a video chat with me or something.


----------



## bombsaway

Silly but silly humour is definitely my jam:






Python fan for life.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> I think so, from what I've read so far across the webernets.
> 
> I myself have the tendency, whenever I regard a situation as being very serious, to try and crack a joke which is, itself, meant to be taken seriously, but at the same time, just happens to be funny. I dunno what to call that, like, edgy humor? Like, it's serious, but at the same time, I try to talk about it like it's ironic or ridiculous in some way. I always bring up controversial things and then try to turn it upside down and I tend to offend a lot of people doing so.
> 
> One of my favorite comedians is Louis CK, for example. Watch this short clip and you will see what I mean. I actually sound almost exactly like this guy in person. Whatever type he is, is probably my type. Lol.
> 
> I think he's basically making fun of a delta at the end. The security guy he talks about. Lol.
> 
> I should post a video of myself talking to someone else. Someone ought to volunteer to do a video chat with me or something.


 can't load the vid in the office, but...










@bombsaway XD ahaha that scene with the rabbit was funny


----------



## Inguz

Promethea said:


> @_Inguz_ tried to type me as esi instead of lsi tonight but i wouldn't let em ; P


That's because you are one. ESI-Se 4w5. 

Also how did this thread get so boring all of a sudden?



Abraxas said:


> I'm just waiting for one to read our little interaction here and be like:


Don't get your hopes up


----------



## Abraxas

... What. Not sure if trolling.

Did this just become the gamma thread all of the sudden?


----------



## LibertyPrime

I think he feels left out and wants attention :3....dawwww.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> I think he feels left out and wants attention :3....dawwww.


Or it could have something to do with the first page of this thread, and people complaining about IEI's always talking about themselves. Honestly, if there was a joke in there I missed it. I don't even know what just happened, lol.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Or it could have something to do with the first page of this thread, and people complaining about IEI's always talking about themselves. Honestly, if there was a joke in there I missed it. I don't even know what just happened, lol.


Yeah pretty much. I thought trolling at first, then I wanted to punch him, then I thought maybe it was supposed to be funny and I'm dense?

Now this is just awkward...

@Inguz Wtf man, what are you doing?


----------



## Abraxas

Let's find out with a test!

@_Inguz_,

Those songs you posted reminded me of a few I have saved in my favorites on youtube.





* *













* *













* *













What do you think?


----------



## Inguz

@_Abraxas_ don't have time, talk to you later.



FreeBeer said:


> Yeah pretty much. I thought trolling at first, then I wanted to punch him, then I thought maybe it was supposed to be funny and I'm dense?
> 
> Now this is just awkward...
> 
> @_Inguz_ Wtf man, what are you doing?


I'm writing in my quadras hangout thread? IS THAT A CRIME?!?! DO YOU JUDGE ME FOR IT?!? DO YOU THINK I'M JUST SOME KIND OF STEREOTYPE THAT YOU CAN THROW AROUND HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT?!? I AM A PERSON, A HUMAN BEING WITH EMOTIONAL THINGS AND THIS IS CLOSE TO HURTING MY FEELINGS!!!!1


----------



## Abraxas

Inguz said:


> @_Abraxas_ don't have time, talk to you later.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm writing in my quadras hangout thread? IS THAT A CRIME?!?! DO YOU JUDGE ME FOR IT?!? DO YOU THINK I'M JUST SOME KIND OF STEREOTYPE THAT YOU CAN THROW AROUND HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT?!? I AM A PERSON, A HUMAN BEING WITH EMOTIONAL THINGS AND THIS IS CLOSE TO HURTING MY FEELINGS!!!!1


I can't help but feel a bit responsible. He seemed to be following my lead there.

*starts to undo his own pants* I deserve some of the spanking at least.

*poker face*

Do what you think is right.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> @_Abraxas_ don't have time, talk to you later.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm writing in my quadras hangout thread? IS THAT A CRIME?!?! DO YOU JUDGE ME FOR IT?!? DO YOU THINK I'M JUST SOME KIND OF STEREOTYPE THAT YOU CAN THROW AROUND HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT?!? I AM A PERSON, A HUMAN BEING WITH EMOTIONAL THINGS AND THIS IS CLOSE TO HURTING MY FEELINGS!!!!1


<.<...ok..well..I...uhm...I'm sorry? <_> this is serious? I can't tell...sry if I hurt yer feelings I wasn't aware of what or uh...how did this exactly happen!? 

 can someone explain? I don't get it...no seriously.


----------



## Inguz

Abraxas said:


> I can't help but feel a bit responsible. He seemed to be following my lead there.
> 
> *starts to undo his own pants* I deserve some of the spanking at least.
> 
> *poker face*
> 
> Do what you think is right.





FreeBeer said:


> <.<...ok..well..I...uhm...I'm sorry? <_> this is serious? I can't tell...sry if I hurt yer feelings I wasn't aware of what or uh...how did this exactly happen!?


You... YOU BOTH SHOULD APOLOGIZE WITH A SOCK IN YOUR HAND IT'S A SIGN OF FORGIVENESS IN MY COUNTRY.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> <.<...ok..well..I...uhm...I'm sorry? <_> this is serious? I can't tell...sry if I hurt yer feelings I wasn't aware of what or uh...how did this exactly happen!?
> 
> can someone explain? I don't get it...no seriously.


Don't worry. Everything is okay, lol.

He's playing with you.

... Or maybe you're playing with him...

Either way, I'm pretty sure he likes you. I think if he was actually offended he would've just ignored you.

You pass.

For now.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> You... YOU BOTH SHOULD APOLOGIZE WITH A SOCK IN YOUR HAND IT'S A SIGN OF FORGIVENESS IN MY COUNTRY.


XD I get it, this is a joke. Plz stop  I can barely hold myself back from laughing and I'm in the office.  good one.


----------



## Inguz

FreeBeer said:


> XD I get it, this is a joke. Plz stop  I can barely hold myself back from laughing and I'm in the office.  good one.





Abraxas said:


> Don't worry. Everything is okay, lol.
> 
> He's playing with you.
> 
> ... Or maybe you're playing with him...
> 
> Either way, I'm pretty sure he likes you. I think if he was actually offended he would've just ignored you.
> 
> You pass.
> 
> For now.


I'm crying from laughter at you two... x'D

Just on a side note, this is Beta Fe :')


----------



## Inguz

More Beta


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> I'm crying from laughter at you two... x'D
> 
> Just on a side note, this is Beta Fe :')


o.o you bastard, you almost made me lose my straight face in the office! XD I had to go to the bathroom to laugh..couldn't hold it in anymore.


----------



## Kanerou

Inguz said:


> DO YOU THINK I'M JUST SOME KIND OF STEREOTYPE THAT YOU CAN THROW AROUND HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT?!?


That makes for an amusing mental image.


----------



## Inguz

Inguz said:


> I'm crying from laughter at you two... x'D
> 
> Just on a side note, this is Beta Fe :')


Expanding a bit on this point, Fe is much about affecting other peoples emotional moods, making impacts. Anyway, my original point about this thread being boring was that Beta in general can view lack of Fe as too serious, involuntarily creating or is drawn to social excitement. Look at Gamma thread, it's not much fun.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> Expanding a bit on this point, Fe is much about affecting other peoples emotional moods, making impacts. Anyway, my original point about this thread being boring was that Beta in general can view lack of Fe as too serious, involuntarily creating or is drawn to social excitement. Look at Gamma thread, it's not much fun.


:| I still can't stop smiling for some dumb reason...

Only noticed after it was too late once I figured out that the emotional reaction made no sense  then I remembered what @Abraxas said about beta humor. :\ you really got me, dunno about Abraxas. :laughing: respect.


----------



## Promethea

Abraxas said:


> I can't help but feel a bit responsible. He seemed to be following my lead there.
> 
> *starts to undo his own pants* I deserve some of the spanking at least.
> 
> *poker face*
> 
> Do what you think is right.


Sup.


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> That's because you are one. ESI-Se 4w5.


I thought about it. Me in contrast to esi - they are more serious and critical than I am. I have noticed certain things in interactions where an esi will dig in, I would just gloss over. This happens more often. I only dig in if its someone very close to me, and its an important matter. I'm not serious very often, and even when I seem like I am, I'm often not, not really. I'm really not seeing gamma quadra for promethea. If anyone could find even one instance of me using Te, I'd be completely amazed. The lines between Fe and Fi are more blurry, for many. I think that just as many arguments for me having some weak Fe could be made. I'm a bit of a misanthrope, and I think that is what made me appear Fi. I avoid sheeple. For someone to even notice the mysterious bubble that surrounds them while they bleat in unison takes some Fe. Alpha Fe is more likely to jump into it, beta Fe just isn't as inclusive. 

I have known some very negative eies who could come off as having Fi, if avoiding dumb cheery groups is how you're going to define Fe. I have heard various theories on why I feel a lack of connectedness with groups of people: lack of social variant, extreme introversion, isolation at a young age / lack of socialization, and then one daft prick actually tried to push the idea that I'm 'a sociopath.' When I can see way more reasons to think I have Fe, I'm going to see this reasoning for Fi as another attempt to explain something thats simply a part of my personality, outside the realm of typology. 

There are two people who know me well, irl, who are well versed in typology, and both agree beyond the shadow of a doubt I'm a 6. This forum isn't a place where my particular brand of anxiety is showcased maybe in part because I'm not a social 6. I do have quintessential sexual 6 anxieties though.

So, I appreciate the thought, but I'm sticking to beta, and 6.


----------



## Inguz

@Promethea I can only make a good argument if I'm allowed to go into more depth, connecting to things that you have shared to me in private. So I'll just say this then, I didn't notice much Fe, and some things are strong indicators of 4.


----------



## Abraxas

@_Inguz_,

Are you sure?

I notice @_Promethea_'s Fe all the time, especially when the two of us bounce humor off each other. Even in the post she just made, even though it's more serious, I can sense that the way she is writing it, she is taking into consideration how it will be received, and not because she is trying to maintain a personal relationship with you specifically (Fi) but because she knows that's just how it would make _anyone_ feel (Fe) and she's simply acknowledging it. If I imagine that she was saying it to me, I notice how I would pick up on those things, but I wouldn't assume it's because she was trying to be a close friend.

The thing about ESI here is that my grandmother is one, and she raised me, and I still live with her, and I'm 30. (I moved to Las Vegas recently and I'm renting a room from here until I get my student loan this fall). So I feel like I kinda know about ESI's. I can tell you, she is always worried about maintaining a good relationship with me and the rest of the family, and all her close friends. It is always on her mind. She also doesn't just follow rules of thumb that would make her a good person in the eyes of anyone. She does things that show she _really knows you_ that make it really personal, and reflect that she really wants to mean something to you deep down. I don't get that kind of energy from Fe, because Fe is more dynamic - it isn't trying to create something static and ever-lasting, it's more about immediate results.

And my grandmother is also a clear type 2 (a lot of her generation is, because of the way society was during the great depression). So she also has that core 2 fear of others not appreciating her. She gets very critical and (in my opinion) even rude or malicious when you don't show her the appreciation she needs, which (to her) feels like a deep betrayal. After all, in her mind, here she's gone so far beyond the norm in order to show you that she cares and do something to help you, because she knows that deep down it really means something to you, but then you don't react to it the way she anticipates, and that hurts her feelings deeply, so she does this, "well fine, then I just won't do X for you ever again then." Usually X ends up being something totally ridiculous, like she's just never going to cook dinner ever again because I didn't like what she made and threw most of it away. Of course, this always blows over when I diffuse the situation with a little Fe magic, and then she realizes how silly she's being and things go back to normal.

I would be hesitant to type Promethea as... that. I'm not seeing it, but you said you two have had more private interactions, so maybe something came up. Still, I don't know. Just based on my own interaction, I never got an ESI vibe from her.


----------



## Inguz

Abraxas said:


> @_Inguz_,
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> I notice @_Promethea_'s Fe all the time, especially when the two of us bounce humor off each other. Even in the post she just made, even though it's more serious, I can sense that the way she is writing it, she is taking into consideration how it will be received, and not because she is trying to maintain a personal relationship with you specifically (Fi) but because she knows that's just how it would make _anyone_ feel (Fe) and she's simply acknowledging it. If I imagine that she was saying it to me, I notice how I would pick up on those things, but I wouldn't assume it's because she was trying to be a close friend.


That's enneagram image type being described. Meaning either 2, 3 or 4...



Abraxas said:


> The thing about ESI here is that my grandmother is one, and she raised me, and I still live with her, and I'm 30. (I moved to Las Vegas recently and I'm renting a room from here until I get my student loan this fall). So I feel like I kinda know about ESI's. I can tell you, she is always worried about maintaining a good relationship with me and the rest of the family, and all her close friends. It is always on her mind. She also doesn't just follow rules of thumb that would make her a good person in the eyes of anyone. She does things that show she _really knows you_ that make it really personal, and reflect that she really wants to mean something to you deep down. I don't get that kind of energy from Fe, because Fe is more dynamic - it isn't trying to create something static and ever-lasting, it's more about immediate results.
> 
> And my grandmother is also a clear type 2 (a lot of her generation is, because of the way society was during the great depression). So she also has that core 2 fear of others not appreciating her. She gets very critical and (in my opinion) even rude or malicious when you don't show her the appreciation she needs, which (to her) feels like a deep betrayal. After all, in her mind, here she's gone so far beyond the norm in order to show you that she cares and do something to help you, because she knows that deep down it really means something to you, but then you don't react to it the way she anticipates, and that hurts her feelings deeply, so she does this, "well fine, then I just won't do X for you ever again then." Usually X ends up being something totally ridiculous, like she's just never going to cook dinner ever again because I didn't like what she made and threw most of it away. Of course, this always blows over when I diffuse the situation with a little Fe magic, and then she realizes how silly she's being and things go back to normal.


And this is enneagram 2, not specific to ESI.



Abraxas said:


> I would be hesitant to type Promethea as... that. I'm not seeing it, but you said you two have had more private interactions, so maybe something came up. Still, I don't know. Just based on my own interaction, I never got an ESI vibe from her.


You decribed her as an image type. Try a reevalution.


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> That's enneagram image type being described. Meaning either 2, 3 or 4...
> 
> 
> 
> And this is enneagram 2, not specific to ESI.
> 
> 
> 
> You decribed her as an image type. Try a reevalution.


A lot of what you're seeing as 2ish is the esi focus on relationships:

"For ESIs, connections with others mark a predominant and over-arching life focus. Though close contacts for ESIs often tend to be sparse, when ESIs find a degree of mutual respect towards others, they can be deeply empathetic, compassionate, and loyal. They may emphasize close connections and mutual understanding with others above all other things."

ESI - WSWiki


----------



## Inguz

Promethea said:


> A lot of what you're seeing as 2ish is the esi focus on relationships:
> 
> "For ESIs, connections with others mark a predominant and over-arching life focus. Though close contacts for ESIs often tend to be sparse, when ESIs find a degree of mutual respect towards others, they can be deeply empathetic, compassionate, and loyal. They may emphasize close connections and mutual understanding with others above all other things."
> 
> ESI - WSWiki


Do you relate to that specific quote?


----------



## Abraxas

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> So an Fe valuer will care out of selflessness and an Fi valuer will care because whatever a certain person's mood is gets carried over to him/her? It's both basic empathy. Fi is my role and if someone is getting mad at me, I will get angry back. That's just basic human nature. Come to think of it though, it doesn't effect my mood when someone is sad (or any positive emotion for that matter if I'm personally already sad), etc, it just makes me empathetic and all cuddly and stuff.
> 
> Hm. Something interesting to think about.


Right. 

I don't want to be unfair again though, you used the word "selflessness" to describe Fe, and I just knooooooow~ that's going to rub some people the wrong way. So as a disclaimer, I think both forms of feeling are/can be selfless, it's just... how we tend to view selflessness has a different angle to it depends on which one you value. I'm sure Fi types view themselves as selfless as well, and I'm sure you could arrange the concepts so that they appear to be, just as much as Fe, if not more so. It's just how you look at it I think.


For example, if you've ever played Dragon Age, Sten values Fi in my opinion. Yet, he's pretty selfless, as is apparent from the following chart:


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Abraxas

 I just had this strange sudden realization as to why I need and like NJ (Ni-Xe) types. :\ since I tend towards being rather unfocused and random, uncertain about long term viability of what I need to / should be doing I require NJ types to sort of point the way.

In other words this is a sort of: "Hey look dude, you seem to be such and such and you are not focusing here and there, thus imo you should be focusing on *insert goal, because *insert reason.

:shocked: to me Ni-Xe types are like road signs pointing the way and providing focus. It is something I desperately need and nobody around me in real life seems to be able to provide it (considering I do not know any xNxj people this makes sense).

My attempts at such things are rather lackluster. :| this means either Ni suggestive or mobilizing for me. :crazy: boaaaaahhh! *_* sweet! This stuff is beginning to make some sense!

Also Sten is a badass, I did end up driving away the old lady thou. God that old white witch was driving me crazy with all her subjective bullshit about blood mages and who I should have intercourse with. >.> lol



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> So an Fe valuer will care out of selflessness and an Fi valuer will care because whatever a certain person's mood is gets carried over to him/her? It's both basic empathy. Fi is my role and if someone is getting mad at me, I will get angry back. That's just basic human nature. Come to think of it though, it doesn't effect my mood when someone is sad (or any positive emotion for that matter if I'm personally already sad), etc, it just makes me empathetic and all cuddly and stuff.
> 
> Hm. Something interesting to think about.


o.o...hmm odd I'm the same way and I have seen old people suffer and die in bed. While people cried around me...I just felt uncomfortable, because I couldn't feel what they felt, which them made me feel guilt and panic over being emotionally dysfunctional. For me its more along the lines of me understanding in my head what is going on with people, which makes me tactful and warmer, but I'm not aware of how it effects me emotionally or it just doesn't.

This one time at the funeral of my uncle i just started sobbing uncontrollably out of nowhere and I felt like I was going insane, couldn't control myself and panicked. I had no idea where it came from or why, it was just afterwards that the memories of him started surfacing and it all made sense...but that one really hit hard and blindsided me out of nowhere.

At least now I know I cared and liked the old man.

I sometimes wonder if I'm confusing my rather strong superego for being a feeler. Well its ethics, so it does make sense as Fi?

@Inguz *>D Manson is INFJ-IEI Socioal first / Sexual second type 4, is this Fe? :*


----------



## Abraxas

@FreeBeer,

Well, I dunno about Ni-lead = organization. I tend to notice a pattern with Ni-leads where you get really detached from immediate concerns and tend not to take anything so seriously that you let it worry you. There's a sense of like, "nothing really matters anyway" so there's no need to plan much because whatever happens doesn't make much of a difference in the long-term. Only _some_ things actually have serious long-term consequences, and those things I am very aware of for instance. But everything else is like, nonsense essentially, so I can just be free and screw around. There's no real sense of attachment to things that don't have long-term influence or effects.

So, when I make plans, they are really general and lack any detail because all that matters is usually like, just this one thing, and as long as that happens, then the rest of the chips can fall as they may. I tend to let events unfold and just keep an eye out for anything that threatens the real objective, but as long as nothing does, then there's no need to really take anything seriously or be organized at all. Does that make sense?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> @FreeBeer,
> 
> Well, I dunno about Ni-lead = organization. I tend to notice a pattern with Ni-leads where you get really detached from immediate concerns and tend not to take anything so seriously that you let it worry you. There's a sense of like, "nothing really matters anyway" so there's no need to plan much because whatever happens doesn't make much of a difference in the long-term. Only _some_ things actually have serious long-term consequences, and those things I am very aware of for instance. But everything else is like, nonsense essentially, so I can just be free and screw around. There's no real sense of attachment to things that don't have long-term influence or effects.
> 
> So, when I make plans, they are really general and lack any detail because all that matters is usually like, just this one thing, and as long as that happens, then the rest of the chips can fall as they may. I tend to let events unfold and just keep an eye out for anything that threatens the real objective, but as long as nothing does, then there's no need to really take anything seriously or be organized at all. Does that make sense?


Yes exactly. I wasn't talking about being structured or short term planning in detail. What I suck at is finding direction, so on top of your kind of approach I suck at deciding what goals are worth pursuing, thus I end up being highly disorganized and having no goals at all. That kind of situation is panic inducing, because I don't know what to focus on, a sort of being completely lost and having obsessions here and there. I know how to do things, how to fix stuff and my interests lead me to develop skill in various areas, but *direction* is something I find hard to com by on my own.

I'm more of a point me to the problem and I'll contain it, no plans needed kind of person. Just need someone to do the pointing.

When someone with Ne comes around in this kind of situation, they just blow my problem out of proportion with all the possibilities...its even more stress inducing.* I don't need options I need direction*.


----------



## liminalthought

Where's EIE? I wanna see what it looks like in quadra group context. Supervise, supervise!


----------



## Inguz

@FreeBeer In your case it means Ni ignoring. And yes, having strong ethics as Fi ego definitely makes sense. As far as Marilyn Manson goes, I agree with 4w3 So/Sx. Not sure about his socionics type.


----------



## Kanerou

liminalthought said:


> Where's EIE? I wanna see what it looks like in quadra group context. Supervise, supervise!


Try @Cantarella. Just be warned that she may cut you if you piss her off.


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> Try @_Cantarella_. Just be warned that she may cut you if you piss her off.


Great! That's just the kind of ability I'm looking for, I'll standby and see.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> @FreeBeer In your case it means Ni ignoring. And yes, having strong ethics as Fi ego definitely makes sense. As far as Marilyn Manson goes, I agree with 4w3 So/Sx. Not sure about his socionics type.


<.< but that would make me IEE and idk if I'm extroverted and how exactly is needing direction Ni ignoring? Plus I'm MBTI ISxP, at least S based on my inability to handle non concrete and highly abstract theories...which quite frankly frustrate me.

Ignoring would mean that I'd be bored of Ni and would place little value on it, thus favoring Ne and options, which would make me Si seeking...which is comfort seeking.


----------



## Cantarella

liminalthought said:


> Great! That's just the kind of ability I'm looking for, I'll standby and see.


To be honest I get on insanely well with ILIs (my BFF is an ILI-Te) and people keep suggesting IEI-Fe for my type instead of EIE-Ni. I only know one pair of EIE and ILI friends in real life and the EIE was soooo critical of the ILI and everything she did. It was insanely awkward for the rest of us who didn't see it as much of a big deal, really.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> Yes exactly. I wasn't talking about being structured or short term planning in detail. What I suck at is finding direction, so on top of your kind of approach I suck at deciding what goals are worth pursuing, thus I end up being highly disorganized and having no goals at all. That kind of situation is panic inducing, because I don't know what to focus on, a sort of being completely lost and having obsessions here and there. I know how to do things, how to fix stuff and my interests lead me to develop skill in various areas, but *direction* is something I find hard to com by on my own.
> 
> I'm more of a point me to the problem and I'll contain it, no plans needed kind of person. Just need someone to do the pointing.
> 
> When someone with Ne comes around in this kind of situation, they just blow my problem out of proportion with all the possibilities...its even more stress inducing.* I don't need options I need direction*.


Well, it doesn't really matter what you do anyway. :O

There really are no goals worth pursuing. You might as well just have no goals at all.

I used to struggle with this, until I just gave up. Just let life choose for you. There's no need to worry because you're going to die, so even if it ends up being awful, it won't last forever.

Just like, roll dice if you have to. What's wrong with rolling dice to decide if you can't? Might as well, right?

I mean, if someone came along and was like, "you decided to become a lawyer because you rolled a 4-sided die and got a 3? That's stupid. How irresponsible." You can just kind of laugh inside, because you gotta wonder what bullshit this person believes that gives them the conviction to say that in the first place, when you know that life is just fickle shit that only lasts a short while and basically doesn't matter.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Well, it doesn't really matter what you do anyway. :O
> 
> There really are no goals worth pursuing. You might as well just have no goals at all.
> 
> I used to struggle with this, until I just gave up. Just let life choose for you. There's no need to worry because you're going to die, so even if it ends up being awful, it won't last forever.
> 
> Just like, roll dice if you have to. What's wrong with rolling dice to decide if you can't? Might as well, right?
> 
> I mean, if someone came along and was like, "you decided to become a lawyer because you rolled a 4-sided die and got a 3? That's stupid. How irresponsible." You can just kind of laugh inside, because you gotta wonder what bullshit this person believes that gives them the conviction to say that in the first place, when you know that life is just fickle shit that only lasts a short while and basically doesn't matter.


Yeah, this was how I thought back when I hit age 14 (my period of extreme nihilism), however since then I realized that life is indeed short, so in stead of seeing it as meaningless, why not just push crap as far as I can and have fun with it. I don't like getting stagnant, disorganized and comfortable. That sort of thing feels like I'm wasting time and I should be just doing something more worth while with my life.

I'd rather have this problem now and then end up enjoying life later, however I'm still enjoying this right now as well . There is stuff to do, people to piss off, questions to state and things to be challenged.

o.o it may work for you, it doesn't work for me and that's ok like that I think.

I really need to focus my obsessive analytic side onto something more productive then this damn it.


----------



## Inguz

FreeBeer said:


> <.< but that would make me IEE and idk if I'm extroverted and how exactly is needing direction Ni ignoring? Plus I'm MBTI ISxP, at least S based on my inability to handle non concrete and highly abstract theories...which quite frankly frustrate me.
> 
> Ignoring would mean that I'd be bored of Ni and would place little value on it, thus favoring Ne and options, which would make me Si seeking...which is comfort seeking.


Or that you also are Te seeking and look for a clear direction towards the goal.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> Yeah, this was how I thought back when I hit age 14 (my period of extreme nihilism), however since then I realized that life is indeed short, so in stead of seeing it as meaningless, why not just push crap as far as I can and have fun with it. I don't like getting stagnant, disorganized and comfortable. That sort of thing feels like I'm wasting time and I should be just doing something more worth while with my life.
> 
> I'd rather have this problem now and then end up enjoying life later, however I'm still enjoying this right now as well . There is stuff to do, people to piss off, questions to state and things to be challenged.
> 
> o.o it may work for you, it doesn't work for me and that's ok like that I think.


Weeeeell~ good luck then I guess!

Sorry I can't be of too much help in the choosing. 

As long as like, you don't choose to ruin people's lives - or at least, if you decide to become the villain, make sure that you do it because you know that evil is simply the catalyst for good, and you are creating horror in order to define the lives of other people and give them something to do that makes their lives meaningful - which in turn gives your life meaning as well.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> Or that you also are Te seeking and look for a clear direction towards the goal.


Yup, this would be my guess. Ni mobilizing and Te seeking. Which is essentially ESI then.

<.< however then that Fi vs Fe stuff earlier makes no sense (why I didn't comment). My best guess is that being a 6 makes me rather analytic, it would also explain why the world needs to make logical sense at every turn and my general preference for machines, taking things apart, problem solving, troubleshooting, categorizing, despite being a Fi base is just due to being a 6 (all that mental energy to burn).



Abraxas said:


> Weeeeell~ good luck then I guess!
> 
> Sorry I can't be of too much help in the choosing.
> 
> As long as like, you don't choose to ruin people's lives - or at least, if you decide to become the villain, make sure that you do it because you know that evil is simply the catalyst for good, and you are creating horror in order to define the lives of other people and give them something to do that makes their lives meaningful - which in turn gives your life meaning as well.


XDDDD ahahha  I see you aren't taking it seriously.  I'll be sure not to cause mayhem and hurt others, promise. Thou you could paint your hair pink again, we grab Prom, hit comic-con and do something interesting in stead of debating theory .


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> Yup, this would be my guess. Ni mobilizing and Te seeking. Which is essentially ESI then.
> 
> <.< however then that Fi vs Fe stuff earlier makes no sense (why I didn't comment). My best guess is that being a 6 makes me rather analytic, it would also explain why the world needs to make logical sense at every turn and my general preference for machines, taking things apart, problem solving, troubleshooting, categorizing, despite being a Fi base is just due to being a 6 (all that mental energy to burn).
> 
> 
> 
> XDDDD ahahha  I see you aren't taking it seriously.  I'll be sure not to cause mayhem and hurt others, promise. Thou you could paint your hair pink again, we grab Prom, hit comic-con and do something interesting in stead of debating theory .


About the evil thing? No I was serious, lol. You can do good by doing evil, it's just harder because you can't sacrifice your empathy in the process or you just become a monster.

As for comic-cons... I've never actually been to a convention before >.>;

If I went, I'd probably have a hard time taking it very seriously. I'd just be asking people questions that are meant to be rude but in a way that they don't know I'm making fun of them, so they don't get offended, meanwhile my friends know what I'm doing and step in and apologize for me, and the person is left bewildered as I smile and shut up.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> About the evil thing? No I was serious, lol. You can do good by doing evil, it's just harder because you can't sacrifice your empathy in the process or you just become a monster.
> 
> As for comic-cons... I've never actually been to a convention before >.>;
> 
> If I went, I'd probably have a hard time taking it very seriously. I'd just be asking people questions that are meant to be rude but in a way that they don't know I'm making fun of them, so they don't get offended, meanwhile my friends know what I'm doing and step in and apologize for me, and the person is left bewildered as I smile and shut up.


 perfect! Sounds like a load of ridiculous fun!

You sound like you played Knights of the Old Republic 2, cus that whats went on there with Kreya attempting to forge a proper Sith out of the player lol.  I totally bought the concept by the end...the replay was quite the fun time...muhahahhaa.

If not, suggest something.

 I asked the alphas what behavior is there in the below video...but nobody answered . I'm curious because silly fun like this is mainly what i end up doing with my best friend.






*EDIT:* I know I'm a grownup and all (26)...buut seriously I'm a major computer nerd / all round geek ...and completely NON-SERIOUS most of the time hehe.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> perfect! Sounds like a load of ridiculous fun!
> 
> You sound like you played Knights of the Old Republic 2, cus that whats went on there with Kreya attempting to forge a proper Sith out of the player lol.  I totally bought the concept by the end...the replay was quite the fun time...muhahahhaa.
> 
> If not, suggest something.
> 
> I asked the alphas what behavior is there in the below video...but nobody answered . I'm curious because silly fun like this is mainly what i end up doing with my best friend.


Loooool @ that girl with the pink hair.

20 seconds in and she's like, *poker face* "We all knew this was going to happen."

That's Ni-Fe humor in a nutshell.

I'm usually like that in a group. Everyone else is laughing at something which isn't funny, and I don't laugh - but the reason I don't laugh isn't because I don't think the thing is funny, it's because I know it's funny that I'm not laughing, and that in turn will make everyone else laugh because if someone was recording, you'd see all these people smiling and enjoying themselves, and I'm standing there by contrast like "... I don't get it.................... you're stupid.......... what?"

I think that girl might be Ni-Fe, because whereas with the other ones, they are totally into the act they are putting on, you get the sense that she's like "this is so dumb, but wheeeee!" And she's like, way above their level of humor. Lol, I dunno if that makes sense or you see what I'm saying.

The others strike me as Ne, or sensors, or something else, lol. I dunno.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Loooool @ that girl with the pink hair.
> 
> 20 seconds in and she's like, *poker face* "We all knew this was going to happen."
> 
> That's Ni-Fe humor in a nutshell.
> 
> I'm usually like that in a group. Everyone else is laughing at something which isn't funny, and I don't laugh - but the reason I don't laugh isn't because I don't think the thing is funny, it's because I know it's funny that I'm not laughing, and that in turn will make everyone else laugh because if someone was recording, you'd see all these people smiling and enjoying themselves, and I'm standing there by contrast like "... I don't get it.................... you're stupid.......... what?"
> 
> I think that girl might be Ni-Fe, because whereas with the other ones, they are totally into the act they are putting on, you get the sense that she's like "this is so dumb, but wheeeee!" And she's like, way above their level of humor. Lol, I dunno if that makes sense or you see what I'm saying.
> 
> The others strike me as Ne, or sensors, or something else, lol. I dunno.


o.o could be, thou as far as I know Dodger is introverted (gets drained by interaction needs a lot of alone time, her own words), feeler and a perciever in MBTI terms. In one interview she mentioned that she lives in the present and doesn't make plans for duh future, thus I gathered MBTI ISFP. She also has one really fat cat as a pet ( there is this cat thing going on with most of the ISFPs on the forum, did you notice? Wierdddd *hides all evidence of his cats).

:| idk in Socionics, could be IEI. Hell, even I test IEI.


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> o.o could be, thou as far as I know Dodger is introverted (gets drained by interaction needs a lot of alone time, her own words), feeler and a perciever in MBTI terms. In one interview she mentioned that she lives in the present and doesn't make plans for duh future, thus I gathered MBTI ISFP. She also has one really fat cat as a pet ( there is this cat thing going on with most of the ISFPs on the forum, did you notice? Wierdddd *hides all evidence of his cats).
> 
> :| idk in Socionics, could be IEI. Hell, even I test IEI.


That's kinda what I meant earlier though about planning. I would describe myself as living in the present as well sometimes, it really just depends. As an IEI (pretty sure) myself, and knowing quite a few here on this forum that are _definitely_ IEIs, we really don't focus all of our time and effort to make solid plans for the future, which leaves us free to just enjoy the moment we're in. We just have a general sense in our heads most of the time that Y is going to happen if we do X, or if X happens, and Y is actually something not very specific and left open on purpose in such a way that you might say Ni is almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's really totally effortless to "know" these things, you see. It doesn't involve focus because it "just happens." You'd have to ignore it on purpose if it's your lead function, which you can't really do very well (or even want to) because 1) it's super reliable and 2) because it gives you your edge in life that lets you feel a sense of self-esteem.

Thing is, if you get abstract enough about the outcome of a situation, you can't ever really be wrong about it. Which is precisely why I tend not to get attached to my plans, or even worry about planning at all. Being specific is just setting yourself up to get knocked over when random stuff happens. The more specific you are, the more likely you are to be wrong, but the more general and abstract you are, the more likely you are to be right - unless you get _too_ abstract and stray into that "there's no way to even BE wrong" territory.

It's a delicate game we Ni-leads play, you see. Thinking ahead, but not _too_ far ahead, and not in any specific direction, but not _too_ nonspecific. It's hard to resist being as dynamic as possible, but if you abandon anything static at all, then you just end up being useless or full of shit. Lol.


----------



## itsme45

> The SLE that I know the best... My father, always get such childlike eyes and gives full attention when I say something Ni. A big "I am soaking in everything you are saying right now" and "ahaaaa"-s.


What sort of things are those "Ni things"? Some example(s)?


----------



## Animal

Hang-out thread? How cute. @_itsme45_ hi!! Its me, (ha ha) Maybe, btw


----------



## itsme45

Animal said:


> Hang-out thread? How cute. @_itsme45_ hi!! Its me, (ha ha) Maybe, btw


Hey there lol. I was pretty much MIA for a while. I hope we can talk soon


----------



## Animal

itsme45 said:


> Hey there lol. I was pretty much MIA for a while. I hope we can talk soon


Yes! Me too. Hope you're doing well =)


----------



## itsme45

Animal said:


> Yes! Me too. Hope you're doing well =)


Yes thanks I'm doing okay-ish. Hope you too... I'm getting off the PC right now... maybe talk tomorrow


----------



## Animal

itsme45 said:


> Yes thanks I'm doing okay-ish. Hope you too... I'm getting off the PC right now... maybe talk tomorrow


Okay-ISH? oh no! We'll have to talk soon.


----------



## itsme45

Animal said:


> Okay-ISH? oh no! We'll have to talk soon.


Heh don't worry too much, that's just my way of talking.


----------



## marzipan01

itsme45 said:


> Heh what horrible things do they say and how's that related to their political views? Just curious...


The last one kept making statements about how all black people commit crimes. I found that incredibly offensive. As for how that correlates to his political views, I can't say except that he was both racist and Republican. Although I know not all Republicans are racists, it seems that racists tend to gravitate toward the Republican Party. 



> Do you date women too?


Ha. I wish. My life would be a lot easier if I did. 



> They could be easier to get along with as women 1) might conform (slightly) more to some societal expectations 2) their brain in general could be more female compared to male SLEs even if not very typically female due to god knows what (E.g. due to being exposed to extra prenatal testosterone). And you know what the typical female brain is really good at, making and maintaining social connections, being nice, cooperation blahblah.


Yeah I think SLE women are more sensitive and kind hearted than SLE men. Just wanted to hear your take on it.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## itsme45

marzipan01 said:


> Yeah I think SLE women are *more *sensitive and kind hearted *than SLE men*.


...it's all relative. context here is what I bolded


----------



## Karma Butterfly

Hello! :kitteh:

Just confirmed my type and I'm happy to see we've got a place to ourselves here.

It pleases my Aristocratic heart .


----------



## itsme45

Dancing_Queen said:


> Hello! :kitteh:
> 
> Just confirmed my type and I'm happy to see we've got a place to ourselves here.
> 
> It pleases my Aristocratic heart .


Lol hello


----------



## Inguz

Dancing_Queen said:


> Hello! :kitteh:
> 
> Just confirmed my type and I'm happy to see we've got a place to ourselves here.
> 
> It pleases my Aristocratic heart .


What did you do to get approved? :O


----------



## Sonny

Inguz said:


> Beta is the best quadra. That's just an indisputable fact.


What's the sale's pitch for Beta quadra?

I'm either Alpha or Beta and obviously as I'm superamazingfantastic I would need to go with the best quadra, so please, the facts sir.


----------



## Inguz

Sonny said:


> What's the sale's pitch for Beta quadra?
> 
> I'm either Alpha or Beta and obviously as I'm superamazingfantastic I would need to go with the best quadra, so please, the facts sir.


Beta doesn't sell, it is awesome by default.


----------



## itsme45

Sonny said:


> What's the sale's pitch for Beta quadra?
> 
> I'm either Alpha or Beta and obviously as I'm superamazingfantastic I would need to go with the best quadra, so please, the facts sir.


you asked for the facts, here they are; we're just cooler, ok.


----------



## Sonny

Inguz said:


> Beta doesn't sell, it is awesome by default.





itsme45 said:


> you asked for the facts, here they are; we're just cooler, ok.


Hmmm.

Can't answer question x2 *noted*


----------



## itsme45

Sonny said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Can't answer question x2 *noted*


that not an answer to you?


----------



## Sonny

itsme45 said:


> that not an answer to you?


I felt no pitchin', I saw frontin'.

:dry:


----------



## Karma Butterfly

Inguz said:


> What did you do to get approved? :O


Approved? 

What do you mean?


----------



## Inguz

Sonny said:


> I felt no pitchin', I saw frontin'.
> 
> :dry:


You have played too much mafia.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> I know, and I just failed to see how it captured the core except looking like it superficially so. I just don't deal with superficialities.


Here you go!

Aggressor - Wikisocion*Typical characteristics of the Aggressor romance style*



 no doubts about own interest in another person *Yes lol* 
 not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest *So Trevor in that video!* 
 focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate *Hahaha! Again!* 
 romantic interaction is more about "toughness" than "tenderness" *Indeed this is what Trevor does!* 
 needs to feel some sense of "superiority" over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely "keep up" *He perceives her as being able to keep up with his level of "craziness". * 
 this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy *"Sex reward!"* 
 in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being "bossy" *not applicable to the situation* 
 little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a "who cares" front simultaneously *not applicable to the situation*


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Here you go!
> 
> Aggressor - Wikisocion*Typical characteristics of the Aggressor romance style*
> 
> 
> 
> no doubts about own interest in another person *Yes lol*
> not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest *So Trevor in that video!*
> focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate *Hahaha! Again!*
> romantic interaction is more about "toughness" than "tenderness" *Indeed this is what Trevor does!*
> needs to feel some sense of "superiority" over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely "keep up" *He perceives her as being able to keep up with his level of "craziness". *
> this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy *"Sex reward!"*
> in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being "bossy" *not applicable to the situation*
> little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a "who cares" front simultaneously *not applicable to the situation*












And this is precisely what I mean by taking this literally and getting stuck at peculiarities...

Does it apply superficially? Yes. I already admitted as much. But does it actually seem to capture the core of what aggressor style is about? Not necessarily.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Hello. Back into Socionics I think.

I am pretty sure my girlfriend is SEI (which is my mirage, as an SLE). Does anyone have any good resources on Alpha-Beta relationships, or even personal experiences? Obviously I'm not trying to guide our relationship via socionics but I think it might be at least interesting and at best helpful or useful.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Hello. Back into Socionics I think.
> 
> I am pretty sure my girlfriend is SEI (which is my mirage, as an SLE). Does anyone have any good resources on Alpha-Beta relationships, or even personal experiences? Obviously I'm not trying to guide our relationship via socionics but I think it might be at least interesting and at best helpful or useful.


Hey! Judging form your socionics questionnaire I'm more inclined to believe that you are most definitely a Delta, and imo an LSE. The purpose of me saying this isn't that I want to point out faults in your typing; it is that any specific advice given to you about alpha-beta interaction will not apply to you. Hence I sadly cannot give you any advice on your question.



ephemereality said:


> And this is precisely what I mean by taking this literally and getting stuck at peculiarities...
> 
> Does it apply superficially? Yes. I already admitted as much. But does it actually seem to capture the core of what aggressor style is about? Not necessarily.


Do tell what the core is!


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> Hey! Judging form your socionics questionnaire I'm more inclined to believe that you are most definitely a Delta, and imo an LSE. The purpose of me saying this isn't that I want to point out faults in your typing; it is that any specific advice given to you about alpha-beta interaction will not apply to you. Hence I sadly cannot give you any advice on your question.


 I actually disagree quite strongly - others have suggested LSE too, but imo they mistake my Te for leading when its really very demonstrative and I definitely don't use Si as a creative, but, I understand your reasoning. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on the questionnaire thread itself (though Im unlikely to change my opinion, so...)


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> I actually disagree quite strongly - others have suggested LSE too, but imo they mistake my Te for leading when its really very demonstrative and I definitely don't use Si as a creative, but, I understand your reasoning. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on the questionnaire thread itself (though Im unlikely to change my opinion, so...)


Your intolerance for inappropriate behaviour disqualifies you from being an SLE instantly. That's the main point speaking for you not being an SLE. In this instance it's quite irrelevant what other type you are due to the way that you formulated your question.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> Your intolerance for inappropriate behaviour disqualifies you from being an SLE instantly. That's the main point speaking for you not being an SLE. In this instance it's quite irrelevant what other type you are due to the way that you formulated your question.


 As I said, I would like you to verbalise this on the questionnaire itself: I don't want to derail this thread with points about my type. As it happens I think that's not a good argument compared to the Se/Si differences in SLE/LSE.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> As I said, I would like you to verbalise this on the questionnaire itself: I don't want to derail this thread with points about my type. As it happens I think that's not a good argument compared to the Se/Si differences in SLE/LSE.


Who cares, it's not much interesting going on in this thread otherwise. Discussing SLE vs LSE is quite interesting however. 

Here's a very strong example of how your Si creative is expressed:


Diphenhydramine said:


> *17. If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?* My principal concern is the child's genetic health I guess. I want them to be intrinsically strong, tall, free of diseases etc. After that comes intelligence and an ability to make friends so they're not bullied and stuff. And then its all minimal things like education, diet etc. They're not that important; what's important is that my child is an "improvement" of me so to speak (or at least the same.) My child is going to be a survivor, in spirit and in physical representation, there's no doubt that. I won't tolerate any crying or wet behaviour.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> Who cares, it's not much interesting going on in this thread otherwise. Discussing SLE vs LSE is quite interesting however.
> 
> Here's a very strong example of how your Si creative is expressed:


 I think not. I think a parent using creative Si for their child-raising - and you know this is hard because I've no experience of raising a child - would be interested primarily in setting up an environment for their child in which they make choices for themselves about how to be comfortable; even less than that, about setting an environment which reduces conflict and puts both parent and child at ease. I think my answer is basically the opposite of that: I'm not interested in seeing my (hopefully future) children at ease, either physically or mentally. Life is a challenge - and I want them to be able to step up to that challenge, not shy from it, that's what I meant by that paragraph.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> I think not. I think a parent using creative Si for their child-raising - and you know this is hard because I've no experience of raising a child - would be interested primarily in setting up an environment for their child in which they make choices for themselves about how to be comfortable; even less than that, about setting an environment which reduces conflict and puts both parent and child at ease. I think my answer is basically the opposite of that: I'm not interested in seeing my (hopefully future) children at ease, either physically or mentally. Life is a challenge - and I want them to be able to step up to that challenge, not shy from it, that's what I meant by that paragraph.


I know, and I think that all parents should look after their child's health. What does stick out as a sore thumb however is the focus that you put on physical health: "My principal concern is the child's genetic health I guess." and then: "And then its all minimal things like education, diet etc." This is textbook Si creative, and I don't see how you really can refute that. Plus, this current reply contradicts your questionnaire to some extent, you say that you would focus on their health, for example setting up a good diet for them, and reducing conflict in this statement where you want to provide a base in which they will hopefully avoid getting bullied: "After that comes intelligence and an ability to make friends so they're not bullied and stuff."


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> I know, and I think that all parents should look after their child's health. What does stick out as a sore thumb however is the focus that you put on physical health: "My principal concern is the child's genetic health I guess." and then: "And then its all minimal things like education, diet etc." This is textbook Si creative, and I don't see how you really can refute that. Plus, this current reply contradicts your questionnaire to some extent, you say that you would focus on their health, for example setting up a good diet for them.


 What does_ genetic_ health have to do with Si? Genetic health I think is completely separate: it's possible that I gave the wrong impression here, maybe because what I'm suggesting is probably distasteful. My aim isn't to build a child who has physical health for the sake of Si-style internal harmony and concordance, but to build a child who is healthy not for the sake of it but for some external purpose. The idea is not to give them a good diet so they feel at ease, but to make them physically (and intellectually, but I didn't touch on that) strong so that they themselves can have strength, which is, as far as I can see, an Se ideal, not an Si one. 

Also I think you are focusing too highly on this issue and not others - the questionnaire itself is full of Si-denial answers, let me quote a few:

"*6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?* I don't give a shit about either of those things."

" I feel 'at one' everywhere - I can't imagine what it would be like to feel uncomfortable in certain places, that sounds really petty."

"*14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.* Yes - but it's only when I run completely out of ideas. In that case I try to cast myself as far from my old situation as possible and pick up ideas on the way." I feel this isn't as obvious as the others, and the reason I included it is because I love to exit my comfort zone and push my self to deal with that - I can't see that as Si, in fact the total reverse.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> What does_ genetic_ health have to do with Si? Genetic health I think is completely separate: it's possible that I gave the wrong impression here, maybe because what I'm suggesting is probably distasteful. My aim isn't to build a child who has physical health for the sake of Si-style internal harmony and concordance, but to build a child who is healthy not for the sake of it but for some external purpose. The idea is not to give them a good diet so they feel at ease, but to make them physically (and intellectually, but I didn't touch on that) strong so that they themselves can have strength, which is, as far as I can see, an Se ideal, not an Si one.
> 
> Also I think you are focusing too highly on this issue and not others - the questionnaire itself is full of Si-denial answers, let me quote a few:
> 
> "*6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?* I don't give a shit about either of those things."
> 
> " I feel 'at one' everywhere - I can't imagine what it would be like to feel uncomfortable in certain places, that sounds really petty."
> 
> "*14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.* Yes - but it's only when I run completely out of ideas. In that case I try to cast myself as far from my old situation as possible and pick up ideas on the way." I feel this isn't as obvious as the others, and the reason I included it is because I love to exit my comfort zone and push my self to deal with that - I can't see that as Si, in fact the total reverse.


6. I can say that I'm not interested in gossip. But I am. It doesn't prove anything since it's easy to give out false information. What you need to look at is the questionnaire as a whole and then draw a conclusion of a) the general theme that is so Delta and b) the contradictions lean towards you valuing Si as your questionnaire otherwise is full of Delta values.

14. Mobilizing Ne.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Who cares, it's not much interesting going on in this thread otherwise. Discussing SLE vs LSE is quite interesting however.
> 
> Here's a very strong example of how your Si creative is expressed:


That quote screams Se to me. The stuff about not being bullied so they can make friends? Or it's going to be a survivor or not tolerating any crying or wet behavior? Those are the harsher values of Se-Ni rather than the softer values of Si-Ne. Also study the way it's being formulated, looking at the external world: Genetic health, intrinsically strong, tall, free of disease. They are stated as factual objects rather than possessing the personal value Si types place emphasis on when it comes to the environment. I would imagine that an Si type would be more likely to answer this questionnaire, if I may try to express similar ideas, something to:

I want my child to be strong and tall just like its father, because as kid I often had issues being bullied and not expressing myself enough because of my size and it created a lot of insecurity issues, so I want to ensure my child want to be confident growing up and I would never yell and snide...

And so on. Something more in relation to oneself and one's own (physical) experiences and projecting that onto people. I see my ESE grandmother doing this for example. She would for example tell me things such as, "Eat plums, it's good if you got constipation issues" and this is regardless if I suffered from such issues or not. When she tried to raise me, she was only concerned that I seemed healthy according to her narrow view of understanding physical health which was very much informed through how she experienced body pleasures. To her, the experience of constipation is a negative thing, so she wanted to make sure I wouldn't experience it. 

That's not quite how Se deals with the environment or raising children, I can assume, as I have zero skill with child-rearing and I try to stay as far away as humanly possible when there are children nearby. Se is more factual and to the point and is more focused on experiencing the objects themselves rather than how the objects are experienced through the body. So to me, her logic made no sense because the way I understand it is that I eat plums for the sake of the taste first and foremost. If I have constipation issues then knowing that plums help deal with that, I might eat them, but why eat them to _prevent_? No, eating plums something one should experience, to feel the taste and the texture and this is what is judged then as pleasurable or enjoyable. Not whether it has any positive or negative effects on body. 

So in relation to your previous question that I am unable to tell is snide or not, you keep looking at the external world for clues, how people behave and you get hung up on certain buzzwords like "health". As soon as you see someone mentioning the word health you automatically assume it should do something with Si, but yet you fail to capture the underlying dynamic that actually seems to inform the person. Extremely un-Ni-ish, to say the last. 

So in relation to the video from GTAV for example, you essentially just saw Trevor doing what you thought superficially seemed like an aggressor-relationship, though chasing people around like Trevor does may in fact have zero to do with aggression in itself since any person could do this, really. You don't look or seem interested in to look for what goes beyond the immediate, why people are the way they are. You see something and infers to something else because it seems to match it in terms of descriptions, but that's the thing - descriptions are just that. They convey some basic idea or state of operation so they describe the situation but I wouldn't let them _define_ it. 

Also considering the setting of GTAV, it's simply not a good example because of the exaggerated violence and humor already present. Perhaps one could argue that the overall vision of the game is Se-like, especially considering that most of it operates on a rather satirical level which would imply Ni reading between the immediate meaning, but I wouldn't judge from that one scene alone that Trevor would be an Se type and exemplary of the aggressor romantic style since it doesn't seem to capture the essence of what the aggressor style is about, which has nothing to do with literally being aggressive. Rather, it's to do with force, so to speak, that Se types are capable of expressing their will power over the victim, who is for most of the part unable or unwilling to, hence they are victims. 

Similarly, we see why Si ego types are referred to as caretakers because they try to ensure to minimize what they experience to be unpleasurable body experiences to people around them, and why Ne types are infantiles because they are unable to do this own their own, or unwilling to.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> That quote screams Se to me. The stuff about not being bullied so they can make friends? Or it's going to be a survivor or not tolerating any crying or wet behavior? Those are the harsher values of Se-Ni rather than the softer values of Si-Ne. Also study the way it's being formulated, looking at the external world: Genetic health, intrinsically strong, tall, free of disease. They are stated as factual objects rather than possessing the personal value Si types place emphasis on when it comes to the environment. I would imagine that an Si type would be more likely to answer this questionnaire, if I may try to express similar ideas, something to:
> 
> I want my child to be strong and tall just like its father, because as kid I often had issues being bullied and not expressing myself enough because of my size and it created a lot of insecurity issues, so I want to ensure my child want to be confident growing up and I would never yell and snide...


This is quite hypocritical of you. Whenever someone writes 'strength' you attribute this to Se, no matter the context.

On to the point, personal development is a focus of Delta. And you are SLI. It fits well.



ephemereality said:


> And so on. Something more in relation to oneself and one's own (physical) experiences and projecting that onto people. I see my ESE grandmother doing this for example. She would for example tell me things such as, "Eat plums, it's good if you got constipation issues" and this is regardless if I suffered from such issues or not. When she tried to raise me, she was only concerned that I seemed healthy according to her narrow view of understanding physical health which was very much informed through how she experienced body pleasures. To her, the experience of constipation is a negative thing, so she wanted to make sure I wouldn't experience it.
> 
> That's not quite how Se deals with the environment or raising children, I can assume, as I have zero skill with child-rearing and I try to stay as far away as humanly possible when there are children nearby. Se is more factual and to the point and is more focused on experiencing the objects themselves rather than how the objects are experienced through the body. So to me, her logic made no sense because the way I understand it is that I eat plums for the sake of the taste first and foremost. If I have constipation issues then knowing that plums help deal with that, I might eat them, but why eat them to _prevent_? No, eating plums something one should experience, to feel the taste and the texture and this is what is judged then as pleasurable or enjoyable. Not whether it has any positive or negative effects on body.


There is a notable difference in approach for Si base and Si creative, in addition to quadra differences. In the case of preemptively eating plums sounds like a classical case of Ni PoLR.

How would you know? You were raised by an ESE while I was raised by an ESI and an SLE. My father (SLE) never raised me to be able to look after myself, he expected that I should be able to do it without his help. As an example, when I didn't bother eating and he noticed it he said "Why aren't you eating? You need to eat! Go make some food! *leaves the room*" He left me to his own device as he works well left to his own device. It's fundamental and not taught to him. As for my mom, she concerned herself with teaching me appropriate behaviour (Fi base) and then _providing resources_ for me and my sister and made well sure that we never lacked anything basic despite bad economy in true Gamma fashion. Food, clothes etc.



ephemereality said:


> So in relation to your previous question that I am unable to tell is snide or not, you keep looking at the external world for clues, how people behave and you get hung up on certain buzzwords like "health". As soon as you see someone mentioning the word health you automatically assume it should do something with Si, but yet you fail to capture the underlying dynamic that actually seems to inform the person. Extremely un-Ni-ish, to say the last.


I thought about resisting the temptation to 1-up you, but I may as well do it since it provides another point for me to argue that you are an SLI. If you truly were Se-valuing you would know that in this post you are really sticking out your chin, leaving it vulnerable. You got many definitions flat out wrong and your attempts to prove your Ni-ness does you no good. If you were Se-valuing you would see what you left yourself vulnerable to here. Se is about power play, and you gave me an open goal. I considered refraining from using this opportunity as I imagine it must be hurtful on the receiving end but I am quite sick of your attitude, questioning me but not yourself.



ephemereality said:


> So in relation to the video from GTAV for example, you essentially just saw Trevor doing what you thought superficially seemed like an aggressor-relationship, though chasing people around like Trevor does may in fact have zero to do with aggression in itself since any person could do this, really. You don't look or seem interested in to look for what goes beyond the immediate, why people are the way they are. You see something and infers to something else because it seems to match it in terms of descriptions, but that's the thing - descriptions are just that. They convey some basic idea or state of operation so they describe the situation but I wouldn't let them _define_ it.


You are saying nothing with this statement. I gave you a list of Aggressor behaviour, and it fits Trevor. the complex dynamics ought to be seen as a result of this. In the case of the video however, it was very one-sided.



ephemereality said:


> Also considering the setting of GTAV, it's simply not a good example because of the exaggerated violence and humor already present. Perhaps one could argue that the overall vision of the game is Se-like, especially considering that most of it operates on a rather satirical level which would imply Ni reading between the immediate meaning, but I wouldn't judge from that one scene alone that Trevor would be an Se type and exemplary of the aggressor romantic style since it doesn't seem to capture the essence of what the aggressor style is about, which has nothing to do with literally being aggressive. Rather, it's to do with force, so to speak, that Se types are capable of expressing their will power over the victim, who is for most of the part unable or unwilling to, hence they are victims.


I never claimed it to capture any 'essence'. And now you're saying the same thing as the list I provided.



ephemereality said:


> Similarly, we see why Si ego types are referred to as caretakers because they try to ensure to minimize what they experience to be unpleasurable body experiences to people around them, and why Ne types are infantiles because they are unable to do this own their own, or unwilling to.


And there is a big difference between Alpha and Delta Si ego as Fe and Te are very different.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> This is quite hypocritical of you. Whenever someone writes 'strength' you attribute this to Se, no matter the context.


Oh, care to provide some examples where I _always_ do this? Because it's quite the extreme argument to make here. 



> On to the point, personal development is a focus of Delta. And you are SLI. It fits well.


So no one else can ever be interested in personal development? Does this indicate then that this entire site, being dedicated to personal development since figuring out type has to do with personal development, is all full of deltas primarily and whatever stray type is not delta is not here for personal development but something else? 

I think the more pertinent question is _what kind of_ personal development we speak of. There is clearly not one type of. I want to add that you sound like aestrivex but inverse except he attributed it all to betas. The entire typology internet world was all full of betas because only betas care about the soul-search typology offers them. What? From a strict Jungian POV, that honestly sounds more like a complex you are projecting onto people there, than it actually being genuinely accurate. 



> There is a notable difference in approach for Si base and Si creative, in addition to quadra differences. In the case of preemptively eating plums sounds like a classical case of Ni PoLR.


But if I shared my grandmother's preferences being Si-Ne valuing myself, wouldn't I at some level actually find her input valuable although misplaced, that is common when dealing with those whose type has your base as creative? Instead that is clearly not what is occurring. I don't care about the information she's trying to provide at all. There is no "I see your point but I disagree" occurring. Instead I just flat-out dismiss it. 



> How would you know? You were raised by an ESE while I was raised by an ESI and an SLE. My father (SLE) never raised me to be able to look after myself, he expected that I should be able to do it without his help. As an example, when I didn't bother eating and he noticed it he said "Why aren't you eating? You need to eat! Go make some food! *leaves the room*" He left me to his own device as he works well left to his own device. It's fundamental and not taught to him. As for my mom, she concerned herself with teaching me appropriate behaviour (Fi base) and then _providing resources_ for me and my sister and made well sure that we never lacked anything basic despite bad economy in true Gamma fashion. Food, clothes etc.


As if I was only raised by my ESE grandmother. I also have an ESI aunt and out of all my relatives and close family members, she's the one whose company I value the most, and I've spent many summers living with my ESI aunt because I was good friends with me SLE cousin so I often visited during the summer holidays.


> I thought about resisting the temptation to 1-up you, but I may as well do it since it provides another point for me to argue that you are an SLI. If you truly were Se-valuing you would know that in this post you are really sticking out your chin, leaving it vulnerable. You got many definitions flat out wrong and your attempts to prove your Ni-ness does you no good. If you were Se-valuing you would see what you left yourself vulnerable to here. Se is about power play, and you gave me an open goal. I considered refraining from using this opportunity as I imagine it must be hurtful on the receiving end but I am quite sick of your attitude, questioning me but not yourself.


And what says I am doing this without being aware what I am doing? I have two power-seeking enneagram types in my tritype, one of them being my core. Power is not only explicitly related to expressing yourself or engaging into powerplay alone. Animal is a clear Si-Ne valuing type and she did that a lot. Engaging in power-play alone has nothing to do with Se. Se is a specific form of willpower or force one applies onto the physical world, a kind of pressure. Arguing as we are doing here doesn't have anything to do with Se at all more than perhaps, looking at _how_ we are arguing because it would inform our information processes and thus indicate what IEs we prefer. If anything, enneagram is far more likely to explain what is going on here than Se does. Se is itself rather useless over such a place as an internet forum since it deals with the intangible world. 

So I honestly fail to see how your critique applies. You are claiming I have a poor understanding of the definitions of how the functions operate, but I think you're the one who got Se-Ni and Ne-Si mixed up. Si isn't about health per se but how one relates to and perceives health. Any type can be health-oriented for a wide variety of reasons. Being sp first in enneagram for example. You seem to label people deltas left and right but based on what assumption - they don't fit you fancy? What if you're the one who's not a beta? One thing is rather certain and that is that I am not seeing how @Diphenhydramine and I would be of the same quadra and mirror pairs even. His cognition doesn't seem similar but inverse that you experience with mirror pairs. Something I experience with other individuals on this site who type as LIE however. That just strongly makes your ability to type extremely iffy because I don't feel you accurately describe what is going on here, nor do you seem to be capable of providing any reasoning as to why this is that seems sound to me. 



> You are saying nothing with this statement. I gave you a list of Aggressor behaviour, and it fits Trevor. the complex dynamics ought to be seen as a result of this. In the case of the video however, it was very one-sided.


Why always take descriptions at such face value? 



> I never claimed it to capture any 'essence'. And now you're saying the same thing as the list I provided.


No, you didn't. And no, I was trying to express something beyond that but clearly it went past you. 



> And there is a big difference between Alpha and Delta Si ego as Fe and Te are very different.


Obviously, but ESE-SLI have a supervisor relationship, so when it comes to commonly shared Si issues they would for most of the part, view the world the same albeit arrive at some different conclusions as to why this is, because of the differences in judgement. Supervision isn't always a negative relationship. Conflictor describes my relationship with my grandmother much better than supervision does.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> Se is itself rather useless over such a place as an internet forum since it deals with the intangible world.


While this may be true in MBTI, this is certainly not the case in socionics. I will leave you to ponder why this is a blatant fault in your own understanding. If you can figure it out, please tell me why. If you fail at that task, tell me and I can explain to you why this is not true.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> While this may be true in MBTI, this is certainly not the case in socionics. I will leave you to ponder why this is a blatant fault in your own understanding. If you can figure it out, please tell me why. If you fail at that task, tell me and I can explain to you why this is not true.


Whatever dude, think you'll have that clever last word of yours. I don't see the differences between MBTI and socionics as I think it's false to separate the systems to begin with when they are in fact trying to describe the same Jungian phenomenon. They may do this more or less accurately, but that's an entirely different matter. They are merely two different facets of the same reality, so your question doesn't even apply. It's irrelevant.


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> I think the point though, is that it's not understood as offensive per se. Like if I tease my friend that I will purposefully burn her food, I'm not saying it because I actually mean it. It's just a sarcastic joke of sorts. Though, when she retorts and tells me that she'll never forgive me and do whatever horrible thing her imagination happened to think of at the time that seemed like a cruel act of vengeance to her, I think there is some level of seriousness to it but then not really at all. I don't feel offended when she suggests she'll never forgive me and burn me alive or whatever, lol. It's more like her emotions are real, but what she's saying is not?


Oh okay teasing is different.

I don't often experience it this light-hearted way though. I'm not sure why... but, example, I talk to a girl who's supposedly a good friend and I recently got told by a guy that she's kind of afraid or not sure how to try and "insult" me in this fashion. Apparently this guy (ILI) and she (some kind of NF) do it a lot though.




> So it's less about being offended or not as much as it is about getting some kind of reaction at all


Yes getting a reaction is definitely important... I hate being ignored. Though if I get that feeling that I'm being ignored, teasing is not how I try to get a reaction because yeah, my mood is not a fun one at that point.




> and I think the victim-aggressor is very stereotyped as if the aggressor is physical abuser and the victim is well... the victim. I think the relationship you see in the gifs I provided where Ygritte always keeps mocking Jon Snow like that are a little overkill too and you would probably be hard-pressed to find a person exactly like that in real life (though no doubt there probably are people like that out there).


Heh Ygritte is so funny. But yeah it's a movie...




> I think the idea that is being conveyed is quite accurate though, in that the aggressor is aggressive towards the victim and does assert some kind of physical control. The victim having Se in super-id would naturally have difficulties retorting back because that would require to exert one's willpower like Se ego types do and it's just not comfortable or an ability you trust in. It's easier to just remain silent then and stay the victim.


I do like the type of people who are ok with going with what I want to do. Of course I don't mean any kind of "slave" but someone with a backbone so if they have a problem with something they need to let me know asap.




> What I'm curious about though is how the aggressor experiences the relationship on their end, what they get out of intimidating the victim, so to speak, since it is a form of intimidation. I find it somewhat disturbing that I do find it extremely reassuring that the aggressor in victim-aggressor bothers to ever express themselves to that degree since it indicates a form of care because it doesn't necessarily fit my self-perception of myself. Yet there is something pleasant about it even if they when they do it try to squish you with their finger. So the aggressor should then naturally experience something similar but in reverse since otherwise I don't understand why they would bother doing it in the first place.


First let me say, I'm not sensitive to feeling intimidation so it's hard to imagine how the "victim" is feeling. It's weird for sure that you say it can be enjoyable feeling "squished" or controlled by someone else. That's a foreign thought to me.

The one thing we are on the same page about though is that I agree it does strongly indicate caring for the partner if someone actively goes out to have someone else. Definitely on the same page there 

Ok so about my own side, I already said I don't want to do anything that would emotionally distance the person I'm trying to "get ". So nope I'm not consciously out to intimidate the "victim". I can however get some kind of intimacy out of it if my partner accepts my confrontations, so to speak. Hard to explain that one. Is that socionics related or enneagram?

There's another issue with this intimidation thing, others can be a lot more sensitive to it than me, so if I think I'm not doing any of it, others might disagree with that. Example, I once got to know someone online and I got interested in them and knew what route they were going to work in the morning. So I went out and tried to find and follow him. He later said that seemed kind of scary to him but I liked it. I wasn't trying to intimidate him, either. I just felt good trying to "get" to him.

Anyway, the whole idea that there are people who are stereotypical "victims" in socionics is new to me really, I always just assumed everyone was like me. I mean, of course I know that some people go with what I say/want and some people will have their own ideas of what they want but the whole victim thing otherwise is not something I'd have assumed about anyone. I wasn't ever seeking very weak people anyway. No as I said I want someone with a backbone 

You could say there's a problem here because I said I can't imagine how it's enjoyable for someone to be a "victim", to be sort of controlled by someone else and then I also say that I like people who will respond to me and will go along with what I want. So this would sound like I just don't give a shit if someone suffers because of me but that's not true... by default I just don't really think about how the other person feels. Expression of emotions does make me notice sure. But this is also why I said backbone is required, ability to tell me about whatever problem they'd have with me, ability to push against my will if they want to. But yeah what you said about how this kind of attention can be actually enjoyable is good to hear.

I don't know if this helps but if not, ask me specific questions please.




Inguz said:


> Anyway in regards to the aggressor, the victim will be seen as fascinating due to allowing this power-play to be expressed while they simultaneously appear to be suggestive to this kind of exercised power and never really submit to the aggressor.


What would you say counts as actual submission for you?




Inguz said:


> Aggressor - Wikisocion*Typical characteristics of the Aggressor romance style*
> 
> 
> 
> no doubts about own interest in another person
> not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
> focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
> romantic interaction is more about "toughness" than "tenderness"
> needs to feel some sense of "superiority" over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely "keep up"
> this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
> in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being "bossy"
> little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a "who cares" front simultaneously


Eh that... it's not all that black and white but points 1 and 5 and 7 and 8 fit perfectly. Though I can be "bossy" easily but yeah it assumes that devotion as well. I can't however tell you what's more fulfilling, if I'm with someone who's like that or someone who will fight back with their own will. I guess both have their good points. The latter's more interesting for sure and the former is something that's just too easy but nice hah. So point 5, yes it does help if partner can keep up.

What didn't fit; 
2: I don't like getting rejected so I first check things before I make any move. (I've been called Ne-PoLR due to that in the past. Well I dunno, SLE Ti subtype has some similar description so...)
3: I would say equal because of point 2.
4: Not sure here really. I've been seen both.
6: I don't think I've been cruel much...




ephemereality said:


> Does it apply superficially? Yes. I already admitted as much. But does it actually seem to capture the core of what aggressor style is about? Not necessarily.


Uh core I would think is just what Se is about anyway. That is, in this context, active go-getter, sorta.




Inguz said:


> Your intolerance for inappropriate behaviour disqualifies you from being an SLE instantly. That's the main point speaking for you not being an SLE. In this instance it's quite irrelevant what other type you are due to the way that you formulated your question.


I've suggested SEE as possible alternative for him before, maybe that explains all this? I quite honestly haven't seen the LSE in him but Fi valuing I can accept.




Inguz said:


> I know, and I think that all parents should look after their child's health. What does stick out as a sore thumb however is the focus that you put on physical health: "My principal concern is the child's genetic health I guess." and then: "And then its all minimal things like education, diet etc." This is textbook Si creative, and I don't see how you really can refute that. Plus, this current reply contradicts your questionnaire to some extent, you say that you would focus on their health, for example setting up a good diet for them, and reducing conflict in this statement where you want to provide a base in which they will hopefully avoid getting bullied: "After that comes intelligence and an ability to make friends so they're not bullied and stuff."


Your concept of Si is still pretty weird, then. Though it's an interesting point about the wish to reduce conflict by making friends. Maybe SEE though? Pretty "politician" way of solving the issue isn't it?




Diphenhydramine said:


> " I feel 'at one' everywhere - I can't imagine what it would be like to feel uncomfortable in certain places, that sounds really petty."


Haha yes your child rearing stuff is about Se ideals and I like how you also say you feel at one everywhere: same for me. 




ephemereality said:


> No, eating plums something one should experience, to feel the taste and the texture and this is what is judged then as pleasurable or enjoyable. Not whether it has any positive or negative effects on body.


 Pleasurable not in the Si sense then, right? Pleasure and enjoyment is such a Si buzzword too, you know. But example, if I like Se challenges then that's my way of enjoyment and it's clearly not Si. Stupid buzzwords.

In your example, I would however like you to tell more about how you think the Se vs Si attitude is supposed to be like about enjoyable food. Were you trying to say Si types only focus on whether e.g. their stomach hurts from eating the plum? Not at all on the taste of the plum? Surely taste of food has a subjective aspect to it so it can easily be Si.




> Also considering the setting of GTAV, it's simply not a good example because of the exaggerated violence and humor already present. Perhaps one could argue that the overall vision of the game is Se-like, especially considering that most of it operates on a rather satirical level which would imply Ni reading between the immediate meaning, but I wouldn't judge from that one scene alone that Trevor would be an Se type and exemplary of the aggressor romantic style since it doesn't seem to capture the essence of what the aggressor style is about, which has nothing to do with literally being aggressive. Rather, it's to do with force, so to speak, that Se types are capable of expressing their will power over the victim, who is for most of the part unable or unwilling to, hence they are victims.


Hahah that video was so funny  But it seemed quite like a caricature to me 

As for victims being unable/unwilling to do anything, surely it's not as black and white? That aggressor style description mentions too that aggressors like victims who can keep up.






ephemereality said:


> And what says I am doing this without being aware what I am doing? I have two power-seeking enneagram types in my tritype, one of them being my core. Power is not only explicitly related to expressing yourself or engaging into powerplay alone. Animal is a clear Si-Ne valuing type and she did that a lot. Engaging in power-play alone has nothing to do with Se. Se is a specific form of willpower or force one applies onto the physical world, a kind of pressure. Arguing as we are doing here doesn't have anything to do with Se at all more than perhaps, looking at _how_ we are arguing because it would inform our information processes and thus indicate what IEs we prefer. If anything, enneagram is far more likely to explain what is going on here than Se does.


Good point about how power play =! Se. It's a correlation...




Inguz said:


> While this may be true in MBTI, this is certainly not the case in socionics. I will leave you to ponder why this is a blatant fault in your own understanding. If you can figure it out, please tell me why. If you fail at that task, tell me and I can explain to you why this is not true.


How about you tell us what you're thinking of here? I am curious for one.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> 6. I can say that I'm not interested in gossip. But I am. It doesn't prove anything since it's easy to give out false information. What you need to look at is the questionnaire as a whole and then draw a conclusion of a) the general theme that is so Delta and b) the contradictions lean towards you valuing Si as your questionnaire otherwise is full of Delta values.


 Well ok, but then you are not taking me at face value, which is basically the point of typing people. You don't know what I'm like in real life so it's both inaccurate and unethical to say "oh well in this question you are lying because I see a different theme spread out over here," that basically amounts looking for what you want to see. The issue is complex; you can't simplify it by just removing elements that you think contrast with your analysis. 

I don't think it's unfair that people think I'm a delta, because of the way I express myself on this forum, but people who know me as a person - it's pretty much not possible. 



Inguz said:


> 14. Mobilizing Ne.


 No. I can see how you can decide this based on the quote alone taken in abstract, but that's precisely the point: it's the limits of the questionnaire. My Ne is much more suited to a role function than mobilising.


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> Oh okay teasing is different.
> 
> I don't often experience it this light-hearted way though. I'm not sure why... but, example, I talk to a girl who's supposedly a good friend and I recently got told by a guy that she's kind of afraid or not sure how to try and "insult" me in this fashion. Apparently this guy (ILI) and she (some kind of NF) do it a lot though.


Hm, I don't think so much about it. Maybe it's more an issue of confidence from her side?


> Yes getting a reaction is definitely important... I hate being ignored. Though if I get that feeling that I'm being ignored, teasing is not how I try to get a reaction because yeah, my mood is not a fun one at that point.


I guess it depends on the situation. If I am being ignored on purpose throughout the day say, I might not tease to get a reaction but I'll get to the point and ask what's up, when I reach a boiling point anyway when I don't think there's any point waiting anymore. 


> Heh Ygritte is so funny. But yeah it's a movie...


She is lol. I'll explain more below about this.


> I do like the type of people who are ok with going with what I want to do. Of course I don't mean any kind of "slave" but someone with a backbone so if they have a problem with something they need to let me know asap.


Yeah, it's not so much being controlled against one's own will but at a level that's comfortable. I also think with regards to duals over semi-duals, that duals are somewhat better to read overall where that level goes. I was out at a club once with my SLE cousin and she kept insisting that I'd join them on the dance floor but I was already being overworked by all the stimulus there and all I could think about is how I needed to get away. One thing I find that thus stands in a stark contrast between Fe and Fi overall in a group setting, is that I find that Fe types seem to assume one would desire to be a part of the group context and the group activity when it occurs and thus keep insisting on inviting you inside regardless of whether you are actually interested or not. Fi types in contrast seem to operate more on the idea that it's a choice you do so if you sit in the corner and won't do anything, to Fi type logic, that's what you personally desire at that moment so while they might ask you what's up and whether you want to join because they find it desirable, the will after that let you be. To the Fe type, it's seen as a form of inability to join in with what they think is fun.


> First let me say, I'm not sensitive to feeling intimidation so it's hard to imagine how the "victim" is feeling. It's weird for sure that you say it can be enjoyable feeling "squished" or controlled by someone else. That's a foreign thought to me.


Heh, it's not so much that I feel intimidated as much as it is a feeling that one allows oneself to let the aggressor have control. So let's take Ygritte then, because I want to expand on that. There's a part then where it feels like what she wants is actually a reaction from you, that's she's trying to part purposefully piss you off. Now, even I get annoyed by how passive Jon Snow is as he's more passive than I'd be too, but with regards to their interaction that I think is very typical of aggressor-victim, you see how he sometimes once in a while takes control and bites back and when he does she shuts up and seems rather satisfied.

I suppose it's kind of like a baiting thing, definitely a form of play that is constantly about instigating some reaction in the other. So there's a part of me that says that her behavior just endlessly pisses me off but at the same time there's something that's enjoyable and pleasurable about how she forces you to engage or reach that kind of boiling point when you just snap and want to tell them gtfo and it's the end of the world and God can go fuck his own ass. It's very difficult to put into words. That she spends so much time taunting you still indicates her interest in you. If she were to run off to do that to someone else you would start questioning what she thinks of the importance of your relationship, though.

And oh, another great example in fiction is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.


> The one thing we are on the same page about though is that I agree it does strongly indicate caring for the partner if someone actively goes out to have someone else. Definitely on the same page there


I also wonder if that's part an sx thing. I'm rather aggressive too when it comes to defending my interests. 



> Ok so about my own side, I already said I don't want to do anything that would emotionally distance the person I'm trying to "get ". So nope I'm not consciously out to intimidate the "victim". I can however get some kind of intimacy out of it if my partner accepts my confrontations, so to speak. Hard to explain that one. Is that socionics related or enneagram?


Yeah, and I think also, real life people aren't operating like the exaggerated caricatures we may see in fiction. Like I do think Ygritte-Jon Snow is a good example of the aggressor-victim relationship, but I don't think we'd find many couples like that IRL. They exemplify the dynamic but it's very exaggerated.


> There's another issue with this intimidation thing, others can be a lot more sensitive to it than me, so if I think I'm not doing any of it, others might disagree with that. Example, I once got to know someone online and I got interested in them and knew what route they were going to work in the morning. So I went out and tried to find and follow him. He later said that seemed kind of scary to him but I liked it. I wasn't trying to intimidate him, either. I just felt good trying to "get" to him.


Yeah. I think in his shoes, my reaction would highly depend on how close I think we are at that point. I could easily see how someone else could interpret this action as stalker-ish if they see you as a more distant person. Though if I was interested in you back per say, I might actually appreciate the effort you put into going out there to meet me because I would never arse that myself lol. I definitely prefer people making contact with me first than me having to start conversation. That one goes so far to communicate shows interest that's difficult to deny. I don't think I would be intimidated but if it happened too quickly before I felt anything particular about you and you clearly showed more interest in me than I felt in return, I might feel uncomfortable because I might feel that you are encroaching on my personal space. So it's more a matter of feeling disturbed then, I think. And sooner or later I would most likely express that. 



> Anyway, the whole idea that there are people who are stereotypical "victims" in socionics is new to me really, I always just assumed everyone was like me. I mean, of course I know that some people go with what I say/want and some people will have their own ideas of what they want but the whole victim thing otherwise is not something I'd have assumed about anyone. I wasn't ever seeking very weak people anyway. No as I said I want someone with a backbone


I don't think victims are weak per se. It's more a matter of letting the aggressor control them I think, because there's pleasure in having them do everything so to speak. The thing about Ni ego types also is that we all kind of lack that energy in the environment Se provides, so it takes more time/effort to achieve the same result you see Se ego types do. If you want a better example of aggressor-victim style in fiction though more on a platonic level, there's the anime Ergo Proxy. Vincent seems to be an ILI and Re-l Mayer an SLE. She keeps being what I think most people might even read as mean to him, and yet he seems to inextricably enjoy it since he keeps trying to interact with her. At the same time she keeps following him around despite telling him how useless he is and so on, lol. It's almost as if she has to ensure that he's not making something stupid so he hurts himself which he did a lot. Being Ni base, there's a part where he's not very physically apt with the environment. 

I've had similar experiences with my SLE cousin like when I was carrying a lot of bags and I'm quite frail so I had issues carrying them on my own, but instead of expecting her offering a hand (I think an SEE would be more likely to do that), she thought I should carry them alone and was absolutely not going to help me and just said that we should meet up at this place before the train leaves. Though granted, she was also there with her boyfriend so that probably changed the way she behaved a bit. I think she might have helped me out of frustration if I somehow made it so that we would both trail behind (has happened in the past when traveling together) though. I am not sure how she would behave now, as it seems she's matured quite a bit and gotten more in touch with Fe lately, but her mindset seems to ultimately be that people need to learn how to manage on their own. To a point I agree, but it slightly annoyed me that she sometimes keeps telling me I'm stronger than I am etc and can carry this when I feel like I don't. Like sometimes it feels like I'm struggling with something but I refuse to vocalize what I'm feeling that I actually can't do it because I dislike open complaint, and at least based on the few SEEs I have met, they seem more acutely aware of people's internal emotional states like that, like they can read it in people's body language or something and therefore be more inclined to offer help or solutions to solve the problem rather than the whole "do it yourself" approach I think SLEs are more apt to adopt. 

Do you do this a lot? And would this be something an EIE or an IEI would appreciate hearing more? @cyamitide



> You could say there's a problem here because I said I can't imagine how it's enjoyable for someone to be a "victim", to be sort of controlled by someone else and then I also say that I like people who will respond to me and will go along with what I want.


So you don't like when people openly refuse? 



> So this would sound like I just don't give a shit if someone suffers because of me but that's not true... by default I just don't really think about how the other person feels.


Yeah, makes sense. I also felt that in the situation above with the bags, I felt like my cousin almost purposefully tried to suppress some kind of Fe reaction because it was something she said that made me think so, like the whole "Do it yourself" thing and then she left ASAP. Like she knew that she would do something to help if she stuck around too long. Perhaps not as a fully conscious thought or reaction, but it was just something I read like there was slight internal conflict going on like she knew what would be the more appropriate behavior in the situation but she perhaps felt that it went against how she wanted things done or whatever. 



> Expression of emotions does make me notice sure.


Makes sense being Fe-valuing. I find that Fe types in general are more keen to openly emote and exaggerate to make sure the emotion is being read the right way. That what matters more is the intent behind the emote than the feeling that is being expressed. I think that's probably why especially Fi ego types might experience Fe as rather fake, in that Fe types place less emphasis on personal feelings like that, and the importance of expressing what one genuinely feels when one feels it. Not because I am saying Fe types cannot do this, but I think in group settings they are at least less inclined to because it's not how they read emotional intent in people. 



> But this is also why I said backbone is required, ability to tell me about whatever problem they'd have with me, ability to push against my will if they want to. But yeah what you said about how this kind of attention can be actually enjoyable is good to hear.


Yeah, it makes sense what you describe sounds more like EIE or IEI, as an Fe type might be more inclined to vocalize their concerns. In contrast what I seek is more a person who can read my internal state without me having to express anything to this person, because how do I begin doing that anyway without making it sound and seem very awkward? As I said, I dislike open complaint. I can complain, but to complain about my own internal states and such is just difficult and awkward. I rather not to be and I'm then more inclined to be around people who are sensitive to reading it so I don't have to express myself. If people read me wrong though, which of course happens, then I will correct however, because it's easier explaining why they are logically wrong in their reading of me.

Like yesterday, I think I told my SEE friend that I didn't want to listen to music after she had sent me some songs because apparently they put her in a good mood so she wanted to share them. I gave them a listen but I just felt it wasn't really what I wanted to do at the time, listening to music, so I told her that and she took it the wrong way and thought I didn't want to talk to her either at which point I needed to explain that I just meant I don't feel like listening to music. I still don't mind talking to her. 



> I don't know if this helps but if not, ask me specific questions please.


No, I think it's interesting what you describe because the idea is rather foreign. Like I'm definitely rather chased than being the chaser. Being a chaser takes too much energy and effort.


> Uh core I would think is just what Se is about anyway. That is, in this context, active go-getter, sorta.


You mean that the core of Se is more of simply being an active go-getter?


> I've suggested SEE as possible alternative for him before, maybe that explains all this? I quite honestly haven't seen the LSE in him but Fi valuing I can accept.


Yeah, I don't see it either. There are a couple of other people on this site who I am fairly sure are SLEs though, and what I think I don't like with SLEs is that they seem to arrive at intuitive conclusions that make no sense like they seem to take things as too much face value (which makes me inclined to explain why this is the wrong way to approach it) and that they often stitch ideas together because that is how they want the idea to be based on some previous experience or whatever and needlessly holding onto that idea. Like there's a lot of inflexibility in their thinking. LIEs can be dry in a similar manner, but I find that LIE thinking is more flexible being intuitive ego than sensing ego. 


> Haha yes your child rearing stuff is about Se ideals and I like how you also say you feel at one everywhere: same for me.


Yeah, I was discussing this with previously mentioned SEE friend. She's very much the same in that she sees the world in that she can choose when to interact with it or not so to speak, like she's always present in some sense, but I don't feel present at all and very removed from physical reality. She likened it that in a classroom I'm a ghost. I'm there and observing but no one can see me and I don't experience being tied to the material world whereas she's more likely to sit in the back or when she prefers it, sitting in the front, but she's always _in_ the classroom. I also feel that growth to me very much has to do with becoming a part of this world so to speak, be a participator. I'm sure being a 5 with integration towards 8 plays a role in that. 



> Pleasurable not in the Si sense then, right? Pleasure and enjoyment is such a Si buzzword too, you know. But example, if I like Se challenges then that's my way of enjoyment and it's clearly not Si. Stupid buzzwords.


Sure, though I feel you are looking at the words themselves here rather than looking at the entire context in which the words were situated within. Sometimes language just isn't adequate without referring to already established terminology. Pleasure and enjoyment are things anyone can enjoy. What matters is why we enjoy it. 



> In your example, I would however like you to tell more about how you think the Se vs Si attitude is supposed to be like about enjoyable food. Were you trying to say Si types only focus on whether e.g. their stomach hurts from eating the plum? Not at all on the taste of the plum? Surely taste of food has a subjective aspect to it so it can easily be Si.


I don't think they'd be focused on experiencing the object as it is as in taste, texture and so on as they are, but taste and texture would be abstracted into something else. What that would be I have no clue though. I don't understand that mentality of placing that kind of abstracted value onto the sense world. 



> As for victims being unable/unwilling to do anything, surely it's not as black and white? That aggressor style description mentions too that aggressors like victims who can keep up.


No, that's why I mentioned unwilling. It's a matter of choice being controlled and in situations where one feels very weak, it's part a matter of feeling unable. Another thing I've noted with aggressor-victim style is how the aggressor is likely to chime in in situations and take over if they find that the victim is just entirely failing at any Se oriented task and are very willing to do that. Kind of fits with Beebe's idea of the Hero archetype too, where the dominant is seen as the ego's Hero that always saves the day from troubles. 



> Good point about how power play =! Se. It's a correlation...


Or if one is going to be like that, buzzwords.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> If you want to know the Ni definition I can recite it for you. Would you like that?


I'm not interested in you citing information for me. I can go look that up on my own. What I'm interested in is your specific understanding of what Ni is and how you understand the sources you actually refer to since that says way more about how you relate to the world, how you understand it and also why you type the people the way you do. Why is it difficult to formulate your own opinions and ideas based around a subject?


> All kinds of information. There's no point in saying what kind of information. Whatever tickles my interest or gets stuck in my head. To start with I usually break it down to digestible chunks with Ti, trying to find the logical consistencies if there is any, and then it's on the backburner. If I still can't solve it, make that 'click' in my head, then I will continue absorbing information until it finally snaps into place, where I can see the beautiful symmetry of the general concept that I created, a tool that can be applied in various ways, restricted only by my creativity and imagination. It happens that I really sit and think hard about something until I get another clue about how to look at the problem, but that is a conscious effort if I decide to do so.


What kind of information is it what you absorb though? Is it sensory? Intuitive? Based on people's emotions they express or logical systems? Just saying "information" here doesn't offer any concrete value. The reason why the IEs are called IEs is because they all deal with various forms of information.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> I'm not interested in you citing information for me. I can go look that up on my own. What I'm interested in is your specific understanding of what Ni is and how you understand the sources you actually refer to since that says way more about how you relate to the world, how you understand it and also why you type the people the way you do. Why is it difficult to formulate your own opinions and ideas based around a subject?


It's difficult because it's quite shapeless and abstract, so without some kind of structure it can be difficult to appropriately convey in language. Which also is a part of my eloquent language, searching for specific words that will represent my inner idea or state as accurately as possible.



ephemereality said:


> What kind of information is it what you absorb though? Is it sensory? Intuitive? Based on people's emotions they express or logical systems? Just saying "information" here doesn't offer any concrete value. The reason why the IEs are called IEs is because they all deal with various forms of information.


I absorb all kinds of information like any other human being. I do enjoy a good steak, and which non-vegetarian person doesn't? Some silly sensory information that I can absorb could for example be why certain thins smells similar and want to understand why they do. In this instance it's not too abstract as once the fact is revealed it's left at that, I'm a bit interested in chemistry but have no passion for it. The sensory information doesn't reach as far as I am mainly focused, the Si to take that as an example is experienced, felt, and of course it's something that I can take pleasure in, but most of the time it doesn't concern me.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> It's difficult because it's quite shapeless and abstract, so without some kind of structure it can be difficult to appropriately convey in language. Which also is a part of my eloquent language, searching for specific words that will represent my inner idea or state as accurately as possible.


Fair enough, I understand personal experience can be abstract, but why do you never formalize some kind of idea that point towards whatever you are trying to convey, at least? You're not even trying and it's fairly disappointing because it gives the impression you either a) have nothing to offer or b) you don't want to in case of the possibility of it being scrutinized. Which either way just doesn't do much to further any discussion. 



> I absorb all kinds of information like any other human being. I do enjoy a good steak, and which non-vegetarian person doesn't? Some silly sensory information that I can absorb could for example be why certain thins smells similar and want to understand why they do. In this instance it's not too abstract as once the fact is revealed it's left at that, I'm a bit interested in chemistry but have no passion for it. The sensory information doesn't reach as far as I am mainly focused, the Si to take that as an example is experienced, felt, and of course it's something that I can take pleasure in, but most of the time it doesn't concern me.


How do you take pleasure in Se vs Si then? What differentiates them?


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> Fair enough, I understand personal experience can be abstract, but why do you never formalize some kind of idea that point towards whatever you are trying to convey, at least? You're not even trying and it's fairly disappointing because it gives the impression you either a) have nothing to offer or b) you don't want to in case of the possibility of it being scrutinized. Which either way just doesn't do much to further any discussion.
> 
> How do you take pleasure in Se vs Si then? What differentiates them?


Or c) I'm trying to be nice to you. Why do you want to know all this? Do you intend to scrutinize me if at all possible? No, I'm not projecting, it was you who said it and keep pushing for better clarification.


----------



## itsme45

Diphenhydramine said:


> I don't think it's unfair that people think I'm a delta, because of the way I express myself on this forum, but people who know me as a person - it's pretty much not possible.


I thought you had no opinion on your relation to quadras because they were all so vaguely described? I'm not trying to call you out on things, I'm just curious.




> No. I can see how you can decide this based on the quote alone taken in abstract, but that's precisely the point: it's the limits of the questionnaire. My Ne is much more suited to a role function than mobilising.


Why do you think it's role Ne? Again, curiosity.




Diphenhydramine said:


> Why assume its clashing with base Te, yet again you have just inferred something out of nowhere because it suits your argument. If you can't stop making these inferences that nobody else is seeing and proclaiming them as maximum truths then we aren't going to get anywhere at all. You have to put forward a position that's visible to other people otherwise you can't possibly expect them to agree with anything you're saying.


That's Se, Te or SeTe argument  IMO...

What do you have against SEE btw? I think you even typed as SEE a while ago? Not saying you can't be SLE.




ephemereality said:


> I guess it depends on the situation. If I am being ignored on purpose throughout the day say, I might not tease to get a reaction but I'll get to the point and ask what's up, when I reach a boiling point anyway when I don't think there's any point waiting anymore.


Haha I reach that boiling point pretty quickly. :/




> Yeah, it's not so much being controlled against one's own will but at a level that's comfortable.


Like, you don't have any definite idea anyway what to do with your time so you're okay with someone taking you along for a ride?




> One thing I find that thus stands in a stark contrast between Fe and Fi overall in a group setting, is that I find that Fe types seem to assume one would desire to be a part of the group context and the group activity when it occurs and thus keep insisting on inviting you inside regardless of whether you are actually interested or not.


I guess yes if I see someone "outside" I'll try to invite them in because I'll think they'd like to be "in". Nice to know some people are actually fine with sitting on their own so no need to worry about them.




> Heh, it's not so much that I feel intimidated as much as it is a feeling that one allows oneself to let the aggressor have control.


Yes I know that you were talking about control, I just happened to put that sentence after the one about intimidation.




> So let's take Ygritte then, because I want to expand on that. There's a part then where it feels like what she wants is actually a reaction from you, that's she's trying to part purposefully piss you off. Now, even I get annoyed by how passive Jon Snow is as he's more passive than I'd be too, but with regards to their interaction that I think is very typical of aggressor-victim, you see how he sometimes once in a while takes control and bites back and when he does she shuts up and seems rather satisfied.
> 
> I suppose it's kind of like a baiting thing, definitely a form of play that is constantly about instigating some reaction in the other. So there's a part of me that says that her behavior just endlessly pisses me off but at the same time there's something that's enjoyable and pleasurable about how she forces you to engage or reach that kind of boiling point when you just snap and want to tell them gtfo and it's the end of the world and God can go fuck his own ass. It's very difficult to put into words. That she spends so much time taunting you still indicates her interest in you. If she were to run off to do that to someone else you would start questioning what she thinks of the importance of your relationship, though.


I like that analysis. Does that boiling point feel good to the victim then? Sorry I'm pulling this one out of my ass  but is it like it means at that point they get involved with the world in a tangible Se way? And then I suppose that can be a good experience for them. 




> Yeah. I think in his shoes, my reaction would highly depend on how close I think we are at that point. I could easily see how someone else could interpret this action as stalker-ish if they see you as a more distant person. Though if I was interested in you back per say, I might actually appreciate the effort you put into going out there to meet me because I would never arse that myself lol. I definitely prefer people making contact with me first than me having to start conversation. That one goes so far to communicate shows interest that's difficult to deny. I don't think I would be intimidated but if it happened too quickly before I felt anything particular about you and you clearly showed more interest in me than I felt in return, I might feel uncomfortable because I might feel that you are encroaching on my personal space. So it's more a matter of feeling disturbed then, I think. And sooner or later I would most likely express that.


Yeah that makes sense. There was a sense of interest between us prior to that so I didn't really see it as stalker-ish. He didn't seem to mind much, he just said that about it being a bit scary.




> I don't think victims are weak per se. It's more a matter of letting the aggressor control them I think, because there's pleasure in having them do everything so to speak.


To be sure we are on the same page: "them" is aggressor or victim?




> but it slightly annoyed me that she sometimes keeps telling me I'm stronger than I am etc and can carry this when I feel like I don't.


But you did ultimately manage the task, didn't you? Struggling with a hard task is okay, hard tasks are okay. 




> Do you do this a lot? And would this be something an EIE or an IEI would appreciate hearing more?


Do I do what a lot? Popularize "do it yourself" approach?




> So you don't like when people openly refuse?


Open refusal is much much better than not daring to speak up and only blowing up later or just staying passive aggressive altogether.

But I do prefer it if I'm also told why the refusal. Then I surely won't feel resentment at all. I won't feel like they just said "no" because they don't care about me etc.




> Yeah, makes sense. I also felt that in the situation above with the bags, I felt like my cousin almost purposefully tried to suppress some kind of Fe reaction because it was something she said that made me think so, like the whole "Do it yourself" thing and then she left ASAP. Like she knew that she would do something to help if she stuck around too long. Perhaps not as a fully conscious thought or reaction, but it was just something I read like there was slight internal conflict going on like she knew what would be the more appropriate behavior in the situation but she perhaps felt that it went against how she wanted things done or whatever.


 I'm not sure if anything should be read into the fact that she left ASAP.
But yeah kinda makes sense that there can be such a conflict at times. Though for me if I'm not in a "Fe mood" then it's not really a true conflict as it doesn't achieve anything for Fe.




> Makes sense being Fe-valuing. I find that Fe types in general are more keen to openly emote and exaggerate to make sure the emotion is being read the right way. That what matters more is the intent behind the emote than the feeling that is being expressed. I think that's probably why especially Fi ego types might experience Fe as rather fake, in that Fe types place less emphasis on personal feelings like that, and the importance of expressing what one genuinely feels when one feels it. Not because I am saying Fe types cannot do this, but I think in group settings they are at least less inclined to because it's not how they read emotional intent in people.


I'm not following here, wouldn't intent be to do with what you internally feel? How you're motivated internally for the emotion etc.




> Yeah, it makes sense what you describe sounds more like EIE or IEI, as an Fe type might be more inclined to vocalize their concerns.


I didn't think that was related to Fe.




> In contrast what I seek is more a person who can read my internal state without me having to express anything to this person, because how do I begin doing that anyway without making it sound and seem very awkward? As I said, I dislike open complaint. I can complain, but to complain about my own internal states and such is just difficult and awkward. I rather not to be and I'm then more inclined to be around people who are sensitive to reading it so I don't have to express myself. If people read me wrong though, which of course happens, then I will correct however, because it's easier explaining why they are logically wrong in their reading of me.


Those internal states are Fi in this case?




> No, I think it's interesting what you describe because the idea is rather foreign. Like I'm definitely rather chased than being the chaser. Being a chaser takes too much energy and effort.


_(See my opinion below is the opposite)_
And being the chased is not only too passive but it doesn't ensure you'll get what you want. Though it says victims don't even know what they want...




> You mean that the core of Se is more of simply being an active go-getter?


No, as I said, I meant that in the context of relationships. Se preference itself isn't that, that's just focus on Se information.




> Yeah, I don't see it either. There are a couple of other people on this site who I am fairly sure are SLEs though, and what I think I don't like with SLEs is that they seem to arrive at intuitive conclusions that make no sense like they seem to take things as too much face value (which makes me inclined to explain why this is the wrong way to approach it) and that they often stitch ideas together because that is how they want the idea to be based on some previous experience or whatever and needlessly holding onto that idea. Like there's a lot of inflexibility in their thinking. LIEs can be dry in a similar manner, but I find that LIE thinking is more flexible being intuitive ego than sensing ego.


Hey you meant LSE not SLE right? :S

I sure don't relate to that... here's how I am with this. The only point where I see myself as inflexible is not accepting intuitive ideas without enough confirmation. If a conclusion of mine is a heureka thing, that is, intuitive, I will try to confirm it with real data. If I can't, I will stay mistrusting. What you said is just the opposite, taking some intuitive idea too easily and holding onto it with a lot of cognitive bias. Interesting, huh. (I'm not saying I don't have biases but I think bias works in the exact opposite direction for me, this is my point.)




> Yeah, I was discussing this with previously mentioned SEE friend. She's very much the same in that she sees the world in that she can choose when to interact with it or not so to speak, like she's always present in some sense, but I don't feel present at all and very removed from physical reality. She likened it that in a classroom I'm a ghost. I'm there and observing but no one can see me and I don't experience being tied to the material world whereas she's more likely to sit in the back or when she prefers it, sitting in the front, but she's always _in_ the classroom. I also feel that growth to me very much has to do with becoming a part of this world so to speak, be a participator. I'm sure being a 5 with integration towards 8 plays a role in that.


Makes sense. I just don't understand though, how can you be observing the physical word but yet feel removed from this same physical world? It's clearly not just because you're being inactive. Is it like, you don't even care to be active? Do you feel like you don't belong to the world at all? Tuning out a lot while observing?




> I don't think they'd be focused on experiencing the object as it is as in taste, texture and so on as they are, but taste and texture would be abstracted into something else. What that would be I have no clue though. I don't understand that mentality of placing that kind of abstracted value onto the sense world.


I thought it was simply stuff like, pleasant experience, pleasant memories, etc.? That to me doesn't sound terribly abstract though it's certainly intangible in a literal sense.




Inguz said:


> Submit: *1. * To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.


I wasn't asking you about the dictionary definition but about when *you*'d feel like you've actually submitted.




> Now I do recognize that all people in Gamma do not brag or boast about money. However I can't think of this to fit Beta or Gamma thinking it's wrong to climb the social ladder, you make your own way in the Se world! And let's not forget the aristocratic tendencies that this portrays. He is Fi and aristocrat -> Delta.


Hey that actually is a good point though I would ask him why he has those views about social climbing. @_Diphenhydramine_ can you tell us?




> It's about influence, power, force and that. It's very useful even on an internet forum. You don't need to see a person face to face to have influence. He saying it's only about the "real world" is so blatantly wrong defined from socionics. Just look at this


No but trust me it's much better when it's not a two-dimensional online world :S




> No, I prefer to not take things at face value. I find that the essence of a particular subject is the most important. People are complex and are often contradicting themselves (like you have done in your questionnaire), so this inevitably forces me to chose which side of the contradiction to value over the other.


No, better way to do it would be reconciling the contradiction WITHOUT discarding any data. Ask for more data, try different interpretation, etc. But this discarding of data is really bad practice IMO.

Like, in our discussion of my type, you discarded everything that pointed towards Ti > Fi and just kept saying SEE. Based on only one or two things, like talking style. Everything else went against it and you discarded those datapoints without thinking. That was also very bad typing practice.

(I'm not trying to make this personally about my typing by you, and I'm actually totally open to a SEE typing but I need strong arguments, not the contradictory stuff I've been presented with so far from your side. I can't do anything with that.)




Inguz said:


> The quadras are moving, they have a flow and a rythm. If we propose the analogy that all four quadras are to build a new building, the process will go like this


Nice article, and sorry but I see myself as Beta according to that.  Gamma, Delta too boring. Alpha too "light". 




> In this perception of the quadras it's so blatantly obvious that you are a Delta that it's not even funny. Maintaining and striving for stagnation where as Beta is the opposite, and because of this is often referred to as rebellious.


Where did he mention striving for stagnation? I'd really like to know.




> In no sense have I contradicted myself. If people are complex then I think that your approach, which is to draw out a single piece of information from the text, infer something from it and replace it in abstract environment, is basically a flawed methodology.
> 
> 
> 
> Why you no like Ni? I may even go as far as to say that you are Ni PoLR like an LSE.
Click to expand...

That's not Ni devaluing, what he said simply points out a cognitive bias.




Inguz said:


> In situations where more information is present it leads me to try to find the principal term behind things (Ni-Ti), and will excessively go beyond the surface of a subject and try to create an understanding that the presented theories rests upon. This is also why I am so good at finding faults in logic and shaky theory, the essence of the subject needs to be the foundation, and if something that supposedly is derived from that is wrong from the basis of the foundation it sticks out like a sore thumb. I can't help to not see it.


...And



> All kinds of information. There's no point in saying what kind of information. Whatever tickles my interest or gets stuck in my head. To start with I usually break it down to digestible chunks with Ti, trying to find the logical consistencies if there is any, and then it's on the backburner. If I still can't solve it, make that 'click' in my head, then I will continue absorbing information until it finally snaps into place, where I can see the beautiful symmetry of the general concept that I created, a tool that can be applied in various ways, restricted only by my creativity and imagination. It happens that I really sit and think hard about something until I get another clue about how to look at the problem, but that is a conscious effort if I decide to do so.



I'm kind of like those two quotes myself, just I guess I have more Ti in this.




> This along with sensitivity to interpersonal dynamics also gives me a good foundation for typing people. I can pick up on inconsistencies and motivation behind words and acts. The darker aspect of this is that if I feel the need to, I have an arsenal of poison darts to shoot at people's vulnerable points if they cross me, and they sure seems to hurt good.


Careful, don't develop a God complex. Attempting the impossible: perfectly reading between the lines without errors. 




Inguz said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptually", but it's much of what I said. It's inductive and the processing is not done via conscious thought. It informs my worldview because I take interest in the world. I abstract all information that I can abstract. Obviously some things aren't well suited for that by default.


What things can't be abstracted? IMO everything can be abstracted. 




> And then you also have this: "or behaving in a really vulgar manner." NOT SLE!!!! SLE are often rude and abrasive.


Oh really how many SLEs have you known in your life so far? These crappy stereotypes... yes I can be rude but I like to think I have a concept of more refined styles too even if tactful diplomacy is not my strong suit before anyone calls me out on that... refinement in style extends beyond just having tact. So, that SLE jock stereotype is just annoying. I have my forum signature the way I do for a reason.


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> Haha I reach that boiling point pretty quickly. :/


lol. It takes a while, sometimes a very long while. And I can go frustrated and feel I should do something about it but no, the time isn't right just yet, it has to be the right time. When it is the right time I simply know and I'll put everything in motion and it all just flows and whatever happens happens, but it happened the way it did because it was all planned out that way in the beginning and it was inevitable. If the time was wrong it would just fuck it all up. I don't even want to know what happens if I were to do it at the wrong time, but I would most likely just end up with some extremely undesirable result I'll regret horribly the rest of my life. 

So it's almost like this feeling building up inside where you keep waiting until you can't take it anymore and you have to act, but it has to be right. If it's not the right moment because you haven't knocked out some uncertainty or whatever then it is simply not right and too early and it's not good to act when the time isn't right. And I just realized how stupidly stereotypically Ni this just sounded. That was one of the things I actually did relate a lot to with Strativaskeya's description of the ILI as well - it's as if I'm always waiting for something to happen so I can act on it. 



> Like, you don't have any definite idea anyway what to do with your time so you're okay with someone taking you along for a ride?


I guess that's one way of putting it. I never think of things in terms of concrete actions really. Life's always too uncertain, can go too many ways and time just flows like that so how do you know what you should do now or even 5 years into the future? I actually had an argument about that today with my SEE friend. Apparently she had, at least part, already mentally planned out things she wanted to do with me as very real things, and while she had mentioned them I didn't know she took them that seriously. Like when she mentioned them I thought of them as possibilities or options to do in the future, maybe one day or something, but to her they were things we should _do_ in this very concrete sense. I was rather shocked because it was very different to how I think and the different expectations led to a slight argument about that. She did understand that yeah, they were options and there were logistical problems to solve, but in the end she was more focused on the entire doing thing. So strange to me. 



> I guess yes if I see someone "outside" I'll try to invite them in because I'll think they'd like to be "in". Nice to know some people are actually fine with sitting on their own so no need to worry about them.


Yeah, I think Fe types are inclined to think that rather naturally, whereas I'm inclined to think that if someone sits on the side and has shown disinterest thus far, then that person will continue to be disinterested. I can see how an Fe super-id type might get upset for the entirely different reason.


> Yes I know that you were talking about control, I just happened to put that sentence after the one about intimidation.


All right. 



> I like that analysis. Does that boiling point feel good to the victim then? Sorry I'm pulling this one out of my ass  but is it like it means at that point they get involved with the world in a tangible Se way? And then I suppose that can be a good experience for them.


I'm honestly still learning about this stuff about myself because my sensorics have been so extremely repressed so it's just now finally beginning to click in terms of socionics theory because I see how socionics actually properly explains my issues I have in this area but yes, I think that's actually the point. The entire point of Se-Ni dualization is that Se types make Ni types engage with the world and the Ni types make Se types consider Ni conceptual possibilities. 



> Yeah that makes sense. There was a sense of interest between us prior to that so I didn't really see it as stalker-ish. He didn't seem to mind much, he just said that about it being a bit scary.


Yeah, makes sense.


> To be sure we are on the same page: "them" is aggressor or victim?


Aggressor.


> But you did ultimately manage the task, didn't you? Struggling with a hard task is okay, hard tasks are okay.


Yes, but it made me grumble. She has that effect a lot and she often tends to push in a way that feels slightly uncomfortable and outside my comfort zone and I think that has probably a lot to do with Fe-Ti vs Fi-Te. I find that my ESI aunt or my SEE friend are better at providing good reasons why I should be doing something that's easier to accept. My cousin is more, just do it and might later add if I still seem to suck, I know you aren't that bad at it in this way that I find is a little inconsiderate maybe? Because it feels like she's not really feeling my situation.


> Do I do what a lot? Popularize "do it yourself" approach?


Yes.


> Open refusal is much much better than not daring to speak up and only blowing up later or just staying passive aggressive altogether.
> 
> But I do prefer it if I'm also told why the refusal. Then I surely won't feel resentment at all. I won't feel like they just said "no" because they don't care about me etc.


Yeah, I'm just inclined to think yes, but... I am not even sure what I think. It just doesn't sit quite right with me though I agree with the base premise. To me a "no" is sufficient. I might ask for reasons but I respect the no. Also why is a "no" an indication of not caring about you? 



> I'm not sure if anything should be read into the fact that she left ASAP.
> But yeah kinda makes sense that there can be such a conflict at times. Though for me if I'm not in a "Fe mood" then it's not really a true conflict as it doesn't achieve anything for Fe.


Yeah, I think "Fe mood" probably describes it since yes, she might sometimes not seem to notice at all. It's difficult really to explain. I do definitely think that's one of the bigger problems with our interaction and how it seems to pull us in different directions. 


> I'm not following here, wouldn't intent be to do with what you internally feel? How you're motivated internally for the emotion etc.


I see Fe reading intent in emotional action. Does that make more sense? Like it has to be acted on, not just felt. You can't just stand around and feel a bunch of feels without fully and openly expressing them exactly.


> I didn't think that was related to Fe.


Then what did it relate to if any?


> Those internal states are Fi in this case?


Yeah.


> _(See my opinion below is the opposite)_
> And being the chased is not only too passive but it doesn't ensure you'll get what you want. Though it says victims don't even know what they want...


Sometimes I know what I want and I'll chase that but it's a matter of effort when it comes to chasing, and it's also a matter of being absolutely sure that I actually want it. Like I can like another person but how much? Is it worth putting in the effort to chase or not? When I find genuine interest in people I can be very aggressive and initiate conversation though. I mean, I'm the one who asked you to join Skype  I just have to be very sure of what it is I want when I want it. I cannot act on state of uncertainties. 



> No, as I said, I meant that in the context of relationships. Se preference itself isn't that, that's just focus on Se information.


Ah, right. That makes sense, yes.


> Hey you meant LSE not SLE right? :S


Sorry, yes, that's what I mean. I typo a lot.


> I sure don't relate to that... here's how I am with this. The only point where I see myself as inflexible is not accepting intuitive ideas without enough confirmation. If a conclusion of mine is a heureka thing, that is, intuitive, I will try to confirm it with real data. If I can't, I will stay mistrusting. What you said is just the opposite, taking some intuitive idea too easily and holding onto it with a lot of cognitive bias. Interesting, huh. (I'm not saying I don't have biases but I think bias works in the exact opposite direction for me, this is my point.)


Makes sense to me. I am not sure I even gave LSE justice but that's just how I experience them. Holding rigidly onto ideas because it fits some experience they've had.


> Makes sense. I just don't understand though, how can you be observing the physical word but yet feel removed from this same physical world? It's clearly not just because you're being inactive. Is it like, you don't even care to be active? Do you feel like you don't belong to the world at all? Tuning out a lot while observing?


The way I think of it is that I'm more like an alien from outer space and no one knows I'm one and think I'm a real human like everyone else but I'm not. So I'm here to observe humanity and I interact in the world like everyone else does but the real trick is that I'm not from this world but another world, and this creates a form of separation. I'm here but not here. I'm talking to you but not really talking to you at all. It's like it's all a guise and a veil and none of this really exists. The universe is holographic. 

And I guess I would be active if I had the energy to be active. I just never have. And no, I don't feel like I belong to this world at all. I reside outside of it. I once described how I experience my mind too, like it's more like some blob of brain cells that happened to float around separate from body and body is just some limb that always happened to trail behind it. So it's more like body, world? Why does it all exist at all. Why is there not just mind and mind experience? 



> I thought it was simply stuff like, pleasant experience, pleasant memories, etc.? That to me doesn't sound terribly abstract though it's certainly intangible in a literal sense.


lol, yes, I guess you're right. I just always have to over-complicate Si in my mind because I try to understand it as Ni except sensory, and then it just stops making sense. 



> No but trust me it's much better when it's not a two-dimensional online world :S


Yeah, I don't think there's any Se type who doesn't inherently think like this at some level. The real world is out there to be sensed, not the computer world in here that you mostly engage with your mind. Whereas I'm more comfortable here than I am in the real world or how to put it because this is very real to me. 



> Nice article, and sorry but I see myself as Beta according to that.  Gamma, Delta too boring. Alpha too "light".


I was trying to understand what Gulenko meant with ILI trying to postpone disaster lol. I rather see myself as an actual iconoclast who just goes out and destroys whatever I don't think makes any sense to me and see how I can improve it by rebuilding it from scratch. Not reformer though, that's not it either. I don't reform for the same of reforming. I just don't see the point holding onto ideas for the sake of holding onto them or anything like that. If something can be improved then the obvious answer is to improve it.


> Where did he mention striving for stagnation? I'd really like to know.


Yeah, I'm curious about that too. And how are betas rebellious for the matter? If anything, I think betas being aristocratic and all, can be very latching onto certain social structures to maintain social order. That's why you need gammas to tear it down and democratize the process, I assume, from this context.


> That's not Ni devaluing, what he said simply points out a cognitive bias.


I don't see how he's Ni-devaluing. It might be a sign of IE devaluing, but it wasn't Ni.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> Yeah, I'm curious about that too. And how are betas rebellious for the matter? If anything, I think betas being aristocratic and all, can be very latching onto certain social structures to maintain social order. That's why you need gammas to tear it down and democratize the process, I assume, from this context.


Hitler (EIE), Lenin (SLE), Guevara (LSI), Gandhi (IEI). The history is full of Beta rebels and revolutionaries. Funnily enough I mentioned one of each type.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

itsme45 said:


> I thought you had no opinion on your relation to quadras because they were all so vaguely described? I'm not trying to call you out on things, I'm just curious.


 Originally I did not really, but this conversation has pushed it further into my head. 



itsme45 said:


> Why do you think it's role Ne? Again, curiosity.


 That specific example I thought was role because it doesn't make sense that a person would use their mobilising function to throw themselves to the wilderness. If the point is they appreciate the mob func because they themselves are imbalanced, and enjoy people who can mobilise them to it - what I posted is an example of role Ne because it's using role when the base doesn't have any answers, *not* as an uncontrolled display.



itsme45 said:


> That's Se, Te or SeTe argument  IMO...


 I agree actually, but SLE uses demonstrative Te as you know, so I think it would be a poor argument to use that as an example of me being an LSE.



itsme45 said:


> TWhat do you have against SEE btw? I think you even typed as SEE a while ago? Not saying you can't be SLE.


 it takes some explaining, I will do it when I get home. But basically it would focus on Fi/Ti.



itsme45 said:


> Where did he mention striving for stagnation? I'd really like to know... Attempting the impossible: perfectly reading between the lines without errors.


 I didn't. That's the best part. It isn't even implied. They are baseless assumptions created to fit Inguz idea of who he thinks I am because my personality clashes with what he thinks SLE is. There's not an ounce of reason behind it.



itsme45 said:


> Oh really how many SLEs have you known in your life so far? These crappy stereotypes... yes I can be rude but I like to think I have a concept of more refined styles too even if tactful diplomacy is not my strong suit before anyone calls me out on that... refinement in style extends beyond just having tact. So, that SLE jock stereotype is just annoying. I have my forum signature the way I do for a reason.


 "SLE is rude and abrasive." Total nonsense.


----------



## cyamitide

ephemereality said:


> Yeah, I'm curious about that too. And how are betas rebellious for the matter? If anything, I think betas being aristocratic and all, can be very latching onto certain social structures to maintain social order. That's why you need gammas to tear it down and democratize the process, I assume, from this context.


Gammas don't "tear" anything down. As democracts they can't even assemble together to take cohesive action. They wait until the system falls itself, due to its inherent flaws, and then take advantage of opportunities that follow, particularly speculations of currency:



> With the onset of democratic changes, when the strict framework of regulations and jurisdictions begins to "thaw" and "soften", everything changes. The "people's initiatives" (which sometimes take the form of a kind of natural disaster), the democratic "people's projects" (in which anyone willing can participate though not everyone will be able to capture the main jackpot), inspire and activate the ILI. Finally, his time has come! - a time of great political and economic changes. From these changes he can extract his benefits, working a consultant, or broker, or the organizer of the pyramid schemes, and further spur the creation of new financial systems, companies, and one-day trading firms. The time of reforms is the time of change, the time of great hopes and great promises, the time of new projects the realization of of which requires new investments, new "goals" requiring collection of money, which emerge under the auspices of the grand and the promising public or commercial projects that ambitiously promise to enrich everyone – all those who only yesterday were poor and barely getting by, today have become entrepreneurs and businessmen involved in start-ups and businesses of their own (though they still know very little about all this).


Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations INTp and ESFp by Stratiyevskaya


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> Gammas don't "tear" anything down. As democracts they can't even assemble together to take cohesive action. They wait until the system falls itself, due to its inherent flaws, and then take advantage of opportunities that follow, particularly speculations of currency:
> 
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations INTp and ESFp by Stratiyevskaya


Wouldn't that just be a different way to interpret it? When I think of tearing down, I think of say what occurs in Code Geass. It's difficult to not interpret as tearing down.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Hitler (EIE), Lenin (SLE), Guevara (LSI), Gandhi (IEI). The history is full of Beta rebels and revolutionaries. Funnily enough I mentioned one of each type.


I still think it's stupid to attribute that trait as quadra-unique or specific. See my post in response to cyamitide. And as for those typings, I won't comment. Typing celebrity personas doesn't prove much in this context.


----------



## cyamitide

ephemereality said:


> Wouldn't that just be a different way to interpret it? When I think of tearing down, I think of say what occurs in Code Geass. It's difficult to not interpret as tearing down.


"Tearing down" requires active counteraction on part of Gamma, whereas what socionics descriptions mention of them is passive waiting out of the situation and monitoring for beneficial to themselves opportunities.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> "Tearing down" requires active counteraction on part of Gamma, whereas what socionics descriptions mention of them is passive waiting out of the situation and monitoring for beneficial to themselves opportunities.


But how do things fall without some kind of action or counter-action? Without action life itself stagnates and nothing changes.

And I can buy that gammas wait for the "right opportunity", but how are they going to rebuild society from beta if they all simply observe? I ultimately think that any action that fully and properly resonates and reverberates was done "at the right time" by the way. Rising or falling, ultimately it's the same thing. What matters is your own position during the event.


----------



## cyamitide

ephemereality said:


> But how do things fall without some kind of action or counter-action? Without action life itself stagnates and nothing changes.


Because no system is perfect. Every system is flawed. These flaws eventually lead to its demise.

Besides, why are you so much focused on gammas? Besides gamma there are other quadras like alpha and delta. Deltas are much more likely to counteract Betas as the opposing aristocratic quadra, than the splintered and scattered democratic quadras who are mainly just looking out for themselves.



ephemereality said:


> And I can buy that gammas wait for the "right opportunity", but how are going to rebuild society from beta if they all simply observe?


Gammas don't rebuild. They only pave way to Deltas or a return back to Beta, who are the rebuilders. Once the intermittent gammas stage is over, either Deltas take matters into their own hands and build their empire, or Betas some up with another scheme and rebuild another social system. 

Democrats are inherently not interested in "rebuilding society". They are interested in keeping things informal and free flowing.


----------



## Entropic

Diphenhydramine said:


> it takes some explaining, I will do it when I get home. But basically it would focus on Fi/Ti.


I don't see you as an Fi type. Ethical types, regardless if Fe or Fi, all have this feeling they radiate that just belies their Feeling nature. It's a little soft in its own sense, mushy, as if they don't want to reason based on logic but based on feels. I cannot adequately describe it but 99% of the time when I type people, it's accurate, that impression people leave on me whether they are feelers or not. Thinkers don't have that personal feel to them because they're thinkers. It's much more impersonal. More mature thinkers can have it but only in the right context.

Also, the way you approach the system itself suggests you prefer logic. You always provide with logical definitions. Fi types, pretty much always, no matter what, when forced into making logical arguments that they think is a poor reading of their character or the situation, will be pissed off and start judging people based on this: You're stupid. You don't understand me. Or if they start and try to rely on Te: That's not what the source says. That isn't an accurate description/definition at all. Even this will reveal the inferior nature of their Te because they will needlessly cling to Te structure but they lack the flexibility you see in Te ego types, especially base types, where they are capable of morphing Te facts to suit their argument. Te arguments always look so flawless, leaves a good impression behind, because Te doms know how to appeal to the commonly agreed ideas. 

I don't see you as my dual. There's no personal warmth in there that Fi leaves behind in people.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> I don't see you as my dual. There's no personal warmth in there that Fi leaves behind in people.


And the only thing that makes sense between us is superego.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I didn't. That's the best part. It isn't even implied. They are baseless assumptions created to fit Inguz idea of who he thinks I am because my personality clashes with what he thinks SLE is. There's not an ounce of reason behind it.
> 
> "SLE is rude and abrasive." Total nonsense.


What are you so afraid of? Address me directly with your whiny complaints.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> And the only thing that makes sense between us is superego.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you so afraid of? Address me directly with your whiny complaints.


 I'm not afraid of anything. I've detailed the gaping flaws in your methodology before. The way that you go about typing people is repudiated as far as I'm concerned. It's sort of annoying that you think you know myself better than I do based on some vague intuition but I don't really have any complaints about it: I'm content just to ignore it. Other people might be less happy with some of your more personally offensive strategies, though. The worst part is that you do not reply with any kind of argument and instead just revert to making (wrong) assumptions about my character.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

ephemereality said:


> I don't see you as an Fi type. Ethical types, regardless if Fe or Fi, all have this feeling they radiate that just belies their Feeling nature. It's a little soft in its own sense, mushy, as if they don't want to reason based on logic but based on feels. I cannot adequately describe it but 99% of the time when I type people, it's accurate, that impression people leave on me whether they are feelers or not. Thinkers don't have that personal feel to them because they're thinkers. It's much more impersonal. More mature thinkers can have it but only in the right context.


 This is actually kind of the answer I was looking to give to @itsme45 about SEE, there are other issues there but this is a good starting point.



ephemereality said:


> I don't see you as my dual. There's no personal warmth in there that Fi leaves behind in people.


 I don't really understand "personal warmth" in the sense that like, I feel very disconnected from my emotions and often, historically - before I came to terms with them - in fact threatened by them, they felt like an attack on my masculinity, mental strength etc. For me the application of personal warmth has always been to try to help me physically. I don't want to be that shoulder to cry on because even if I am good at it as a few people have told me, I feel like I am not doing anything. I would rather be up there pushing that person and trying to help them get over whatever hurdle they're faced with. Even in a private atmosphere I often feel uncomfortable showing my emotions to even my family, my closest friends or my girlfriend. Not their problem: more that I have some indescribable awkward feeling when it comes down to it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

@itsme45

You wanted me to talk about social ladders and social climbing. I will try to do so briefly. I want to do so on two levels, personal, and political. Firstly I would like to say obviously I'm not against people improving themselves. What I detest are the modern nouveau-riche.

- Personal
Personally I am not motivated by money or security at all. I think these are things that motivate people who don't have them. I have never felt insecure in that regard in my life as I am pretty privileged and pretty much my whole life I have seen living as a form of adventure. Since I'm only 22 years old I haven't been able to yet blend that with some political aspirations but time etc.

So when I see people who's only motivation is to get rich at any cost, or who want to show how great they are by telling everyone how they succeeded (enneagram 3 I guess) I feel a lot of distaste. Isn't there anything more important in your life that you can think of than getting rich and then telling everyone about it? How pathetic it must be to live a life inspired only by the acquisition of wealth. What's more these people often lack very obvious social mores and will start blabbing on about their newly acquired tastes without knowing anything about them. They buy something because it costs loads of money and they want to show how much money they have. A total disregard for aesthetics.

- Political
Most people especially Americans think this idea is really offensive and "poor hating", they don't understand the idea of a society not based on people progressing on individual merit. That's not the point at all. For every person that rises a bunch of people fall. The goal of society is not to support the wealthy at the expense of the poor. How can you have a nation otherwise? So what if meritocracy means a few people can get rich if it also means that everyone who doesn't has "lost" - I don't want to live in a society that is divided between winners and losers, success and failure: I want the society to stand on its collective merit. "If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure."

A collective body of people stands on the aggregate merits of that body, on how it treats the people who life has dealt the worst ticket to, not how it worships those who have been able to make a lot of money.

As an aside, the SLE type manifests hierarchy. He knows what it is and where people stand in it. Perhaps he does not justify or unjustify it instantly, but to suggest he is hierarchiless type is just nonsense. He asserts himself into the hierarchy and accepts only from people who he feels are above him in that hierarchy. As Zhukov said to Stalin "If you think I speak gibberish, I ask you to relieve me of my post." That is NOT the same thing as thinking that society ought to have no hierarchy and that everyone should rise and fall on their merits.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> And the only thing that makes sense between us is superego.


That assumes you are correctly typed and I am incorrectly typed. What makes you assume you are correctly typed to begin with outside of superficially relating to some quadra and type descriptions? Because if we're going down that route, then I clearly relate the most to the ILI-Ni description that is on Wikisocion and was added recently. I also relate a fair amount to Strativeskaya's ILI description and others. And again, mirror pair with Diphenhydramine does not make sense. I cannot even fathom how you arrive at such conclusions. It's impossibly incomprehensible in my mind, and I tend to think of myself as quite open to ideas that are otherwise considered "out there". But this, I cannot even remotely see how you arrive at such conclusions. It just does not make sense based on the descriptions that are out there on mirror pairs. There is no "oh your thinking is weirdly familiar but yet so different" that occurs with mirror pairs. Instead what I experience is a very different way of conceiving the world all together that seems overall rather foreign to my own cognition. Not unpleasant, but definitely not familiar. And without wanting to speak for Diphenhydramine, I am hard-pressed to think he wouldn't agree with that. 

Now, if I were to compare to LIEs such as Sclerat whose typing I agree with, then yes, it very much applies. And there are other gamma NTs around here such as Figure who must also be an SLI then if you think I am, because his thinking is also familiar and recognizable. And I haven't even begun mentioning the bunch of gammas I am friends with on Skype, most of them NTs, who by the way, reached that typing independently of each other and then we simply agree that the typing seems correct. So clearly something is off with your way of typing people and that suggests the problem isn't that I am incorrectly typed according to your system (especially if several members on this site agree with my self-typing and they are not the ones who think I'm an LII because those people honestly have even less of a clue than you do), but that you must be incorrectly typed according to the actual system. The only thing you seem to grasp and whose understanding I agree with is Fe-Ti. 

You operate on the idea that you are correctly typed and you can therefore type others based on your interaction with them and this methodology isn't necessarily bad itself, I also utilize it to a degree when I try to figure someone out whose type I can't quite put into words, but then one must be absolutely certain one is actually correctly typed and that the system is extremely congruent in this regard. Otherwise it doesn't work since it will only yield incorrect results. One thing I know for a fact is that I am not Ne-Si valuing after finally understanding what Ne-Si is and how it appears in those who actually prefer it. 

And of course you can't tell because your idea of power and powerplay is really messed up too, but my overall no-nonsense attitude I'm employing here is very much the result of Se. This is Se power and how it appears on the internet in text. Any other idea you have of Se probably has nothing to do with Se. 



Diphenhydramine said:


> I don't really understand "personal warmth" in the sense that like, I feel very disconnected from my emotions and often, historically - before I came to terms with them - in fact threatened by them, they felt like an attack on my masculinity, mental strength etc. For me the application of personal warmth has always been to try to help me physically. I don't want to be that shoulder to cry on because even if I am good at it as a few people have told me, I feel like I am not doing anything. I would rather be up there pushing that person and trying to help them get over whatever hurdle they're faced with. Even in a private atmosphere I often feel uncomfortable showing my emotions to even my family, my closest friends or my girlfriend. Not their problem: more that I have some indescribable awkward feeling when it comes down to it.


That's a good example of Logic in ego, yes. I also felt even more uncomfortable around this because of my gender ascribed at birth where there are social expectations placed on people they see as women to be more naturally caring, warm and open and it's so fundamentally opposed to how I operate. Taking care of people is definitely my weakest point and I shy away from it because I know how bad I am. I tried out a job as a personal assistance for a wheelchair-bound woman once and I don't think I've ever felt as inadequate at anything in my entire life. I know I such at things as sports but it's ok at some level, because people don't place expectation on me to be good at sports and I also feel it's an area I should master but I just don't know how, but taking care of people's emotional needs outside of providing logical resolutions and advice is not something I'm capable of. If I just have to be there and say, "yeah yeah it's ok" I will always have that awkward feeling it leaves behind.



Diphenhydramine said:


> @itsme45
> 
> You wanted me to talk about social ladders and social climbing. I will try to do so briefly. I want to do so on two levels, personal, and political. Firstly I would like to say obviously I'm not against people improving themselves. What I detest are the modern nouveau-riche.
> 
> - Personal
> Personally I am not motivated by money or security at all. I think these are things that motivate people who don't have them. I have never felt insecure in that regard in my life as I am pretty privileged and pretty much my whole life I have seen living as a form of adventure. Since I'm only 22 years old I haven't been able to yet blend that with some political aspirations but time etc.
> 
> So when I see people who's only motivation is to get rich at any cost, or who want to show how great they are by telling everyone how they succeeded (enneagram 3 I guess) I feel a lot of distaste. Isn't there anything more important in your life that you can think of than getting rich and then telling everyone about it? How pathetic it must be to live a life inspired only by the acquisition of wealth. What's more these people often lack very obvious social mores and will start blabbing on about their newly acquired tastes without knowing anything about them. They buy something because it costs loads of money and they want to show how much money they have. A total disregard for aesthetics.
> 
> - Political
> Most people especially Americans think this idea is really offensive and "poor hating", they don't understand the idea of a society not based on people progressing on individual merit. That's not the point at all. For every person that rises a bunch of people fall. The goal of society is not to support the wealthy at the expense of the poor. How can you have a nation otherwise? So what if meritocracy means a few people can get rich if it also means that everyone who doesn't has "lost" - I don't want to live in a society that is divided between winners and losers, success and failure: I want the society to stand on its collective merit. "If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure."
> 
> A collective body of people stands on the aggregate merits of that body, on how it treats the people who life has dealt the worst ticket to, not how it worships those who have been able to make a lot of money.
> 
> As an aside, the SLE type manifests hierarchy. He knows what it is and where people stand in it. Perhaps he does not justify or unjustify it instantly, but to suggest he is hierarchiless type is just nonsense. He asserts himself into the hierarchy and accepts only from people who he feels are above him in that hierarchy. As Zhukov said to Stalin "If you think I speak gibberish, I ask you to relieve me of my post." That is NOT the same thing as thinking that society ought to have no hierarchy and that everyone should rise and fall on their merits.


Did you purposefully categorize this post similar to how Gulenko tends to categorize his articles lol? Anyway, I was more interested in the paragraphs concerning what you refer to as "political", because this is where I think one could make an adequate argument based on ethics for you and at a superficial level because it seems kind of Fi in that you are talking from a personal perspective, but in the end, what really underlies that this is Fe is the importance of the collective. Not only is this post a good example of aristocratic values (that itself rules out gamma by default) but it seems rather so/sx? But in the end, you speak of people as a collective whole, and you speak of people as if we all have some relationship that has this cause and effect, and it suggests the dynamic logic of Fe over the static logic of Fi. 

Also, as a final sidenote because it struck me right now, but did you consider LSI over SLE and if so, why did you not see it as a likely option?


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm not afraid of anything. I've detailed the gaping flaws in your methodology before. The way that you go about typing people is repudiated as far as I'm concerned. It's sort of annoying that you think you know myself better than I do based on some vague intuition but I don't really have any complaints about it: I'm content just to ignore it. Other people might be less happy with some of your more personally offensive strategies, though. The worst part is that you do not reply with any kind of argument and instead just revert to making (wrong) assumptions about my character.


In what way is it offensive?


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> Because no system is perfect. Every system is flawed. These flaws eventually lead to its demise.
> 
> Besides, why are you so much focused on gammas? Besides gamma there are other quadras like alpha and delta. Deltas are much more likely to counteract Betas as the opposing aristocratic quadra, than the splintered and scattered democratic quadras who are mainly just looking out for themselves.


Because I identify as one?


> Gammas don't rebuild. They only pave way to Deltas or a return back to Beta, who are the rebuilders. Once the intermittent gammas stage is over, either Deltas take matters into their own hands and build their empire, or Betas some up with another scheme and rebuild another social system.


How do deltas build the empire then?



> Democrats are inherently not interested in "rebuilding society". They are interested in keeping things informal and free flowing.


Explain?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> In what way is it offensive?


 Now there's nothing wrong with suggesting people are a different type, I think. Some people think it's wrong altogether but I don't. But the way you go about it is really disagreeable.

Firstly you say that people are lying about themselves, and only you know the truth because you've been able to read it from their "essence" or whatever. Suggesting that you know more about someone than they know about themselves because you magically intuited it is 1. total nonsense with anyone who has a modicum of self-awareness 2. actually really rude. If it was rude and right it would have merit. It is rude and wrong and it has no merit.

You carry this interpretation on, though, by simply assigning factors to people. No, you aren't like this person who I typed, you are actually more like this, which makes you that type. I can't explain why because it's about your essence. "You aren't behaving in an archetypal intertype relation to me, so you must be the appropriate type that matches the intertype relation." There isn't any consideration that the typings you have made of yourself and others (presumably with the same mechanics) could be wrong. 

Secondly you assert a variety of superficial factors like "abrasive behaviour" to people's sociotypes, which are not supported by either the literature or a reading, provided by you, of the typological structure. And then you say no you aren't that type, because you are bla bla bla. For example you stated that betas are rebels. And then you went on to say that I am not a rebel and in fact I support stagnating systems or whatever. What? I never posted anything that would even suggest that. In fact the worst part is that if I contradicted the understanding of myself that you have, you would go so far as to say_ I am wrong about myself. _ 

Thirdly no form of supporting evidence or even an argument is provided: in fact all you did was re-assess my character and then read the questionnaire in a (very limited) manner that suits the answer you wanted to provide because it would lock in to the existing forms in which you have typed others. You haven't made any real appeals to typology in the past three pages: the only thing you have done is assert that delta is X and that I am X, so I am delta. If you don't understand why this is a poor method to go about typing people then I don't have anything to say except to suggest a better one:

Delta is X and your post displays X for the following reasons. Here is why I think it displays X because of this <insert literature or interpretation of literature.>

If you want to persuade people to a position, your argument must make sense to them, not only to you, and it must be delivered in a way that doesn't force it to rely on something as intangible and inaccessible as your intuition, and you have to take people at face value about themselves: by assuming that your intuition is so superpowerful that you know someone else better than they know themselves, or that you can go and look around in their reality and know their essence better, you're just committing a gigantic feat of both arrogance and typological ineptitude. 

I wrote that in general terms from the experiences on this thread, if you don't do the same thing to other people but only to me then ok, but that doesn't change why I think it's offensive and meritless.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> That assumes you are correctly typed and I am incorrectly typed. What makes you assume you are correctly typed to begin with outside of superficially relating to some quadra and type descriptions?* Because if we're going down that route, then I clearly relate the most to the ILI-Ni description that is on Wikisocion and was added recently. I also relate a fair amount to Strativeskaya's ILI description and others. *And again, mirror pair with Diphenhydramine does not make sense. I cannot even fathom how you arrive at such conclusions. It's impossibly incomprehensible in my mind, and I tend to think of myself as quite open to ideas that are otherwise considered "out there". But this, I cannot even remotely see how you arrive at such conclusions. It just does not make sense based on the descriptions that are out there on mirror pairs. There is no "oh your thinking is weirdly familiar but yet so different" that occurs with mirror pairs. Instead what I experience is a very different way of conceiving the world all together that seems overall rather foreign to my own cognition. Not unpleasant, but definitely not familiar. And without wanting to speak for Diphenhydramine, I am hard-pressed to think he wouldn't agree with that.


Bold - isn't that the route that you naturally are going down? It certainly seems that way to me. When I present a lot of actual facts about theory, such as Se and Aggressor you refute it and try to claim that you know better than theory. However you then continue to say that my ideas are "out there" when I am relying on a system called socionics. Who is bonkers here?



ephemereality said:


> Now, if I were to compare to LIEs such as Sclerat whose typing I agree with, then yes, it very much applies. And there are other gamma NTs around here such as Figure who must also be an SLI then if you think I am, because his thinking is also familiar and recognizable. And I haven't even begun mentioning the bunch of gammas I am friends with on Skype, most of them NTs, who by the way, reached that typing independently of each other and then we simply agree that the typing seems correct. So clearly something is off with your way of typing people and that suggests the problem isn't that I am incorrectly typed according to your system (especially if several members on this site agree with my self-typing and they are not the ones who think I'm an LII because those people honestly have even less of a clue than you do), but that you must be incorrectly typed according to the actual system. The only thing you seem to grasp and whose understanding I agree with is Fe-Ti.


This is just illogical. Let me make a response. If you like apples more than oranges then you must believe that all oranges must be apples if you enjoy oranges too. That's how much sense you made.



ephemereality said:


> You operate on the idea that you are correctly typed and you can therefore type others based on your interaction with them and this methodology isn't necessarily bad itself, I also utilize it to a degree when I try to figure someone out whose type I can't quite put into words, but then one must be absolutely certain one is actually correctly typed and that the system is extremely congruent in this regard. Otherwise it doesn't work since it will only yield incorrect results. One thing I know for a fact is that I am not Ne-Si valuing after finally understanding what Ne-Si is and how it appears in those who actually prefer it.


How can you verify if someone is accurately typed? Also, your understanding of the IMs seems lacking due to you not being able to separate MBTI from socionics. I really do understand the belief that the functions are the same across the systems like @cyamitide does, but you must at very least be able to separate the definitions when discussing a particular system. I think that this idea of MBTI=socionics is nonsensical however as correlations can be made between for example Se in MBTI (liking fun) and Fe in socionics (also liking fun), and this is why I believe that combinations like ESFP-ESE is very much possible.



ephemereality said:


> And of course you can't tell because your idea of power and powerplay is really messed up too, but my overall no-nonsense attitude I'm employing here is very much the result of Se. This is Se power and how it appears on the internet in text. Any other idea you have of Se probably has nothing to do with Se.


Why is it messed up? What do you have to back up this claim with in regards to socionics theory besides nothing at all?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> This is just illogical. Let me make a response. If you like apples more than oranges then you must believe that all oranges must be apples if you enjoy oranges too. That's how much sense you made.


Let apples be A and oranges be B. Let good be Z.

If A = Z and B = Z then Z = B and Z also = A. As a method of categorisation it is completely logical.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

I think that possibly I took this too seriously and perhaps crossed the boundaries of civility, but it strikes me both as intensely bizarre and rude to claim that you know someone better than they know themselves, especially when you barely know them.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Bold - isn't that the route that you naturally are going down? It certainly seems that way to me.


Where are your reading skills? I specifically avoid discussing specific descriptions because I actually find them useless. I find that when descriptions are involved, people get too stuck on their peculiarities such as specific buzzwords or phrases and allow those to determine and dictate how people should be which just entirely misses the point. It's the concrete logic of Sensorics and to a degree, extroversion, this need to latch onto such peculiarities. 



> When I present a lot of actual facts about theory, such as Se and Aggressor you refute it and try to claim that you know better than theory. However you then continue to say that my ideas are "out there" when I am relying on a system called socionics. Who is bonkers here?


No, I refute and claim that the way you are applying those descriptions is very much of how I outlined in the above. You get stuck on their specific peculiarities without seeing the deeper consequences, what main idea is actually attempted to be conveyed. For example, the concept of evil. Not evil itself as in what evil looks like when acted on or what evil people appear as; no, this is evil in a very abstract and ideological sense. The concept of evil. What evil represents. This is what I'm talking about and this is how intuition fundamentally operates. This is why Jung calls that intuition is the ability to see what is behind the corner without actually seeing it. And don't pull the whole "this is not what it says in socionics" because then you are again missing the point. Getting stuck on peculiarities, getting stuck on the concrete of what is being expressed. I honestly don't think you're an intuitive type. 



> This is just illogical. Let me make a response. If you like apples more than oranges then you must believe that all oranges must be apples if you enjoy oranges too. That's how much sense you made.


No, that's not what I am saying. I am not disputing that you disqualify Te logic since it is exactly what this is. In essence the idea is that if most people agree on what something is despite that they all have their own subjective understanding of what it is, then it is likely that it is what they think it is. 



> How can you verify if someone is accurately typed?


One thing I noticed with the socionics system, being Ti-based, is that if someone is accurately typed, there will be no inconsistencies within the system. Nothing in the likes of, "but this Reinin trait doesn't make any sense to me despite that I am this type and this type is supposed to express this trait", or "I really think I am this type because the description makes sense even though this portion of Model A doesn't". All of it _will_ make sense and it _will_ fit. It might seem absolute, but that's just how it is. 



> Also, your understanding of the IMs seems lacking due to you not being able to separate MBTI from socionics.


Here we go again with the peculiarities... 



> I really do understand the belief that the functions are the same across the systems like @cyamitide does, but you must at very least be able to separate the definitions when discussing a particular system.


That's why I never specifically refer to one specific definition in _any_ system, and when I do, I clearly state _which_ system I am referring to. Because like cyamitide I think all the functions _are the same_, because they all point towards and reflects the _same idea_, the very same cognition that Jung defined in Psychological Types. They are aspects of the same thing, mirroring in each other. There is just not one truth to what an object is, it contains many small individual truths and these truths will be reflected in the individuals who try to understand it. That we understand one truth differently is itself just exemplary of how the functions infer someone's thinking. That when an Se type sees a duck they think it's a that, a duck. A bird-like animal with white feathers. When an Ni type sees a duck it's not just a white-colored animal anymore, but it's representative of something else. The transformation of beauty for instance. Yet what they are observing is exactly the same phenomenon but then understood so differently. 

Thus, the different descriptions that each system applies is precisely that, different observations of the same phenomenon. To therefore claim they are different phenomena because the observations are different is therefore not something I find logical anymore. 



> I think that this idea of MBTI=socionics is nonsensical however as correlations can be made between for example Se in MBTI (liking fun) and Fe in socionics (also liking fun), and this is why I believe that combinations like ESFP-ESE is very much possible.


Yeah, let's get hung up on the peculiarities of each description. That's how you conceive of the MBTI and that's fair enough, but that's not how I understand it. 



> Why is it messed up? What do you have to back up this claim with in regards to socionics theory besides nothing at all?


Because it just reaches a point where I don't think you personally know the experience of Se and how it informs someone's psyche. There are three Se types present in this thread and you argue that two of them are Si types. You furthermore argue that they are both mirror pairs despite that one of them thinks you are also reading them terribly and seems to make up an idea of who that person is in order to fit your idea of what a type is. In other words, you're not taking the person honestly and what the person thinks the person is, but instead you try to pigeonhole people into your own flawed perceptions of type and it's not good typing practice. And it all comes back to the source which is that you don't _get_ some of the functions. Which comes back to the fact that you don't because it has to do with how you actually perceive the world, constantly getting stuck on the concrete peculiarities of type and function descriptions that you take at an ironic level of face value. Which in turn actually suggests the biggest problem of all when it comes to your typing is that you don't understand _yourself_, and if you don't understand yourself, how can you type others and expect accurate results?


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Now there's nothing wrong with suggesting people are a different type, I think. Some people think it's wrong altogether but I don't. But the way you go about it is really disagreeable.
> 
> Firstly you say that people are lying about themselves, and only you know the truth because you've been able to read it from their "essence" or whatever. Suggesting that you know more about someone than they know about themselves because you magically intuited it is 1. total nonsense with anyone who has a modicum of self-awareness 2. actually really rude. If it was rude and right it would have merit. It is rude and wrong and it has no merit.


All the "I am type 8 and so badass" shenanigans over at the enneagram forum ought to exemplify this very well. People lie all the time, and most of all they lie to themselves to keep up a certain self-image. It doesn't meant that it's true.



Diphenhydramine said:


> You carry this interpretation on, though, by simply assigning factors to people. No, you aren't like this person who I typed, you are actually more like this, which makes you that type. I can't explain why because it's about your essence. "You aren't behaving in an archetypal intertype relation to me, so you must be the appropriate type that matches the intertype relation." There isn't any consideration that the typings you have made of yourself and others (presumably with the same mechanics) could be wrong.


Intertype relation is an important aspect of socionics.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Secondly you assert a variety of superficial factors like "abrasive behaviour" to people's sociotypes, which are not supported by either the literature or a reading, provided by you, of the typological structure. And then you say no you aren't that type, because you are bla bla bla. For example you stated that betas are rebels. And then you went on to say that I am not a rebel and in fact I support stagnating systems or whatever. What? I never posted anything that would even suggest that. In fact the worst part is that if I contradicted the understanding of myself that you have, you would go so far as to say_ I am wrong about myself. _


"They are adept at organizing others effectively towards any given objective, and have no problem "getting the job done," even if it requires stepping on a few toes."
Sensing Logical Extratim - Wikisocion



Diphenhydramine said:


> Thirdly no form of supporting evidence or even an argument is provided: in fact all you did was re-assess my character and then read the questionnaire in a (very limited) manner that suits the answer you wanted to provide because it would lock in to the existing forms in which you have typed others. You haven't made any real appeals to typology in the past three pages: the only thing you have done is assert that delta is X and that I am X, so I am delta. If you don't understand why this is a poor method to go about typing people then I don't have anything to say except to suggest a better one:
> 
> Delta is X and your post displays X for the following reasons. Here is why I think it displays X because of this <insert literature or interpretation of literature.>


"
*Te* blocked with *Si*:   


 Delta types make a point of talking about the rationale behind their actions and emphasizing the productiveness or unproductiveness of different ways of doing things - even in such emotional areas as personal relationships. " 
 
"Deltas tend to see Beta types as people who "dream big" and always want to turn things into grandiose endeavors, yet can't manage day-to-day affairs effectively. *Also, Beta types seem unwilling to consider things from the point of view of others*, which gives them *a streak of meanness* and cruelty."
Delta Quadra - Wikisocion

It smells like you are a Delta saying that I'm an offensive and arrogant Beta!



Diphenhydramine said:


> If you want to persuade people to a position, your argument must make sense to them, not only to you, and it must be delivered in a way that doesn't force it to rely on something as intangible and inaccessible as your intuition, and you have to take people at face value about themselves: by assuming that your intuition is so superpowerful that you know someone else better than they know themselves, or that you can go and look around in their reality and know their essence better, you're just committing a gigantic feat of both arrogance and typological ineptitude.
> 
> I wrote that in general terms from the experiences on this thread, if you don't do the same thing to other people but only to me then ok, but that doesn't change why I think it's offensive and meritless.


My sole point was "You are not Beta, your advice isn't going to give fruition" and not try to convince you that you are an LSE. That's why I don't care as much as you would like about being as open as possible about my reasoning.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Let apples be A and oranges be B. Let good be Z.
> 
> If A = Z and B = Z then Z = B and Z also = A. As a method of categorisation it is completely logical.


The faulty logic in this is A>B -> A=B. It's complete and utter nonsense. It's like writing 2>1 -> 2=1.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I think that possibly I took this too seriously and perhaps crossed the boundaries of civility, but it strikes me both as intensely bizarre and rude to claim that you know someone better than they know themselves, especially when you barely know them.


If you are thinking about me, don't worry. I get a kick out of conflicts.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> Where are your reading skills? I specifically avoid discussing specific descriptions because I actually find them useless. I find that when descriptions are involved, people get too stuck on their peculiarities such as specific buzzwords or phrases and allow those to determine and dictate how people should be which just entirely misses the point. It's the concrete logic of Sensorics and to a degree, extroversion, this need to latch onto such peculiarities.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I refute and claim that the way you are applying those descriptions is very much of how I outlined in the above. You get stuck on their specific peculiarities without seeing the deeper consequences, what main idea is actually attempted to be conveyed. For example, the concept of evil. Not evil itself as in what evil looks like when acted on or what evil people appear as; no, this is evil in a very abstract and ideological sense. The concept of evil. What evil represents. This is what I'm talking about and this is how intuition fundamentally operates. This is why Jung calls that intuition is the ability to see what is behind the corner without actually seeing it. And don't pull the whole "this is not what it says in socionics" because then you are again missing the point. Getting stuck on peculiarities, getting stuck on the concrete of what is being expressed. I honestly don't think you're an intuitive type.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I am saying. I am not disputing that you disqualify Te logic since it is exactly what this is. In essence the idea is that if most people agree on what something is despite that they all have their own subjective understanding of what it is, then it is likely that it is what they think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed with the socionics system, being Ti-based, is that if someone is accurately typed, there will be no inconsistencies within the system. Nothing in the likes of, "but this Reinin trait doesn't make any sense to me despite that I am this type and this type is supposed to express this trait", or "I really think I am this type because the description makes sense even though this portion of Model A doesn't". All of it _will_ make sense and it _will_ fit. It might seem absolute, but that's just how it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again with the peculiarities...
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I never specifically refer to one specific definition in _any_ system, and when I do, I clearly state _which_ system I am referring to. Because like cyamitide I think all the functions _are the same_, because they all point towards and reflects the _same idea_, the very same cognition that Jung defined in Psychological Types. They are aspects of the same thing, mirroring in each other. There is just not one truth to what an object is, it contains many small individual truths and these truths will be reflected in the individuals who try to understand it. That we understand one truth differently is itself just exemplary of how the functions infer someone's thinking. That when an Se type sees a duck they think it's a that, a duck. A bird-like animal with white feathers. When an Ni type sees a duck it's not just a white-colored animal anymore, but it's representative of something else. The transformation of beauty for instance. Yet what they are observing is exactly the same phenomenon but then understood so differently.
> 
> Thus, the different descriptions that each system applies is precisely that, different observations of the same phenomenon. To therefore claim they are different phenomena because the observations are different is therefore not something I find logical anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's get hung up on the peculiarities of each description. That's how you conceive of the MBTI and that's fair enough, but that's not how I understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it just reaches a point where I don't think you personally know the experience of Se and how it informs someone's psyche. There are three Se types present in this thread and you argue that two of them are Si types. You furthermore argue that they are both mirror pairs despite that one of them thinks you are also reading them terribly and seems to make up an idea of who that person is in order to fit your idea of what a type is. In other words, you're not taking the person honestly and what the person thinks the person is, but instead you try to pigeonhole people into your own flawed perceptions of type and it's not good typing practice. And it all comes back to the source which is that you don't _get_ some of the functions. Which comes back to the fact that you don't because it has to do with how you actually perceive the world, constantly getting stuck on the concrete peculiarities of type and function descriptions that you take at an ironic level of face value. Which in turn actually suggests the biggest problem of all when it comes to your typing is that you don't understand _yourself_, and if you don't understand yourself, how can you type others and expect accurate results?


1) You don't refer to any particular definition 2) You do refute socionics definitions 3)You claim that I lack understanding of the socionics IMs. How the fuck can you understand socionics without understanding socionics?

Other interesting aspects: you so badly want to find a way to point out that I am not intuitive, you are doing everything that you can to make yourself look intuitive, you refute definitions so that you can fit Gamma when in reality you have stated in the past that you definitely are a Delta fully in accordance with the definitions, you make up some nonsensical thing about intuitives not seeing a duck when they see a duck (semantically incomprehensible). If you don't see a duck when you look at a duck that is called either psychosis or blindness.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> All the "I am type 8 and so badass" shenanigans over at the enneagram forum ought to exemplify this very well. People lie all the time, and most of all they lie to themselves to keep up a certain self-image. It doesn't meant that it's true.


 No that illustrates it very poorly. That is from people misunderstanding what Type 8 is not who THEY are. 



Inguz said:


> Intertype relation is an important aspect of socionics.


 I know. I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning the way you use intertype relations to tell people their typings are wrong which involves assuming that yours are concrete, textbook.



Inguz said:


> "They are adept at organizing others effectively towards any given objective, and have no problem "getting the job done," even if it requires stepping on a few toes."
> Sensing Logical Extratim - Wikisocion


 Yes. Rather. That's NOT the same as being abrasive. I agree SLEs are "pushers" (and in fact this is one reason I think I am an SLE, though you have never seen me do this in real life). That sentence isn't a justification to say SLEs are rude and abrasive. They are result focused and don't care who or what gets hurt if the result is achieved, that makes no comment about the nature of their permanent behaviour: this is you reading what you want into the text. 



Inguz said:


> *Te* blocked with *Si*:


 The best thing about this is I can quote all the Beta lists from wikisocion and say they apply to me because they do but you will disagree, and then justify that disagreement by saying that I am lying about myself. There's no point at all discussing my overall character with you because you draw ridiculous inferences and then spread them over to a whole personality.



Inguz said:


> Deltas tend to see Beta types as people who "dream big" and always want to turn things into grandiose endeavors, yet can't manage day-to-day affairs effectively. *Also, Beta types seem unwilling to consider things from the point of view of others*, which gives them *a streak of meanness* and cruelty."
> Delta Quadra - Wikisocion


 You should talk to my mother if you think this is evidence for me being a Delta.

The thing is you keep trawling up this Te+Si block - firstly I don't see any evidence of Si at all. With regards the Te, yes it's there, but you're incorrectly labelling this as a Te+Si block when its really my Se pushing a demonstrative Te out here 

I'm not a delta saying youre an arrogant and offensive beta. I'm a DPH saying youre an arrogant and offensive Inguz. This idea you have that all betas are offensive and all deltas will be offended by it and then that is an intertype relation every time that discourse happens between two people - it's just stupid.



Inguz said:


> My sole point was "You are not Beta, your advice isn't going to give fruition" and not try to convince you that you are an LSE. That's why I don't care as much as you would like about being as open as possible about my reasoning.


 "My intention was to rob a bank, not break the law!"



Inguz said:


> If you are thinking about me, don't worry. I get a kick out of conflicts.


 So do I, otherwise I would have stopped this three pages ago.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> No that illustrates it very poorly. That is from people misunderstanding what Type 8 is not who THEY are.


Alright, this time I will try to be open and more straight forward with my reasoning. The idea behind that analogy is what you are saying really, a misunderstanding along the way that results in what I would call a lie as it is not true. If a person isn't a type 8 yet claim to be it does not matter to me so much why it is so as it matters that they inevitably are lying to themselves about being a type 8. In some cases this even takes itself to the extreme where some people, not all, want to defend their typing by sheer tenacity due to wanting to keep the self-image of being an 8.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I know. I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning the way you use intertype relations to tell people their typings are wrong which involves assuming that yours are concrete, textbook.


The intertype relations are an inescapeable and deeply rooted into the socionics theory as a whole. Why is my use of intertype relations wrong?



Diphenhydramine said:


> Yes. Rather. That's NOT the same as being abrasive. I agree SLEs are "pushers" (and in fact this is one reason I think I am an SLE, though you have never seen me do this in real life). That sentence isn't a justification to say SLEs are rude and abrasive. They are result focused and don't care who or what gets hurt if the result is achieved, that makes no comment about the nature of their permanent behaviour: this is you reading what you want into the text.


It is sorta. SLE 8s like Simon Cowell or Gordon Ramsay fits my idea of 'abrasive' quite well. The main difference between them as SLEs and you as far as I can see is that you seem to place importance on refraining from getting emotional/dramatic like they do, they flare up. For this I have the evidence that you apologized (at least I interpreted it as such) for crossing the line of what is civil behaviour. Now I do recognize that a chunk of their behaviour is exaggerated for TV, either via they doing it themselves or the way that the episodes are edited. In the context of this I do consider SLEs to be abrasive, even if they are not as extreme as the examples that I provided.



Diphenhydramine said:


> The best thing about this is I can quote all the Beta lists from wikisocion and say they apply to me because they do but you will disagree, and then justify that disagreement by saying that I am lying about myself. There's no point at all discussing my overall character with you because you draw ridiculous inferences and then spread them over to a whole personality.


I wouldn't necessarily call it a lie in the example that you provided. Naturally there will be bits here and there and correlates. This is why I put emphasis on the deeper understanding of things as it provides me a a more reliable base for placing these descriptions upon.

In my defense I will say this, trying to reach a solid consensus with your conflictor can be very difficult. But it's good practice nevertheless. As an example my mother's husband is an LSE, and getting along with him would make things easier for me personally. This is not to make a comparison of you to someone else in terms of personality; merely to make an independent statement about the difficulties in communicating with your conflictor.



Diphenhydramine said:


> You should talk to my mother if you think this is evidence for me being a Delta.


The thing is you keep trawling up this Te+Si block - firstly I don't see any evidence of Si at all. With regards the Te, yes it's there, but you're incorrectly labelling this as a Te+Si block when its really my Se pushing a demonstrative Te out here [/QUOTE]

If we take an alternative view on it (don't strangle me just yet, there is a consistent reasoning behind this) then LSE got demonstrative Se. The problem as I see it with freely connecting functions in the order of private discretion is that the cohesive whole will take a hit and suffer as a result of it. If you for example say that you are SLE with demonstrative Te as a justification for your strong Te, my counter-claim is the same but backwards; that you are an LSE (hence the prominent Te that you yourself seems to find prominent within yourself) with demonstrative Se. What I have to offer in addition to my mirrored counterclaim however is that you are indeed focused on what is appropriate behaviour, both in your questionnaire and in the example of you considering yourself to crossing the boundary of what is civil, which in essence correlates much better with Te base than Se base.

If we theorize about LIE which values Se then we also have to take into account that your creative function would be the same as my base, which in my opinion does not at all explain our hardship in communication.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm not a delta saying youre an arrogant and offensive beta. I'm a DPH saying youre an arrogant and offensive Inguz. This idea you have that all betas are offensive and all deltas will be offended by it and then that is an intertype relation every time that discourse happens between two people - it's just stupid.


This is however me attempting to explain why DPH is saying that to Inguz in terms of the socionics theory. If you disagree with the use of theory to explain the interaction between us then we can skip this part.



Diphenhydramine said:


> "My intention was to rob a bank, not break the law!"


lol that was funny. Then I must inquire, which "law" did I break in your analogy?



Diphenhydramine said:


> So do I, otherwise I would have stopped this three pages ago.


Sure.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> 1) You don't refer to any particular definition 2) You do refute socionics definitions 3)You claim that I lack understanding of the socionics IMs. How the fuck can you understand socionics without understanding socionics?
> 
> Other interesting aspects: you so badly want to find a way to point out that I am not intuitive, you are doing everything that you can to make yourself look intuitive, you refute definitions so that you can fit Gamma when in reality you have stated in the past that you definitely are a Delta fully in accordance with the definitions, you make up some nonsensical thing about intuitives not seeing a duck when they see a duck (semantically incomprehensible). If you don't see a duck when you look at a duck that is called either psychosis or blindness.


LOL. 

1. Of course, because the understanding I possess is derived from all the systems to get a better idea of the very core of what a function is since again, they are facets describing the same phenomenon. I can go and cite sources but I see no point doing so when I am discussing something on such a generalized level. Again, I don't deal with peculiarities. 

2. Because you get stuck on each description's given peculiarities. That's why you think so.

3. Yes, you do. You get stuck on their concrete realities. Look at how you argued about what Se is with DPH even though yourself later admit that people such as Gordon Ramsey may in fact after all, not be very good exemplary people of their type due to the exaggerated nature in which they appear. Then why even use such an example? Why not use an actual person who doesn't seem to suffer from neurotic anger outbursts every five minutes? 

So I just ask the question back: How the fuck can you understand socionics without understanding socionics? 

And no, this is actually the first time I openly pointed out that I think you're a sensor because I am now very sure of this. There is no way an intuitive type would keep argue based on these peculiarities that you do. An actual Ni type would see where I am coming from. They don't need to agree, but they would see it. I have made no claims to attempt to fit gamma quadra in this thread. And this sentence here, so Si:



> when in reality you have stated in the past that you definitely are a Delta fully in accordance with the definitions,


This is how Si types reason. They fall back on known ideas, how things were "in the past". The past isn't always reliable. I was wrong. I understood myself poorly, I understood the quadra poorly, I understood socionics poorly compared to today. So if I keep telling you that based on my reviewed updated understanding I was wrong, then apparently I am wrong for thinking I am wrong since the only argument you have and you keep bringing up is that I used to think delta fit me. How can I be wrong based on how I understand myself? That's a fallacious argument. You can argue that the conclusions I draw based on how I see myself are wrong when applied onto the system, but you can never ever tell me I am wrong when it comes to myself. Do you even see how much you live in the past? Where's your future-think Inguz? Your ability to see possibilities and draw conclusions in the future that Ni does? 

Ni looks forward, to see how things in the past and the present can be shaped in the future. This is pretty much the socionics text-book definition of Ni. It takes what is known and stalks out a course of action. Si types are the ones who get hung up over the past, rather sticking to what they know and understand than exploring what is potentially out there, because that exploration is fearful because it means that the stable world of Si cognition isn't as stable as they think it is. If you want a precise source for that, it's Jung. Which means it also applies on socionics, because socionics is built on Jung. 

The fact that you don't understand what I am expressing when not seeing the object as is just further reinforces your own sensation-preference. You don't understand when I say a mask when worn by another person is just not a mask. A mask carries symbolic depth and meaning. A mask is something we wear to hide ourselves; it represents personas, fake identities, to appear as someone you are not. If you aren't thinking in this way when you see a mask then you're not an intuitive. This is the very basis of how intuition operates and why there's this notion of intuition also being imaginative. Which by the way, is a word that is being used to describe the ILI. 

Of course what I physically see is a mask, but no, a mask isn't just its physical representation. That's why intuition is opposed sensation (again, that's basic Jung, you know) because in order to intuit one must first repress sensation, meaning one cannot allow oneself to simply experience the object on a sensory level. 

This is why your understanding of socionics is flawed. You only see what there is but you don't see what it represents. It suggests extremely poor use of intuition and it also explains why you have such a conflict-relation with your dad who is supposed to be your dual. Well, if he is your dual, then why isn't communication between the two of you going smoother then? To claim dualization is bunk is just a mental shortcut because then you aren't reviewing the possibility that you can actually be wrong both when it comes to your father's type and yourself. You know, thinking in terms of possibilities. The way intuition operates at its fundamental level.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> LOL.
> 
> 1. Of course, because the understanding I possess is derived from all the systems to get a better idea of the very core of what a function is since again, they are facets describing the same phenomenon. I can go and cite sources but I see no point doing so when I am discussing something on such a generalized level. Again, I don't deal with peculiarities.


You don't see the point in doing so because if you did then you would show everyone that you are wrong. You don't dare to do it.



ephemereality said:


> 2. Because you get stuck on each description's given peculiarities. That's why you think so.


It's basic fucking theory, for example that Se in socionics is about will, force and influence. Get that through your skull. It's not a peculiarity, it's a fundamental of the IM.



ephemereality said:


> 3. Yes, you do. You get stuck on their concrete realities. Look at how you argued about what Se is with DPH even though yourself later admit that people such as Gordon Ramsey may in fact after all, not be very good exemplary people of their type due to the exaggerated nature in which they appear. Then why even use such an example? Why not use an actual person who doesn't seem to suffer from neurotic anger outbursts every five minutes?


I didn't make the example of a duck and how it relates to other objects. Relating objects to other objects is Ne-Si.

If not every five minutes it still does display the temperamental side of SLE.



ephemereality said:


> So I just ask the question back: How the fuck can you understand socionics without understanding socionics?


Answer it yourself instead of trying to shift the focus on to me.



ephemereality said:


> And no, this is actually the first time I openly pointed out that I think you're a sensor because I am now very sure of this. There is no way an intuitive type would keep argue based on these peculiarities that you do. An actual Ni type would see where I am coming from. They don't need to agree, but they would see it. I have made no claims to attempt to fit gamma quadra in this thread. And this sentence here, so Si:
> 
> 
> 
> when in reality you have stated in the past that you definitely are a Delta fully in accordance with the definitions,
> 
> 
> 
> This is how Si types reason. They fall back on known ideas, how things were "in the past". The past isn't always reliable. I was wrong. I understood myself poorly, I understood the quadra poorly, I understood socionics poorly compared to today. So if I keep telling you that based on my reviewed updated understanding I was wrong, then apparently I am wrong for thinking I am wrong since the only argument you have and you keep bringing up is that I used to think delta fit me. How can I be wrong based on how I understand myself? That's a fallacious argument. You can argue that the conclusions I draw based on how I see myself are wrong when applied onto the system, but you can never ever tell me I am wrong when it comes to myself. Do you even see how much you live in the past? Where's your future-think Inguz? Your ability to see possibilities and draw conclusions in the future that Ni does?
Click to expand...

In socionics time is related to Ni, not Si. That I draw from the past to the future and bend and twist it to see the patterns over time, I use Ni. Ni is just as much about the past as it is about the future. Recognition of patterns over time, past events, current events and possible future events drawing upon knowledge, patterns and foresight about how things may transpire. It's just ridiculous, you quoted me on something relating to time, and then you criticize me for not talking about time. Can you start to make any logical comebacks please?



ephemereality said:


> Ni looks forward, *to see how things in the past* and the present can be shaped in the future. This is pretty much the socionics text-book definition of Ni. It takes what is known and stalks out a course of action. Si types are the ones who get hung up over the past, rather sticking to what they know and understand than exploring what is potentially out there, because that exploration is fearful because it means that the stable world of Si cognition isn't as stable as they think it is. If you want a precise source for that, it's Jung. Which means it also applies on socionics, because socionics is built on Jung.


Bwahahahaha! xD
You undermined your previous argument about me not being Ni here. Well done. *golfclap*

Also, Jung snatched his idea about the types directly from Hume's Perception (thinking and intuition) and Impression (feeling and sensing). Please quote some Hume for me to justify yourself. No, you really shouldn't. Let's stick to the theory that we actually are discussing.



ephemereality said:


> The fact that you don't understand what I am expressing when not seeing the object as is just further reinforces your own sensation-preference. You don't understand when I say a mask when worn by another person is just not a mask. A mask carries symbolic depth and meaning. A mask is something we wear to hide ourselves; it represents personas, fake identities, to appear as someone you are not. If you aren't thinking in this way when you see a mask then you're not an intuitive. This is the very basis of how intuition operates and why there's this notion of intuition also being imaginative. Which by the way, is a word that is being used to describe the ILI.


Relating objects to internalized sentiments, Si perspective.



ephemereality said:


> Of course what I physically see is a mask, but no, a mask isn't just its physical representation. That's why intuition is opposed sensation (again, that's basic Jung, you know) because in order to intuit one must first repress sensation, meaning one cannot allow oneself to simply experience the object on a sensory level.


Repressing sensing doesn't mean to pay attention to the sensing, it means moving away from it.



ephemereality said:


> This is why your understanding of socionics is flawed. You only see what there is but you don't see what it represents. It suggests extremely poor use of intuition and it also explains why you have such a conflict-relation with your dad who is supposed to be your dual. Well, if he is your dual, then why isn't communication between the two of you going smoother then? To claim dualization is bunk is just a mental shortcut because then you aren't reviewing the possibility that you can actually be wrong both when it comes to your father's type and yourself. You know, thinking in terms of possibilities. The way intuition operates at its fundamental level.


Nope, you still got it backwards.

Regarding my dad, it does work out as dual describes it at first. However we can quickly grow irritated at our different dispositions. As an example, he likes to hear my Ni explanation of things. He loves it.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> but that's just how it is.


Saying that doesn't prove that is indeed how it is. Socionics isn't empirical.


----------



## itsme45

Inguz said:


> I think that this idea of MBTI=socionics is nonsensical however as correlations can be made between for example Se in MBTI (liking fun) and Fe in socionics (also liking fun), and this is why I believe that combinations like ESFP-ESE is very much possible.


True, they are not the same system however MBTI Se isn't about liking fun. Fe in socionics is also not really so much about that. That's just a trait that can come with it or not.

This is a terribly superficial interpretation of the functions here...

I agree otherwise that there could be some correlations because the functions are not defined the same in the two systems but they may still have some things in common in one way or another. 




Inguz said:


> "They are adept at organizing others effectively towards any given objective, and have no problem "getting the job done," even if it requires stepping on a few toes."


Right so how does that equate to SLEs being always abrasive?

What a superficial interpretation again.




> "Deltas tend to see Beta types as people who "dream big" and always want to turn things into grandiose endeavors, yet can't manage day-to-day affairs effectively. *Also, Beta types seem unwilling to consider things from the point of view of others*, which gives them *a streak of meanness* and cruelty."
> 
> It smells like you are a Delta saying that I'm an offensive and arrogant Beta!


And this, too. How does your behaviour here even remotely relate to what you quoted here about Beta quadra....




> My sole point was "You are not Beta, your advice isn't going to give fruition" and not try to convince you that you are an LSE. That's why I don't care as much as you would like about being as open as possible about my reasoning.


Well if you're not open about your reasoning, it's pointless to even state your opinion.




Inguz said:


> you make up some nonsensical thing about intuitives not seeing a duck when they see a duck (semantically incomprehensible). If you don't see a duck when you look at a duck that is called either psychosis or blindness.


No it's not what he said. I guess the intuitive type sees the duck too but then will "wander off" elsewhere.




Inguz said:


> It is sorta. SLE 8s like Simon Cowell or Gordon Ramsay fits my idea of 'abrasive' quite well. The main difference between them as SLEs and you as far as I can see is that you seem to place importance on refraining from getting emotional/dramatic like they do, they flare up. For this I have the evidence that you apologized (at least I interpreted it as such) for crossing the line of what is civil behaviour.


I'm sure SLEs can manage to act without being dramatic to achieve goals when emotions would just get in the way. Also emotional/dramatic != abrasive. To me someone who's intentionally unemotional when I'd prefer them to be emotional does come off as abrasive in a way, irritating me. 




> In my defense I will say this, trying to reach a solid consensus with your conflictor can be very difficult.


Do you believe that one can communicate even with a conflictor, though?




Inguz said:


> Hitler (EIE), Lenin (SLE), Guevara (LSI), Gandhi (IEI). The history is full of Beta rebels and revolutionaries. Funnily enough I mentioned one of each type.


Now try fixing your cognitive bias by trying to list a few non-beta revolutionaires. 




> If we take an alternative view on it (don't strangle me just yet, there is a consistent reasoning behind this) then LSE got demonstrative Se. The problem as I see it with freely connecting functions in the order of private discretion is that the cohesive whole will take a hit and suffer as a result of it. If you for example say that you are SLE with demonstrative Te as a justification for your strong Te, my counter-claim is the same but backwards; that you are an LSE (hence the prominent Te that you yourself seems to find prominent within yourself) with demonstrative Se. What I have to offer in addition to my mirrored counterclaim however is that you are indeed focused on what is appropriate behaviour, both in your questionnaire and in the example of you considering yourself to crossing the boundary of what is civil, which in essence *correlates* much better with Te base than Se base.


"Correlates" (bold) is the key word here. But yeah it could be a good point otherwise. I'd like to find out more about that for sure (Te vs Se).




Diphenhydramine said:


> That specific example I thought was role because it doesn't make sense that a person would use their mobilising function to throw themselves to the wilderness. If the point is they appreciate the mob func because they themselves are imbalanced, and enjoy people who can mobilise them to it - what I posted is an example of role Ne because it's using role when the base doesn't have any answers, *not* as an uncontrolled display.


That makes some sense, I think I might've used Ne before in this way (base not having answers).. though I never found it terribly useful in the end :/ That function's just annoying, meh.




> I agree actually, but SLE uses demonstrative Te as you know, so I think it would be a poor argument to use that as an example of me being an LSE.


Could you tell me why you think the Te is demonstrative?




Diphenhydramine said:


> This is actually kind of the answer I was looking to give to @_itsme45_ about SEE, there are other issues there but this is a good starting point.


Yeah, thanks, makes sense. I guess SEE wouldn't feel disconnected though they may also prefer to offer practical solutions. But what you say about feeling uncomfortable with it, T > F. Though, not sure what kind of emotions you mean when you say you're uncomfortable expressing your emotions even to your family. That's almost like Fe PoLR lol unless I misinterpret something here.




Diphenhydramine said:


> Isn't there anything more important in your life that you can think of than getting rich and then telling everyone about it?


Give some examples of what things are more important? Curious about your opinion on that.



> A collective body of people stands on the aggregate merits of that body, on how it treats the people who life has dealt the worst ticket to, not how it worships those who have been able to make a lot of money.


So what would you call your political standing as? Just making sure I got your point.


----------



## itsme45

Inguz said:


> It's basic fucking theory, for example that Se in socionics is about will, force and influence. Get that through your skull. It's not a peculiarity, it's a fundamental of the IM.


The fundamental of Se as IM is not that, it's just something that usually follows from it. Willpower itself is not Se. Any type can have willpower, influence etc.




> Also, Jung snatched his idea about the types directly from Hume's Perception (thinking and intuition) and Impression (feeling and sensing). Please quote some Hume for me to justify yourself. No, you really shouldn't. Let's stick to the theory that we actually are discussing.


Hey that one's interesting... where did you read about that? Just curious.




> Relating objects to internalized sentiments, Si perspective.


Where were the internalized sentiments there? And in general what do you mean by such "sentiments"?




> Repressing sensing doesn't mean to pay attention to the sensing, it means moving away from it.


You mean "NOT to pay attention"?


----------



## Kanerou

@itsme45 Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt. There are some non-revolutionary Betas for you.


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> I guess that's one way of putting it. I never think of things in terms of concrete actions really. Life's always too uncertain, can go too many ways and time just flows like that so how do you know what you should do now or even 5 years into the future? I actually had an argument about that today with my SEE friend. Apparently she had, at least part, already mentally planned out things she wanted to do with me as very real things, and while she had mentioned them I didn't know she took them that seriously. Like when she mentioned them I thought of them as possibilities or options to do in the future, maybe one day or something, but to her they were things we should _do_ in this very concrete sense. I was rather shocked because it was very different to how I think and the different expectations led to a slight argument about that. She did understand that yeah, they were options and there were logistical problems to solve, but in the end she was more focused on the entire doing thing. So strange to me.


To me what's strange is this  your attitude to this issue, I mean. I don't see the world as complex as that with regard to acting, but you explained it well, I can see how that would prevent me from action for sure.

Did you mind much though how your SEE friend would have wanted to do things with you? With Se-DS wouldn't it be appreciated? Or is DS function a bit harder to "activate" than that?




> I'm honestly still learning about this stuff about myself because my sensorics have been so extremely repressed so it's just now finally beginning to click in terms of socionics theory because I see how socionics actually properly explains my issues I have in this area but yes, I think that's actually the point. The entire point of Se-Ni dualization is that Se types make Ni types engage with the world and the Ni types make Se types consider Ni conceptual possibilities.


Isn't Ni more about helping Se see things that help with acting optimally? (Of course not just directly action related stuff but see certain other intangible things too.) Someone just giving me several possibilities would just irritate me. I'd need something more focused than that. Maybe it was just bad wording from your part.




> Yes, but it made me grumble.


Sure it can be a pita.. but were you not also feeling energized by doing/having done the hard task?




> She has that effect a lot and she often tends to push in a way that feels slightly uncomfortable and outside my comfort zone and I think that has probably a lot to do with Fe-Ti vs Fi-Te. I find that my ESI aunt or my SEE friend are better at providing good reasons why I should be doing something that's easier to accept. My cousin is more, just do it and might later add if I still seem to suck, I know you aren't that bad at it in this way that I find is a little inconsiderate maybe? Because it feels like she's not really feeling my situation.


I don't really understand that, how do Fi egos provide those reasons / what reasons?




> Do I do what a lot? Popularize "do it yourself" approach?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

In trying to solve other people's problems yes. (When they ask for help directly or indirectly.) Outside that context I'm not into the idea of interfering with people's independent decisions about what they'd do or not do or how they'd do it as long as it's not affecting me.




> Yeah, I'm just inclined to think yes, but... I am not even sure what I think. It just doesn't sit quite right with me though I agree with the base premise. To me a "no" is sufficient. I might ask for reasons but I respect the no. Also why is a "no" an indication of not caring about you?


What's not quite right for you? Sorry I didn't get that part. As for your question, I don't know, heh I didn't think about the "why" of it. Socionics articles do mention Se base types liking obedience, maybe it's that? 
Though I only take it personally if it's in a relationship. Otherwise why would it be a personal thing anyway.




> I see Fe reading intent in emotional action. Does that make more sense? Like it has to be acted on, not just felt. You can't just stand around and feel a bunch of feels without fully and openly expressing them exactly.


Yeah ok.




> Yeah, it makes sense what you describe sounds more like EIE or IEI, as an Fe type might be more inclined to vocalize their concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think that was related to Fe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did it relate to if any?
Click to expand...

Se? Eh, I'll pass on that. 




> Those internal states are Fi in this case?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.
Click to expand...

How is it different from Si internal state?




> I just have to be very sure of what it is I want when I want it. I cannot act on state of uncertainties.


Yeah I also don't like to have uncertainty but it's more uncertainty of external factors than an uncertainty of internal state of wanting it or not wanting it.


Ah, right. That makes sense, yes. 




> The way I think of it is that I'm more like an alien from outer space and no one knows I'm one and think I'm a real human like everyone else but I'm not. So I'm here to observe humanity and I interact in the world like everyone else does but the real trick is that I'm not from this world but another world, and this creates a form of separation. I'm here but not here. I'm talking to you but not really talking to you at all. It's like it's all a guise and a veil and none of this really exists. The universe is holographic.


Wow weird 




> And I guess I would be active if I had the energy to be active. I just never have. And no, I don't feel like I belong to this world at all. I reside outside of it. I once described how I experience my mind too, like it's more like some blob of brain cells that happened to float around separate from body and body is just some limb that always happened to trail behind it. So it's more like body, world? Why does it all exist at all. Why is there not just mind and mind experience?


That too 

As for the last few sentences, uh some people like to think we're just a simulation. I don't like to think of the world in that sense, to me it feels real. To me the idea of it all being just mind and impressions inside the mind is really foreign. Yeah, opposites here. 




> lol, yes, I guess you're right. I just always have to over-complicate Si in my mind because I try to understand it as Ni except sensory, and then it just stops making sense.


Heh funny... What I used to overcomplicate trying to understand was Ne. Along these lines "it's Se just with some kind of intuition or what??" 




> That's not Ni devaluing, what he said simply points out a cognitive bias.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how he's Ni-devaluing. It might be a sign of IE devaluing, but it wasn't Ni.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I wasn't misunderstood; I meant what he pointed out was about a cognitive bias (of not his own) 





ephemereality said:


> This is how Si types reason. They fall back on known ideas, how things were "in the past".


That's MBTI Si... I think in socionics it's more Ni to have some focus on the past? Socionics Si is just in the present. Let me know how that's reconciled for you?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

I love how Alpha is never mentioned in the context of the societal and historical roles of quadras. We're like the kid who's just sitting there reading a book or smoking a joint in the midst of a violent, dramatic fight.


----------



## zinnia

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I love how Alpha is never mentioned in the context of the societal and historical roles of quadras. We're like the kid who's just sitting there reading a book or smoking a joint in the midst of a violent, dramatic fight.


Yeah, I think the reason the alpha thread is so dead is because there have not been any arguments/disagreements there...

Heh, thread and dead rhyme.


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> An LSI wouldn't get this personal in their reply to my comment that was clearly exaggerated.
> 
> And right now you do remind me so much of my ESI mom. She does this thing that you are doing now too, she explains herself, justifies her actions and her beliefs to a person even though it's clearly a lost cause to everyone else that is a bystander. This post of yours is very Fi, and not at all Fe.


So, yet again: your personal biases here and nothing about socionics Fi - Fe.

When the information being scrutinized -is- personal (as we are talking about _personalities_), the reply will also reflect the fact that we are speaking of things that are personal. If we were discussing car stereos for example, the personal stuff would not be the topic, because well, its not. In other words, you have judged me as being Fi based on your misunderstanding of an aspect of my personality, then when I attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the information (which uh, sure, happens to be my personality) - you call it "justifying oneself" when its actually _discussing the topic at hand_. 

That said, I think that it would do you well to pay attention to context. Being so hellbent on cramming everything into this tunnel-vision you have dismisses the context and then we have no discussion here in the first place (which in all honesty is already the case).

Now, I will say that the topic _initially_ had nothing to do with _my socionics type_ when I posted in this thread, but because you thrive on little petty ego wrestling matches, you turned it around and made it about me instead of actually addressing what was said, other than the ol' "I'm right you're wrong, just cuz" defense tossed in there awkwardly. 



> It may seem particularly strange that I seem to be able to read so much information out of that post that didn't say anything about you in your everyday life.


Again, more smug posturing about "how much you can get from something" when really you overreach, making shaky assumptions and get bloated up on yourself while not actually seeing anything but rehashed snap-judgments because you get a vague feel for someone based on your observations of people in general, not based in socionics. 

"You remind me of my mom" =/= socionics Fi.

This last post of yours was precisely more of what I described in my last post. If someone keeps indulging you, its the same defensive rationalizations based on personal bias, not rooted in socionics in the least. Other than that, you pretend that you have used some covert mechanism to draw more information out of someone, but you never implement strategies on purpose during those exchanges. Claiming to is merely part of a show, because you want to look more clever than you are for whatever reason. Whats really going on, is more after-the-fact rationalization and you think that if you label it as what you want it to be seen as, that it is that in reality. But, its not.

Now anyway, most of what I said here will reflect my initial point about your typing methods. Though you want to make this exchange about me being Fi, I was here to share my observations on the way you attempt to force bad typings on others. You are permitted to think that I'm an esi all you want, but that won't change the fact that you use personal bias in place of true socionics theory, and get too caught up in trying to elevate yourself in the presence of others, by convincing yourself that you're "throwing pearls before the swine."

And I'm probably finished making my point, as I have done so several times in these posts. You could try to rope me into more useless nonsense justifications for how everything I say or do is Fi, while you put on the same performance that I described in the first place.

What I actually came for was to tell you that I see through what you're doing. Its not in some hope that you'll actually take my advice and improve your skills, yet its not in vain either. After observing the interactions in the socionics sub-forum for a while, I wanted to share my observation with others who have endured those insufferably bad "sociology" diagnoses. And I do believe that any lucid socionist could ream a lot of sour, juicy Fe out of my intention here, but I am not expecting that from you, Inguz. ; )


----------



## Inguz

Promethea said:


> So, yet again: your personal biases here and nothing about socionics Fi - Fe.
> 
> When the information being scrutinized -is- personal (as we are talking about _personalities_), the reply will also reflect the fact that we are speaking of things that are personal. If we were discussing car stereos for example, the personal stuff would not be the topic, because well, its not. In other words, you have judged me as being Fi based on your misunderstanding of an aspect of my personality, then when I attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the information (which uh, sure, happens to be my personality) - you call it "justifying oneself" when its actually _discussing the topic at hand_.
> 
> That said, I think that it would do you well to pay attention to context. Being so hellbent on cramming everything into this tunnel-vision you have dismisses the context and then we have no discussion here in the first place (which in all honesty is already the case).
> 
> Now, I will say that the topic _initially_ had nothing to do with _my socionics type_ when I posted in this thread, but because you thrive on little petty ego wrestling matches, you turned it around and made it about me instead of actually addressing what was said, other than the ol' "I'm right you're wrong, just cuz" defense tossed in there awkwardly.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, more smug posturing about "how much you can get from something" when really you overreach, making shaky assumptions and get bloated up on yourself while not actually seeing anything but rehashed snap-judgments because you get a vague feel for someone based on your observations of people in general, not based in socionics.
> 
> "You remind me of my mom" =/= socionics Fi.
> 
> This last post of yours was precisely more of what I described in my last post. If someone keeps indulging you, its the same defensive rationalizations based on personal bias, not rooted in socionics in the least. Other than that, you pretend that you have used some covert mechanism to draw more information out of someone, but you never implement strategies on purpose during those exchanges. Claiming to is merely part of a show, because you want to look more clever than you are for whatever reason. Whats really going on, is more after-the-fact rationalization and you think that if you label it as what you want it to be seen as, that it is that in reality. But, its not.
> 
> Now anyway, most of what I said here will reflect my initial point about your typing methods. Though you want to make this exchange about me being Fi, I was here to share my observations on the way you attempt to force bad typings on others. You are permitted to think that I'm an esi all you want, but that won't change the fact that you use personal bias in place of true socionics theory, and get too caught up in trying to elevate yourself in the presence of others, by convincing yourself that you're "throwing pearls before the swine."
> 
> And I'm probably finished making my point, as I have done so several times in these posts. You could try to rope me into more useless nonsense justifications for how everything I say or do is Fi, while you put on the same performance that I described in the first place.
> 
> What I actually came for was to tell you that I see through what you're doing. Its not in some hope that you'll actually take my advice and improve your skills, yet its not in vain either. After observing the interactions in the socionics sub-forum for a while, I wanted to share my observation with others who have endured those insufferably bad "sociology" diagnoses. And I do believe that any lucid socionist could ream a lot of sour, juicy Fe out of my intention here, but I am not expecting that from you, Inguz. ; )


omg you're so invested in this. How much did it hurt that I called you an ESI and not LSI on skype?


----------



## Kanerou

ephemereality said:


> And I again tell you that ethical crusades are not unique to Fi so arguing that she's on a crusade is indicative of Fi isn't a strong argument by any means. Based on most posts I've seen from Prom, I think she's correctly typed as Fe-Ti valuing type, because her thinking coincides much better with what I associate with Ti-Fe than I do Fi-Te. And she's definitely not an Fi base type. You just had Kanerou Fi slap you earlier in this thread. Prom doesn't behave like that at all.
> 
> I think you're the one who got a lot of things backwards.


If you're referring to our most recent exchange, I wouldn't call that an Fi slap. I got a bit snarky, but I'm still explaining why his reasoning doesn't hold up.


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> omg you're so invested in this. How much did it hurt that I called you an ESI and not LSI on skype?


Defensive deflection from my initial point, and from my attempt to maintain focus on that topic despite your first round of defensive deflection. The pattern as I observed it, continues.

Whatever, Inguz.


----------



## itsme45

Diphenhydramine said:


> I was going to ask, do you want me to explain how it works for me in general or how did it work in this thread and I realised this thread is a great example.


Either works fine really.




> They were demonstrative Te because my Se began to get this sense about using 'latent force.' What would be the best way for me to go about this. I wasn't about to sit down and be like "oh yeah I'm not that type at all, I agree I am <new type> but at the same time I could hardly show my face around here if everyone thought I was wrong about everything. [_Use of Se_].


Isn't that a bit enneagram image motivation too about feeling of shame? But yes I can see how it could be Se too




> So I had to find some way of expressing an argument, then, that was clearly understandable to everyone. My creative function here simply couldn't do, it doesn't stand up to the task of consistently arguing in public sphere.


Why shouldn't it stand up to that task? What? That's new to me.




> It's used for me to support the goals of my base, not to have a 'stand up fight' in public.


Why not?... I thought it was a Se goal here anyway?




> To get the best leverage out of what I was posting I had to adopt some kind of style that would appeal to all equally [result>process preference, SLE>LSE] That's how I use my Te. Because it's demonstrative I'm skilled at it, but resorting to it is boring. But I felt like I had to do it because I was under 'attack' and I need to defend myself and rally people to my perspective.


Ok.




> So that's why I think it was Se>Te, the problem there is the question, why not TeSe. Simply Te base would not need to mobilise interior resources to fight that kind of argument. His main function is already perfectly geared towards it, but for SeTi, there isn't a natural development for argumentative capacity there.


I agree with first part. Why wouldn't however creative Ti be any good for arguments?




> Our Ti function is for understanding (you also look like SLE-Ti to me btw, I feel more like SLE-Se).


Not just for understanding IMO. And yeah that's my subtype 




Diphenhydramine said:


> I like to think my personality hasn't changed, that kind of go-between playfulness and seriousness and a willingness to talk about stuff people don't always want to talk about, I like to think they're core characteristics.


You sound pretty cool no matter what type 

Btw I kind of identify with all that




> Thank you for the post. One of the reasons I got into Socionics was because I got tired of the way people treated type in MBTI, as these collections of stereotypes - and then, latterly, as mixes of eight functions for which there was no definition. And I got into the wonderful world of socionics where things are much more definite and clear, and I have found a lot of interesting and reliable things here. So I'm really looking forward to seeing that site back up again.


You know what's funny, you calling socionics more clear, more definite and more reliable. I find MBTI is more clear because it's simpler. And less chance to fuck up things so possibly more reliable too. Or to avoid that issue, we can discard all the socionics specific extensions but then not much is left that's not already in MBTI in another form. (Differently defined though, of course.) And more definite? There's so many different interpretations floating around, how's that more definite?

Don't get me wrong, socionics is still interesting in some ways. I just don't agree about your evaluation of it.




ephemereality said:


> I get it, because you don't like how I have this more archetype idea of Si that goes beyond the socionics description of it. Though you will see that while there isn't something inherently expressed about socionics Si seeking stability, stability is pretty much what happens because lack of Ne in ego and Ni in superego.


It could be a kind of stability but it does not seem to be the same MBTI talks about. More like a homeostasis kind of stability instead of sticking to familiar habits/environment/world. If that makes sense 




> They want things go to at a stable pace.


It could also be just whatever pace feels easy comfortable at a moment. Not necessarily something out of habit.




> I don't tend to pay much attention to the descriptions because some of them are honestly pretty bad as the ILI one, but I think this does convey SLI adequately and does fit my more archetypal idea of what Si actually is about. So it's less about mixing MBTI or anything of the sort but more like seeing patterns of how Si appears at a in a sense, more basic level beyond the way it's being described.


Yes I get it's not really about mixing MBTI into socionics but I don't think there's just eight such patterns then. (Eight as in eight functions)




> Ah. I am still honestly not quite sure I understand but I think you mean taking some kind of control over the physical environment?


Yes. In the example it's also control over body. Control over anything that's not my own will.




> Yes, I don't experience myself as living in the future either though that's what socionics says about Ni. The way I see it is that Pi both being Pi, create models based on past experience, and then these models are projected into the future and the present. Si and Ni just do this in different ways where I feel Si takes what is known and projects that into the present/future in order to create stability, whereas Ni projects into the future/present to create some action of change which can be seen as predictions, in a sense.


Ok I see your model. This is again another kind of stability then.




> Not fear of trying new stuff, but fear of the environment itself becoming unstable and unknown. You see that in zinnia's way of describing Si in that she mentions that she seeks some kind of familiarity. I think Si doms can be one of the most spontaneous people you can find actually, in that once an Si type properly engages with Ne, they will do that in a much freer manner than the Ne type that is still part ruled by Ji. So I can see how an Si type could just decide to change everything in their life at the same time like selling their house, taking out a divorce and then fly around the globe and spend all their money. With better use of Ji, one would realize that this might actually not be such a good idea, after all.


Yeah I see zinnia's stuff. Yes socionics Si does look like more open to that free manner of doing things.




> Seems more like Ti. It doesn't jive with Ti.


Aaah, it could be anything. Sure it's Ti too but I remember someone else arguing that Ti types would have the concept of overarching functions beyond any specific system of MBTI/Socionics/etc more than Te types. 

I don't often like to try and assign functions etc to every little tidbit because it's too ambiguous and leads nowhere for me, it's the wrong framework for that kind of analysis anyway. 




> I can't stick to a routine either but I love my sleep, almost too much. If I am going to do something sensory like enjoying my bed, I will really enjoy my bed. Or my sleep. I have issues when I don't sleep enough as well, and if I only get 2-3 hours of sleep I can start to randomly faint, though I tend to ignore it but then I realize it's rather dangerous to go outside. So I guess ignoring but not to that degree. I realize my own limitations. And yes, I can ignore hunger and tiredness or needing to pee. I can realize I need to go to the bathroom and then forget about it and realize I was supposed to do something several hours later, and then muse over how extreme that need actually was lol.


SLI typing goes out the window for you 




> Why not? He was honestly quite abrasive and trollish to other people on the forum, so I am honestly not at all surprised he was banned in the end. He kind of had it coming with that behavior of his. Also, his transphobia was rather disgusting.


I guess I didn't see the transphobia stuff... I thought he was pretty smart otherwise. And there's a lot of people around who sometimes post abrasive stuff but don't get banned just for that. Again, I clearly don't know what was going on in the background.




Inguz said:


> Hey. In this scenario it's a kinda Us vs. Them. The thing is though, I think that I am in the right here and you are wrong. My best defense against your accusation here is that your over-morality regarding sexuality (it reminds me of Snail) cannot be derived from anything else but an Fi base.


Wait so your attempt at retyping Promethea achieves what exactly?


----------



## Inguz

Promethea said:


> Defensive deflection from my initial point, and from my attempt to maintain focus on that topic despite your first round of defensive deflection. The pattern as I observed it, continues.
> 
> Whatever, Inguz.


Deflection from the point that I am wrong in how I type people according to you? If so, I did respond.



itsme45 said:


> Wait so your attempt at retyping Promethea achieves what exactly?


She writes that I mistype people. I typed her as ESI even though a lot of people don't agree. That is to put her response to me into context.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

As a Ti base, I will say that I think it's very unlikely that Promethea is an LSI.


----------



## itsme45

Inguz said:


> She writes that I mistype people. I typed her as ESI even though a lot of people don't agree. That is to put her response to me into context.


Okay I see the context of your reply now.




ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> As a Ti base, I will say that I think it's very unlikely that Promethea is an LSI.


More on that?


----------



## Entropic

Promethea said:


> And I do believe that any lucid socionist could ream a lot of sour, juicy Fe out of my intention here,)


Heh, to the point I was thinking it could be your creative or even base if you ever considered that. 



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> As a Ti base, I will say that I think it's very unlikely that Promethea is an LSI.


Because what is being said here. I can elaborate if you want, though I don't base this because I am Ti base clearly, but because I think I have observed enough Ti bases to derive whether someone likely is, though. 

Curious what ThatOneWeirdGuy thinks though, as I think his rationalization is different. For me it was more of a vague impression here based on this interaction, but it probably means little in the long run as I would need to observe more. 



Kanerou said:


> If you're referring to our most recent exchange, I wouldn't call that an Fi slap. I got a bit snarky, but I'm still explaining why his reasoning doesn't hold up.


Fair enough. What I meant mostly though was that your behavior is something I find very typical of Fi types when they disagree with someone, and if we use this as a basis of type, then it's clear Prom isn't an Fi base since she has yet to do this. It's clearly not the way she deals with conflict.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ssshhhh, patience children.

In every argument I've seen on this forum that involves Promethea, she continually attacks her opponent, doesn't try to define anything, doesn't use precise language and there's nothing of what I intuitively understand as logical flow to what she's saying. I also like to be very concise with my arguments (her posts tend to be long), which I attribute to Ti, but that's could be argued. 

Let's use this as an example. Bolded text are my comments

_________________________________________________________________________

So, yet again: your personal biases here and nothing about socionics Fi - Fe *aggressive attacking of Inguz.*

When the information being scrutinized -is- personal (as we are talking about _personalities), the reply will also reflect the fact that we are speaking of things that are personal. If we were discussing car stereos for example, the personal stuff would not be the topic, because well, its not. In other words, you have judged me as being Fi based on your misunderstanding of an aspect of my personality, then when I attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the information (which uh, sure, happens to be my personality) - you call it "justifying oneself" when its actually discussing the topic at hand *So because we're talking about personalities, it is appropriate to take things personally? What? Is that some of sort of word-play? I don't get how talking about the topic of personality will result in responding to things with offense and anger. Not very logical. *

That said, I think that it would do you well to pay attention to context. Being so hellbent on cramming everything into this tunnel-vision you have dismisses the context and then we have no discussion here in the first place (which in all honesty is already the case) *more aggressive attacks on Inguz*

Now, I will say that the topic initially had nothing to do with my socionics type when I posted in this thread, but because you thrive on little petty ego wrestling matches, you turned it around and made it about me instead of actually addressing what was said, other than the ol' "I'm right you're wrong, just cuz" defense tossed in there awkwardly. *more aggressive attacks. Also, she gives a sort of personality to actions and the story she tells about Inguz. "the ol'" "awkwardly" "little petty ego wrestling matches." I don't know. Sounds like ethics.*

Again, more smug posturing about "how much you can get from something" when really you overreach, making shaky assumptions and get bloated up on yourself while not actually seeing anything but rehashed snap-judgments because you get a vague feel for someone based on your observations of people in general, not based in socionics. *more attacks and adjective salads *

"You remind me of my mom" =/= socionics Fi. *this is just manipulation. that's not all of what he said. that was not his entire argument. attack.*

This last post of yours was precisely more of what I described in my last post. If someone keeps indulging you, its the same defensive rationalizations based on personal bias, not rooted in socionics in the least. Other than that, you pretend that you have used some covert mechanism to draw more information out of someone, but you never implement strategies on purpose during those exchanges. Claiming to is merely part of a show, because you want to look more clever than you are for whatever reason. Whats really going on, is more after-the-fact rationalization and you think that if you label it as what you want it to be seen as, that it is that in reality. But, its not

Now anyway, most of what I said here will reflect my initial point about your typing methods. Though you want to make this exchange about me being Fi, I was here to share my observations on the way you attempt to force bad typings on others. You are permitted to think that I'm an esi all you want, but that won't change the fact that you use personal bias in place of true socionics theory, and get too caught up in trying to elevate yourself in the presence of others, by convincing yourself that you're "throwing pearls before the swine."


And I'm probably finished making my point, as I have done so several times in these posts. You could try to rope me into more useless nonsense justifications for how everything I say or do is Fi, while you put on the same performance that I described in the first place.

What I actually came for was to tell you that I see through what you're doing. Its not in some hope that you'll actually take my advice and improve your skills, yet its not in vain either. After observing the interactions in the socionics sub-forum for a while, I wanted to share my observation with others who have endured those insufferably bad "sociology" diagnoses. And I do believe that any lucid socionist could ream a lot of sour, juicy Fe out of my intention here, but I am not expecting that from you, Inguz. ; ) __*This entire post so far has only been attacking Inguz and expressing anger toward him and no responses to his arguments. Also, saying his name at the end and adding the smiley face is a little condescending and smug in some way. 
**


I simply don't see any rational thought in this woman. *_


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> It could be a kind of stability but it does not seem to be the same MBTI talks about. More like a homeostasis kind of stability instead of sticking to familiar habits/environment/world. If that makes sense


Hm, I don't necessarily see them as opposed both more expressions of the same thing.


> It could also be just whatever pace feels easy comfortable at a moment. Not necessarily something out of habit.


Yes, fair point. And it's a subjective experience also. I think an Si type can be quite hurried if that's what they are used to.


> Yes I get it's not really about mixing MBTI into socionics but I don't think there's just eight such patterns then. (Eight as in eight functions)


You mean more like four Jungian functions with two different perspectives? The way I see it is that the functions informs the way people conceive of the world, but then they can go on expressing that in many ways since they are not copies of each other, but it interplays with a wide variety of factors that are entirely unrelated to anything function. So some Si types will fit the more traditionalist stereotype in MBTI, others more spontaneous like in socionics and so on. I don't see them as contradictory as I see them describing the same thing. People are individuals and there is freedom in how they can appear.


> Yes. In the example it's also control over body. Control over anything that's not my own will.


Explain control over body?


> Ok I see your model. This is again another kind of stability then.


Perhaps. I don't think I am very interested in defining stability apart from stability necessarily. It's all stability, just different forms of.


> Yeah I see zinnia's stuff. Yes socionics Si does look like more open to that free manner of doing things.


Yes, and I think socionics understands this better than the MBTI does. I don't like the SJ stereotype Keirsey painted.


> Aaah, it could be anything. Sure it's Ti too but I remember someone else arguing that Ti types would have the concept of overarching functions beyond any specific system of MBTI/Socionics/etc more than Te types.
> 
> I don't often like to try and assign functions etc to every little tidbit because it's too ambiguous and leads nowhere for me, it's the wrong framework for that kind of analysis anyway.


Fair enough. Sure it could be many things, but I think the amount of things it could be is a fairly narrow list and they aren't exclusive of each other. 

And heh, I guess that depends on the Te type. I do think there is a point where functions inform how we understand the system where ethical types might understand it more from the lens of interpersonal relationships or values or something like that, but I am not sure I'd attribute that far to any specific element.


> SLI typing goes out the window for you


Would an SLI always be aware of such sensations and not "forget"? I am terrible at maintaining body in general to be honest. Like I should probably have gone to bed several hours ago but I still haven't, and I have had issues lately eating regularly though I am working on it and so on. Trying to maintain routine to improve physical health has always been a sore thumb I suck at, though I recognize some of its usefulness. When I also lack a stable routine in my life such as work as I do now, it gets even worse since I have nothing to organize my life around. When I have work or similar I at least need to organize my life around that.


> I guess I didn't see the transphobia stuff... I thought he was pretty smart otherwise. And there's a lot of people around who sometimes post abrasive stuff but don't get banned just for that. Again, I clearly don't know what was going on in the background.


It was aimed towards me at the end in some of the threads. Don't know which now and I am not very inclined to go look for it. Suffice to say, I thought it was highly ignorant and while I otherwise never cared when he tried to insult me as I had little respect for him and it was mutual, that made me pretty upset to the point I retired. It was really the last thing I needed at that point. Also, it was completely irrelevant at the discussion at hand from what I remember. 

And yes, there are a lot of people around here who are abrasive, but he sometimes pushed it further than those people do. That thread was one example of it.


----------



## Promethea

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Ssshhhh, patience children.
> 
> In every argument I've seen on this forum that involves Promethea, she continually attacks her opponent, doesn't try to define anything, doesn't use precise language and there's nothing of what I intuitively understand as logical flow to what she's saying. I also like to be very concise with my arguments (her posts tend to be long), which I attribute to Ti, but that's could be argued.
> 
> Let's use this as an example. Bolded text are my comments
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 
> So, yet again: your personal biases here and nothing about socionics Fi - Fe *aggressive attacking of Inguz.*
> 
> When the information being scrutinized -is- personal (as we are talking about _personalities), the reply will also reflect the fact that we are speaking of things that are personal. If we were discussing car stereos for example, the personal stuff would not be the topic, because well, its not. In other words, you have judged me as being Fi based on your misunderstanding of an aspect of my personality, then when I attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the information (which uh, sure, happens to be my personality) - you call it "justifying oneself" when its actually discussing the topic at hand *So because we're talking about personalities, it is appropriate to take things personally? What? Is that some of sort of word-play? I don't get how talking about the topic of personality will result in responding to things with offense and anger. Not very logical. *
> 
> That said, I think that it would do you well to pay attention to context. Being so hellbent on cramming everything into this tunnel-vision you have dismisses the context and then we have no discussion here in the first place (which in all honesty is already the case) *more aggressive attacks on Inguz*
> 
> Now, I will say that the topic initially had nothing to do with my socionics type when I posted in this thread, but because you thrive on little petty ego wrestling matches, you turned it around and made it about me instead of actually addressing what was said, other than the ol' "I'm right you're wrong, just cuz" defense tossed in there awkwardly. *more aggressive attacks. Also, she gives a sort of personality to actions and the story she tells about Inguz. "the ol'" "awkwardly" "little petty ego wrestling matches." I don't know. Sounds like ethics.*
> 
> Again, more smug posturing about "how much you can get from something" when really you overreach, making shaky assumptions and get bloated up on yourself while not actually seeing anything but rehashed snap-judgments because you get a vague feel for someone based on your observations of people in general, not based in socionics. *more attacks and adjective salads *
> 
> "You remind me of my mom" =/= socionics Fi. *this is just manipulation. that's not all of what he said. that was not his entire argument. attack.*
> 
> This last post of yours was precisely more of what I described in my last post. If someone keeps indulging you, its the same defensive rationalizations based on personal bias, not rooted in socionics in the least. Other than that, you pretend that you have used some covert mechanism to draw more information out of someone, but you never implement strategies on purpose during those exchanges. Claiming to is merely part of a show, because you want to look more clever than you are for whatever reason. Whats really going on, is more after-the-fact rationalization and you think that if you label it as what you want it to be seen as, that it is that in reality. But, its not
> 
> Now anyway, most of what I said here will reflect my initial point about your typing methods. Though you want to make this exchange about me being Fi, I was here to share my observations on the way you attempt to force bad typings on others. You are permitted to think that I'm an esi all you want, but that won't change the fact that you use personal bias in place of true socionics theory, and get too caught up in trying to elevate yourself in the presence of others, by convincing yourself that you're "throwing pearls before the swine."
> 
> 
> And I'm probably finished making my point, as I have done so several times in these posts. You could try to rope me into more useless nonsense justifications for how everything I say or do is Fi, while you put on the same performance that I described in the first place.
> 
> What I actually came for was to tell you that I see through what you're doing. Its not in some hope that you'll actually take my advice and improve your skills, yet its not in vain either. After observing the interactions in the socionics sub-forum for a while, I wanted to share my observation with others who have endured those insufferably bad "sociology" diagnoses. And I do believe that any lucid socionist could ream a lot of sour, juicy Fe out of my intention here, but I am not expecting that from you, Inguz. ; ) __*This entire post so far has only been attacking Inguz and expressing anger toward him and no responses to his arguments. Also, saying his name at the end and adding the smiley face is a little condescending and smug in some way.
> **
> 
> 
> I simply don't see any rational thought in this woman. *_


I call it as I see it. I'm convinced of Inguz's tactics in typing being just as I described. Just because you disagree with my assessment doesn't mean that my assessment is "irrational."



> doesn't try to define anything, doesn't use precise language


Whatever this even means to you, because I don't see you doing any of this either. 

You should also re-read what you are calling an "aggressive attack/attack." I suppose any observation that someone doesn't like could _*feel* like an attack_ to someone else. Then you go so far as to assert that I am being "manipulative" in pointing out the fact that me reminding someone of another person who they have an emotional investment in (ripe territory for bias), is not good evidence of the same function being present in me.

Pot; kettle - you're not making any actual rational claims about my post yourself. You have used accusatory emotional words, and no logic where you accuse me of not using logic, ironically. Actually the entire response is opinion coming from an emotional reaction on your part, and meant to rail against me for not sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the bullshit that goes on in the socionics sub-forum like everyone else just mutually agrees to ignore. A lot of socionics typings are full of shit here, yes, I dared to say it.

Its sweet of you to try to white knight for him though. ; )



ephemereality said:


> Heh, to the point I was thinking it could be your creative or even base if you ever considered that.


I have considered other types within the beta quadra, sure.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

sup ******?


----------



## Inguz

itsme45 said:


> Okay I see the context of your reply now.


And a 4w5. That was a mistake. Now I'm being the target of petty "revenge".


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Promethea said:


> Its sweet of you to try to white knight for him though. ; )


This was not an attempt to condescend me? 


If you disagree with the typings of some users here, calmly and rationally argue against it, providing reason and evidence for your view point, instead of continually attacking the other person because you don't agree with them on something that is very open to interpretation.


----------



## Promethea

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> This was not an attempt to condescend me?
> 
> 
> If you disagree with the typings of some users here, calmly and rationally argue against it, providing reason and evidence for your view point, instead of continually attacking the other person because you don't agree with them on something that is very open to interpretation.


Your authoritarian attitude about you think one "should" go about questioning someone's type intrigues me. Then there was the reaction in the previous post where you read an emotional tone between the lines somehow that wasn't there. In fact I was calm and rational in pointing out a few observations that I'd made over a pretty long period of time, watching Inguz (and others too who I have not addressed -yet-) have a go at people in the socionics forum. Your interpretation is from _your own_ emotional reaction to my words. I will give you that I use strong wording at times, but even that was interpreted in different ways by different members -- one of which hit me up after you little tirade in bolded text, to tell me that he wasn't seeing what you were seeing. 

I can't say that I have ever seen an actual LII react in these ways, all so abruptly and heatedly. That is the only thought I have on that part for now though, because admittedly, I have never found a significant enough reason to pay attention to your posts in the past, but perhaps I will now because something doesn't add up between those attitudes and LII. Not sure what -yet-. ; )

Ok, now more to the actual point I want to make here: I suspected this before, but now its very clear to me that you have no idea what my posts were even about. At first I was scratching my head, wondering if you were implying that I need to have socionics-based arguments to back up my observations about Inguz's *typing methods*. After all, this was not about Inguz's actual socionics type -- which I don't really care about -- Its about _the way he goes about typing others_.


----------



## itsme45

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> _*
> I simply don't see any rational thought in this woman.*_


I thought F was rational too?




> _*So because we're talking about personalities, it is appropriate to take things personally? What? Is that some of sort of word-play? I don't get how talking about the topic of personality will result in responding to things with offense and anger. Not very logical.*_


Logical types can be angry too you know. 

It's a good point though that analysis of personality can be kept impersonal just fine... I wish it would be like that more often.

I mean I don't have a problem with a bit of heated arguing but still should keep it impersonal.


----------



## Kanerou

itsme45 said:


> I thought F was rational too?


I also wondered about this, whether he was claiming that rational behavior (in a colloquial sense) = Ti or whether he was claiming that rational behavior (in a colloquial sense) = rational behavior (in a Socionics sense). And yes, he said "rational thought", but he's still analyzing Promethea's behavior and making a judgment of whether she's thinking rationally or not.


----------



## itsme45

Promethea said:


> Your authoritarian attitude about you think one "should" go about questioning someone's type intrigues me.


That can still be LII, "should" is just rational type's preference. And do you think LII is always unemotional and can never react in a heated way? Not that I know a lot about all those crappy stereotypes as I just don't believe in them.




> Then there was the reaction in the previous post where you read an emotional tone between the lines somehow that wasn't there. (...) I will give you that I use strong wording at times, but even that was interpreted in different ways by different members -- one of which hit me up after you little tirade in bolded text, to tell me that he wasn't seeing what you were seeing.


You know what, I'll be the second such member but I will also tell you that I eventually didn't post my comment to @ThatOneWeirdGuy about how I didn't read your white knight comment as condescending - I didn't post my comment in the end because I realised you were also accusing him of something* that was not actually quite clearly laid out in the open so it was just an assumption and as such your post could've been involving an emotional reaction from your part thus I couldn't exclude that it was in a condescending tone after all.

*: _"Actually the entire response is opinion coming from an emotional reaction on your part, and meant to rail against me for not sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the bullshit that goes on in the socionics sub-forum like everyone else just mutually agrees to ignore"_


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> And a 4w5. That was a mistake. Now I'm being the target of petty "revenge".


I am not nearly the only person to observe your methods, which is the main reason very few are going to buy this ludicrous claim you're making: that its merely about me being "so bent out of shape over an esi/4 typing?"

I have already typed myself as types that are not among the internet-intellectual/kewl person revered typology types: lsi, and 6. 6 is less glorified than any enneagram type, and lsi is glorified no more than esi. 

I didn't get defensive with you in the least over that; I simply told you that typing me outside of the beta quadra isn't something that I could take seriously. And you actually know this, but you're putting on a little performance by leaving out the fact that I wasn't actually in the least bit offended. 

Like I said, this is a weak excuse intended to deflect from the brutal truth that I observed -- the truth that was not observed by me alone. 

Image maintenance.


----------



## Promethea

itsme45 said:


> That can still be LII, "should" is just rational type's preference. And do you think LII is always unemotional and can never react in a heated way? Not that I know a lot about all those crappy stereotypes as I just don't believe in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what, I'll be the second such member but I will also tell you that I eventually didn't post my comment to @ThatOneWeirdGuy about how I didn't read your white knight comment as condescending - I didn't post my comment in the end because I realised you were also accusing him of something* that was not actually quite clearly laid out in the open so it was just an assumption and as such your post could've been involving an emotional reaction from your part thus I couldn't exclude that it was in a condescending tone after all.
> 
> *: _"Actually the entire response is opinion coming from an emotional reaction on your part, and meant to rail against me for not sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the bullshit that goes on in the socionics sub-forum like everyone else just mutually agrees to ignore"_


I'm not saying that the LII is an emotionless type at all. I am saying that he was quick to get heated and try to scathe at me in a way that I personally have not observed from LIIs in the past, then he tries to make some power-play, by telling me how to handle people's typings. 

I thought I was careful enough with my wording to express that was the extent to which I was questioning. Observing something out of the ordinary for a person of an alleged type doesn't nearly mean that I have decided they are not that type. That takes a lot of time for me to decide on. It certainly captures my attention however.


As for me reading between the lines, well of course.


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> Hm, I don't necessarily see them as opposed both more expressions of the same thing.


Okay we think differently there.




> You mean more like four Jungian functions with two different perspectives? The way I see it is that the functions informs the way people conceive of the world, but then they can go on expressing that in many ways since they are not copies of each other, but it interplays with a wide variety of factors that are entirely unrelated to anything function. So some Si types will fit the more traditionalist stereotype in MBTI, others more spontaneous like in socionics and so on. I don't see them as contradictory as I see them describing the same thing. People are individuals and there is freedom in how they can appear.


Well actually that's a pretty valid viewpoint... I totally get what you mean there, I just don't know how it could be decided if it was really like that. But yeah, that's not a new problem 

There is also the issue of how the different models differently "summarize" the functions and types beyond the individual variation you talk about. But sure it could be the model being wrong 




> Explain control over body?


In the example that meant figuring out how my body works, how it responds to training so that I could make and execute the best training plan without anything unexpected getting in the way.




> Yes, and I think socionics understands this better than the MBTI does. I don't like the SJ stereotype Keirsey painted.


Hard question there :/ (which model is better)




> Would an SLI always be aware of such sensations and not "forget"?


Or SEI? @_zinnia_ ?? 




> I am terrible at maintaining body in general to be honest. Like I should probably have gone to bed several hours ago but I still haven't, and I have had issues lately eating regularly though I am working on it and so on. Trying to maintain routine to improve physical health has always been a sore thumb I suck at, though I recognize some of its usefulness. When I also lack a stable routine in my life such as work as I do now, it gets even worse since I have nothing to organize my life around. When I have work or similar I at least need to organize my life around that.


Yep stereotypical weak S
The last part is less type related I think.




> It was aimed towards me at the end in some of the threads. Don't know which now and I am not very inclined to go look for it. Suffice to say, I thought it was highly ignorant and while I otherwise never cared when he tried to insult me as I had little respect for him and it was mutual, that made me pretty upset to the point I retired. It was really the last thing I needed at that point. Also, it was completely irrelevant at the discussion at hand from what I remember.
> 
> And yes, there are a lot of people around here who are abrasive, but he sometimes pushed it further than those people do. That thread was one example of it.


Ah, I see.


----------



## itsme45

Promethea said:


> I'm not saying that the LII is an emotionless type at all. I am saying that he was quick to get heated and try to scathe at me in a way that I personally have not observed from LIIs in the past, then he tries to make some power-play, by telling me how to handle people's typings.


Okay, *if* that was the actual tone of the post.




> I thought I was careful enough with my wording to express that was the extent to which I was questioning. Observing something out of the ordinary for a person of an alleged type doesn't nearly mean that I have decided they are not that type. That takes a lot of time for me to decide on. It certainly captures my attention however.


Yeah, OK.




> As for me reading between the lines, well of course.


Hey, do LSIs do a lot of reading between the lines?


----------



## Promethea

itsme45 said:


> Okay, *if* that was the actual tone of the post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, do LSIs do a lot of reading between the lines?


"Beta types process information by reading between the lines and detecting the hidden motivations and hidden messages, and filtering the based on what holds up logically. What holds up logically is a systemic organization -- that is to say, it involves categorizing things in the world and then making inferences about a set of mental rules of varying flexibility and sophistication governing the categories (hence an orientation towards grouping by ideology)."

source link, but its currently down: User:Aestrivex/essays/my present views on the Fi-Te and Fe-Ti question - WSWiki


----------



## itsme45

Promethea said:


> "Beta types process information by reading between the lines and detecting the hidden motivations and hidden messages, and filtering the based on what holds up logically. What holds up logically is a systemic organization -- that is to say, it involves categorizing things in the world and then making inferences about a set of mental rules of varying flexibility and sophistication governing the categories (hence an orientation towards grouping by ideology)."
> 
> source link, but its currently down: User:Aestrivex/essays/my present views on the Fi-Te and Fe-Ti question - WSWiki


Yeah Beta types in general is not the same as LSI. I would imagine LSI filters it more with logic than say an IEI/EIE. What was logical in the specific case of reading between the lines of @_ThatOneWeirdGuy_? I didn't see much logic there myself but if you explain the logic behind it then I'll be interested in hearing it.

PS: any idea when that site will be back up?


----------



## zinnia

itsme45 said:


> Or SEI? zinnia ??


So this was about forgetting sensations like hunger or tiredness, right? 

I think any type can forget about these things in some situations, like oh crap I am being chased by a rabid tiger, I may forget I needed to use the restroom. When I am working diligently or have something to concentrate on, having a lot of fun, sure, those things tend to be less prominent. Same goes for when I just bought a brand new video game and stayed awake until 3 AM despite having worked all day... but I don't think I'd ignore tiredness, for example, while posting on PerC, thinking about the universe, or even watching a new TV show (which I'd probably record instead). This can frustrate a lot of my friends who aren't used to this (one of which may be EIE).

And... right now I am hungry so I'm gonna go cook something. XD


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> So this was about forgetting sensations like hunger or tiredness, right?
> 
> I think any type can forget about these things in some situations, like oh crap I am being chased by a rabid tiger, I may forget I needed to use the restroom. When I am working diligently or have something to concentrate on, having a lot of fun, sure, those things tend to be less prominent. Same goes for when I just bought a brand new video game and stayed awake until 3 AM despite having worked all day... but I don't think I'd ignore tiredness, for example, while posting on PerC, thinking about the universe, or even watching a new TV show (which I'd probably record instead). This can frustrate a lot of my friends who aren't used to this (one of which may be EIE).
> 
> And... right now I am hungry so I'm gonna go cook something. XD


What do you mean not ignoring tiredness? Do you have a good example? I mean, I often experience myself as very lethargic so I experience a sense of constant tiredness pretty much, but I wonder if we understand this the same at all. If I say get home from work and I feel tired, it's not like I'll run outside to hang out with my friends. I just want a calm evening then though I can still stay up to 3 AM to post shit on PerC for example. I just avoid physical activity.

As for logic versus logic, I think what ThatOneWeirdGuy meant was likely Logic as in egoic Logic, meaning an ability to impersonally categorize. Ethics is logical sure, but it's not impersonal. From the way I read Promethea, I don't see this either but I am not that invested in her type. It was something I noted, however.


----------



## Promethea

itsme45 said:


> Yeah Beta types in general is not the same as LSI. I would imagine LSI filters it more with logic than say an IEI/EIE.
> 
> PS: any idea when that site will be back up?


General beta themes would apply to all of the beta types, no? Though I could see the different beta themes existing within each type to varying extents, sure - but still present. Though an lsi filters with logic, they don't exactly have a total blind-spot to what is present but left unsaid. 

"Their valuing of Ni and Ti encourages self-education and a curiosity that tends to breed creativity. Ni and Ti involves putting together facts and pieces of events or behavior over time. The valuing of Ni and Fe causes an interest in psychology and *understanding behavioral patterns, motives*, and interpersonal conflict solving.

This may clash with the Fe SuperEgo (vulnerabilities) of logical Delta types, who tend to view *extrapolations about motives* as intrusive and off putting, and exploration of possible problems that may be encountered in the future as maligning their good judgment."

₪₪₪ Socionics Study Blogspot ₪₪₪: The Quadras



Site back up - not sure, but I will let you know unless I forget.


----------



## theof

ephemereality said:


> Would an SLI always be aware of such sensations and not "forget"? I am terrible at maintaining body in general to be honest. Like I should probably have gone to bed several hours ago but I still haven't, and I have had issues lately eating regularly though I am working on it and so on.


I don't know what type I am but I always thought that was an exaggerated stereotype, maybe it's not and there is some truth to it? I can ignore needs for a while if I have to but I can't imagine not noticing them. Tried to not notice hunger a couple of times in my early teens (have always read a lot and it seemed somehow romantic at the time, characters were described as being so absorbed in what they were doing that they didn't realise they were hungry until they noticed it was dark out or something like it) but it didn't work at all. I stay up too late sometimes if I'm doing something interesting but I'm more likely to go to bed early because I'm tired and I can postpone eating if necessary but I'll always know that I'm hungry.


----------



## Entropic

theof said:


> I don't know what type I am but I always thought that was an exaggerated stereotype, maybe it's not and there is some truth to it? I can ignore needs for a while if I have to but I can't imagine not noticing them. Tried to not notice hunger a couple of times in my early teens (have always read a lot and it seemed somehow romantic at the time, characters were described as being so absorbed in what they were doing that they didn't realise they were hungry until they noticed it was dark out or something like it) but it didn't work at all. I stay up too late sometimes if I'm doing something interesting but I'm more likely to go to bed early because I'm tired and I can postpone eating if necessary but I'll always know that I'm hungry.


I actually don't know when I always need to sleep or when I need to eat. Like the other day, I was musing over the fact that it was past noon and I should probably go eat lunch but I didn't feel hungry so time kept passing. Then I was wondering if I was feeling hungry or not, but I couldn't quite tell. Logic told me I should feel hungry but I didn't. Sometimes I can experience some body sensation but I honestly don't know what it is I am feeling and I am not very interested or inclined to observe it within myself either. There are so many more interesting things to do than paying attention to body. So it's like, then I can notice something like I am hungry, but it's never regular. For example, let's say I ate 6 hours ago I can finally notice I am hungry more as an after-thought sort of thing. Like I feel hungry now, when was the last time I ate? Oh yeah, 6 hours ago lol. 

Or I have another story like this when I was at work and I overheard some of my co-workers complaining that they had headaches because it was starting to become a thunderstorm outside, and then I was like, wait a minute, I have a headache too. Once I became aware that I had a headache I couldn't ignore it anymore to the point I could barely work, but before I noticed it was as if it didn't exist.

So it's more like either I notice and when I do I notice to the degree I can't shut it out at all or I don't notice it and sometimes I need to rationalize to arrive at the conclusion I might need to satisfy some body needs. Similarly, sometimes I can go to the bathroom an excessive amount of the time thinking I need to pee and then it turns out I didn't at all, stuff like that. 

I don't know how Si types orient around that, but for me body sensations are definitely very much an on-off thing and I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on, trying to understand or explore them. The idea is actually rather creepy. One of my worst fears is having my body being invaded by external forces like parasites.

And maybe not an overly useful observation but I thought based on this brief post that you sounded like an EII.


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> What do you mean not ignoring tiredness? Do you have a good example? I mean, I often experience myself as very lethargic so I experience a sense of constant tiredness pretty much, but I wonder if we understand this the same at all. If I say get home from work and I feel tired, it's not like I'll run outside to hang out with my friends. I just want a calm evening then though I can still stay up to 3 AM to post shit on PerC for example. I just avoid physical activity.


Well, for example, right now I am not tired. I am hungry but I am pretty much wide awake, well-rested, whatever adjective you want to put here. 

Around 9 or 10 pm (which is the usual) I will start noticing the yawning starting, how I just don't feel like moving (it actually sort of is a sensation, like my muscles are complaining), and a decline in cognitive performance. If I have to work, I will continue to move on but those feelings will never really go away unless I am just 100% absorbed in what I am doing (sort of like what theof mentioned about noticing and ignoring). Most of the time that feeling will take priority unless something really fascinating is going on. I wouldn't likely stay awake until 3 posting on PerC at that point unless there was a super interesting topic.

(Also parasites are effing horrifying.)


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> Well, for example, right now I am not tired. I am hungry but I am pretty much wide awake, well-rested, whatever adjective you want to put here.
> 
> Around 9 or 10 pm (which is the usual) I will start noticing the yawning starting, how I just don't feel like moving (it actually sort of is a sensation, like my muscles are complaining), and a decline in cognitive performance. If I have to work, I will continue to move on but those feelings will never really go away unless I am just 100% absorbed in what I am doing (sort of like what theof mentioned about noticing and ignoring). Most of the time that feeling will take priority unless something really fascinating is going on. I wouldn't likely stay awake until 3 posting on PerC at that point unless there was a super interesting topic.
> 
> (Also parasites are effing horrifying.)


How you derive this feeling of say, feeling awake? How do you know? Is it just like... a mental thing? Or a physical sensation thing? Because I feel I can become tired at very irregular times, but it's more a mental experience, like my head gets tired rather than it is in body. And if I keep staying up that will eventually go away too, it depends. So it's not like you would just keep staying up even though you have no real reason to? For me also, I have a lot of mental energy so posting on PerC is a way to get rid of that. I usually sleep as a way to deal with boredom lol.


----------



## theof

ephemereality said:


> I actually don't know when I always need to sleep or when I need to eat. Like the other day, I was musing over the fact that it was past noon and I should probably go eat lunch but I didn't feel hungry so time kept passing. Then I was wondering if I was feeling hungry or not, but I couldn't quite tell. Logic told me I should feel hungry but I didn't. Sometimes I can experience some body sensation but I honestly don't know what it is I am feeling and I am not very interested or inclined to observe it within myself either. There are so many more interesting things to do than paying attention to body. So it's like, then I can notice something like I am hungry, but it's never regular. For example, let's say I ate 6 hours ago I can finally notice I am hungry more as an after-thought sort of thing. Like I feel hungry now, when was the last time I ate? Oh yeah, 6 hours ago lol.


Interesting, that's very different from how it is for me. I'll notice I'm getting hungry, or getting a headache and then if I don't do something about it I'll *be* hungry or have a headache. But it's always something I notice, it's not something I think or reason about at all and I'll always know what it is, if I'm hungry or tired or headachy for instance (although sometimes I'll be hungry *because* I'm tired).



> Or I have another story like this when I was at work and I overheard some of my co-workers complaining that they had headaches because it was starting to become a thunderstorm outside, and then I was like, wait a minute, I have a headache too. Once I became aware that I had a headache I couldn't ignore it anymore to the point I could barely work, but before I noticed it was as if it didn't exist.


I almost wrote something about headaches in my first reply but decided against it. I probably sometimes take painkillers unnecessarily because sometimes I'll notice a headache coming on and instead of waiting to see if it will resolve itself or if it will become full-blown I'll just take a painkiller when I first notice it starting to build.



> So it's more like either I notice and when I do I notice to the degree I can't shut it out at all or I don't notice it and sometimes I need to rationalize to arrive at the conclusion I might need to satisfy some body needs. Similarly, sometimes I can go to the bathroom an excessive amount of the time thinking I need to pee and then it turns out I didn't at all, stuff like that.
> 
> I don't know how Si types orient around that, but for me body sensations are definitely very much an on-off thing and I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on, trying to understand or explore them. The idea is actually rather creepy. One of my worst fears is having my body being invaded by external forces like parasites.


It can be difficult for me to shut out sensations as well, but like I said before, I can't imagine what it's like *not* noticing them. I don't think I spend much time thinking about them or exploring them either, they just sort of appear I guess.


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> How you derive this feeling of say, feeling awake? How do you know? Is it just like... a mental thing? Or a physical sensation thing? Because I feel I can become tired at very irregular times, but it's more a mental experience, like my head gets tired rather than it is in body. And if I keep staying up that will eventually go away too, it depends. So it's not like you would just keep staying up even though you have no real reason to? For me also, I have a lot of mental energy so posting on PerC is a way to get rid of that. I usually sleep as a way to deal with boredom lol.


Mostly by knowing I am not tired. LOL. I know it sounds stupid to say that but that's basically how it is. I can concentrate on things just fine, I am not yawning, not thinking about wanting to take a nap right now, my legs aren't achy.

If I were tired, I probably wouldn't stay up late but it is a lost cause to try to sleep when not tired unless I am really bored... but usually I become sleepy at around the same times of day (after lunch for a little while, then around 10 pm).

It seems to me it is a physical sensation thing... I don't really know what you mean by mental but there are times where I am not physically tired and yet my mind is not as sharp as usual/I don't want to think - I find most of the time they occur at the same time though.


----------



## Inguz

Promethea said:


> Its about _the way he goes about typing others_.


How *do I* go about typing others? Explain that.



Promethea said:


> I have already typed myself as types that are not among the internet-intellectual/kewl person revered typology types: lsi, and 6. 6 is less glorified than any enneagram type, and lsi is glorified no more than esi.


Is this how you justify being typed correctly? If so... How can you rationally justify yourself valuing certain IMs over others? So if I type as LSE now, will I be correctly typed because LSE is not cool?


----------



## Promethea

Inguz said:


> How *do I* go about typing others? Explain that.


I explained it extensively, then I pointed out that I had, and that _it was in fact my point to begin with_ - but you insisted on avoiding it to harp on some shoddy justification for me being an esi instead, which wasn't a part of any of this until you tried to make it about that. Perhaps you should start over and re-read my first post where I reference diphenhydramine. 



Inguz said:


> Is this how you justify being typed correctly? If so... How can you rationally justify yourself valuing certain IMs over others? So if I type as LSE now, will I be correctly typed because LSE is not cool?


Either you are purposely ignoring my actual point because you have nothing to counter my claim with, or you have misunderstood what my point was in such a way that I can't fathom your line of thinking here. In the very least, its more dodging what I have -actually- claimed, which results in a waste of words, but I will try once more to make this point:

My *actual* point was that there is no reason for me to be upset about an esi/4 typing. I made this point because you keep claiming that I am in order to invalidate everything else that I have said. 

As for my typing, I already explained quite a bit of that in the past (until I lost interest in discussing it, because I didn't see the point), and you know it has nothing to do with what you just claimed to glean from your "misunderstanding(?)" of my post. 

My entire point, and all I really cared to share was in my first two posts, but then you kept sniping at me like a Pomeranian, trying to hedge me away from sharing those observations. 

I could not have been more clear.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Promethea said:


> Its about _the way he goes about typing others_.


Yes, I know. Sorry, us SEE state socialists are bad at communication sometimes.



Promethea said:


> I'm not saying that the LII is an emotionless type at all. I am saying that he was quick to get heated and try to scathe at me in a way that I personally have not observed from LIIs in the past, then he tries to make some power-play, by telling me how to handle people's typings.
> 
> I thought I was careful enough with my wording to express that was the extent to which I was questioning. Observing something out of the ordinary for a person of an alleged type doesn't nearly mean that I have decided they are not that type. That takes a lot of time for me to decide on. It certainly captures my attention however.
> 
> 
> As for me reading between the lines, well of course.


I wasn't heated and it was far from a power-play...


----------



## Promethea

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Yes, I know. Sorry, us SEE state socialists are bad at communication sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't heated and it was far from a power-play...


"SEE state socialists" ?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Promethea said:


> "SEE state socialists" ?


You said I was authoritarian and implied I wasn't an LII.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

itsme45 said:


> I thought F was rational too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical types can be angry too you know.
> 
> It's a good point though that analysis of personality can be kept impersonal just fine... I wish it would be like that more often.
> 
> I mean I don't have a problem with a bit of heated arguing but still should keep it impersonal.


I meant rational in non-socionics terminology. 

From what I've seen, she's always aggressive in her arguments.


----------



## Inguz

Brown93 said:


> Newly typed LSI. Been involved with Myers Briggs for about 2 years, finally making a transition over to socionics... glad to be aboard.
> 
> Now, to find my ENFj.


Hey welcome. And what does she look like?


----------



## Brown93

Inguz said:


> And what does she look like?


haha, you tell me :tongue:


----------



## itsme45

@Promethea

ever seen my post to you? thanks


----------



## itsme45

Brown93 said:


> Newly typed LSI. Been involved with Myers Briggs for about 2 years, finally making a transition over to socionics... glad to be aboard.
> 
> Now, to find my ENFj.


hey there! ahah ENFj is a cool type


----------



## cyamitide

mostly beta Google hangout in progress: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/ca21v7jnc2dng6oi7o4rbu4av9s?authuser=0&hl=en


----------



## Diphenhydramine

cyamitide said:


> mostly beta Google hangout in progress: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/ca21v7jnc2dng6oi7o4rbu4av9s?authuser=0&hl=en


 Is this still going on? Where are the people from ?

edit : I tried to join but lagged out almost immediately. bad internet :<


----------



## cyamitide

Diphenhydramine said:


> Is this still going on? Where are the people from ?
> 
> edit : I tried to join but lagged out almost immediately. bad internet :<


It was on for like 5 hours. The people were from the IEI-SLE facebook group: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/148936-socionics-dual-facebook-groups.html


----------



## Inguz

My SLE father on facebook after media warned about a potentially dangerous storm (above 32 m/s).


"There was a terrible storm yesterday, I photographed a bit of the devastation."


----------



## Inguz

@Diphenhydramine Would you be ok if I made some new additions to my previous assessment about your type in here? I am aware that my Te sucks, I learn and understand things, but my ability to know how to appeal to external evaluations is lacking and takes more time than for some. As far as I understood it, what annoyed you about that wasn't to consider alternatives but just that I failed to explain myself in a satisfying way.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> @Diphenhydramine Would you be ok if I made some new additions to my previous assessment about your type in here? I am aware that my Te sucks, I learn and understand things, but my ability to know how to appeal to external evaluations is lacking and takes more time than for some. As far as I understood it, what annoyed you about that wasn't to consider alternatives but just that I failed to explain myself in a satisfying way.


 Yes, if they don't follow the same pattern as before, i.e. making estimates of my character that you couldn't have reasonably derived from my posts.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Yes, if they don't follow the same pattern as before, i.e. making estimates of my character that you couldn't have reasonably derived from my posts.


Ok. The main point here was to highlight that LSEs are forceful too. Since it is the demonstrative this is an IM that an xSE is adept at but not prefers, but when the situation calls for it, can be very protective, territorial, confrontational. This is what I wanted to express before. The idea that you consider respect of boundaries etc important at first but doesn't have any problem retaliating if you feel that these are crossed.

I have an anecdotal example of this, my stepfather is LSE-Te 1w9 and one event that speaks about this quite clearly is when my little sister (12 years) had her last day of school before summer, my other 21 year old sister who is an SEE-Fi 3w2 had trouble finding parking spots and parked on one of the neighbours spots. The school is about 200m from their house. She put a note on her car and hoped that it would be okay since she would change to the guest parking once the school activity was over and the parents left. When she told our stepfather he said that he really hopes that the neighbour doesn't come back during the time when the car is parked there and said that if it was his parking spot and someone stood there then he would pretty much grab a baseball bat and smash the car. "I know that you would", said my sister.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> Ok. The main point here was to highlight that LSEs are forceful too. Since it is the demonstrative this is an IM that an xSE is adept at but not prefers, but when the situation calls for it, can be very protective, territorial, confrontational. This is what I wanted to express before. The idea that you consider respect of boundaries etc important at first but doesn't have any problem retaliating if you feel that these are crossed.


 But if you remember, I disagreed with your characterisation of that in typology terms. You insisted SLE is a "rude, brash" type - and I said that this wasn't correct: supported neither by literature or by interpretation of types. Sure both LSE and SLE can be "forceful" - but why, and for what outcome? What I was baffled by was the way in which you picked out one particular aspect - let's say, this thread - and extrapolated it to an entire type. Applied to that were these ideas like "SLE is rude" and you picked out that I said that what you were doing was rude, so I couldn't be an SLE. I thought that the whole methodology was flawed. My opinion hasn't changed (except that you are being less rude.)


----------



## itsme45

Inguz said:


> Ok. The main point here was to highlight that LSEs are forceful too. Since it is the demonstrative this is an IM that an xSE is adept at but not prefers, but when the situation calls for it, can be very protective, territorial, confrontational. This is what I wanted to express before. The idea that you consider respect of boundaries etc important at first but doesn't have any problem retaliating if you feel that these are crossed.


Really anyone, any type could be forceful in that case no?

All these concrete personality traits are not something that *must* follow from the IE preferences. :/




> I have an anecdotal example of this, my stepfather is LSE-Te 1w9 and one event that speaks about this quite clearly is when my little sister (12 years) had her last day of school before summer, my other 21 year old sister who is an SEE-Fi 3w2 had trouble finding parking spots and parked on one of the neighbours spots. The school is about 200m from their house. She put a note on her car and hoped that it would be okay since she would change to the guest parking once the school activity was over and the parents left. When she told our stepfather he said that he really hopes that the neighbour doesn't come back during the time when the car is parked there and said that if it was his parking spot and someone stood there then he would pretty much grab a baseball bat and smash the car. "I know that you would", said my sister.


Now that's just silly


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> Really anyone, any type could be forceful in that case no?
> 
> All these concrete personality traits are not something that *must* follow from the IE preferences. :/


* and I quote:*


> SLE’s drawback is their inability to predict the consequences of their harsh words and actions, which often leads to problems coming from nowhere and piling up. SLE see their main goal in being firm. They rarely understand the nuances of people’s relations and push their way through others’ opinions and weaknesses like a tank.


*Base Se Role Ne and Fi PoLR.*


----------



## itsme45

FreeBeer said:


> * and I quote:*
> 
> *Base Se Role Ne and Fi PoLR.*


...And?

The point was that preferences for information processing are not the same as personality traits. Yet this gets mixed up all the time. I'm not going to say there isn't a correlation but how strong is it?

The other thing... ask me if someone who's like the person in your quote is rude in a specific situation and I might say "nope" while someone else might say "yes" so this is subjective too.


----------



## Figure

Diphenhydramine said:


> But if you remember, I disagreed with your characterisation of that in typology terms. You insisted SLE is a "rude, brash" type - and I said that this wasn't correct: supported neither by literature or by interpretation of types. Sure both LSE and SLE can be "forceful" - but why, and for what outcome?


Would it be fair to say that the SLE's informational output is more "blunt" but that the actual personality need not be? I know several who speak in a blunt, coarse way (their word choices, way of communicating, etc), but aren't exactly domineering or brash in their actual personality (what they do).


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> ...And?
> 
> The point was that preferences for information processing are not the same as personality traits. Yet this gets mixed up all the time. I'm not going to say there isn't a correlation but how strong is it?
> 
> The other thing... ask me if someone who's like the person in your quote is rude in a specific situation and I might say "nope" while someone else might say "yes" so this is subjective too.


Here is where I can potentially say that you may be less aware of Fi and Fe related issues while others will be more aware due to how their IE-stack looks like. ..could, but there are other factors that contribute (not function and IE related).

The theory is what I stated thou. SLE has Se as base and Ti as creative, which means the role function will be Ne and the PoLR will be Fi.

This means that SLE prefers to use Se and thus will neglect Ne as both functions can not be active at the same time. Similar with Ti and Fi, just that Ti is how SLE relates to others. This makes ESTp's Fi function the weakest and the ESTp will actually not understand the importance of Fi.

This is what makes it easier for SLE to steamroll people's opinions and weaknesses.

 I actually know a few people who are like this and some are really nice but still forceful and VERY ACTIVE.* It doesn't need to be in a rude and abrasive way, just rough, direct and pushy, with little patience and difficulties with standing still.*


----------



## itsme45

FreeBeer said:


> Here is where I can potentially say that you may be less aware of Fi and Fe related issues while others will be more aware due to how their IE-stack looks like. ..could, but there are other factors that contribute (not function and IE related).


Yeah that was my point too, that differences in information processing and other factors as well do make evaluation of personality subjective. 




> The theory is what I stated thou. SLE has Se as base and Ti as creative, which means the role function will be Ne and the PoLR will be Fi.
> 
> This means that SLE prefers to use Se and thus will neglect Ne as both functions can not be active at the same time. Similar with Ti and Fi, just that Ti is how SLE relates to others. This makes ESTp's Fi function the weakest and the ESTp will actually not understand the importance of Fi.
> 
> This is what makes it easier for SLE to steamroll people's opinions and weaknesses.


Yeah, it does make it easier to do so, just I disagree that you can just decide someone's rude or brash or not and type them based on that. Because of what I said about the correlation issue; these things are influenced by other factors too.

(Not that I'm saying that you type people this way, it was Inguz originally, not you)




> I actually know a few people who are like this and some are really nice but still forceful and VERY ACTIVE.* It doesn't need to be in a rude and abrasive way, just rough, direct and pushy, with little patience and difficulties with standing still.*


Yeah, ok.  For you what's the difference between being abrasive and just being rough and direct?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Figure said:


> Would it be fair to say that the SLE's informational output is more "blunt" but that the actual personality need not be? I know several who speak in a blunt, coarse way (their word choices, way of communicating, etc), but aren't exactly domineering or brash in their actual personality (what they do).


 Yes, but I think that this is a result of POLR FI and not of base SE. I think there's this idea amongst Western socionists that SLE is a blunt, forwards type, trips over his own lack of niceties, and I believe this comes from infected MBTI influence, where indeed ESTP is a blunt type. This type of description is absent in the Russian socionists, who have typed a lot of history's more charismatic politicians as SLE's - Lenin and Churchill, for example.

Now, SLE can be hurtful, and brutish, because he has a poor grasp of Inter-relational Ethics. He can be absolute beast to people who he feels he wants or needs to be (I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober: you will still be ugly.) because his grasp of inter-personal relations is really poor. He is better at speaking to mass of people rather than individual person (a reflection of beta values, possibly) to whom he might accidentally say a wrong thing.

That's not the same as being actively blunt, or rude. And the example you provide is quite appropriate: yes they might appear blunt, because a POLRisation of FI has left them a bit rough around the edges: but their actual personalities nor their intents are blunt.

SLE is a resource-manager type (Filatova) who's main purpose is to organise material assets at his disposal toward a particular goal. Things which stand in he way he will knock over. Things which don't go along with plan, he will push forwards. And to them he will behave bluntly, sure, because they're blocking his base function: everyone who blocks a person's base function is treated poorly.



FreeBeer said:


> I actually know a few people who are like this and some are really nice but still forceful and VERY ACTIVE.* It doesn't need to be in a rude and abrasive way, just rough, direct and pushy, with little patience and difficulties with standing still.*


 Right. That's it. People have to be pushed, but most people who are basically competent recognise that different people react to different kind of stimuli. Some people you just have to be rude to until they break under pressure, others require only a single polite word.


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> Yeah, ok.  For you what's the difference between being abrasive and just being rough and direct?


The intention and there is a difference in body language, tonality of voice and the content of the information which is communicated. Some people just have more volitioal energy or it manifests in them stronger, but they aren't abrasive assholes. It comes across as more of a "presence". Idk how to describe it properly, but if you get into a group you are bound to find some who are dreamy and lack this volitional force almost completely and some who just "radiate" it ...the latter will be inclined to take charge and push for action.


----------



## itsme45

FreeBeer said:


> The intention and there is a difference in body language, tonality of voice and the content of the information which is communicated. Some people just have more volitioal energy or it manifests in them stronger, but they aren't abrasive assholes. It comes across as more of a "presence". Idk how to describe it properly, but if you get into a group you are bound to find some who are dreamy and lack this volitional force almost completely and some who just "radiate" it ...the latter will be inclined to take charge and push for action.


yeah just you see the problem is some people view this as abrasive. so I was curious why you don't.

btw I don't really notice such vibes (dreamy or not etc) about people but that means nothing, I'm not questioning that you do notice these things.


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> yeah just you see the problem is some people view this as abrasive. so I was curious why you don't.
> 
> btw I don't really notice such vibes (dreamy or not etc) about people but that means nothing, I'm not questioning that you do notice these things.


It depends, I understand that ppl have different ways of approaching things, I don't react well at all to being pushed or told what to do, HOWEVER I like people who are direct and say what they mean. :\ you know how annoying it is dealing with whiny indirect ppl who want me to read their minds with my non existent telepathic powers? :\ also all that moping and maipulative behaviour I don't understand usually drives me to bluntly ask "WTF do you want? Spit it out, I can't read minds!"...which then is taken badly and the resulting fallout I just don't want to deal with.

I often do not understand where I stand with people relationship-wise so I like anyone who is going to be direct and up front about this stuff without the usual complications.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Yes, but I think that this is a result of POLR FI and not of base SE. I think there's this idea amongst Western socionists that SLE is a blunt, forwards type, trips over his own lack of niceties, and I believe this comes from infected MBTI influence, where indeed ESTP is a blunt type. This type of description is absent in the Russian socionists, who have typed a lot of history's more charismatic politicians as SLE's - Lenin and Churchill, for example.
> 
> Now, SLE can be hurtful, and brutish, because he has a poor grasp of Inter-relational Ethics. He can be absolute beast to people who he feels he wants or needs to be (I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober: you will still be ugly.) because his grasp of inter-personal relations is really poor. He is better at speaking to mass of people rather than individual person (a reflection of beta values, possibly) to whom he might accidentally say a wrong thing.
> 
> That's not the same as being actively blunt, or rude. And the example you provide is quite appropriate: yes they might appear blunt, because a POLRisation of FI has left them a bit rough around the edges: but their actual personalities nor their intents are blunt.
> 
> SLE is a resource-manager type (Filatova) who's main purpose is to organise material assets at his disposal toward a particular goal. Things which stand in he way he will knock over. Things which don't go along with plan, he will push forwards. And to them he will behave bluntly, sure, because they're blocking his base function: everyone who blocks a person's base function is treated poorly.
> 
> Right. That's it. People have to be pushed, but most people who are basically competent recognise that different people react to different kind of stimuli. Some people you just have to be rude to until they break under pressure, others require only a single polite word.


Eh. All these words are similar in quality, differentiated only by context or nuance. Blunt, brash, brutish, rude all these adjectives refer to something unrefined, blunt or crude, with the exception of hurtful. Essentially you are saying the same thing just that you interpret the words blunt and brash to have the connotation of being intentionally hurtful. Then you say that you have to be intentionally rude to some people. So you do agree with me after all. Or is this some kind of "sure, I am rude but you cannot generalize all SLEs to be that"? You wrote yourself that this is a consequence of "because he has a poor grasp of Inter-relational Ethics", so I fail to see your point besides from how you perceive my behaviour. Or did you disagree because I didn't provide literature reference at that point even though you already were knowledgeable about this? I wonder what goes on in your brain.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> Eh. All these words are similar in quality, differentiated only by context or nuance. Blunt, brash, brutish, rude all these adjectives refer to something unrefined, blunt or crude,


 Blunt means forthright. Rude means offensive. They are not the same. 

I don't agree with you that a type is an adjective, sorry. 



Inguz said:


> I wonder what goes on in your brain.


 You sound like my mother.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

modal verbs - the analytic bread and butter of the english language.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Blunt means forthright. Rude means offensive. They are not the same.


It's very strange, I merely state what they refer to, in the same way that other nouns such as blue, green and yellow refers to colours. They are all colours but they are not the same. This isn't what I stated. However you seem to do exactly what you wrongfully accused me of doing when you say that blunt means forthright and that rude means offensive. I'm tempted to interpret "means" as synonym for =. But then this statement wouldn't make any sense any longer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's find a dictionary. First up: Blunt


> blunt (bl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nt)_adj._ *blunt·er*, *blunt·est* *1. * Having a dull edge or end; not sharp.
> 
> *2. * Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech: "Onscreen, John Wayne was a blunt talker and straight shooter" (Time). See Synonyms at gruff.
> *3. * Slow to understand or perceive; dull.
> *4. * Lacking in feeling; insensitive.



I don't see anything in particular that refers to forthright. Just for funsies I made red colour on the meaning of the word that actually meant blunt as an opposite to sharp. For example a nuclear bomb is a very blunt weapon, you cannot be precise or sharp with it, it wipes out entire cities. But let's take forthright next.


> forth·right (fôrth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -)_adj._*1. * Direct and without evasion; straightforward: a forthright appraisal; forthright criticism.
> 
> *2. * _Archaic_ Proceeding straight ahead.


As we can see, all this states is that they are open and doesn't beat around the bush, to which I agree. This is often a characteristic trait of SLE. Blunt in contrast to forthright however got a hoarse quality to it while forthright can be completely fine-tuned. This is one very important nuance that exists in blunt but not in forthright. At the same time you cannot say that something can "appear" blunt while simultaneously not being that way. It's like saying that slicing bread with a hammer only appears to be a blunt way of turning a loaf of bred into smaller pieces. It's just not true.

Let's get to the word rude


> rude (r
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> d)_adj._ *rud·er*, *rud·est* *1. * Relatively undeveloped; primitive: a rude and savage land; a rude agricultural implement.
> *2. **a. * Being in a crude, rough, unfinished condition: a rude thatched hut.
> *b. * Exhibiting a marked lack of skill or precision in work: rude crafts.
> *c. * In a natural, raw state: bales of rude cotton.
> 
> *3. **a. * Lacking the graces and refinement of civilized life; uncouth.
> *b. * Lacking education or knowledge; unlearned.
> *c. * Ill-mannered; discourteous: rude behavior.
> 
> *4. * Vigorous, robust, and sturdy.
> *5. * Abruptly and unpleasantly forceful: received a rude shock.


I don't find a mention of something that in it self can be interpreted as offensive, because offensive is defined as this


> of·fen·sive (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> v)_adj._*1. * Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
> *2. * Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.
> *3. **a. * Making an attack: The offensive troops gained ground quickly.
> *b. * Of, relating to, or designed for attack: offensive weapons.
> 
> *4. * (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n-) _Sports_ Of or relating to a team having possession of a ball or puck: the offensive line.





I suppose that you could make the parallel to causing anger, displeasure, resentment or affront. But then it's a quality that is the effect of whatever is rude, while the rude action in it self may not be offensive.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I don't agree with you that a type is an adjective, sorry.


Then how is "hurtful" or "brutish" not adjectives??? 



Diphenhydramine said:


> You sound like my mother.


What type is she?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> It's very strange, I merely state what they refer to, in the same way that other nouns such as blue, green and yellow refers to colours. They are all colours but they are not the same. This isn't what I stated. However you seem to do exactly what you wrongfully accused me of doing when you say that blunt means forthright and that rude means offensive. I'm tempted to interpret "means" as synonym for =. But then this statement wouldn't make any sense any longer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Let's find a dictionary. First up: Blunt
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in particular that refers to forthright. Just for funsies I made red colour on the meaning of the word that actually meant blunt as an opposite to sharp. For example a nuclear bomb is a very blunt weapon, you cannot be precise or sharp with it, it wipes out entire cities. But let's take forthright next.
> 
> As we can see, all this states is that they are open and doesn't beat around the bush, to which I agree. This is often a characteristic trait of SLE. Blunt in contrast to forthright however got a hoarse quality to it while forthright can be completely fine-tuned. This is one very important nuance that exists in blunt but not in forthright. At the same time you cannot say that something can "appear" blunt while simultaneously not being that way. It's like saying that slicing bread with a hammer only appears to be a blunt way of turning a loaf of bred into smaller pieces. It's just not true.
> 
> Let's get to the word rude
> 
> I don't find a mention of something that in it self can be interpreted as offensive, because offensive is defined as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that you could make the parallel to causing anger, displeasure, resentment or affront. But then it's a quality that is the effect of whatever is rude, while the rude action in it self may not be offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Then how is "hurtful" or "brutish" not adjectives???
> 
> 
> 
> What type is she?


*Blunt:
*
adjective
adjective: blunt; comparative adjective: blunter; superlative adjective: bluntest

1.
(of a knife, pencil, etc.) having a worn-down edge or point; not sharp.
"a blunt knife"
synonyms:	unsharpened, dull, worn, edgeless More
"a blunt knife"
antonyms:	sharp
having a flat or rounded end.
"the blunt tip of the leaf"
synonyms:	rounded, flat, obtuse, stubby More
"the leaf is broad with a blunt tip"
antonyms:	pointed
* 2.
(of a person or remark) uncompromisingly forthright.*
"he is as blunt as a kick in the shins"
synonyms:	straightforward, frank, plain-spoken, candid, direct, bluff, forthright, unequivocal; More
brusque, abrupt, curt, terse, bald, brutal, harsh;
stark, unadorned, undisguised, unvarnished;
informalupfront
"a blunt message"
antonyms:	subtle

*rude*
ro͞od/
adjective
adjective: rude; comparative adjective: ruder; superlative adjective: rudest

* 1.
offensively impolite or ill-mannered.*
"she had been rude to her boss"
synonyms:	ill-mannered, bad-mannered, impolite, discourteous, uncivil, ill-behaved, unmannerly, mannerless; More
impertinent, insolent, impudent, disrespectful, cheeky;
churlish, curt, brusque, brash, offhand, short, sharp;
offensive, insulting, derogatory, disparaging, abusive;
tactless, undiplomatic, uncomplimentary
"a rude man"
antonyms:	polite, civil
referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive.
"he made a rude gesture"
synonyms:	vulgar, coarse, smutty, dirty, filthy, crude, lewd, obscene, off-color, offensive, indelicate, tasteless; More
risqué, naughty, ribald, bawdy, racy;
informalblue;
euphemisticadult
"rude jokes"
antonyms:	clean
having a startling abruptness.
"the war came as a very rude awakening"
synonyms:	abrupt, sudden, sharp, startling; More
unpleasant, nasty, harsh
"a rude awakening"
2.
roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication.
"a rude coffin"
synonyms:	primitive, crude, rudimentary, rough, simple, basic, makeshift More


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blunt:
> 
> 
> *
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adjective
> adjective: blunt; comparative adjective: blunter; superlative adjective: bluntest
> 
> *1.
> (of a knife, pencil, etc.) having a worn-down edge or point; not sharp.
> "a blunt knife"
> synonyms: unsharpened, dull, worn, edgeless More
> "a blunt knife"
> antonyms: sharp
> having a flat or rounded end.
> "the blunt tip of the leaf"
> synonyms: rounded, flat, obtuse, stubby More
> "the leaf is broad with a blunt tip"
> antonyms: pointed*
> * 2.
> (of a person or remark) uncompromisingly forthright.*
> "he is as blunt as a kick in the shins"
> synonyms: straightforward, frank, plain-spoken, candid, direct, bluff, forthright, unequivocal; More
> brusque, abrupt, curt, terse, bald, brutal, harsh;
> stark, unadorned, undisguised, unvarnished;
> informalupfront
> "a blunt message"
> antonyms: subtle
> 
> *rude*
> ro͞od/
> adjective
> adjective: rude; comparative adjective: ruder; superlative adjective: rudest
> 
> * 1.
> offensively impolite or ill-mannered.*
> "she had been rude to her boss"
> synonyms: ill-mannered, bad-mannered, impolite, discourteous, uncivil, ill-behaved, unmannerly, mannerless; More
> impertinent, insolent, impudent, disrespectful, cheeky;
> churlish, curt, brusque, brash, offhand, short, sharp;
> offensive, insulting, derogatory, disparaging, abusive;
> tactless, undiplomatic, uncomplimentary
> "a rude man"
> antonyms: polite, civil
> referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive.
> "he made a rude gesture"
> synonyms: vulgar, coarse, smutty, dirty, filthy, crude, lewd, obscene, off-color, offensive, indelicate, tasteless; More
> risqué, naughty, ribald, bawdy, racy;
> informalblue;
> euphemisticadult
> "rude jokes"
> antonyms: clean
> having a startling abruptness.
> "the war came as a very rude awakening"
> synonyms: abrupt, sudden, sharp, startling; More
> unpleasant, nasty, harsh
> "a rude awakening"
> *2.
> roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication.*
> "a rude coffin"
> synonyms: primitive, crude, rudimentary, rough, simple, basic, makeshift More


And both of these words refers to something rough too.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Let me resummarise my position. Your basic view @Inguz was/is that SLE is a type that does not care about social niceties because he himself is rude. Now I don't necessarily disagree with this, for specific reasons, as I have stated. But you used this to: 1. observe that I said you were being rude 2. then induced, from this specific instance, that I was not an SLE because here I wasn't being rude. That's the methodology that I thought was faulty and I think the way this argument has developed has gone off-track from that.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Let me resummarise my position. Your basic view @_Inguz_ was/is that SLE is a type that does not care about social niceties because he himself is rude. Now I don't necessarily disagree with this, for specific reasons, as I have stated. But you used this to: 1. observe that I said you were being rude 2. then induced, from this specific instance, that I was not an SLE because here I wasn't being rude. That's the methodology that I thought was faulty and I think the way this argument has developed has gone off-track from that.


No, you wrote yourself that manners are important to you and you also wrote "The other is people who can't put aside internal discomforts for external order." which I assume means being civil at the cost of your own discomfort.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> No, you wrote yourself that manners are important to you and you also wrote "The other is people who can't put aside internal discomforts for external order." which I assume means being civil at the cost of your own discomfort.


 How convenient you assumed it meant the very thing which fits your argument even though it was clarified in the same thread not to mean that. Manners being important to someone doesn't make them not a beta, lmfao. Its just this kind of stupid reasoning that started the last argument. Your left of field inductions vs what the theory actually says.

I understand socionics based around the literature produced by the socionists themselves, and by the interpretations produced by logical consideration and intelligent discourse by the socionics community, not by incoherent ramblings or unscientific mind wanderings. There's nothing further to say on the matter. Case closed.


----------



## Figure

Diphenhydramine said:


> Yes, but I think that this is a result of POLR FI and not of base SE. I think there's this idea amongst Western socionists that SLE is a blunt, forwards type, trips over his own lack of niceties, and I believe this comes from infected MBTI influence, where indeed ESTP is a blunt type. This type of description is absent in the Russian socionists, who have typed a lot of history's more charismatic politicians as SLE's - Lenin and Churchill, for example.


Interesting. I think we're discussing different ideas of "bluntness." I was thinking more in terms of information metabolism, in which case dual-seeking Se finds the decisiveness of Se as a base function appealing, as Ni base is indecisive and unsure with its tendency to wait. So, not so much that what they say or how they respond lacks niceties that Fi-valuing types would include (they may or may not) - I may just need a better word to describe the sort of exertive feel you get when speaking to Se people without bleeding into the way their ego-judging functions can sometimes come off. 

What you said about Fi as PoLR makes sense, but descriptions of ESI (and, actually LSI), particularly the Se subtypes, also have a sense of "hardness" attributed to Creative Se.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> I understand socionics based around the literature produced by the socionists themselves, and by the interpretations produced by logical consideration and intelligent discourse by the socionics community, not by incoherent ramblings or unscientific mind wanderings. There's nothing further to say on the matter. Case closed.


There is actually more to say. Here you just presented a very convincing case that you are indeed Te base.



> as a  base (1st) function (LIE and LSE) Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives these types confidence on being well-informed on the same matters, which enables them to enter arguments related to them with confidence on their knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. Another manifestation is an evaluation of external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. It leads to an inclination to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, as well as a sense of self-worth connected on being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that the individual knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.


Otoh this seems to be how you perceive my arguments


> as a  vulnerable (4th) function (SEI and IEI)
> 
> That is manifested as a skepticism and dislike for basing your beliefs, arguments, and actions on external sources of information. For instance, a SEI will rather trust the expertise of someone who seems to have hands-on experience, even if limited, than of someone who demonstrates to have read many books on the same subject. *IEIs will base their opinions and views on their own personal insights *and be, again, skeptical of "second-hand" factual information that contradicts it. "Don't trust everything you read" is a typical sneer of this function, especially when applied to sources of information otherwise seen as neutral and reliable, such as encyclopedias and handbooks. Another manifestation is a dislike for dealing with issues involving efficiency, productivity, and factual accuracy of statements made; statements are made according to input from other functions, not from double-checks against external facts which are seen as of lesser relevance to the issue at hand. Types with this function lack confidence in their ability to find relevant information in outside sources.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

edit-oops


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> There is actually more to say. Here you just presented a very convincing case that you are indeed Te base.
> 
> 
> 
> Otoh this seems to be how you perceive my arguments


 Rolleyes. Someone is not LE because they use primary sources to discuss something rather than assume they know more than the people who invented a theory. That's called "illusory superiority", it's not related to type. You are not wise master of the universe who sees all realities that others are unable to comprehend. Stop this ridiculous behaviour at once.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Figure said:


> Interesting. I think we're discussing different ideas of "bluntness." I was thinking more in terms of information metabolism, in which case dual-seeking Se finds the decisiveness of Se as a base function appealing, as Ni base is indecisive and unsure with its tendency to wait. So, not so much that what they say or how they respond lacks niceties that Fi-valuing types would include (they may or may not) - I may just need a better word to describe the sort of exertive feel you get when speaking to Se people without bleeding into the way their ego-judging functions can sometimes come off.
> 
> What you said about Fi as PoLR makes sense, but descriptions of ESI (and, actually LSI), particularly the Se subtypes, also have a sense of "hardness" attributed to Creative Se.


 I think that what you are doing is describing decisiveness, which is thought to be a characteristic broadly because of the reasons you outlined. I agree it can be difficult to separate the types without creative-base bleeding. The bluntness you seem to describe I would re-designate as "advancing" or sometihng, as Se-base type constantly trying to advance some, or advance to some, particular goal.


----------



## Entropic

I also find that in order to separate away from the creative, it is possible to see how and where the Se base also direct their energy towards what I can only here consider something similar to progress/action. The SLE does not seem to be concerned about their own or others' wants in lieu with Fi like the SEE. Exactly how I see SLE directing their energy towards Ti is something don't yet fully understand, as lack an intrinsic grasp of how Ti shapes someone's ego. I would assume that it would more in line with some kind of tactical or strategic summary however.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> Rolleyes. Someone is not LE because they use primary sources to discuss something rather than assume they know more than the people who invented a theory. That's called "illusory superiority", it's not related to type. You are not wise master of the universe who sees all realities that others are unable to comprehend. Stop this ridiculous behaviour at once.


This is the opposite of illusory superiority. I am trying to explain my reasoning in some way that refers to outside sources. I believe that you are able to comprehend, I'm just at loss at how to express it in a way that you actually will understand. Discussing socionics type is not mystical. Ok, look. You say very clearly that you base your understanding on external sources such as books and then I am somewhat of your opposite as I base my understanding on how I personally understand the theory, my own insights about everything. Trying to translate that into some kind of information not only verified by, but based upon external sources is just as hard as it is for you to base your understanding on personal insights about the types, deriving an understanding that you do not necessarily find within these books. Does this explain the conflict? I try to appeal to description of how Te manifests in LxE and xEI respectively, but what more do I have to do to bring you to even consider what is written by an external source?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Inguz said:


> This is the opposite of illusory superiority.


 No, it certainly is not. Illusory superiority governs all your posts in this thread (and likely almost all of them in this subforum.) 



Inguz said:


> Does this explain the conflict?


 The conflict is that you think that your interpretations of something are more true than the design of the thing itself. You would call a horse a cow if you interpreted it that way. The real problem is that you think you know a lot more about the subject than you actually do *and* you attempt to impose this on other people.

Whatever their type, most people are able to recognise when their speculations or suggestions are entirely unwelcome.


----------



## Inguz

Diphenhydramine said:


> No, it certainly is not. Illusory superiority governs all your posts in this thread (and likely almost all of them in this subforum.)


No, this is only your perception. I show awareness of my deficit in expressing my insights in a manner that is apparent to anyone who doesn't automatically understand my way of thinking.



Diphenhydramine said:


> The conflict is that you think that your interpretations of something are more true than the design of the thing itself. You would call a horse a cow if you interpreted it that way. The real problem is that you think you know a lot more about the subject than you actually do *and* you attempt to impose this on other people.


When you were born, did the nurse that received you staple SLE to your forehead? The problem with your assumption about me interpreting a horse as a cow is the fact that you are right about it being a horse from the start. If I see horns and say "Well, horses doesn't have horns as far as I know", would you still insist on it being a horse? The only thing that we can do is to agree on definitions and walk up to the animal in order to decide. You disagree with how I reached my conclusion and therefor you refuse to see the cow as anything but a horse, even when I am standing there with a book about defining different species of farm animals and say "look! I told you! Here it says that a horse doesn't have horns!" and you STILL deny that it's a cow and not a horse... Then this problem stretches way further than this being only a problem with me, I am trying to the best of my ability to use external sources as confirmation.


----------



## Promethea

Diphenhydramine said:


> (1) I'm not obliged to justify my sociotype.


Probably the best point made throughout the past several pages. Its often the case that one can have a lot of different self-proclaimed good typers, type them as different things. The perception changes with the person typing you. I think that understanding the system then typing oneself is probably the best approach. I don't agree with this little trend among typology communities where everyone bleats about how "people are poor self-observers." I have seen reasons for piss poor self-observation, like ego based self-deception, but I'd say thats the exception more than the rule.


----------



## Inguz

How Alphas imagine that Betas cook food. I can assure you that it's just stereotypes it does not reflect the truth. Most of the time. Well... There is some truth to it... It's usually how I cook. Damn, how did they know?


----------



## itsme45

FreeBeer said:


> o.o I'm quite clearly Alpha quadra ...most likely either SEI or ILE...:sad:..definately democratic and reasonable with Si and Fe preferences. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻) i dun wanna be alpha!


You don't sound ILE at all in later posts in this thread. I'm not Fe ego and I don't feel the mood in the air in such a refined way let alone react to it internally like you do. Sure I'm aware of mood to some extent but I just don't do these things you're talking about here. I would however agree that your way of trying to solve conflicts works  Well ok maybe it wouldn't work for everyone.




FreeBeer said:


> Hmm yeah, if I'm understanding this correctly you have a task focus and the actual mood has little influence on you, so you won't become fully aware of it nor will you need it to change in order to arrive at solutions? You can just work right through it and do the job.


You were addressing Ananael here but I'll reply too as non-Fe ego, yeah, it's more about having a task focus, but I can't say that atmosphere doesn't ever have any influence on me. It's just a difference in emphasis. And I certainly don't need it for solutions.




> I can do the same, thou the mood will bother me and if conditions such as this persist long term I may consider removing myself to get access to better conditions aka quitting the job to find maybe one that pays less but isn't a hassle in such way, where I can do a better job.
> 
> Working conditions are more important then the result or pay.


That's an interesting issue, keep working or quit and give up things in order to have better atmosphere? What I would do in such a case if the issue is serious enough, quit and find a better job with better pay also hahah. I can't see myself going for one with less pay just because of this. But I also can't see myself forever working in a place where the feeling environment is crappy for me. I've made such decisions in the past where I left and part of the reason I left was such feeling/mood related issues. Though the actual move was usually made based on another more objective reason (e.g. I found a place better for my goals that I was pursuing), or if I was leaving mainly because of feeling related problems then I went for a better place in terms of other important factors (e.g. school, I went to a new school that was stronger, more challenging etc).




Promethea said:


> Probably the best point made throughout the past several pages. Its often the case that one can have a lot of different self-proclaimed good typers, type them as different things. The perception changes with the person typing you. I think that understanding the system then typing oneself is probably the best approach. I don't agree with this little trend among typology communities where everyone bleats about how "people are poor self-observers." I have seen reasons for piss poor self-observation, like ego based self-deception, but I'd say thats the exception more than the rule.


Well no, it's not as simple as that. I believe others can learn from "justifying" type. I put that in quotes because I don't see it as justification. If you have a good reason to believe your type is what you claim it to be then it's not just justifying yourself when explaining this reason or reasons. Yes clearly the approach I'm talking about here leaves the possibility of discovering mistype open. Or discovering that things aren't as simple as there being such a definite type. Etc.

I also believe that you can learn from hearing opinions of different typers. You're free to disagree and explain why you disagree and it's still not just silly justification of yourself.


----------



## itsme45

Inguz said:


> How Alphas imagine that Betas cook food. I can assure you that it's just stereotypes it does not reflect the truth. Most of the time. Well... There is some truth to it... It's usually how I cook. Damn, how did they know?


hahaha I've seen that video before


----------



## LibertyPrime

itsme45 said:


> You don't sound ILE at all in later posts in this thread.


Hmm well if I'm not ILE, then I'll have to reconsider the quadric dichotomies because ESE & LII don't make any sense (not even dichotomy-wise) and SEI is kind of the same aka  I'm not a dynamic type (am static). The only alpha type that would have made any sesne is ILE.

:\ but I'm still democratic and reasonable also merry....which means alpha quadra 100%. WTF. :bored: this shit never makes any sense.


----------



## itsme45

FreeBeer said:


> Hmm well if I'm not ILE, then I'll have to reconsider the quadric dichotomies because ESE & LII don't make any sense (not even dichotomy-wise) and SEI is kind of the same aka  I'm not a dynamic type (am static). The only alpha type that would have made any sesne is ILE.
> 
> :\ but I'm still democratic and reasonable also merry....which means alpha quadra 100%. WTF. :bored: this shit never makes any sense.


I just thought that the stuff you called SiFe was way too consciously playing out for you to be ILE. If it's even SiFe stuff 

Reinin sucks right?


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> I just thought that the stuff you called SiFe was way too consciously playing out for you to be ILE. If it's even SiFe stuff
> 
> Reinin sucks right?


Reinin is awesome. Don't hate on the Reinin traits haha. 

But I agree that a lot of what he describes seems almost SiFe ego.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Ananael said:


> Reinin is awesome. Don't hate on the Reinin traits haha.
> 
> But I agree that a lot of what he describes seems almost SiFe ego.


<.< yeah also I'm very Democratic (find aristocratic views to be annoying lol), idk if my tendency to not give up on typing myself, reconsidering and trying different aproaches is a sign of being OBSTINATE, I give up on plenty things that I start because I lose interest, thou I seem never to give up on the few thigs I'm interested in no matter how bad my resorces are at the moment, I just keep improving them.

If yes then only LII and SEE makes sense, thou I don't have SEE's drive to go out and do stuff, in fact overthinking and almost never actualy doing anything is a specific criticism I recieve from others all the time. I have been called lazy and inactive many times, thou I do not consider myself lazy or inactive because I think and analyze a lot (my mind is very active), XD just that I don't move physically much haha (other then my krav maga training and physical training).

<___< my mother usually says I need an outgoing woman who will push me to action all the time or I never get anything done...although if she forces me I'll be her worst nightmare as I agressively resist attempts at pushing me to do stuff I don't want to.

I wouldn't say that being called lazy or inactive hurts at all I just tend to shrug it off because they just don't seem to get that I'm not, *hell I can't stand sitting still and relaxing because that is boring, I crave activity, mental activity (6w7 center of the head triad)*


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> <___< my mother usually says I need an outgoing woman who will push me to action all the time or I never get anything done...although if she forces me I'll be her worst nightmare as I agressively resist attempts at pushing me to do stuff I don't want to.


How does she push?

I find that there are two distinct differences between rational-irrational in how people present options for "pushing" or how to put it. Irrational types offer suggestions in line with their irrationality: I have observed such and such. They may only draw conclusions more as a second opinion, e.g. because of my observations I have a couple of suggestions. Rational types are different leading with rationality. They will declare what you will do: According to my logic, you should do this and this or that. They don't suggest but to me at least, seem to demand.


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> How does she push?
> 
> I find that there are two distinct differences between rational-irrational in how people present options for "pushing" or how to put it. Irrational types offer suggestions in line with their irrationality: I have observed such and such. They may only draw conclusions more as a second opinion, e.g. because of my observations I have a couple of suggestions. Rational types are different leading with rationality. They will declare what you will do: According to my logic, you should do this and this or that. They don't suggest but to me at least, seem to demand.


>.> the second option..declaring and then attempting to force me into it, which never goes down well because I tend towards independence and will not comply unless its a suggestion (first option) and I'm allowed to consider it.

I can be surprisingly willful, agressive and stubburn when my independence is at stake. Plus stuff never goes down the way ppl expect it to so its futile to form expectations along the lines of "this is how we do it or needs to be done", things have a way of evolving on their own.


----------



## Recede

Am I supposed to be able to relate to the things I've read about the beta quadra? Because it doesn't fit me. At all. None of the quadras really fit, but beta is definitely the worst fit. 

I'm not aristocratic, not collectivist, not competitive, and what is this "group atmosphere" I keep hearing about? o_o I don't even like groups. I'm very strongly not these things.

Yet IEI is the best fit based on my current understanding of the functions.


----------



## Entropic

Silveresque said:


> Am I supposed to be able to relate to the things I've read about the beta quadra? Because it doesn't fit me. At all. None of the quadras really fit, but beta is definitely the worst fit.
> 
> I'm not aristocratic, not collectivist, not competitive, and what is this "group atmosphere" I keep hearing about? o_o I don't even like groups. I'm very strongly not these things.
> 
> Yet IEI is the best fit based on my current understanding of the functions.


But the functions result in those Reinin traits listed in the above. If they don't fit then it's likely you need to understand the system better. It will fit when you are correctly typed.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> >.> the second option..declaring and then attempting to force me into it, which never goes down well because I tend towards independence and will not comply unless its a suggestion (first option) and I'm allowed to consider it.


Sounds like some form of Je and that's the same reason I had a lot of conflict with my stepmom being xSE. I lean towards her being an ESE but ESE-Si, so Fe is more subdued. I often found she tried to force me into directions because it was logical to her, regardless of what I thought myself. It wasn't a matter of what she thought would be the better option but always what I should do, must do etc, and utilizing Si logic to support it e.g. this is the best way because I know this because this is how I did it in the past and it's the only way because I know it works. 

Usually our conflicts occur because she thinks my current behavior doesn't fit her idea of how I should be. I might for example say that I'm waiting for X to happen because I know it will happen within a certain time frame like I'll be given a certain amount of money, and she will utterly freak out over this and tell me NO YOU HAVE TO GO AND FIX THIS NOW BECAUSE HOW WILL YOU MANAGE OTHERWISE? I hate it so much. I hate how she tries to control my life and tell me what to do and how to think. 



> I can be surprisingly willful, agressive and stubburn when my independence is at stake. Plus stuff never goes down the way ppl expect it to so its futile to form expectations along the lines of "this is how we do it or needs to be done", things have a way of evolving on their own.


Sounds like some kind of Se with Ni.


----------



## Recede

ephemereality said:


> But the functions result in those Reinin traits listed in the above. If they don't fit then it's likely you need to understand the system better. It will fit when you are correctly typed.


According to Reinin dichotomies, I must be either SLI or ILI. Neither of those fits because I don't value Te (which is quite possibly my PoLR). Based on this, I have to disagree that functions and Reinin traits are necessarily related.


----------



## Helios

Silveresque said:


> According to Reinin dichotomies, I must be either SLI or ILI. Neither of those fits because I don't value Te (which is quite possibly my PoLR). Based on this, I have to disagree that functions and Reinin traits are necessarily related.


Do you have a typing thread?


----------



## Recede

Ananael said:


> Do you have a typing thread?


I do, but it's old, so I may have to remake it. I'll look at it later today since right now I have some work that I need to stop procrastinating on. x_x


----------



## Entropic

Silveresque said:


> According to Reinin dichotomies, I must be either SLI or ILI. Neither of those fits because I don't value Te (which is quite possibly my PoLR). Based on this, I have to disagree that functions and Reinin traits are necessarily related.


That does assume you actually understand them correctly in relation to yourself and how the system operates overall, which might not be the case if you experience such a great discrepancy between the two.


----------



## Inguz

Silveresque said:


> Am I supposed to be able to relate to the things I've read about the beta quadra? Because it doesn't fit me. At all. None of the quadras really fit, but beta is definitely the worst fit.
> 
> I'm not aristocratic, not collectivist, not competitive, and what is this "group atmosphere" I keep hearing about? o_o I don't even like groups. I'm very strongly not these things.
> 
> Yet IEI is the best fit based on my current understanding of the functions.


Did you contemplate Delta NF too?


----------



## Recede

Inguz said:


> Did you contemplate Delta NF too?


I thought I was EII until recently. But it didn't feel quite right because my intuition seems introverted and dynamic and much of my cognition seems very Ti. I also found out that much of what I thought was Se PoLR could be better explained by Te PoLR. Then I found out I may have had my understanding of Fi and Fe a bit backwards. Realized my parents are both Fi valuing types (LSE and SLI), which would explain the conflicts I have with them if I'm a Fe type. 

(I have a type me thread here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/149081-socionics-o-o.html)


----------



## Entropic

Why not alpha SF? They are democratic, Fe valuing but not competitive and so on. Delta is aristocratic and as such collectivist and gamma is highly competitive being Se valuing. Logically it leaves us with alpha.


----------



## Inguz

Silveresque said:


> I thought I was EII until recently. But it didn't feel quite right because my intuition seems introverted and dynamic and much of my cognition seems very Ti. I also found out that much of what I thought was Se PoLR could be better explained by Te PoLR. Then I found out I may have had my understanding of Fi and Fe a bit backwards. Realized my parents are both Fi valuing types (LSE and SLI), which would explain the conflicts I have with them if I'm a Fe type.
> 
> (I have a type me thread here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/149081-socionics-o-o.html)


What did this realization about Te PoLR mean to you? Specifically, what made you see that you are that and not Se PoLR?



ephemereality said:


> Why not alpha SF? They are democratic, Fe valuing but not competitive and so on. Delta is aristocratic and as such collectivist and gamma is highly competitive being Se valuing. Logically it leaves us with alpha.


While your logic is sound it does not mean that the premises are true when relating to her.


----------



## Recede

Inguz said:


> What did this realization about Te PoLR mean to you? Specifically, what made you see that you are that and not Se PoLR?


It's clear to me that my weak spots are Te and Se. However, while my weakness with Se is mostly just a matter of it being neglected in favor of my thoughts and inner world, my weakness with Te seems greater and more problematic. Furthermore, I'm not bothered by others using Se, but I am often bothered by Te. Given that my parents are both Te types (LSE and SLI), I would say I have a fairly good grasp of what Te is like. 








: External Dynamics of Objects (Te)

My biggest weakness is that I have trouble thinking and making quick judgments in situations requiring an external focus on information, objects, or situations that are rapidly changing (dynamic). 

How this affects me in real life is that I can think well when I'm alone and in an introverted mode, but I'm very poor at thinking and making quick decisions on the spot, as well as planning and keeping track of things I need to get done. For example, I once walked all the way across campus to see my advisor, then realized the building is closed on weekends. And another time, I walked into Walmart, picked up a box of bottled water, and carried it to the checkout line. Then I realized I didn't bring my purse--which was still at home with my wallet and money inside. This is the kind of error I'm very prone to making all the time. 

How my Se weakness affects me is that I also can have difficulty staying focused on what's going on around me, for example: lectures, especially ones that involve a lot of facts and details and not much theory and big picture. I also tend to be oblivious to my surroundings most of the time because I'm busy thinking about socionics or whatever else is on my mind at the time, so I can be very clumsy at times.

These weaknesses became painfully obvious when I started learning how to drive. I would frequently miss signs, I felt a bit overwhelmed by all the rules I had to somehow keep track of while driving, and I couldn't always judge when it was safe to go. I was very error prone and absentminded.


----------



## Helios

Inguz said:


> While your logic is sound it does not mean that the premises are true when relating to her.


Soundness requires the premises to be true relating to her, though. :wink:


----------



## niffer

my Se no gud plz hlep


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

Subtypes *Alpha Quadra:*ILESEIESELII*Beta Quadra:*EIE*LSI*SLEIEI*Gamma Quadra:*SEEILILIEESI*Delta Quadra:*LSEEIIIEESLI


----------



## DustyWind

Oh my God, I have found my people. *cries*


----------



## Inguz

DustyWind said:


> Oh my God, I have found my people. *cries*


Wipe those tears before an SLE comes!!!


----------



## cyamitide

DustyWind said:


> Oh my God, I have found my people. *cries*


*OMG! Fe group hug!!!*


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

We need to start a beta party in this thread!! This place is too quiet. Who's with me?? I'll bring drinks, music and beta stereotypes. 
/trying to provide some Se


----------



## Helios

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> We need to start a beta party in this thread!! This place is too quiet. Who's with me?? I'll bring drinks, music and beta stereotypes.
> /trying to provide some Se


Wow this thread is surprisingly dead.


----------



## cyamitide

It comes and goes in waves. Some weeks there's wild carousing and others only slumber.


----------



## Word Dispenser

All right, that's it!

Who's up for some dungeons and dragons, and LARP? :kitteh:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> All right, that's it!
> 
> Who's up for some dungeons and dragons, and LARP? :kitteh:


I've never tried D&D, though it always seemed interesting. o:


----------



## Word Dispenser

Nonsense said:


> I've never tried D&D, though it always seemed interesting. o:


Me either. But, I always wanted to try. :3


----------



## spiderfrommars

Word Dispenser said:


> All right, that's it!
> 
> Who's up for some dungeons and dragons, and LARP? :kitteh:


Yes, please! I love D&D (and other tabletop games)! (Only done LARPing a few times. Very fun, but more physical and fighting-oriented. Or maybe that is just the groups I was with, because D&D itself can also be mechanical in that way. Especially 4th ed.)

So, who's gonna DM?


----------



## Inguz

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> We need to start a beta party in this thread!! This place is too quiet. Who's with me?? I'll bring drinks, music and beta stereotypes.
> /trying to provide some Se


Fe! WOOP WOOP! PARTY EVERYWHERE!


----------



## Helios

cyamitide said:


> It comes and goes in waves. Some weeks there's wild carousing and others only slumber.


Kind of sounds like my forum activity as of late.


----------



## Inguz

Helios said:


> Kind of sounds like my forum activity as of late.


Or the queue at fast food restaurants.

P1: "Oh! No queue! Go and buy that stuff now!"
P2: "Wait, I just want to look at this thing on my phone first."
*1-2 minutes later*
P2: "Damn! So long queue! Where did all these people come from?"
P1: "I told you so..."


----------



## Thilas

I was wondering, can you only really have fun/be really yourself with people of your quadra? Because, I have like, 1 or 2 people that I can really be myself with, like do silly/dirty jokes and really have fun with him. 
I'm fine with other people (other quadras?), but I need to put a bit of an act, and it's not the same.

Also what is the moto of Betas?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Thilas said:


> I was wondering, can you only really have fun/be really yourself with people of your quadra?


I don't think so. In theory being in the same quadra should make communication smoother, but that doesn't mean you can't have good relationships with other types right? Some of my favorite people are outside of my own quadra, so. =P


----------



## Inguz

Nonsense said:


> Hmm, what would be an example of a Si-topic?


Wine tasting.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Nonsense said:


> Hmm, what would be an example of a Si-topic?


Well, just the very literal socionics definition of Si. A health-related topic, for example, where the focus is on the sensation as it is perceived internally. I went to a choir where our teacher, an ESE, used to make us do relaxation exercises before singing that looked really silly and which didn't really make me feel any different (and never have I done relaxation exercises before singing on my own since about two years or so). That group was really alpha, maybe with one or two deltas.


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I've never seen it O:
> 
> 
> I think I prefer gammas to alphas, despite the shared Fe. With alphas interactions start well but after a while they can become a mix of annoying and boring. Especially if conversation topics become very Si, where I just want to shoot myself in the foot. In comparison, I can deal with Fi and I really like SEEs. Or at least based on my limited experience with them.


It's called Quadra Clothing Styles or something like that. I made it before you joined I think. And I think both betas and deltas are two different kinds of poison to me. Beta irrationals are all right and from delta I really only like EIIs that I know of, anyway. I think I prefer NFs overall though. SLEs are a lot of hit and miss to me. I tend to find them a bit too cruel usually. 



Nonsense said:


> Hmm, what would be an example of a Si-topic?


Good example of Si is when my grandmother tells me stuff like this:

You should try this, it's very good. I remember I used to eat this as a child ---> long rant about her childhood. 

Or: 

Don't you think about the past? I think a lot about the past. I remember... ---> long rant about the past.

Or:

I have begun to dream a lot. I remember all these things in my dreams like I used to have this dream about... ---> long rant about physical details in her dreams, usually about people.

And yes, relaxation exercises are also good examples. I tried to learn some when I was seeing a speech therapist to help me speak better as to not strain my voice so much and she was like, "how does this feel when you do this?" and I'm like "uhhhm... what? I don't know? Does it feel anything at all? How do I know? It's just different. I don't know what I'm doing or why." 

I also love how Si types bring up the whole "you should listen to your body" argument when it comes to health and such LOL. Like my grandma told me this when I was seeing her during Easter:

"So gender, that's something you feel in the body? That what the body tells you what feels right?"

Suffice to say I fucking facepalmed. 

For clarification for those who don't know, grandma is the most stereotype ESE I have ever met.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Let me share another Si anecdote I just remembered... I was doing a psychology course in college where we dedicated a class to introduce each subject we were going to encounter and there was this "psycho-drama club" that I still don't get what it's about but basically seemed like improvisational acting (we played a game that involved groups interacting with random sounds). So, we were given an activity where we basically had to explore the campus in groups (this was also supposed to serve as an opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the place), write down the "sensations" that caught our attention like "smells, atmosphere, colours, etc. that made an impression on us" and then draw a map of the area where we placed those sensations. Our group was quite dismissive of the activity and I think we gave it a more Se-approach. And a few others gave it a feeling one where they wrote down values related to college-life or something. Actually, I'm guessing quite a few people missed the Si-mentality of the activity. Needless to say, I never considered visiting the psycho-drama club.


----------



## Recede

Hmm. Almost none of these Si examples are at all how I experience Si. Some of those ESE Si examples even make me cringe a bit. But I guess these examples are helping me to understand the differences between alpha Si and delta Si.



Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Let me share another Si anecdote I just remembered... I was doing a psychology course in college where we dedicated a class to introduce each subject we were going to encounter and there was this "psycho-drama club" that I still don't get what it's about but basically seemed like improvisational acting (we played a game that involved groups interacting with random sounds). So, we were given an activity where we basically had to explore the campus in groups (this was also supposed to serve as an opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the place), write down the "sensations" that caught our attention like "smells, atmosphere, colours, etc. that made an impression on us" and then draw a map of the area where we placed those sensations. Our group was quite dismissive of the activity and I think we gave it a more Se-approach. And a few others gave it a feeling one where they wrote down values related to college-life or something. Actually, I'm guessing quite a few people missed the Si-mentality of the activity. Needless to say, I never considered visiting the psycho-drama club.


I would enjoy drawing a map, especially since I have strong spatial memory. Forming mental maps is something my mind does automatically wherever I go. "Sensations" and "smells, atmosphere, colours, etc. that made an impression on us" is a bit weird to me though. I guess I would just write down things I see that I like? Like pretty flowers or something. I would probably enjoy the activity as long as the teacher doesn't make it a social activity or make us describe "feelings" we have about what we see.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Silveresque said:


> I would enjoy drawing a map, especially since I have strong spatial memory. Forming mental maps is something my mind does automatically wherever I go. "Sensations" and "smells, atmosphere, colours, etc. that made an impression on us" is a bit weird to me though. I guess I would just write down things I see that I like? Like pretty flowers or something. I would probably enjoy the activity as long as the teacher doesn't make it a social activity or make us describe "feelings" we have about what we see.


Drawing a map would not have bothered me at all (if a bit pointless). It's the other aspect of the activity that I found weird and a waste of time.
I imagine delta Si is more pragmatic than alpha Si but I don't know how that translates to reality exactly... Although delta does seem to be an "aesthetic" quadra (that's a word I've seen a delta herself use to describe it) which is apparently an important factor that accompanies its practicality (for example, designing aesthetically pleasing tools or devices).


----------



## Sonny

AST said:


> I know a fuckton of IEIs in varying relationships. Keep in mind that Beta Fe is different than Alpha Fe, as ours is blocked with Ni. Blocked functions are tied to each other in a way. So, Beta Fe has an Ni tinge to it, where as Alpha Fe is Si tinged.


What does that difference look like (use more descriptive words than Ni or Si tinge pls)?


----------



## Choice

Dying Acedia said:


> Hello? Anybody Betas up for hanging out?


I'm a beta. What the hell do you want?


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Drawing a map would not have bothered me at all (if a bit pointless). It's the other aspect of the activity that I found weird and a waste of time.
> I imagine delta Si is more pragmatic than alpha Si but I don't know how that translates to reality exactly... Although delta does seem to be an "aesthetic" quadra (that's a word I've seen a delta herself use to describe it) which is apparently an important factor that accompanies its practicality (for example, designing aesthetically pleasing tools or devices).


Having an LSE stepmom, the practical nature of SiTe appears more in well, that, practicality. She is for example acutely aware of what kind of clothing one should wear depending on the weather and is a believer in the saying that there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. Other ways this appear is that she's attuned to how to effectively run a household for example, who is good at say, cleaning the bathroom, or how to cook in an effective way. 

I am also following this person on Facebook who I am very sure is an LSE-Te, and she often uploads photos of things she's seeing in her environment like an abandoned train track with some musing about what happened to it from a historical perspective (the Te).


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> Beta irrationals are all right and from delta I really only like EIIs that I know of, anyway. I think I prefer NFs overall though.


Why only EIIs?

Hmm, I'm not terribly interested in health and such as a topic. Nostalgia is nice, but it's kind of subjective of course. Like I remember reading some review saying something about the 70s being more nostalgic than the 90s, and I was like huh? I didn't even exist in the 70s, so idk man. (Though I might be misremembering or might have misinterpreted what they were saying. It's been a while. =P)

Uhm.


----------



## Entropic

Nonsense said:


> Why only EIIs?


Because I haven't spoken to any IEEs or delta STs beyond being acquaintances.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

ephemereality said:


> Having an LSE stepmom, the practical nature of SiTe appears more in well, that, practicality. She is for example acutely aware of what kind of clothing one should wear depending on the weather and is a believer in the saying that there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. Other ways this appear is that she's attuned to how to effectively run a household for example, who is good at say, cleaning the bathroom, or how to cook in an effective way.
> 
> I am also following this person on Facebook who I am very sure is an LSE-Te, and she often uploads photos of things she's seeing in her environment like an abandoned train track with some musing about what happened to it from a historical perspective (the Te).


Yep, sounds like my dad. Oh, the joys of Te-Si!


----------



## Dyidia

AST said:


> I know a fuckton of IEIs in varying relationships. Keep in mind that Beta Fe is different than Alpha Fe, as ours is blocked with Ni. Blocked functions are tied to each other in a way. So, Beta Fe has an Ni tinge to it, where as Alpha Fe is Si tinged.
> 
> Also, Fe lead, Fe creative, Fe mobilizing, and Fe suggestive types all value Fe differently than each other. My relation to Fe is as something that I need, but can't really do myself. I look for places that have warm and "free" atmospheres, where I don't have to worry about what I say or do (a *strong Fe valuer,* for example, might frown upon some of those behaviors, because it might be considered offensive to others in a group). I tend to approach things as group efforts, but very structured in roles and responsibilities (Ti lead at work). We're all part of one big system (woo Beta aristocracy). IF these conditions aren't met, if the cohesion and atmosphere are poor, I'm very inclined to leave the system socially. Fe is a need where there is social interaction, but I can get by rather well without Fe if I don't have to socialize.


That's interesting. And I'm guessing you meant strong Fi valuers. I tend to get uneasy if I can tell someone else in a group is getting offended/upset, but if anything I'm a little crude and only notice when it manifests in their body language.

I don't know that I have a clear idea of what I look for in group interactions, but I do want to feel like I'm personally engaged and invited in some way. I've been to some meetups where the people had interesting/funny things to say but I felt like there was no real depth to it, like it wasn't about anything and lacked energy.


----------



## Dyidia

Choice said:


> I'm a beta. What the hell do you want?


Awesome, another beta. Care to share what your quadra relations are like?

I'll take an iced-tea too, if you're offering.




Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think I prefer gammas to alphas, despite the shared Fe. With alphas interactions start well but after a while they can become a mix of annoying and boring. Especially if conversation topics become very Si, where I just want to shoot myself in the foot. In comparison, I can deal with Fi and I really like SEEs. Or at least based on my limited experience with them.


How do you relate to Te, btw? I thought I was ILI, but I've been finding Te-seeking behavior rather tiring and I never did have a problem with Fe. And yeah, Fi isn't a problem to me unless people rant at me with it.

Alpha Fe is meh. My brother is LII and we throw a lot of funny references back and forth to one another when we go out to take care of something, but it's more just filler to me to pass the time and we split as soon as the job's done. I do that a lot actually; I don't drink as much as I used to, but when I'm with people I don't have much to say to I just get drunk and say a lot of random funny things. I sometimes do when I'm sober too, but usually then I just leave.


----------



## AST

Sonny said:


> What does that difference look like (use more descriptive words than Ni or Si tinge pls)?


 @Dying Acedia, no, I meant Fe.

Anyway, my observations of Alpha Fe are somewhat limited, but they seem to be very practically minded. They focus on the actions that each person does for the other. I don't really know how to describe it much past that. Sorry.

Beta Fe is very tied to the abstract. We conceptualize people, their innate qualities and what they mean to us... what they are as opposed to what they do. Beta NFs have an uncanny knack for recognizing people's potentials and I've seen a few instances of Beta NFs being drawn to what a person will be, to the point of overlooking things they might presently object to. As a whole, I think Beta Fe is far more idealistic. 

All I can think of right now. More specific inquiry would be helpful.


----------



## Sonny

AST said:


> Anyway, my observations of Alpha Fe are somewhat limited, but they seem to be very practically minded. They focus on the actions that each person does for the other. I don't really know how to describe it much past that. Sorry.
> 
> Beta Fe is very tied to the abstract. We conceptualize people, their innate qualities and what they mean to us... what they are as opposed to what they do. Beta NFs have an uncanny knack for recognizing people's potentials and I've seen a few instances of Beta NFs being drawn to what a person will be, to the point of overlooking things they might presently object to. As a whole, I think Beta Fe is far more idealistic.
> 
> All I can think of right now. More specific inquiry would be helpful.


Thanks.

I've never been able to figure my type, I know for sure that I'm Alpha or Beta and Irrational, my MBTI is ENTP so ILE is probably where it's at, however there are also many aspects of IEI that gel so I was interested in how you saw Ne v Ni effecting the Fe of the quadras. 

What would you say the key differences between Alpha and Beta are, not just surface impressions according to others looking in but deeper down differences?


----------



## Choice

@Sonny

Can you relate to any of this?

An explanation on "childish" and "mature" views in the Socion


----------



## Sonny

Choice said:


> @_Sonny_
> 
> Can you relate to any of this?
> 
> An explanation on "childish" and "mature" views in the Socion


That was a lot of words put together in ways that didn't sink in =/ I have only had 3 coffees this morning though so that could be my drama. However I was looking at the Reinin stuff yesterday to see if anything could get clearer and the following were the ones that I felt sure enough about:

*Merry *and serious: Do I even need to read? Probably not, so I say Merry before reading. I am certain I'm Alpha or Beta.

*Judicious *and decisive: Oh gawd, so Judicious that Decisive doesn't even get a look in. Just is.

Process and *result*: Results. Clearly and strongly.

*Asking *and declaring: Askers. Fo sure.

*Positivist *and negativist: Positivist. Clearly.

*Tactical *and strategic: Tactical. 

The rest were not as clear for me. Ofc this is presuming what I was reading was good material and that my comprehension of it was accurate, neither may be correct. Weirdly enough when I put them all together to see what the dichotomies aligned with, including the ones I wasn't so sure about, ESE came out hitting the most of them, followed by ILE, IEI and LII. Maybe it's just my 9 that warps how ILE appears in me, dunno.


----------



## Choice

Dying Acedia said:


> I'm thirsty bitch.


I've no interest in Large groups, although
"Avoid discussing personal matters in groups, avoid long or slow stories." is true.



> Betas tend to regard Alpha types as pleasant company, fun and creative, but too goofy and present-oriented, lacking focus and ambition, needing to be led, and more concerned with refining the world of ideas and fun than the "real world".


Too present orientated? wtf?

Too goofy? Hmm. I may start to take the role of critic/feasibility monitor after a while during ENTP brainstorms. Can't say the same for anybody else.

"needing to be led." Are you crazy? It'd be like herding cats!



> 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.


Don't know enough of em to comment, but like I said, I've no interest in big groups. Doubt I'd give a shit.



> Betas tend to regard Delta types as noncommittal in their unwillingness to support goals decided in a group, lack of drive, and ethical self-righteousness.


Noncommittal? In what ways? Haven't noticed.
Ethical self-righteousness may be fair enough depending on who.



> Betas make general jokes to entertain others but don't feel playful enough to make loud jokes that might offend Deltas.


??? Haven't noticed a tendency to intentionally hold back on jokes when around them compared to anyone else.



> But when there's a quadra dominance, things go bad very fast. The Beta group is too loud and impersonal for Deltas and the Delta group is too muted and personal for Betas. Betas want to express their views and opinions very openly, while Deltas want everyone to keep any possibly offensive views to themselves.


I'm a bit more loud/upfront and unmannered in public...but What does offensive mean in this sense? Because I've heard discriminatory(racist, sexist etc) bullshit from everyone regardless of type.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Dying Acedia said:


> How do you relate to Te, btw? I thought I was ILI, but I've been finding Te-seeking behavior rather tiring and I never did have a problem with Fe. And yeah, Fi isn't a problem to me unless people rant at me with it.
> 
> 
> Alpha Fe is meh. My brother is LII and we throw a lot of funny references back and forth to one another when we go out to take care of something, but it's more just filler to me to pass the time and we split as soon as the job's done. I do that a lot actually; I don't drink as much as I used to, but when I'm with people I don't have much to say to I just get drunk and say a lot of random funny things. I sometimes do when I'm sober too, but usually then I just leave.


I'm... confused regarding my relationship to Te. In a way, it doesn't seem to have such a big influence on my life considering it's my porl and that I've lived years with my LSE father. On the other hand, I feel pretty confident at the moment of being IEI after becoming friends with an ex of mine who is an SEE a few months ago. It serves as a reminder of the differences between Fi and Fe. However, understanding what Te actually is, as a mental process, has been really hard and I think I'm only now reaching an understanding which might be a manifestation of my own weak Te. It's obvious to me that I rarely ever judge information based on external facts/logical systems which always gives me the risk of producing what I'd call "bullshit-in-a-crystal-ball reasoning". Regarding more practical, everyday life examples, I get strangely tired of hearing stuff, typically coming from my dad, about how to make things more efficient/effective/economical or what's the "right way" to do things and I tend to perceive Te-doms as bossy. At their worst, they seem to be commanding people as if they were objects, entirely detached from the human part of them, to fulfill a strange need for things to be running as smoothly and efficiently as possible.


----------



## Schweeeeks

Hi, guys! ENTP/IEI-Fe here. I've been interested in Socionics for awhile and would love to meet other people I can bounce ideas off of.

Any other weirdo MBTI/Socionics type combos?


----------



## Sonny

Schweeeeks said:


> Hi, guys! ENTP/IEI-Fe here. I've been interested in Socionics for awhile and would love to meet other people I can bounce ideas off of.
> 
> Any other weirdo MBTI/Socionics type combos?


=O you are???????

How did you come to type that way and what other combos have you considered/gone through before you arrived at that?

Curious as I'm either a run of the mill ENTP ILE-Ne or I'm an ENTP IEI and my major issue is reconciling how different the latter combination is.


----------



## Schweeeeks

Sonny said:


> =O you are???????
> 
> How did you come to type that way and what other combos have you considered/gone through before you arrived at that?
> 
> Curious as I'm either a run of the mill ENTP ILE-Ne or I'm an ENTP IEI and my major issue is reconciling how different the latter combination is.


I keep wondering if I'm a run of the mill INFJ/IEI-Fe. Definite ethics in Socionics. The functions described me to a tee, including criticisms that I have received in the past. Also reflected the sentiment I felt when I was criticized.
Too many things. When I was in highschool, before I was brutally honest and authentic with myself, I would have EASILY typed as an LII. Anyone implying I WASN'T Ti-base would have been met with derision. Even typed as INTP in MBTI. And I tossed off Te as "meh...! Ti is better.....shhhh..". Very HA. 
But kind of funny, despite all that, my friends, my family (including my parent Conflictor), etc: all gave me IEI compliments and criticisms growing up. Teachers included.

So yeah, IEI is dead on. I even made a list one time (was trying out Law of Attraction lol) of the "perfect person" for me. Year later came upon Socionics and it was pretty much stereotypical SLE. 

It's almost too perfect....*twilight zone music*

As for ENTP, that was less sure typing. It really is the best one out of all the MBTI ones in cog functions, but omg the stereotypes of ENTP are pretty faaaaaar off.
I come up with lots of possibilities, "what if"s, but they all relate to a constant one thing that I doubt like a typical Ni-base. Being type 6 exacerbates this I'm sure.
And Fe? MBTI Fe doesn't correspond with me really...I don't care about concerning myself with the feelings of everyone around me (although I am cognizant). I like keeping up the atmosphere, rousing people, getting others out of their shell. The whole "keep the peace" crap doesn't appeal to me.

Actuallyyyyyyy I wrote a recent PM to someone on this very topic:


> __function__ = MBTI
> soc__Function__ = Socionics
> 
> 
> ENTP that's an IEI-Fe (me)
> I'm good at finding many "what ifs" (Ne different possibilities/alternatives) which I apply towards my socNi (How a situation/object develops over time). I try to anticipate the many different ways something will go. My Ti (points of leverage found through internal logic) narrows these down by looking for defining points (what is the skeleton of the pattern? if its more solid, its more likely?).
> 
> 
> SocFe is driven towards creating more poignant emotional expression and uses the combination of the above to drive more synergy of emotional expression between me and others around me.
> Fe in MBTI seems to correspond to more serious concern for those around you. Careful, conscientious. Wants to make sure everyone is "okay" and acting in accordance with "socially placed morals/ways of behavior" (Very Si tone in my explanation, sorry about that).
> 
> 
> However...I don't connect on that emotional level the same way that many Fe doms or auxs do. I play with it more often like socFe. If someone gets offended, oops. Lots of not politically correct humor, rowdy, boisterous like a typical Beta.


My body language fits INFJ much better. I have the "steady Ni gaze". But...visual typing. Not sure how accurate that is. 
It's also strange, because I have a lot of trouble relating to the INFJ subforums. Seems so subdued...serious. Then again maybe they are different Socionics types. Dunno.

_
Edit: If anyone disagrees with this being possible and can see something else I might be missing, let me know. It's still weird to reconcile it in my own head sometimes._


----------



## Schweeeeks

Got a question for all you Betas. 

Where do you hang out? How do people find you?

I'm curious, because I can't seem to find any Beta love around where I live...inundated with Si and Fi. Alphas would be cool too, but I don't seem to run into any of them.

Very typist of me. I'm just having a hard time finding a rowdy, boisterous bunch I can go whack mailboxes with. 
If it helps: 1) I generally stay away from alcohol. Feels like a crutch and a rival to my workout regimen
2) I'm a little risk-averse. If someone invites me into a sketchy area, I might decline just because.
3) I don't like spending lots of money, especially all at once. These times be hard, laddie...

Any ideas would be much appreciated.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Schweeeeks said:


> Got a question for all you Betas.
> 
> Where do you hang out? How do people find you?
> 
> I'm curious, because I can't seem to find any Beta love around where I live...inundated with Si and Fi. Alphas would be cool too, but I don't seem to run into any of them.
> 
> Very typist of me. I'm just having a hard time finding a rowdy, boisterous bunch I can go whack mailboxes with.
> If it helps: 1) I generally stay away from alcohol. Feels like a crutch and a rival to my workout regimen
> 2) I'm a little risk-averse. If someone invites me into a sketchy area, I might decline just because.
> 3) I don't like spending lots of money, especially all at once. These times be hard, laddie...
> 
> Any ideas would be much appreciated.


Don't try to type people and then judge them negatively based on that?


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Don't try to type people and then judge them negatively based on that?


Beta's gonna beta.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

I'm seriously considering making a concentrated effort to type every single person in my life.


----------



## Schweeeeks

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Don't try to type people and then judge them negatively based on that?


Yes, because that's exactly what I'm doing...thanks. 

Anyways Betas?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Schweeeeks said:


> Got a question for all you Betas.
> 
> Where do you hang out? How do people find you?
> 
> I'm curious, because I can't seem to find any Beta love around where I live...inundated with Si and Fi. Alphas would be cool too, but I don't seem to run into any of them.
> 
> Very typist of me. I'm just having a hard time finding a rowdy, boisterous bunch I can go whack mailboxes with.
> If it helps: 1) I generally stay away from alcohol. Feels like a crutch and a rival to my workout regimen
> 2) I'm a little risk-averse. If someone invites me into a sketchy area, I might decline just because.
> 3) I don't like spending lots of money, especially all at once. These times be hard, laddie...
> 
> Any ideas would be much appreciated.


Numbers one and two might be a problem. Number three isn't if you hang out with people with a similar income to you. Personally, I've only been around one predominantly beta group in my life, I think, and it was really fun but it was nothing crazy either. My type is arguable though, I'm either IEI or ILI. Anyway, just live your life like any other day I guess? And look for a feeling of "familiarity" and understanding in the people you interact with.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Schweeeeks said:


> Yes, because that's exactly what I'm doing...thanks.
> 
> Anyways Betas?


Hey, you're the parrot who had her life changed by a poem.


----------



## Schweeeeks

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Hey, you're the parrot who had her life changed by a poem.


I like your quote:
"Value truth and empathy, question everything, know thyself and don't initiate violence."


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Schweeeeks said:


> I like your quote:
> "Value truth and empathy, question everything, know thyself and don't initiate violence."


I should write a book and make it an actual quote from something.


----------



## Inguz

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I should write a book and make it an actual quote from something.


I think that Kant beat you to it.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Inguz said:


> I think that Kant beat you to it.


Yeah, well, he had a head start.


----------



## Inguz

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Yeah, well, he had a head start.


You both are LII too so!


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Inguz said:


> You both are LII too so!


Integrating speech patterns in text is confusing.


----------



## Inguz

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Integrating speech patterns in text is confusing.


It is to highlight the interaction being light-hearted and/or casual.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Inguz said:


> It is to highlight the interaction being light-hearted and/or casual.


Use emoticons.


----------



## Inguz

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Use emoticons.


:angry::laughing::happy::ninja::frustrating::kitteh::dry::wink::crying::crazy::tongue::shocked::sad::bored:roud::blushed::mellow:


----------



## JSauceDaBoss

So.. who wants to be my minion?


----------



## AST

No.


----------



## JSauceDaBoss

You don't make the cut anyways "solutions master".


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Where did you two come from?


----------



## JSauceDaBoss

Napa Valley, CA


----------



## AST

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Where did you two come from?


Are you referring to me?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

AST said:


> Are you referring to me?


Yes.


----------



## AST

I _am_ a Beta. I've been in this thread before.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

AST said:


> I _am_ a Beta.


_Prove it._


----------



## AST

Why should I?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

AST said:


> Why should I?


To prove your beta prestige.



I'm just teasing you, in case it wasn't clear.


----------



## Astrid Von M

so apparently...I actually belong here. took the test yday....as if the things can't get any more complicated


----------



## AST

Fuck yeah another LSI


----------



## Straystuff

I've been trying to scan this thread and find another EIE but no....? Do I dare to join the conversation? :'D


----------



## AST

Straystuff said:


> I've been trying to scan this thread and find another EIE but no....? Do I dare to join the conversation? :'D


----------



## Straystuff

Well, yes.

They are small in numbers irl so they've decided to take over all the forums instead?


----------



## Christian Exodia

Hi. I'm an IEI-INFp INFP... At least I think so. I took one of the tests, and I'm just wanting to be sure...


----------



## AST

@Christian Exodia

Are you Ni-Fe or Fi-Ne?


----------



## Christian Exodia

AST said:


> @Christian Exodia
> 
> Are you Ni-Fe or Fi-Ne?


Ni-Fe, it seems.


----------



## AST

That would be IEI-INFp in Socionics and INFJ in MBTI. The J/P flip between the systems can be confusing. You can check out my post here (the first response to the OP) for further clarification, if you like.


----------



## eboyblue3

Explain like I'm 5. How the heck is this different from your plain-jane MBTI?


----------



## HFGE

So apparently I'm a Beta. Unless I'm not in which case I will simply say, "f**k it" and give up on this theory for good.


----------



## Schweeeeks

HFGE said:


> So apparently I'm a Beta. Unless I'm not in which case I will simply say, "f**k it" and give up on this theory for good.


I am so confused. I thought you were IEE? Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.


----------



## Straystuff

I think she might have changed type?  Happens when you learn more about yourself/this typing


----------



## Entropic

Schweeeeks said:


> I am so confused. I thought you were IEE? Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.


Yeah, I don't get how you move from IEE to SLE...


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> Yeah, I don't get how you move from IEE to SLE...


Superego too superb to resist, apparently


----------



## HFGE

Schweeeeks said:


> I am so confused. I thought you were IEE? Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.


I was, and no you'd be correct. Anyway, I thought I'd test drive out being Beta again. 



Straystuff said:


> I think she might have changed type?  Happens when you learn more about yourself/this typing


She? I'm a guy. I know that for sure. :wink: But yeah, tried being IEE and now I thought I'd try being SLE... see how it feels. So far, it seems fine to me and doesn't seem odd to me at all.



Entropic said:


> Yeah, I don't get how you move from IEE to SLE...


Too much role was tiring me out. 



Amaterasu said:


> Superego too superb to resist, apparently


It's either this or SEE, because nothing else fits and I'd be a better IEE than SEE to be quite honest.


Anyways! I'm not trying to trick anyone or anything. Someone who knows Socionics fairly well typed me as SLE a while ago. I had dismissed it at the time but I'm re-examining the suggestion now.


----------



## Schweeeeks

HFGE said:


> Anyways! I'm not trying to trick anyone or anything. Someone who knows Socionics fairly well typed me as SLE a while ago. I had dismissed it at the time but I'm re-examining the suggestion now.


Where's the confusion? Are there any particular traits that you can't sort through? I'm thinking of tie-breakers between IEE and SLE, there don't seem to be many.

Not trying to give you the 3rd degree here. Just having trouble visualizing and am curious.


----------



## HFGE

Schweeeeks said:


> Where's the confusion? Are there any particular traits that you can't sort through? I'm thinking of tie-breakers between IEE and SLE, there don't seem to be many.
> 
> Not trying to give you the 3rd degree here. Just having trouble visualizing and am curious.


I did some looking into yesterday. Holographic-panoramic thinking style doesn't change, only the position on the ring does. That was the main cognitive style I was forming my thinking about.

Dichtomies: 
Static - Check.
Aristocratic - Ehhh.... I tend to skip this one but half-check.
Emotivist? - Constructivist makes more sense by far.
Results - Check.
Strategic - Check.
Declaring - Check.

Being honest with myself, being of the decisive quadras makes more sense than judicious.

Is that proof enough or do I need to provide more?


----------



## Vermillion

HFGE said:


> I did some looking into yesterday. Holographic-panoramic thinking style doesn't change, only the position on the ring does.
> 
> Dichtomies:
> Static - Check.
> Aristocratic - Ehhh.... I tend to skip this one but half-check.
> Emotivist? - Constructivist makes more sense by far.
> Results - Check.
> Strategic - Check.
> Declaring - Check.
> 
> Being honest with myself, being of the decisive quadras makes more sense than judicious.
> 
> Is that proof enough or do I need to provide more?


Yeah... dichotomies and cognitive style aside, how do you account for the fact that the two types have like, completely different function preferences? One is the superego of the other, so they're different enough for two people of those types to suffer significant intertype clashes, so you have to be pretty split in mentality to accommodate both worldviews to a good degree.


----------



## HFGE

Amaterasu said:


> Yeah... dichotomies and cognitive style aside, how do you account for the fact that the two types have like, completely different function preferences? One is the superego of the other, so they're different enough for two people of those types to suffer significant intertype clashes, so you have to be pretty split in mentality to accommodate both worldviews to a good degree.


When it comes to typing either others or myself I go with the thinking styles and dichotomies. I don't really use Socionics to learn more about myself or others as that's not the focus of my efforts with the theory. Otherwise I do agree that there's a fairly wide gulf between what an SLE and IEE are. Either way though, (whether I'm an SLE or IEE) I think superego relations describes the pair well.


----------



## Vermillion

HFGE said:


> When it comes to typing either others or myself I go with the thinking styles and dichotomies. I don't really use Socionics to learn more about myself or others as that's not the focus of my efforts with the theory. Otherwise I do agree that there's a fairly wide gulf between what an SLE and IEE are. Either way though, (whether I'm an SLE or IEE) I think superego relations describes the pair well.


You want to assign types to people but you don't want to learn more about them. I'm curious, what's the point of the label then?

And if you're going to use dichotomies and thinking styles, which are only secondary aspects of the theory of Socionics as compared to the actual information elements, I wouldn't say you're using Socionics at all. Only an arbitrarily selected portion of it. People here are going to be looking to see if the IMs fit your type as well. If that's not your thing, then I don't know how you expect to communicate on the same wavelength as the rest of the community since a) you have a higher chance of being mistyped and b) you're not using the same parts of the theory that the community does.

I'm really confused, actually, as to why you disregard the IMs.


----------



## HFGE

Amaterasu said:


> You want to assign types to people but you don't want to learn more about them. I'm curious, what's the point of the label then?
> 
> And if you're going to use dichotomies and thinking styles, which are only secondary aspects of the theory of Socionics as compared to the actual information elements, I wouldn't say you're using Socionics at all. Only an arbitrarily selected portion of it. People here are going to be looking to see if the IMs fit your type as well. If that's not your thing, then I don't know how you expect to communicate on the same wavelength as the rest of the community since a) you have a higher chance of being mistyped and b) you're not using the same parts of the theory that the community does.
> 
> I'm really confused, actually, as to why you disregard the IMs.


I never said I disregard IMs, I said when typing myself or others I use Gulenko's Cognitive Styles and Dichotomies to type, which is the preferred method for typing a person as it's much more precise than trying to figure out a person's functional order.

Although maybe I worded it in an ambiguous way but typing others and examining the veracity of the intertype relations is my main focus when learning about Socionics. Basically, I want to know how the system works and if there's merit to it which is why I've been studying it for as long as I have (going on 5+ years now). And if there is merit to Socionics, just how much of an impact does it have on a person's life. 

The personal aspect of self-discovery and learning more about others are definitely useful but aside from self-typing purposes is not what I'm particularly interested in.


----------



## Entropic

@HFGE These are SLEs:

















Based on what I've observed of you thus far, you really don't seem much similar to these with Jenna perhaps being the only exception but I wouldn't consider her behavior specifically exemplary of her quadra. It's difficult to tell whether this is a persona that she's created, either way.


----------



## Vermillion

HFGE said:


> I never said I disregard IMs, I said when typing myself or others I use Gulenko's Cognitive Styles and Dichotomies to type, which is the preferred method for typing a person as it's much more precise than trying to figure out a person's functional order.
> 
> Although maybe I worded it in an ambiguous way but typing others and examining the veracity of the intertype relations is my main focus when learning about Socionics. Basically, I want to know how the system works and if there's merit to it which is why I've been studying it for as long as I have (going on 5+ years now). And if there is merit to Socionics, just how much of an impact does it have on a person's life.
> 
> The personal aspect of self-discovery and learning more about others are definitely useful but aside from self-typing purposes is not what I'm particularly interested in.


The IMs are the fundamentals of Socionics. I don't know whose preferred method you're advocating because afaik, no one thorough in Socionics would disregard a fundamental and focus on an offshoot of a fundamental. So please explain the precision you mean, because it's invisible to me.

Intertype relations are extremely, extremely affected by functional order. Let's look at your conflictor. Their dominant function is your PoLR, and vice versa, which is one of the reasons relations between conflictors have the potential to become sour and uncomfortable. If you don't know the functional order how are you going to understand the effect of this?


----------



## Word Dispenser

haha, I _knew _Marbles was SLE. roud: She's intimidating and scarily awesome. Supervisor for the win. :kitteh:


----------



## HFGE

Entropic said:


> @_HFGE_ These are SLEs:[/video]
> 
> Based on what I've observed of you thus far, you really don't seem much similar to these with Jenna perhaps being the only exception but I wouldn't consider her behavior specifically exemplary of her quadra. It's difficult to tell whether this is a persona that she's created, either way.


I don't watch anime so I can't really comment on any personality or character development of the first two videos and the fourth. I thought the first video wasn't very helpful aside from being I physical I suppose? I sense there's some symbolism there but I don't really want to get into it. The second video I guess makes sense for Fi-PoLR since the type is usually said to have no real sense of self. (From the POV of Fi-valuers)

The third video Jenna Marbles hahah. I think she's funny at times but the only thing she exudes is Se for the camera because she could very well be SEE as she could be an SLE. Funny but over the top, which can be irritating at times, is how I'd describe Ms. Marbles.

The fourth video just makes me feel kind of reflective. I mean, why so much senseless violence? There's a certain animalistic sense of eating your enemy to make yourself stronger. Reminds me of certain types of professions.


----------



## HFGE

Amaterasu said:


> The IMs are the fundamentals of Socionics. I don't know whose preferred method you're advocating because afaik, no one thorough in Socionics would disregard a fundamental and focus on an offshoot of a fundamental. So please explain the precision you mean, because it's invisible to me.
> 
> Intertype relations are extremely, extremely affected by functional order. Let's look at your conflictor. Their dominant function is your PoLR, and vice versa, which is one of the reasons relations between conflictors have the potential to become sour and uncomfortable. If you don't know the functional order how are you going to understand the effect of this?


Hm... I'm not saying to disregard the IMs, I'm not sure why you keep saying that. As such, I'm not saying to ignore them either. I was however saying that using the cognitive styles and dichotomies is a much more precise way to type a person. Reason being, trying to type a person by functions can be a bit hazy at times since a lot of people often times become confused which one of their ego functions is first and second. And yes, intertype relations are dependent on the IMs. They're based on Model A and the eight elements!

I'm assuming everyone already knows the IMs to some degree and move on to other aspects of Socionics. I think knowing Model A, the IM order for the 16 types and the labels for the intertype relations is the minimum prerequisite knowledge to really get into Socionics on a deeper level.


----------



## Schweeeeks

Haha went back and realized I worded my question totally wrong.
I guess it was more what do IEE and SLE share in common. enough to mix them up. Everything is a venn diagram. I'm trying to see the Venn part.
Aristocratic, Negativist, Result, Declaring...personality wise sometime we over-identify with HA and feel more skilled at Role than theory would suggest. 

I guess I found it interesting, because even in my super HA identification days, I never would have thought Te ego. Ti for sure, but Te was always just...not as badass to me? I'm an Fe subtype, so my usage of Te is even lower than typical IEI.


----------



## Vermillion

HFGE said:


> Hm... I'm not saying to disregard the IMs, I'm not sure why you keep saying that. As such, I'm not saying to ignore them either. I was however saying that using the cognitive styles and dichotomies is a much more precise way to type a person. Reason being, trying to type a person by functions can be a bit hazy at times since a lot of people often times become confused which one of their ego functions is first and second. And yes, intertype relations are dependent on the IMs. They're based on Model A and the eight elements!
> 
> I'm assuming everyone already knows the IMs to some degree and move on to other aspects of Socionics. I think knowing Model A, the IM order for the 16 types and the labels for the intertype relations is the minimum prerequisite knowledge to really get into Socionics on a deeper level.


I can say that the cognitive styles and the dichotomies are hazier because they describe vague attributes that are easy to relate to and mislead people as to where they fall. It's essentially making a huge, huge Venn diagram and expecting to find the perfect spot of all-encompassing relation within it, which is way more difficult and is going to lead to way more mistakes, in a probabilistic sense, rather than just putting eight variables into place. Often, people don't relate to the right dichotomies even because they judge them very experientially, which can leave room for a lot of personal and behavioral bias. 

Model A _combined_ with a few dichotomies eliminates the error in identifying the placement of functions because each function is designated a specific role and dimensionality that is very different. Unless poor understanding of the theory or oneself is in play, the confusion shouldn't arise. 

The IMs have their own undeniable and absolute depth that is required when typing a person accurately. If you're vacillating between SLE and IEE, which don't share IMs in the same roles at all... I'd say your Venn diagram of dichotomies and cognitive styles is malfunctioning.


----------



## HFGE

Schweeeeks said:


> Haha went back and realized I worded my question totally wrong.
> I guess it was more what do IEE and SLE share in common. enough to mix them up. Everything is a venn diagram. I'm trying to see the Venn part.
> Aristocratic, Negativist, Result, Declaring...personality wise sometime we over-identify with HA and feel more skilled at Role than theory would suggest.
> 
> I guess I found it interesting, because even in my super HA identification days, I never would have thought Te ego. Ti for sure, but Te was always just...not as badass to me? I'm an Fe subtype, so my usage of Te is even lower than typical IEI.


So, the question of the day is do you







? Since the two subtype model says if you're alpha leaning then you take on better adeptness with the other alpha valued functions.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Straystuff said:


> I'm not embarrassed 'cause their actions might reflect badly on me. I'm embarrassed for the person and for the collective group of theirs if it makes sense.
> 
> It's kind of like it's really hard for me to watch movies that have a lot of second hand embarrasment. It makes me feel terrible even if I'm not connected to the situation at all. It's not about me, you know?
> 
> God I'm terrible at explaining this....


I think to some extent, like in your example of movies, it is just empathy. But the idea of thinking of people as belonging to some collective group is surely Fe. Maybe aristocracy has some influence too, we'd need to ask an alpha SF.


----------



## Vermillion

Silveresque said:


> I've noticed some people tend to think that because someone is a member of your family, that person is representing you and their behavior and attitudes can reflect well or badly on you. Is this a beta aristocracy thing? Or the social instinct? Something else?


I actually can feel this way and I'm 100% not a beta. My image and presentation is very important to me and this extends to the social group I am in as well. I expect people around me behave with the same level of sophistication that I do, according to the situation. If the people around me do embarrassing, derpy stuff then I will find a way to remove myself from the situation because I don't want to be misrepresented by the people I hang out with, which is a very real way people judge that I don't want to be a victim of. The perception of my personality will not be tainted by the stupid behavior of others. 

This annoyance has extended to my family in the past and I have tried to keep them in line, so to speak. However due to their personalities and circumstances this is no longer an issue I need to worry about and I think I was significantly more image-anxious in my youth anyway. My way of getting over people embarrassing me in general is to either think "I shouldn't care what others think" or detaching briefly and mockingly calling the person out on their silly behavior. Needless to say I have standards of behavior for the people I associate with and I frown upon people who engage in lighthearted freewheeling stupidity. However, if I genuinely find the behavior amusing/worthwhile then I might not feel like stopping it, unless it looks absolutely retarded to others.

This isn't motivated by Fe. Therefore this behavior is not something that requires to be motivated by this function. Eh, I hope you guys can make sense of what I just wrote...


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Straystuff said:


> I have to admit it's a bit hard to understand for me too :'D You don't get embarrassed at all if your family behaves badly in public? Wow. If that's true I'm a bit jealous tbh.
> 
> Ps, I thought about this a bit and I think it's 'cause I don't see people as separate but as a part of a unit. Think of special op:s or something. Everyone has a special role and skills that are vital to others, so the group is stronger than an individual. However if one fraction isn't in sync with the others and plays solo the whole entity suffers from it. (Behold the massive amount of Fe there, I'm actually taken aback by this 'cause I didn't realize I think like that before now...)


Hm, this kinda does make me think of the social instinct as well (and I notice you type as a social dominant anyway), but then I'm not sure if I know any So-last Fe doms to contrast with.


----------



## Straystuff

Kink said:


> Hm, this kinda does make me think of the social instinct as well (and I notice you type as a social dominant anyway), but then I'm not sure if I know any So-last Fe doms to contrast with.


I'm pretty sure Fe and So complement each other in this case :'D

But yeah, it would be interesting to see a Fe -dom with weak So. I wonder how many of them even exsists, I've never bumped into any.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Schweeeeks said:


> I am so confused. I thought you were IEE? Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.


 you are and I know who. Pshhhhh *holds finger to lips


----------



## Schweeeeks

FreeBeer said:


> you are and I know who. Pshhhhh *holds finger to lips


Ne dom to Ne PoLR. That's intense.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Schweeeeks said:


> Ne dom to Ne PoLR. That's intense.


:\ well I have no idea, I'm some kind of Fi-Te user...there can be only 4 of those....how hard could it be right?
Here, give me your opinion when you have time/feel like it: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...ms-questionarire-clarity-o-omg-shit-long.html

...I don't know anymore \o/


----------



## Schweeeeks

FreeBeer said:


> :\ well I have no idea, I'm some kind of Fi-Te user...there can be only 4 of those....how hard could it be right?
> Here, give me your opinion when you have time/feel like it: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...ms-questionarire-clarity-o-omg-shit-long.html
> 
> ...I don't know anymore \o/


Do you have a 20q one? I find the 80q one hard for me to absorb all at once. It's better if I can read the shorter version, then go to 80q to expand the rest of my ideas.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Schweeeeks said:


> Do you have a 20q one? I find the 80q one hard for me to absorb all at once. It's better if I can read the shorter version, then go to 80q to expand the rest of my ideas.


I don't have one sry...plz don't make me write 20 more questions.....I feel sick lol x.x


----------



## Schweeeeks

FreeBeer said:


> I don't have one sry...plz don't make me write 20 more questions.....I feel sick lol x.x


Lol fair enough. I'll see what I can do


----------



## HFGE

Silveresque said:


> I've noticed some people tend to think that because someone is a member of your family, that person is representing you and their behavior and attitudes can reflect well or badly on you. Is this a beta aristocracy thing? Or the social instinct? Something else?


Why would that be limited to beta aristocracy? If anything, that's way more delta aristocracy than beta since the focus on tradition is typically Si-related.

At any rate yes, it does obviously occur on some level. If you've ever watched comedies that satirize old money families they tend to highlight Delta values and the 'ol family name aspect of aristocracy. Betas would be more like the new money who the old money kind of resents for being in the same social class. 

To round everything off, the alphas would likely be most similar to the nouveau riche and all the absurdities that come along with it and gammas simply being into all things kitche. XD

That's how wealth by quadras should more or less seem like, IMO. For everyone else they'd likely be undifferentiated unless they live in a very class conscious society. The US for example is almost the opposite of being class conscious except in very limited regions.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

HFGE said:


> Why would that be limited to beta aristocracy? If anything, that's way more delta aristocracy than beta since the focus on tradition is typically Si-related.


Well, what she talked about seemed to be more focused on relations than traditions, in particular external relations ("we share a bond because we're family, thus your actions reflect on me as a person"). I don't really tend to feel that way towards family, anyway, but then I can't speak for other Deltas.


----------



## Recede

HFGE said:


> Why would that be limited to beta aristocracy? If anything, that's way more delta aristocracy than beta since the focus on tradition is typically Si-related.


Honestly, tradition has always seemed Fe to me. I hate tradition because it seems stupid to me, like why keep doing something the same way just because it was done that way in the past? I mean, if there's no reason to change, then fine, but the past is also no reason _not _to change. I think people who value tradition value it because they have some kind of sentimental attachment to the past or feel connected to their community/ancestors/family or whatever when practicing a tradition. I can't see why else people would think it has any value. 

I think Te would throw away traditions that seems useless or illogical. For example, I think I may end the tradition of Christmas present exchanges and just make an agreement with family members to not send or receive any presents. To me, Christmas presents essentially means that whenever I want to buy things in the 6 months or so before that time, I have to wait until Christmas to receive them, when if it weren't for Christmas, I would have still gotten those things without having to wait. If Christmas presents were limited to surprises or things I didn't say I wanted, then money is wasted because I didn't need those things. So why is the tradition of Christmas presents supposed to be a good thing? I would rather skip the present thing and just use Christmas as an excuse to go out to eat or something. But then, most restaurants are closed on Christmas, and if they aren't closed they'll be packed and crowded. So maybe I'd go out to eat a day or two before or after Christmas.


----------



## HFGE

Kink said:


> Well, what she talked about seemed to be more focused on relations than traditions, in particular external relations ("we share a bond because we're family, thus your actions reflect on me as a person"). I don't really tend to feel that way towards family, anyway, but then I can't speak for other Deltas.


Well in that case, to some degree yes but I don't think it's limited to betas or even just the aristocratic quadras. Why wouldn't an alpha or gamma family that's extremely close to one another feel the same way. I don't really see any reason why one wouldn't.


----------



## HFGE

Silveresque said:


> Honestly, tradition has always seemed Fe to me. I hate tradition because it seems stupid to me, like why keep doing something the same way just because it was done that way in the past? I mean, if there's no reason to change, then fine, but the past is also no reason _not _to change. I think people who value tradition value it because they have some kind of sentimental attachment to the past or feel connected to their community/ancestors/family or whatever when practicing a tradition. I can't see why else people would think it has any value.


Then you're understanding of Fe is off because it's Si not Fe. Fe is about finding the appropriate social circumstance for the moment which is pragmatic. Meaning if social circumstances dictate that going with something non-traditional is necessary then that's what Fe wants to go with. If following tradition is what is the social group expects then it will follow them which is what ESEs are especially aware of. Otherwise, types like EIEs may adhere to traditions but would prefer to branch off into new things and try to create new traditions.

Si is about having an internal store of past information and experiences and recalling them at appropriate times. As such, Si heavy people tend to rely on their own past experiences and the past experiences of others if they seem reasonable and have worked well for them before.

Also the last part of your paragraph seems like a very anti-Fi view of tradition.



> I think Te would throw away traditions that seems useless or illogical. For example, I think I may end the tradition of Christmas present exchanges and just make an agreement with family members to not send or receive any presents. To me, Christmas presents essentially means that whenever I want to buy things in the 6 months or so before that time, I have to wait until Christmas to receive them, when if it weren't for Christmas, I would have still gotten those things without having to wait. If Christmas presents were limited to surprises or things I didn't say I wanted, then money is wasted because I didn't need those things. So why is the tradition of Christmas presents supposed to be a good thing? I would rather skip the present thing and just use Christmas as an excuse to go out to eat or something. But then, most restaurants are closed on Christmas, and if they aren't closed they'll be packed and crowded. So maybe I'd go out to eat a day or two before or after Christmas.


Yeah it could be Te but it could just as well be a Scrooge or Grinch Ti type writing this.  Hahahah, I'm kidding. I kind of feel the same way about Christmas. I think it's a lot more convenient to give gifts some time between Thanksgiving and Christmas and that's what I would consider to be reasonable. However, I would think that most people who give gifts on Christmas do so because their children enjoy it (Or maybe the adults enjoy it too because they're still a kid at heart.). Also, more places are open on Christmas nowadays and is now the busiest day of the year for restaurants and movie theaters.

I tend to like Christmas and the holidays in general because I feel happier around that time because everyone seems to be more cheerful, friendlier, joyful, even a bit kinder to others. I would assume those are Fe reasons and I suffer from post-holiday Fe blues when everyone goes back to their normal self. :\


----------



## Recede

HFGE said:


> Then you're understanding of Fe is off because it's Si not Fe. Fe is about finding the appropriate social circumstance for the moment which is pragmatic. Meaning if social circumstances dictate that going with something non-traditional is necessary then that's what Fe wants to go with. If following tradition is what is the social group expects then it will follow them which is what ESEs are especially aware of. Otherwise, types like EIEs may adhere to traditions but would prefer to branch off into new things and try to create new traditions.


I never said tradition = Fe, and I don't believe there's any one function it's tied to in all cases. I said it's always seemed Fe to me, as in some of what I associate tradition with overlaps with some of what I associate Fe with.



> Si is about having an internal store of past information and experiences and recalling them at appropriate times. As such, Si heavy people tend to rely on their own past experiences and the past experiences of others if they seem reasonable and have worked well for them before.


According to MBTI, yes. But I disagree with the way MBTI describes Si.



> Also the last part of your paragraph seems like a very anti-Fi view of tradition.


It would be weird if that were the case, since Si and Fi are about the only functions people in this forum say they see in me.


----------



## HFGE

Silveresque said:


> I never said tradition = Fe, and I don't believe there's any one function it's tied to in all cases. I said it's always seemed Fe to me, as in some of what I associate tradition with overlaps with some of what I associate Fe with.


I never said you said that either, but the same reasoning you applied to Te would also apply to Fe since both are objective and rational elements. Pair either with Si and you'd more likely to find a person who is more likely to follow older and established norms.



Silveresque said:


> According to MBTI, yes. But I disagree with the way MBTI describes Si.


To be honest, I think Socionics Si definitions are inferior to the MBTI ones. I think Entropic (Ephemeral) stated that Socionics definitions of Si are more lower-order definitions than MBTI definitions of Si if you compared the definitions from both systems impersonally. Personally, I think it's because Socionics has a lot of Ne egos as typists who only see Si for what it can do for them but don't describe it on a cognitive level. I think that's one of the very rare areas where the MBTI definition is more cognitive than functional in relation to the Socionics 



Silveresque said:


> It would be weird if that were the case, since Si and Fi are about the only functions people in this forum say they see in me.


Well, I'm only going off of what you write and:



Silveresque said:


> I think people who value tradition value it because they have some kind of sentimental attachment to the past or feel connected to their community/ancestors/family or whatever when practicing a tradition. I can't see why else people would think it has any value.


This sounds non-Fi valuing and slightly anti-Delta Si. Like it's kind of a giant red sign that's blaring it. :tongue:


----------



## Surreal Snake

Spills coffee in thread then leaves


----------



## GnothiSeauton

*looks for some sugar and a spoon*

Thought this would fit in the Beta section:


----------



## Word Dispenser

Well, _I _like traditions. Well, not really good at following them. And they can be pretty boring most of the time.

Okay, I confess, I make my own.

But, I love birthdays and holidays. :kitteh:

I'm one of those people who wake up on my birthday and go,


----------



## Straystuff

Silveresque said:


> Honestly, tradition has always seemed Fe to me. I hate tradition because it seems stupid to me, like why keep doing something the same way just because it was done that way in the past? I mean, if there's no reason to change, then fine, but the past is also no reason _not _to change. I think people who value tradition value it because they have some kind of sentimental attachment to the past or feel connected to their community/ancestors/family or whatever when practicing a tradition. I can't see why else people would think it has any value.


I actually agree with you on this. I think liking traditions is pretty much a Fe thing. ESFJ's might be the biggest tradition lovers there is 'cause of the Fe-Si combo.


----------



## Aleksei

Straystuff said:


> I actually agree with you on this. I think liking traditions is pretty much a Fe thing. ESFJ's might be the biggest tradition lovers there is 'cause of the Fe-Si combo.


That's not how Si works. -_-

Actually it's not how Fe works either.


----------



## Aleksei

I mean, Fe *can* have a connection to tradition, because Fe is primarily about the emotional engagement an individual has to a thing, but it's not like Serious types have no Fe. Plus the thing is that for starters, Si isn't really about "connecting to the past" or whatever, Si is about what the person needs in the here and now. Harmony, homeostasis, pleasure, that kind of nice stuff. ESEs are very present-oriented types and focus primarily on trying to get out there and emotionally influence people to get what they want right now.

I would sooner think that an EIE would have a symbolic/emotional connection to tradition, than an ESE, but connecting to tradition is really just not that type-related. What really matters is the why, not the what.


----------



## HFGE

The reason why tradition is Si and not Fe is because it's not limited to Fe. Te types can adhere to traditions it deems reasonable from a productive, sentimental or various other reasons.

However, Ni is a free-thinking element. Jung describes it as being free from constraints of the real world and not willing to adhere to old beliefs just because that's how it was done before. As such, while Fe and Te types like EIEs and LIEs can respect traditions, it's the Ni that has a tendency to not adhere to them just because.

While Si is the recall of past experiences to guide present decisions. If what has worked in the past worked well then it would make perfect sense to an Si type to recreate that experience.


----------



## GnothiSeauton

For one, I think traditions are a complex social construct that cannot be completely ascribed to a single type or even cognitive function. Even if we admit that Si, as per its MBTI definition, is a function that delves with what "has worked" in the past, it's still not a simple logical connection to make with "traditions". What if the Si person has never experienced tradition in the past? Then they will easily disregard it, as it's simply not a method that has worked in the past for them. Focus being, _for them_. It simply wouldn't make sense to follow a commonly accepted social construct, Si needs a _motivation_.

Maybe it's my own Se/Ni perspective speaking, but I've never had much respect for traditions _per se_. They seem overly ceremonial or antiquated, not often useful for the present moment. Their effectiveness in conveying whatever it is they're trying to convey is highly limited and context-dependent. It seems to me that they're "general trends" that are just sorta there that people randomly choose to pick up as they come for whatever goal they have in mind at the moment... useful, but often not crucial.

Fe would be more much more concerned with how following tradition would be an emotionally rewarding move for them, but is quite willing to stray out of it.

Would it be too much to try and synthesize a more fluid "cognitive formula" for tradition? Perhaps Fe, Si and so instinct all play a part into it.


----------



## Aleksei

HFGE said:


> The reason why tradition is Si and not Fe is because it's not limited to Fe. Te types can adhere to traditions it deems reasonable from a productive, sentimental or various other reasons.
> 
> However, Ni is a free-thinking element. Jung describes it as being free from constraints of the real world and not willing to adhere to old beliefs just because that's how it was done before. As such, while Fe and Te types like EIEs and LIEs can respect traditions, it's the Ni that has a tendency to not adhere to them just because.
> 
> While Si is the recall of past experiences to guide present decisions. If what has worked in the past worked well then it would make perfect sense to an Si type to recreate that experience.


What Jung defined as Ni has nothing to do with Socionics. Also Si is not recall of past experience. Just for a quick primer on it:



> Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
> 
> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
> 
> In contrast to extroverted sensing Se, Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict.


Introverted sensing - Wikisocion

Regardless, ESEs aren't even properly definable as Fe-Si, they're better defined as Fe-Se, as those are the two 4-dimensional elements of their psyche, meaning the elements that form their global identity. 

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/309-Dimensionality-of-Functions


----------



## HFGE

Aleksei said:


> What Jung defined as Ni has nothing to do with Socionics.


Socionics IMs are derived heavily from Jung's definitions so they are indeed relevant.



> Also Si is not recall of past experience. Just for a quick primer on it:
> Introverted sensing - Wikisocion


Yes, I'm aware of how Socionics defines Si as an element but if you'd read the Si descriptions for Filatova's descriptions for the Si-creative types you'll see that the ESE and LSE adhere fairly closely to gender roles. The ESE being the happy housewife and the LSE being the breadwinner of the house. These are at it's core traditional roles and only someone willing to adhere to such social norms would allow themselves to be described as such. As such, it would not be much of a stretch to say that Si therefore is the element of tradition.

Filatova ESE
Filatova LSE


----------



## Aleksei

HFGE said:


> Socionics IMs are derived heavily from Jung's definitions so they are indeed relevant.


Socionics is, at most, a spiritual successor of Jung's work. Jung's work is further very vague, and every system that followed on its footsteps has been an attempt to define it more specifically. In coming up with a specific definition, however, you're coming up with a theory that human behavior happens in a given pattern that wasn't considered before. If your assessment is correct, then previous assessments were, in all likelihood, either incorrect or incomplete.

As for the Filatova descriptions, just because xSEs adhere often to traditional roles does not mean that traditional roles = Si. I would posit that xSEs are good working men/housewives primarily as an adaptive strategy. You may notice that the definition of Si I posted focuses centrally on the _harmony_ of the individual's surroundings -- themselves, their loved ones, their environment in general. xSEs have a strong focus on proactively ensuring everyone's needs are met, as they believe that they can achieve their own goals in this manner. Again, it is not that Si can't do this, it's just that it's not all that type related. Different types can adhere to tradition for different reasons.

LSE women are often homemakers, fyi.


----------



## Aleksei

More descriptions of Si:



> Contents: Sense of pleasant and unpleasant, comfortable and uncomfortable, physical and esthetical satisfaction, good quality.
> Manifestation: strive for comfort, good working conditions, avoiding redundant efforts, stable and non-conflicting relations with colleagues (but not for leadership). Evaluation of one's own and other people's sensations.





> Introverted sensing is also called Comfort Sensing, or Space-settling Sensing.
> This kind of sensing is rather passive, it focuses on getting as more pleasant feelings as possible, on reduction of quantity of unnecessary motions, on the quality and functionality of work. People with this function as dominant do not like to argue (if they began – it means that something VERY serious happened). They are often efficient at work that requires attention to small details, monotonous chores etc. They like intellectuals, like new ideas, because these ideas make their life more diverse, but also ridicule intellectuals for their “impractical approach”.


These took me like five minutes of googling. Not that difficult.


----------



## HFGE

Aleksei said:


> Socionics is, at most, a spiritual successor of Jung's work. Jung's work is further very vague, and every system that followed on its footsteps has been an attempt to define it more specifically. In coming up with a specific definition, however, you're coming up with a theory that human behavior happens in a given pattern that wasn't considered before. If your assessment is correct, then previous assessments were, in all likelihood, either incorrect or incomplete.


Moreso than being incorrect or incomplete I think the current definitions of Si on a functional level are much too limited.



> As for the Filatova descriptions, just because xSEs adhere often to traditional roles does not mean that traditional roles = Si. I would posit that xSEs are good working men/housewives primarily as an adaptive strategy. You may notice that the definition of Si I posted focuses centrally on the _harmony_ of the individual's surroundings -- themselves, their loved ones, their environment in general. xSEs have a strong focus on proactively ensuring everyone's needs are met, as they believe that they can achieve their own goals in this manner. Again, it is not that Si can't do this, it's just that it's not all that type related. Different types can adhere to tradition for different reasons.


And what better way to be in harmony with one's surroundings than finding ways in which everyone has a part in their surroundings? It has a Socionics explanation as well since Ne-creative types can be a bit helpless when it comes to practical application. Something that their dual and semi-dual tend to excel at. Also, given that Si-types tend to adhere to rather stereotypical roles is a sign that Si-ego types tend to follow in the footsteps of others.

Different people call it different things: tradition, wisdom, shared knowledge, etc. I happen to think that centers around Si. Because it certainly isn't Ni or Se and is what Ne types tend to struggle with.



> LSE women are often homemakers, fyi.


Well, that only furthers my point.


----------



## Aleksei

I will say that people that are Si _leading_ (or Si demonstrative) will approach matters in a mechanical way that resembles your conception of Si as a reliance on experience, mostly because having 4D Si means they also have two-dimensional Ni: they apply Ni (conception of time, how things have happened and how they will happen) in a mechanical manner, having a grasp of the experience and norm vector of Ni, but neither the time nor situation vectors thereof. They know that actions have consequences but are unclear on what these consequences will be, so their primary imperative of preserving their homeostasis (Si leading) causes them to settle into "safe" patterns of behavior. They need a visionary type that will pull them out of this rut. This is untrue in the slightest of ESxx types, who are blind to Ni and thus are very proactive and assertive in going after what they want to achieve.


----------



## Aleksei

Also, my point is important because your idea of what Si is could lead you to conclude that all Si-ego types, and only Si-ego types, are adherent to tradition. They aren't. ISxx types rely on their conception of their _needs_, and ESxx types rely on their conception of their _ambitions_. This is equally true of Sp and Sj types. When traditions serve either of these two goals (respectively Si and Se), they will adhere to such. Otherwise they won't. For instance, ESE (officially called The Enthusiast) is not really anywhere close to always a homemaker -- quite typically they lead carefree, wild lives, and are often party animals.

This also brings me to the problem with quoting Filatova: Filatova used a four-function system that basically pretended the vital functions either did not exist or weren't important -- which they very much are. They are as much a part of who we are as the mental functions.


----------



## Recede

Aleksei said:


> I will say that people that are Si _leading_ (or Si demonstrative) will approach matters in a mechanical way that resembles your conception of Si as a reliance on experience, mostly because having 4D Si means they also have two-dimensional Ni: they apply Ni (conception of time, how things have happened and how they will happen) in a mechanical manner, having a grasp of the experience and norm vector of Ni, but neither the time nor situation vectors thereof. They know that actions have consequences but are unclear on what these consequences will be, so their primary imperative of preserving their homeostasis (Si leading) causes them to settle into "safe" patterns of behavior. They need a visionary type that will pull them out of this rut. This is untrue in the slightest of ESxx types, who are blind to Ni and thus are very proactive and assertive in going after what they want to achieve.


On the contrary, I would say I'm risk-averse because I have _no problem_ predicting the possible consequences.

I think one of the reasons I end up with repetitive behaviors is that I am often on a sort of autopilot that allows me to function while giving little attention to what's going on around me, and because I'm so internally focused it doesn't always occur to me that there are other things I could be doing.


----------



## Straystuff

Aleksei said:


> I mean, Fe *can* have a connection to tradition, because Fe is primarily about the emotional engagement an individual has to a thing, but it's not like Serious types have no Fe. Plus the thing is that for starters, Si isn't really about "connecting to the past" or whatever, Si is about what the person needs in the here and now. Harmony, homeostasis, pleasure, that kind of nice stuff. ESEs are very present-oriented types and focus primarily on trying to get out there and emotionally influence people to get what they want right now.
> 
> I would sooner think that an EIE would have a symbolic/emotional connection to tradition, than an ESE, but connecting to tradition is really just not that type-related. What really matters is the why, not the what.


Yes I know this. What I meant is that when lets say christmas is coming I do get exited 'cause it brings people together, you give gifts to show how you love the people close to you etc. I think that sort of stuff is very much Fe. Also Si is about repeating pleasurable experiences right? When you think about christmas isn't it all about great food, soft candle light, pleasantness in general. So again, I think many traditions might appeal to Fe-Si people.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

I think you might need to define exactly what you mean by traditional, guys. Because following one's own routines, following external traditions and having conservative views are obviously different things and I get the impression you are mixing those concepts up. Not to mention how non-linear the link between behaviour and cognition is. And, to me, most of the types can come across as "traditional" for different reasons =/

I think @Straystuff already explained pretty well how Fe and Si types can come across as traditional. Yet, wouldn't you say there's gammas who act "traditional" too? At least, I can say that I've met LIEs who are serious, conservative, follow routines and, in the case of males, fit into gender roles. And aren't there Ni-doms who come across as traditional because of inferior Se, because they are not really impulsive and can be risk-averse? Me, for instance, I've been called structured and organized, as well as erratic and lacking discipline by different people. And if we have ESEs or EIEs who are party animals, does that mean they are not traditional? What if they lead very structured and routine lives outside of that? It's complicated and I don't think there's much of a point in linking "traditional" to a type or function.


----------



## Recede

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think you might need to define exactly what you mean by traditional, guys. Because following one's own routines, following external traditions and having conservative views are obviously different things and I get the impression you are mixing those concepts up. Not to mention how non-linear the link between behaviour and cognition is. And, to me, most of the types can come across as "traditional" for different reasons =/
> 
> I think @_Straystuff_ already explained pretty well how Fe and Si types can come across as traditional. Yet, wouldn't you say there's gammas who act "traditional" too? At least, I can say that I've met LIEs who are serious, conservative, follow routines and, in the case of males, fit into gender roles. And aren't there Ni-doms who come across as traditional because of inferior Se, because they are not really impulsive and can be risk-averse? Me, for instance, I've been called structured and organized, as well as erratic and lacking discipline by different people. And if we have ESEs or EIEs who are party animals, does that mean they are not traditional? What if they lead very structured and routine lives outside of that? It's complicated and I don't think there's much of a point in linking "traditional" to a type or function.





> tradition [truh-dish-uh n]
> noun
> 
> 1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice: "a story that has come down to us by popular tradition."
> 
> 2.something that is handed down: "the traditions of the Eskimos."
> 
> 3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: "The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition."
> 
> 4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
> 
> 5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: "The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition."


The dictionary definitions imply that tradition is something external or cultural. I do not consider "one's own routines" to be "tradition," nor would it fit with these definitions. However, a routine could become a tradition if it were passed down, as in a family routine that becomes a tradition. 

I agree that being traditional doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any specific type or functions. That by itself is too vague, and it would depend on how and why the person is traditional. Perhaps the person values following cultural customs because it brings them closer to their community. Or perhaps they gave their views a lot of critical analysis and individually came to the same conclusions that happen to be well-established or traditional. There could be many reasons leading to different interpretations involving different functions.

That being said, I still associate tradition the most with Fe and the social instinct. My reason being that if someone likes tradition, and not just certain things that happen to be traditional, it means they like things being culturally passed down, which to me seems to most likely imply a focus on community, shared values, and social harmony. Not _necessarily_, of course, but that's the association I have.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Silveresque said:


> The dictionary definitions imply that tradition is something external or cultural. I do not consider "one's own routines" to be "tradition," nor would it fit with these definitions. However, a routine could become a tradition if it were passed down, as in a family routine that becomes a tradition.


Yeah, but other people in this thread have been using the term vaguely, imo. The rest of what you said, I agree with.


----------



## Aleksei

Straystuff said:


> Yes I know this. What I meant is that when lets say christmas is coming I do get exited 'cause it brings people together, you give gifts to show how you love the people close to you etc. I think that sort of stuff is very much Fe. Also Si is about repeating pleasurable experiences right? When you think about christmas isn't it all about great food, soft candle light, pleasantness in general. So again, I think many traditions might appeal to Fe-Si people.


I would agree with this. I take no objection to the idea that Fe-Si can be traditional, just to the idea that Fe-Si = tradition.

Repeating pleasurable experiences, incidentally, is something that's more likely of types with internal (what you might call subdued) Si, because then Si becomes entrenched in your comfort zone. If you like one thing or a few things you become fixated in them and see little reason to explore outside of that. Me for example, I could eat the same thing over and over again for weeks.


----------



## HFGE

Aleksei said:


> I would agree with this. I take no objection to the idea that Fe-Si can be traditional, just to the idea that Fe-Si = tradition.
> 
> Repeating pleasurable experiences, incidentally, is something that's more likely of types with internal (what you might call subdued) Si, because then Si becomes entrenched in your comfort zone. If you like one thing or a few things you become fixated in them and see little reason to explore outside of that.


And at its core, what is that type of behavior exactly? That's right it's a tradition.  I mean, it just seems like you're disagreeing just to dissent.



> Me for example, I could eat the same thing over and over again for weeks.


I could never do that unless I were eating only for nutrition. If I were to ever go on some type of systematic diet I could, but otherwise variety is good.


----------



## Aleksei

HFGE said:


> And at its core, what is that type of behavior exactly? That's right it's a tradition.  I mean, it just seems like you're disagreeing just to dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> I could never do that unless I were eating only for nutrition. If I were to ever go on some type of systematic diet I could, but otherwise variety is good.


Well good for you, but I'm speaking of likelihood. _What_ people do or believe isn't what makes type, it's how they relate to it, how they arrive at it, how they communicate it.


----------



## Sentio

Schweeeeks said:


> When I was younger, I loved the idea of being a scalpel or some other small, precise, sharp instrument. Represents how I want to take action in life. At the right moment, doesn't appear until it's ready to strike and affects exactly what I want to affect.
> Cultivated that skill a lot. Unfortunately I am plagued by self doubt, so I'm not as efficient as I'd like to be.
> 
> I'm also drawn to tools that can be used to achieve more than one purpose. Take a Swiss Army knife for example. Everything all in one place. Shows how much I value versatility. I think it's important to adapt to the current situation at hand, rather than getting caught up in what it should be.
> 
> As of what object I currently am now...I don't know. Sometimes I wonder if I see what I want more than what is actually there.
> I think of myself as some sort of swirling, changing fog. I condense into solid when it is time to take action, but I'm also free to evolve into whatever is needed for what is in front of me.
> 
> Is that what you were looking for? What do you mean by tangible object?


That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. By tangible object, I was referring to an external physical object that possesses tangible qualities, and is not a mental abstraction.


----------



## Kabosu

This was buried compared to the other quadras. Are beta really that scary to others? 

(There's a couple of typings I've considered from here, though they very well may be wrong.)


----------



## Inguz

Kabosu said:


> This was buried compared to the other quadras. Are beta really that scary to others?
> 
> (There's a couple of typings I've considered from here, though they very well may be wrong.)


*snarls at you*

I don't know! Perhaps some people are averse to the combination of Fe+Se. Not sure why it would be more scary than Se+Te.


----------



## tangosthenes

pow pa pow pow pa puh puh puh powww


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kreeeoohhhwwwww.


----------



## Straystuff

Do Betas honestly have a life or why is this place always dead :'D


----------



## Inguz

Straystuff said:


> Do Betas honestly have a life or why is this place always dead :'D


I'm active on facebook!


----------



## Alomoes

It is because I don't know but maybe yes. Democrats and Republicans unite to form the Democratic Republic of Congo.


----------



## Straystuff

Inguz said:


> I'm active on facebook!


But here is more fun!!


----------



## Nephilibata

Straystuff said:


> Do Betas honestly have a life or why is this place always dead :'D


Well, I currently don't have much of one. It'll hopefully pick up soon though :'D


----------



## Straystuff

Btw how do you guys see other Beta types? 

I absolutely love ESTp's (my best friends is one). Also, I've met one ISTj and he was cool (really annoying drunk tho :'D). 

Beta NF's are impossible to find irl but the ones I've met online seem nice.


----------



## westlose

I have an ENFJ friend, very insightful and caring. He's always supporting me, even in the darkest moments.
My father is ISTP, and it seems like we have the same way of thinking, and the same approach of the world (and we are both schizoid ;p).

I've understood duality when I saw DjArendee videos (ESTP). It's like he learned me what I was missing.


----------



## Maye

What is it like for you other betas when ISTJs get in a goofy mood and just start laughing uncontrollably?


----------



## Straystuff

I tease them about having emotions :crazy: Busted.


----------



## Straystuff

Or do you mean ISTJs or ISTjs?


----------



## Maye

What's the difference?


----------



## Maye

Yes, we have very strong emotions, haha!


----------



## Straystuff

Well, MBTI ISTJs are Socionics ISTps so in Delta quadra. MBTI ISTP's are Socionics ISTj's and they belong in Beta quadra.


----------



## Maye

Oh, then ISTJs.


----------



## Maye

Straystuff said:


> Btw how do you guys see other Beta types?
> 
> I absolutely love ESTp's (my best friends is one). Also, I've met one ISTj and he was cool (really annoying drunk tho :'D).
> 
> Beta NF's are impossible to find irl but the ones I've met online seem nice.


Here are my own main impressions:

Estp's seem very keen minded, like nothing gets by them without them noticing. I feel like they can sense my physical feelings, or I'm stressed out, sad, excited, scared, or feeling standoffish ect. Like if I feel I want to be near them they know it, and if I'm in a closed state of mind they get it and actually feel kind of offended. Just very aware. Also they can be very warm, especially to people they're close too. But their feelings of dislike towards others they can sometimes seem cold about displaying. We all have weaknesses. I love estps, don't get me wrong. 

Don't know any enfjs really closely. They are super funny though. I like their aesthetic preferences. Their art seems to go more for emotional qualities or statements, but is also beautiful from what I've seen in class. 

Infps are great. They can be very sweet and not self conscious, which I admire. We can talk about slightly abstract opinions, at least when i used to be into that. I haven't ever had a "normal" conversation with an infp. Always seem to talk about stuff that revolves around personal impressions or opinions, or humor. They, unlike the ESTPs I've observed or known, don't seem constantly aware of their physical environment, but I still get a sense of awareness and perception they have of me; some opinion.


----------



## Pressed Flowers

I'm a Beta, and I'm here to... beta.


----------



## selena87

Hello! First time here :laughing:


----------



## Valtire

I get the feeling based on the last few pages that we Betas don't have a clue how to start a conversation.


----------



## orbit

If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you? 

/not a Beta.


----------



## Verity

Is _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ by Dale Carnegie the Beta bible?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.


Depends.. How big is the hospital?

/also not a Beta.


----------



## orbit

Word Dispenser said:


> Depends.. How big is the hospital?
> 
> /also not a Beta.


Your local hospital. Or if your answers will vary: 
(Ambigiously) Small
(Somewhere in the) Medium
(What is) Big


----------



## Captain Mclain

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.



The hospital could be 90% of people from a cult who unsuccessfully tried to make mass-suicide. Those 4 random people walking outside can be hidden murderers. We know too little to make that choice. But ye, people are their own entities and few should not be sacrificed for the mass. Unless there is a cure of something that gains to the humanity as a whole.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Curi said:


> Your local hospital. Or if your answers will vary:
> (Ambigiously) Small
> (Somewhere in the) Medium
> (What is) Big


If it's a big hospital, full of missionaries... Maybe. :laughing:

Or, you know. Those people that go out and try to help people. I forget what they're called right now.


----------



## orbit

Captain Mclain said:


> The hospital could be 90% of people from a cult who unsuccessfully tried to make mass-suicide. Those 4 random people walking outside can be hidden murderers. We know too little to make that choice. But ye, people are their own entities and few should not be sacrificed for the mass. Unless there is a cure of something that gains to the humanity as a whole.


That's the point. Based on so little information, what would you do?

Or wait. 

The exact hospital is unknown. The four people are unknown. One of the doctors could hold the key to cancer.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Curi said:


> That's the point. Based on so little information, what would you do?
> 
> Or wait.
> 
> The exact hospital is unknown. The four people are unknown. One of the doctors could hold the key to cancer.


Just to be clear, curing the hospital is making all the patients healthy without any effort? Lets say more then 4 could be dying at the hospital. id probably still say no. To allowed it would make me a murder. If one of the doctors hold the key to cancer, that would not change anything?


----------



## orbit

Captain Mclain said:


> Just to be clear, curing the hospital is making all the patients healthy without any effort? Lets say more then 4 could be dying at the hospital. id probably still say no. To allowed it would make me a murder. If one of the doctors hold the key to cancer, that would not change anything?


Yes. You sacrifice the four people's lives to make everyone the picture of health. 

But by failing to act, you could be a murderer?

Well to some people it could make a difference XP


----------



## Captain Mclain

Curi said:


> Yes. You sacrifice the four people's lives to make everyone the picture of health.
> 
> But by failing to act, you could be a murderer?
> 
> Well to some people it could make a difference XP


Well you mean if the doctor get some free-time he might be able to further explore and do something about that key of cancer and make it a cure? Or if the doctor is one of the patients that are on the deathbed? 

People is not a numbers game, by picking a few innocent people to save a bunch of others would be immoral. It is like taking a few people and cutting them open and steal their organs to save an other. I have a hard time justify such integrity violation. Also when killing of 4 persons that might be family members and have friends, how would they deal with the situation? A person who is dying by natural courses (well, whatever they are in the hospital for) would be more acceptable and easy for family members and other people to deal with then being killed without choice to save others.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Verity said:


> Is _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ by Dale Carnegie the Beta bible?


Quite possibly. The alternative title could be _How to Be Psychopathic and Manipulate People_​. But maybe that's my Fi kicking in.


----------



## Captain Mclain

The_Wanderer said:


> _How to Be Psychopathic and Manipulate People_​


omg...


----------



## Jeremy8419

Only if I was the one doing the sacrificing. I wouldn't want others to have to hold that responsibility. /noy a beta

Isn't that kind of the same as foreign occupation of hostile countries? Country is full of the metaphorically and semi-concretely sick people, and must kill the bystanders for the sake of the sick? Except the bystanders are usually guilty of crimes against humanity.


----------



## Captain Mclain

So what is up with the "Fe-hate"?


----------



## orbit

Captain Mclain said:


> Well you mean if the doctor get some free-time he might be able to further explore and do something about that key of cancer and make it a cure? Or if the doctor is one of the patients that are on the deathbed?
> 
> People is not a numbers game, by picking a few innocent people to save a bunch of others would be immoral. It is like taking a few people and cutting them open and steal their organs to save an other. I have a hard time justify such integrity violation. Also when killing of 4 persons that might be family members and have friends, how would they deal with the situation? A person who is dying by natural courses (well, whatever they are in the hospital for) would be more acceptable and easy for family members and other people to deal with then being killed without choice to save others.


Oh wait. For some reason I thought the doctor was dying. Okay the key is held in one of the doctor's patients

That's a legit explanation. I see no fault with it. 

If the four people agreed to die, would you let them and perform the "ceremony"?


----------



## Vermillion

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.


No. It is not my right to decide the fates of others, for good or for bad.

BUT, an exception. I would if someone I loved was in that hospital.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Curi said:


> Oh wait. For some reason I thought the doctor was dying. Okay the key is held in one of the doctor's patients
> 
> That's a legit explanation. I see no fault with it.
> 
> If the four people agreed to die, would you let them and perform the "ceremony"?


Yes, then it is not up to me to choice anymore. They probably end up heros.


----------



## orbit

Captain Mclain said:


> well i was thinking about addiction, drawbacks, losing control, losing your hair with cancer meds, liver failure. That would be side-effects. A painkiller should remove your pain, that is what it is for.  If you took drugs to get high you should get high because that would be what it is intended for. Just remove all the bad stuff from it. That would be a superpower. ;p


But that's subjective. 
Oh well. I still don't know what I meant by that then you would die. I don't know anyone who would just take drugs for fun without any effect. /confuzzled
Could you apply that to food? Eat all the donuts with no calories?


----------



## Captain Mclain

Curi said:


> But that's subjective.
> Oh well. I still don't know what I meant by that then you would die. I don't know anyone who would just take drugs for fun without any effect. /confuzzled
> Could you apply that to food? Eat all the donuts with no calories?


I hope you do not take drugs for liver failure or addiction.


----------



## orbit

Captain Mclain said:


> I hope you do not take drugs for liver failure or addiction.


I don't.


----------



## To_august

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?


/yet-another-not-Beta/
With that little information - no.

I can't decide who should die or who is worthy to survive.

Also it doesn't seem like all hospital patients should necessarily die. Let them have their treatment and bystanders keep their way.

This can be answered differently if I'd know someone among the hospital patients or bystanders and depending on what I know about them. 


Beta hangout finally came alive. Yay.:kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Wow... I sure read that question way the hell wrong and just realized it LOL. I was picturing The Dark Knight kinda thing and read "cured" as "saved," as in, somehow they are going to magically die if you don't shoot these 4 people.

Change my answer, the 4 live.


----------



## Wolfskralle

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.


I would decide only basing on the quantity, not "quality" of the patients and bystanders. If more than 4 people in the hospital would die, regardless of who they were, than the only moral and logical decision is to kill the 4 bystanders. Cause I'm not the one to decide who is and who isn't worth living, but 4 lives vs 5 or more is simple. Another way would be measuring the expected life time of patients and bystanders.
Viva la low dimensional Fi!

/still not Beta

BTW is Beta hangout experiencing a raid of other quadras? lol.


----------



## selena87

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.


Lives saved > 4 : Yes
Lives saved < 4 : No
Lives saved = 4 : Depends on how old they are, i.e. the expected years left for them to live


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I've always hated those kinda moral dilemma questions. I'd probably kill both 4 people who agreed to sacrifice themselves and C4 the building to blow up the hospital so that I can take all those souls myself and level up my character. :untroubled:


----------



## selena87

crashbandicoot said:


> I've always hated those kinda moral dilemma questions. I'd probably kill both 4 people who agreed to sacrifice themselves and C4 the building to blow up the hospital so that I can take all those souls myself and level up my character. :untroubled:


Do you have enough space in your inventory for the loot though?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

selena87 said:


> Do you have enough space in your inventory for the loot though?


I may discard the old or useless stuff. That should free some space. Hmm, I should have upgraded my loot bag capacity. :disturbed:

Or maybe I can give you a discount for those items and sell them to you ? If you are interested ? :smile:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

selena87 said:


> Lives saved > 4 : Yes
> Lives saved < 4 : No
> Lives saved = 4 : Depends on how old they are, i.e. the expected years left for them to live


This sounds reasonable to me, I think...

But trying to think of a response to @_Curi_'s questions reminded me of this kind of thing makes my head hurt. Guess I rather let someone else take care of the moral/ethical dilemmas (unless it could affect myself somehow), because it's not too interesting to me.


----------



## Valtire

Night Huntress said:


> Least Ne PoLR thing ever said. lol.


Should I reconsider my type? Because I quite often entertain hypothetical situations in my mind.


----------



## Vermillion

Fried Eggz said:


> Should I reconsider my type? Because I quite often entertain hypothetical situations in my mind.


It depends on how and why you do it. However, within the context of this discussion, her form of hypothesizing seemed too Ne to be PoLR.


----------



## Verity

Fried Eggz said:


> Should I reconsider my type? Because I quite often entertain hypothetical situations in my mind.


There are several reasons why one would often think of hypothetical situations, but unless you find that you often think about situations that have little to no actual connection to what you are currently doing I wouldn't consider being Ne-ego. If I understand Ne-PoLR correctly.


----------



## Valtire

Night Huntress said:


> It depends on how and why you do it. However, within the context of this discussion, her form of hypothesizing seemed too Ne to be PoLR.


I'd ask you to Ti that out for me, but... well...



Verity said:


> There are several reasons why one would often think of hypothetical situations, but unless you find that you often think about situations that have little to no actual connection to what you are currently doing I wouldn't consider being Ne-ego. If I understand Ne-PoLR correctly.


My habit of daydreaming makes that quite difficult to answer.


----------



## Serpent

I entertain hypothetical scenarios that are pertinent to my interests. For example, how the story or chain of events of an anime would change if a certain event happened differently or how my life would be right now if certain things hadn't happened. What-ifs, basically.


----------



## Entropic

ildiavolo said:


> I entertain hypothetical scenarios that are pertinent to my interests. For example, how the story or chains of events of an anime would change if a certain event happened differently or how my life would be right now if certain things hadn't happened. What-ifs, basically.


Honestly sounds more Ni to me, being interested to predict a certain chain of events. Ne isn't so interested in that kind of reasoning, whether there is a practical outcome of what they are thinking about.

To clarify as some people may say deltas are practical in ways alphas aren't, I just had this situation earlier today with an LSE who was making an alien invasion joke because it was impossible to turn off the alarm. It was in the lines of that maybe it's a sign or signal that aliens are coming to occupy earth and she made some goofy body language, obviously referring to the early horror movies with the theremin playing in the background. This is what I mean. Se would be like, but aliens aren't real so why bother? Beta NFs can have really goofy humor too, though.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@Entropic
That joke sounds lame, but aliens not being real? I would argue that's actually more unlikely than them existing. The part that seems more unlikely is them coming to invade us.


----------



## Serpent

Entropic said:


> Honestly sounds more Ni to me, being interested to predict a certain chain of events. Ne isn't so interested in that kind of reasoning, whether there is a practical outcome of what they are thinking about.
> 
> To clarify as some people may say deltas are practical in ways alphas aren't, I just had this situation earlier today with an LSE who was making an alien invasion joke because it was impossible to turn off the alarm. It was in the lines of that maybe it's a sign or signal that aliens are coming to occupy earth and she made some goofy body language, obviously referring to the early horror movies with the theremin playing in the background. This is what I mean. Se would be like, but aliens aren't real so why bother? Beta NFs can have really goofy humor too, though.


I relate to that. I would often be in situations where someone would make an outlandish joke or insult, like telling someone he was sexually stimulated by Justin Bieber's music (middle school was like that), and I would be confused because that would obviously not be the case. I never understood jokes where someone just made up an imaginary fact about someone else's life. Another incident happened in my childhood when I heard one of the guys I played soccer with call my aunt an old hag. When I told her about it, she retorted by saying that the boy's mother might be the old hag instead. I almost told her that didn't make sense because that boy's mother didn't look old.


----------



## westlose

Curi said:


> If you could cure an entire hospital by sacrificing four innocent bystanders would you?
> 
> /not a Beta.


Well first of all, I have to know if there's a way to save everybody. That would be the best thing to do, and if it's possible I'll spend all my energy to save everybody.

If we imagine that it's not possible, then this is a huge problem. I can't say that the life of these 4 person is more important than the life of all the people in the hospital.
If we adopt a logical way of thinking we could say that 4 people aren't worth an entire hospital, but there's two reasons that determine the fact that the choice is not that simple :

1) If we stay logical again, we can't say that number=quality; and maybe these 4 people would have more positive impact on the future than the others.

2) We can't force people sacrificing themselves for the good of others. If we force people to do things against their own will, then we have an ethical problem.

If we want to act quickly for the good of the community, we would rather sacrifice the 4 people. But that's not necessarily the best choice. Just the best choice if you want to conserve and protect the community.

In my opinion, if I was in this situation I would rather try to find a solution to save everybody without any sacrifice. And that would be the most efficient thing to do. Otherwise, I would leave the hospital to someone else. I can't take this kind of decisions. I don't even kill spiders in my room, how could I kill people. Let's use our brain to find solutions, instead of sacrificing people.

And in a sense this question is not a probable situation, this would never happen IRL. Why would I even think about it. Fock it.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Hmm i wonder if this sorta ruminating is Fi as alike how Ti ruminates about logical possibilities. It makes me uncomfortable to think about. I mean why. Its not gonna happen realisticly.
I remember the same in high school in philosophy class. You were going to save people full of train by pushing a fat guy onto rails. I lol'ed and said I'd kill all of them because i would feel guilty chosing one over other.


----------



## Pressed Flowers

I think @Curi takes the trophy for conversation cooking capabilities


----------



## Captain Mclain

crashbandicoot said:


> Hmm i wonder if this sorta ruminating is Fi as alike how Ti ruminates about logical possibilities. It makes uncomfortable to think about. I mean why. Its not gonna happen realisticly.
> I remember the same in high school in philosophy class. You were going to save people full of train by pushing a fat guy onto rails. I lol'ed and said I'd kill all of them because i would feel guilty chosing one over other.


hm, its a moral dilemma which is kinda fine to waste time in I guess.


----------



## Vermillion

Fried Eggz said:


> I'd ask you to Ti that out for me, but... well...


Lol thanks for the consideration  It's kinda like, the entire purpose of her starting this up was to entertain herself with the various nuances of people's situations and how to take different consequences and types of moral obligations into account. 

An ESI, due to Ne PoLR, would answer her question with something like, "I don't know because it's not happening/it never happened to me or anyone I know". They find it difficult and annoying to elaborate about things that, according to them, are clearly unrealistic tangents and it can often manifest as a stubborn refusal to think about those things.



Distortions said:


> but aliens not being real? I would argue that's actually more unlikely than them existing. The part that seems more unlikely is them coming to invade us.


Yeah but... they ain't here and no one's got any evidence so for all intents and purposes they aren't real, or at least have no effect on real life lol.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah but... they ain't here and no one's got any evidence so for all intents and purposes they aren't real, or at least have no effect on real life lol.


Well, it's not like a thing doesn't exist or stops existing 'cause you're not looking at it (unless it's a weeping angel, if I remember right), but sure.


----------



## Vermillion

Distortions said:


> Well, it's not like a thing doesn't exist or stops existing 'cause you're not looking at it (unless it's a weeping angel, if I remember right), but sure.


Yeah but no one has proven they exist. So it's equally likely they *don't* exist. We have no evidence and aliens have made no impact on the planet whatsoever, which means all of this is speculation and an assumption that they exist only has a speculative basis. Not a real one.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah but no one has proven they exist. So it's equally likely they *don't* exist. We have no evidence and aliens have made no impact on the planet whatsoever, which means all of this is speculation and an assumption that they exist only has a speculative basis. Not a real one.


same with "there is someone for everyone out there" :livid:


----------



## Vermillion

Captain Mclain said:


> same with "there is someone for everyone out there" :livid:


Ahah well the way I see that is real "soulmates" and shit like that don't exist. Every once in a while, under the right circumstances, people meet and are on similar wavelengths, so they end up falling in love and wanting to support and protect each other, because all of us human beings are just looking for some love, in the end. When we find someone that truly tugs at our heartstrings, we experience it to be so miraculous that we feel there will be no one in our lives who will impact us this way, ever again. 

And in a way we are right! No one can leave the same emotional footprint that someone else does. Perhaps in another life we may have loved someone else, for entirely different reasons, because we were playing the same chord when we met each other. But we can't really "compare" those experiences cause we haven't lived them. So in a way the people we truly fall in love with are our soulmates after all. But perhaps it is also possible that a lot of different people could have been our soulmates, in different circumstances. On some level, we are all capable of love for all living beings, anyway.

Whoops, my tritype is showing. Triple attachment ftw.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Night Huntress said:


> Ahah well the way I see that is real "soulmates" and shit like that don't exist. Every once in a while, under the right circumstances, people meet and are on similar wavelengths, so they end up falling in love and wanting to support and protect each other, because all of us human beings are just looking for some love, in the end. When we find someone that truly tugs at our heartstrings, we experience it to be so miraculous that we feel there will be no one in our lives who will impact us this way, ever again.
> 
> And in a way we are right! No one can leave the same emotional footprint that someone else does. Perhaps in another life we may have loved someone else, for entirely different reasons, because we were playing the same chord when we met each other. But we can't really "compare" those experiences cause we haven't lived them. So in a way the people we truly fall in love with are our soulmates after all. But perhaps it is also possible that a lot of different people could have been our soulmates, in different circumstances. On some level, we are all capable of love for all living beings, anyway.
> 
> Whoops, my tritype is showing. Triple attachment ftw.


haha ye. I didnt say there was only one person/person. I see what you meaning. Well about the space thing, it is a possibility there is life in space even tho we never record any of it. They say earth is a very little space of the world, less then 1%. We never seen any life outside earth but we have not seen pretty much anything outside earth except there are big stone blobs and stars out there.


----------



## Vermillion

Captain Mclain said:


> haha ye. I didnt say there was only one person/person. I see what you meaning. Well about the space thing, it is a possibility there is life in space even tho we never record any of it. They say earth is a very little space of the world, less then 1%. We never seen any life outside earth but we have not seen pretty much anything outside earth except there are big stone blobs and starts out there.


Yes, of course there definitely COULD be extraterrestrial beings. But have we seen them or have they impacted us in any way? No. So why worry about them?


----------



## Valtire

Distortions said:


> Well, it's not like a thing doesn't exist or stops existing 'cause you're not looking at it (unless it's a weeping angel, if I remember right), but sure.


There is no evidence for it. It's not even a theory. It's literally just a, "there are probably aliens because we exist."


----------



## Captain Mclain

Fried Eggz said:


> There is no evidence for it. It's not even a theory. It's literally just a, "there are probably aliens because we exist."


If you put it like this. How many things does actually exist, humanity have recored it does exist, that you personally does not know exist? Apply the same logic but what whole humanity doesnt know exist. That how I view it anyways. I will not claim this "alien life" exist, but we have no near enough data to say it does not. So it is just pointless at this point


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Fried Eggz said:


> There is no evidence for it. It's not even a theory. It's literally just a, "there are probably aliens because we exist."


There's no evidence against it either, and considering how vast space it, it seems absurd that we're somehow the only life out there. So saying _they're not real _seems rather silly to me. After all, reality is a thing that's gonna exist as it does whether you can see it or not, even if it's not important to yourself if it's unlikely to have an impact on your personal reality (and I mean, being aware of all of reality would probably be impossible for anyone, so sure). 

(Also, "alien" can also simply mean "a person in a country who is not a national of that country," but if you're someone who has never met anyone outside of your own country, I guess they aren't real either.)


----------



## Serpent

Distortions said:


> There's no evidence against it either, and considering how vast space it, it seems absurd that we're somehow the only life out there. So saying _they're not real _seems rather silly to me. After all, reality is a thing that's gonna exist as it does whether you can see it or not, even if it's not important to yourself if it's unlikely to have an impact on your personal reality (and I mean, being aware of all of reality would probably be impossible for anyone, so sure).
> 
> (Also, "alien" can also simply mean "a person in a country who is not a national of that country," but *if you're someone who has never met anyone outside of your own country, I guess they aren't real either.*)


But we know they exist.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Charles Sanders Peirce was somebody into sign/symbol. Somewhat similar to Jung.

_"To say, therefore, that _thought_ cannot happen in an instant, but requires a _time_, is but another way of saying that _*every thought must be interpreted in another, or that all thought is in signs."

-Peirce 

*Which is precisely what Jung said. We think symbolically. 

*It is important to understand what I mean by semiosis. All dynamic action, or action of brute force, physical or psychical, either takes place between two subjects, — whether they react equally upon each other, or one is agent and the other patient, entirely or partially, — or at any rate is a resultant of such actions between pairs. But by "semiosis" I mean, on the contrary, an action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs.

-Peirce
*
That is a symbol to Jung as well. The symbol exists in both, but neither. You can see that in language. When we communicate. That symbol between us. Jung did a good job of his own on relating that to language. Fantasy was his favorite example actually. Fantasy contains real things and dream things. If it was pure fantasy, it would be senseless. It reconciles the two in one place.


----------



## Psithurism

To_august said:


> Beta hangout finally came alive. Yay.:kitteh:


You can thank @Curi for that. It might have even been intentional.


----------



## Vermillion

ildiavolo said:


> But we know they exist.


Real talk: I dropped my soup from laughing.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> Charles Sanders Peirce was somebody into sign/symbol. Somewhat similar to Jung.
> 
> _"To say, therefore, that _thought_ cannot happen in an instant, but requires a _time_, is but another way of saying that _*every thought must be interpreted in another, or that all thought is in signs."
> 
> -Peirce
> 
> *Which is precisely what Jung said. We think symbolically.
> 
> *It is important to understand what I mean by semiosis. All dynamic action, or action of brute force, physical or psychical, either takes place between two subjects, — whether they react equally upon each other, or one is agent and the other patient, entirely or partially, — or at any rate is a resultant of such actions between pairs. But by "semiosis" I mean, on the contrary, an action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs.
> 
> -Peirce
> *
> That is a symbol to Jung as well. The symbol exists in both, but neither. You can see that in language. When we communicate. That symbol between us. Jung did a good job of his own on relating that to language. Fantasy was his favorite example actually. Fantasy contains real things and dream things. If it was pure fantasy, it would be senseless. It reconciles the two in one place.


What this even mean?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


> What this even mean?


What is between us? Words. Symbols. They are like ping pong balls we hit back and forth between each other. They are what I serve to you and they are what you serve back. Who created the game? Are they your balls? They aren't mine. The balls are symbols and all our thoughts are in those balls. All our concepts. 

Words fight. I am thinking of that scene from Big Trouble in Little China. Each wizard shoots his energy and creates a fighter, and they fight by proxy.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> What is between us? Words. Symbols. They are like ping pong balls we hit back and forth between each other. They are what I serve to you and they are what you serve back. Who created the game? Are they your balls? They aren't mine. The balls are symbols and all our thoughts are in those balls. All our concepts.
> 
> Words fight. I am thinking of that scene from Big Trouble in Little China. Each wizard shoots his energy and creates a fighter, and they fight by proxy.


Remind me of this


Negativity Bias said:


> Words are symbols, with symbols implying that every word can be interpreted differently depending on the perspective. Definitions are basically just forced "agreed upon" understandings of symbols.


-------------------------
Well the symbols are some kind of translation tool between the experience and the reality. We probably created a great many to being able to talk about the world. You can create symbols if you are up to it.


----------



## Verity

Sometimes I forget about the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nice to have forums like this to remind me about it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> Wow wait. I'm not arguing that your understanding is bad. I'm just asking for an explanation. You told that Betas were groups and clans, and I'm just asking for the reasoning behind it. But it seems like there are none. And thanks, I know Socionics well. You don't have to be so aggressive.
> 
> If you don't have any reasoning to support your statement, then I just can't understand it. I won't learn by heart things without understanding and knowing their validity, I'm not so naive.
> 
> I find it quite funny that you type me as an ESI only with one question. I do think that stereotypes are stupid but that doesn't mean that I am Fi-Se.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously saying that she can't understand typology because of her type? C'mon...


The "offense" was because you placed the burden of proof on me, when it is something on one of the base resources for Socionics. Quite frankly, I get tired of people saying "source it" for stuff that is *right there*. It also gets annoying when people take positions based on third-party or internet forum sources that are drastically different from the institutes stances themselves.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> No, I never claimed to be an expert. I never used that word, actually. That's what people tend to project on me. And afaik, I'm applying a system already in place. I didn't come up with something new by any means. You really overestimate my ability to think creatively in this regard. I'm referring a lot of things, but usually Jung and socionics nowadays. I don't endorse the MBTI, so. You think I think I take this more seriously than I do, as if you think I think this is some kind of science. I really don't. I do it primarily because I have an interest in it, because it's actually fun, at some level. I'm still an NT and I like theory, and I like how I can apply it in my own life to understand people and things around me, just like I appreciate other psychological theories that do the same.


How did you manage to leave out culture and environment with your Anthropological background? How do you account for environment and culture in your system? Or do you just reduce people to "information elements" and other Ti categories? Numbers. And relations between those numbers.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> How did you manage to leave out culture and environment with your Anthropological background? How do you account for environment and culture in your system? Or do you just reduce people to "information elements" and other Ti categories? Numbers. And relations between those numbers.


I never left it so stop put words in my mouth. They however deal with very different things. Compared to you, I don't have an innate need to think of people in groups or to keep boxing them into archetypes. That you don't understand whether I reduce people to categories or not exactly proves the point; you don't get how I think but simply assume because it's the closest to how you ironically think yourself. Now I'm done responding to your condescending nonsense. Your leading questions say way more about how you think than it does I. Nice try though.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> I never left it so stop put words in my mouth. They however deal with very different things. Compared to you, I don't have an innate need to think of people in groups or to keep boxing them into archetypes. That you don't understand whether I reduce people to categories or not exactly proves the point; you don't get how I think but simply assume because it's the closest to how you ironically think yourself. Now I'm done responding to your condescending nonsense. Your leading questions say way more about how you think than it does I. Nice try though.


No, you don't have the need to box people in at all. Not like a typologist or anything. Not with Jungian archetypes either. lol. 

I don't have to put words in your mouth, you leave that element out.


----------



## firedell

Thread warning.

Please refrain from making personal insults.


----------



## Jeremy8419

firedell said:


> Thread warning.
> 
> Please refrain from making personal insults.


Wieners.


----------



## Maye

Jeremy8419 said:


> Betas are defined as one tribe vs another tribe. Iroquois were a tribe that existed for attacking and conquering other tribes.


I haven't heard that before. Is this a socionics definition? If so, do u remember where you read it? (I mean, the part about betas being defined as one tribe attacking another.)


----------



## Jeremy8419

Maye said:


> I haven't heard that before. Is this a socionics definition? If so, do u remember where you read it? (I mean, the part about betas being defined as one tribe attacking another.)


Wikisocion. Quadras. Aristocratic/democratic. Smilingeyes on socionix.


----------



## myst91

westlose said:


> I meant that Ti isn't categorizing things for the sake of it.
> 
> Take Socionics for example. It is indeed a categorization of our different cognitions, but the goal is to understand how our mind work and how we can perceive the world differently.


OK I see what you meant. That's true, that would be a really shallow use of logic to just make whatever categories and stop there.

My point was that Ti is a process and an inherent part of that process is categorizing and organization as mentioned by you. And, yes, the whole process is for its own sake  that is, if it's the leading function. Now you may have meant "organization" in a more narrow sense than how I interpret that wording and that's where I may have misread you. How I see organization in general is really about the sum of logical relations in a framework. Just like you explained it yourself when you talked about logical relations. 

Also, in the context of your response to Jeremy8419's original post I thought he was talking about it in this latter fashion as well. As he did describe Ti decently when he said: 

_"I'm not sure what you mean or read. Ti is Structural Logic, Organizational Logic, Hierarchical Logic, Categorization Logic, etc. That's what it is. Because the criteria you decide "correct" for such is subjective, people also use it on their own internal parts to create their internal structure such as principles, self-rules, etc. The connection and formation of explicit, external, and objective individual things, such as people, into a verifiable structure, organization, hierarchy, category, etc. is Ti."_

So I'm not sure why you were disagreeing with him? That part in that post of his actually happened to work out, lol.




westlose said:


> She did it because she wants to make sense of what I said. I think that it is rather sensor-ish, because my explanation lack of concrete details, and that's why she seemed "nitpicking" to you.
> 
> Anyway I already know what Ti is. My point is actually to understand why Betas are supposed to be clans and groups.


I did not have a problem with your lack of concrete details actually, it was just some generic stuff you said about the definition of Ti. But I explained just now anyway what I meant.

OK, I didn't feel like getting into this debate on groups and clans before but I'll confirm here that that's actually basic socionics, yes. But I think the Beta stereotypes fit the Beta extraverts more, if I haven't mentioned this yet. Of course they are stereotypes that don't directly follow from information processing though theoretically it can influence such behaviours but I think there's other factors too. 




Maye said:


> I haven't heard that before. Is this a socionics definition? If so, do u remember where you read it? (I mean, the part about betas being defined as one tribe attacking another.)


Check out +/- theory and -Se in it. Though the tribes stuff is a bit silly overly narrow stereotyping.


----------



## myst91

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is for Ti doms. The Ti dom you are arguing with is actually doing it right now. She keeps on asking for categorizations without seeing the big picture. Every question she is asking is looking to "sort" something that way. To categorize it. She doesn't expand her points at all besides, "That's not what I said." "This isn't like that". Petty nitpicking and small answers without any larger point. That is Ti. Ti is a very concrete function. A literal function. Think of Data from Star Trek.
> 
> It is very Ti-Se particularly and another reason I don't like these quadras. lol at me having stuff in common with Ti-Se. I think not.


Actually not, I have no idea where you managed to so severely misinterpret my previous posts and I did not feel like figuring it out. It really looked like you misread my post or you mistook me for another poster. I have no desire to speculate on this tho', as already implied.

The other important thing here is, you are missing what Ti really is like, analysis of things by Ti does have a larger point. Categorizations do not make real sense without them fitting in a real logical framework; the nature and purpose of logical connections in such a framework go way beyond just making categories. 

However you do have to get used to how Ti leading types are less inclined to explain everything unlike Ti creatives but if you do specifically ask me to explain something, I will gladly do so. 

When I say "that's not what I said" I have all that in mind. I just don't elaborate on it unless I deem it necessary or if I'm asked to.

So please don't fucking make assumptions about my way of thinking like this from a few lines and from your poor understanding of what Ti is. You'd have 2D normative Ti right? Though westlose has it too and still is able to see past that.




FearAndTrembling said:


> They want to make category after category. That is Ti. Even ILI would not take it to this degree of subjective system that exists nowhere else outside their head.


For godssake, no. What's this with comparing the subjectivity of Ti with the subjectivity of ILI's? It's not just "categories and categories". It's a logical map of the world. Though for LII that world is perceived through Ne and yes that can get incredibly disconnected from tangible reality then. But Ti with Se, that's pretty directly mapped to the tangible world outside the head. Overall Ti is only as subjective as any other introverted function/IE.




FearAndTrembling said:


> Isn't LSI Ne polr? Meaning they don't like other possibilities. They know one way only, and that way doesn't expand beyond the present moment. Stannis Baratheon is Ti-Se. Do you see how he just puts his head down and drives through people? He has no respect for any advice. Just his own subjective logic -- Ti-- and then BOOM, project it into the present moment--Se.


And? What's your point with bringing up Ne PoLR? This is actually a rhetorical question, to reveal a secret. We simply miscommunicated for idk what reason. And yes that's the Ne PoLR that I can't be bothered to guess.




selena87 said:


> Does anyone here understand Jeremy8419 and FearAndTrembling's reasonings?


Ahahh usually I don't bother to follow their "reasonings".




FearAndTrembling said:


> I doubt you understand Jung's reasoning. How would Se-Ti be able to understand that? He is just like Hegel, he doesn't write for the mob.


Are you for real? Another rhetorical question yeh.




FearAndTrembling said:


> How did you manage to leave out culture and environment with your Anthropological background? How do you account for environment and culture in your system? Or do you just reduce people to "information elements" and other Ti categories? Numbers. And relations between those numbers.


And now you misinterpreted Entropic. When she mentions she's interested in other psychological theories that can very well include theories on how environment and culture affect people. Nowhere did she state that she reduces people to "Ti stuff".


----------



## Jeremy8419

myst91 said:


> And now you misinterpreted Entropic. When *she* mentions she's interested in other psychological theories that can very well include theories on how environment and culture affect people. Nowhere did she state that she reduces people to "Ti stuff".


XD


----------



## westlose

myst91 said:


> So I'm not sure why you were disagreeing with him? That part in that post of his actually happened to work out, lol.


I wasn't disagreeing with him. I just said that he emphasized an aspect of Ti that doesn't really explain anything. My whole point was to understand this Beta feature that doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how it turned out into a Ti discussion.





> OK, I didn't feel like getting into this debate on groups and clans before but I'll confirm here that that's actually basic socionics, yes. But I think the Beta stereotypes fit the Beta extraverts more, if I haven't mentioned this yet. Of course they are stereotypes that don't directly follow from information processing though theoretically it can influence such behaviours but I think there's other factors too.


And yeah, it may appear basic socionics, but if you check the Beta Quadra part in Wikisocion, they never mention the fact that they are forming clans and tribes. They say basically what I said in my first post, a preference for a wider range of people and group activities.

That's why it's not really basic Socionics for me, but rather some stereotypes. Well anyway, as it doesn't interest you, I don't need to go further.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with him. I just said that he emphasized an aspect of Ti that doesn't really explain anything. My whole point was to understand this Beta feature that doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how it turned out into a Ti discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, it may appear basic socionics, but if you check the Beta Quadra part in Wikisocion, they never mention the fact that they are forming clans and tribes. They say basically what I said in my first post, a preference for a wider range of people and group activities.
> 
> That's why it's not really basic Socionics for me, but rather some stereotypes. Well anyway, as it doesn't interest you, I don't need to go further.


So, are your groups of the physical nature? Or the psychological nature?


----------



## westlose

Jeremy8419 said:


> So, are your groups of the physical nature? Or the psychological nature?


How am I supposed to know it? I've never found anything about it at least.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> How am I supposed to know it? I've never found anything about it at least.


Well.... You can have physical connections with people, as in proximity, emotional displays, matching clothes, shared surnames, etc. Or you can have psychological connections with people, as in shared thoughts, wants, worldviews, concerns, etc. People tend to place priority on one of the two, and it shows in their lives and relationships.


----------



## westlose

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well.... You can have physical connections with people, as in proximity, emotional displays, matching clothes, shared surnames, etc. Or you can have psychological connections with people, as in shared thoughts, wants, worldviews, concerns, etc. People tend to place priority on one of the two, and it shows in their lives and relationships.


I see. Well I prefer to be with people who share similar opinions and understanding of the world I guess? I don't care about shared clothes or surnames. That makes me a Gamma/Delta? Nice.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> I see. Well I prefer to be with people who share similar opinions and understanding of the world I guess? I don't care about shared clothes or surnames. That makes me a Gamma/Delta? Nice.


Well, it may have not been the best descriptions haha. The first was Ti, though, and the second was Fi.
Ti is comparisons of external qualities. Fi is comparisons of internal qualities. Ti valuing places priority on external matching, even if the cause is internal. As such, their groupings are usually readily visible. Fi valuing have groupings as well, but they are based in the internal world, so they aren't readily visible. So, they both have "tribes" as humans are social by nature, but on different planes.

The whole tribe vs tribe thing stems from Beta valuing Se and them being physical groups. Thus they appear to be tribe vs tribe.


----------



## Vermillion

.


----------



## Entropic

myst91 said:


> And now you misinterpreted Entropic. When she mentions she's interested in other psychological theories that can very well include theories on how environment and culture affect people. Nowhere did she state that she reduces people to "Ti stuff".


How did you get it into a "she" lol?


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> What system have I come up with? You tell me, because I have no idea what you are referring to. Also, your typism isn't pretty, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> You've never studied anthropology, have you? The very purpose of the discipline, in the very least the social/cultural part I studied and majored in, with focus on symbol interpretation and semiotics, is exactly like that.


I'd wager this FaT fella is conflating cultural anthropology with basic sociology.


----------



## Kerik_S

westlose said:


> Ti is the logic of relationships, and emphasizing the categorization and organization part seems a bit exaggerated to me. Ti just want to make sense of system by understanding how their different parts are logically related. It sure does analyze the hierarchy in the system and categorize the different parts of it, but it isn't an end in itself.
> 
> You keep declaring conclusions but you haven't explained your reasoning yet. You say that Beta are planting seed for bodily groupings to meet their subjective criteria for example. It seems like you just rephrased your previous statement. But do you think that I'll believe it so easily? It must make sense, and for now it doesn't. Your only argument for now, was the presence of valuing Ti, but you didn't explained yet how it is related to living in groups and clans.
> 
> And no, stereotypes are pointless imo. Stereotypes are over-simplification of complex phenomenon or facts. It's better to truly understand how people work, with a logical approach, instead of relying on vague and ridiculous stereotypes. And that's exactly why I made this post, because I don't relate at all to this Beta stereotype.





Jeremy8419 said:


> I don't explain it, because I assume you have read prior to making arguments. You're essentially arguing that my understanding of Socionics is not correct, but you have not even read enough to know what Socionics is.
> 
> Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion
> You'll have to read up on +/- on your own. It's far too scattered to provide links.
> 
> By your last paragraph, you would be ESI, unless your paragraph is a front. I stereotype people constantly for efficiency. It's just on a psychological level instead of a physical one. And if you still say nooooo that page is just a stereotype that is stupid," then you just prove my first sentence of this paragraph.


By one paragraph, you can be so certain that westlose is a completely separate type... Specifically a type separate from your own?

How is that friggin' _“stereotyping for efficiency”_? Sounds more like stereotyping for your own convenience—meaning, in this instance, stereotyping westlose in order to distance yourself from WL as another IEI to legitimize your own True IEI-ness.

Socionics doesn't say that, just because a function of yours is in the same slot as another IEI, that you've learned to use it particularly well. You sound neurotic. So I can barely gauge _your_ type. I identify more with the reasoning of westlose.

The closest thing I do to “sterotyping” is creating _*malleable*_ generalizations that group people together—I revise those generalizations when presented with new information, and sometimes revise them simply from self-reflection. When I notice that a part of myself–as-belonging to–a-group-[that-I've-created-subjectively] seems to differ to a substantial enough degree from others in a grouping, I then proceed to inspecting whether my “_anthro-taxonomy_”—if you will—needs adjustment on any level. If I can't reconcile a perceived difference with the larger group, I may devise a subgroup:

_*Realization from new information or novel internal cognition:*_
Group A, Unit _n_ actually possesses {Quality _IX_, Nuances 1–3,7-9} of _Group B_,
unlike any other Unit in Group A.

... And actually, Group A, Units _{m;l;k;j;r;t;x;z}_, upon further inspection, possess not only Quality _IX_ of Group B; rather—more specifically—those Units possess {Quality _IX_, Nuances 4–6,10–12}.

Ahh... That makes sense in my social schematic. Units in Group A with only one Quality from Group B—though having separate nuances from that Quality—... I actually have encountered a lot of people like that. A substantial enough amount to retain their place in Group A, but assume two new subgroups. Those with B.IX. Nuances 1–3,7–9 constitute Group A Subgroup _Alpha_; those with B.IX Nuances 4–6,10–12 constitute Group A Subgroup _Beta_.


I hold that as a malleable possibility, and its veracity is tested p much automatically as I encounter more people after I've made such a revision.


None of the technical parts are particularly conscious. The internal dialogue I presented is an attempt to concretize an abstract cognition. It's also (and painstakingly during my composition of this intellectualization) not that “logical” in terms of putting people into an actual taxonomical framework. It's much more about the nuances of their emotive expressions and degrees to which their emotions shape their behavior and attitudes.

I don't think, literally, in my semiotic-linguistic mind (_traditional “mind”)_ of people as Units, and I don't think of it as placing them in explicitly-titled groups. It's more like “Huh, that dude is a lot like [insert abstract terminology here], except a bit more like [insert group... I'll use “Gnostics” in this example].... Hmm... you know what? Some other Gnostics are soft polytheists like that, too. It's like they're... Jungian Panentheistic Gnostics, and the other soft polytheist Gnostics are more like Hermetic Panentheistic Gnostics.”

That's not stereotyping. It's collectivist cognition, as Aristocrats are predisposed to using.


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> I'd wager this FaT fella is conflating cultural anthropology with basic sociology.


Very well. I have a degree in both, though, so either way, his comment makes no sense in this regard.


----------



## Kerik_S

selena87 said:


> Does anyone here understand Jeremy8419 and FearAndTrembling's reasonings?


Jeremy is neurotic and possibly not even IEI, but wants to be that type for perceived type-coolness (probably unconsciously) and is thus forcing weak functions to operate consciously and utterly failing. Ergo, neurosis.

Fear&T is conflating Cognitive Functions with information elements, and is thus erroneously deriving conclusions regarding _socionics_—erroneously, because he's using an MBTI paradigm. Apples and oranges.

Jerm neurotic, FaT misinformed.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Very well. I have a degree in both, though, so either way, his comment makes no sense in this regard.


I took only survey courses in both as an undergrad, and that simply informs me that his assertions regarding your anthropological background are rooted in a faulty understanding of both disciplines. From that point forward, if we were to assume his assertions made sense to him, and he was attempting to convey them in the good faith that he has some kind of correct understanding, when he doesn't...

I, too, still don't see how any line of reasoning beyond his initial leap of faith is, in any way, linear. He dun goofed.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> Jeremy is neurotic and possibly not even IEI, but wants to be that type for perceived type-coolness (probably unconsciously) and is thus forcing weak functions to operate consciously and utterly failing. Ergo, neurosis.


Wait, last time i checked Jeremy typed himself EII.


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> I took only survey courses in both as an undergrad, and that simply informs me that his assertions regarding your anthropological background are rooted in a faulty understanding of both disciplines. From that point forward, if we were to assume his assertions made sense to him, and he was attempting to convey them in the good faith that he has some kind of correct understanding, when he doesn't...
> 
> I, too, still don't see how any line of reasoning beyond his initial leap of faith is, in any way, linear. He dun goofed.


Yes, and specifically the kind of anthropology I specialized in was symbol analysis, which I retained as a focus during my sociological masters in global studies. Anthropology is one of those nifty subjects in that you never stop using. It's always useful in some way, no matter the situation you are in. When I interview people, for example, I can use it to disseminate what I think is probably an attitude based on their social background as opposed to something related to their style of cognition. Anthropology as a subject has little impact on stuff like socionics, though, outside of analyzing the anthropological meaning as to why people learn socionics.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Yes, and specifically the kind of anthropology I specialized in was symbol analysis, which I retained as a focus during my sociological masters in global studies. Anthropology is one of those nifty subjects in that you never stop using. It's always useful in some way, no matter the situation you are in. When I interview people, for example, I can use it to disseminate what I think is probably an attitude based on their social background as opposed to something related to their style of cognition. Anthropology as a subject has little impact on stuff like socionics, though, outside of analyzing the anthropological meaning as to why people learn socionics.


It certainly helps avoid fundamental cognitive biases, to be trained in seeing people outside of the vacuum of their immediate circumstances.

My mom has a degree in anthropology that she did nothing with, yet it still influenced her to have a stronger sense of holistic attribution toward people's words and actions. She's the one who would call me out on thinking in a vacuum when I get emotionally distraught as a teen. Or anytime I'd misattribute her actions (particularly punitive actions) as being myopic.

How could *anthropo*-logy _not_ prove useful in evaluating human behavior?

[waves one of those tiny flags they give out at sportsball games]


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> It certainly helps avoid fundamental cognitive biases, to be trained in seeing people outside of the vacuum of their immediate circumstances.
> 
> My mom has a degree in anthropology that she did nothing with, yet it still influenced her to have a stronger sense of holistic attribution toward people's words and actions. She's the one who would call me out on thinking in a vacuum when I get emotionally distraught as a teen. Or anytime I'd misattribute her actions (particularly punitive actions) as being myopic.
> 
> How could *anthropo*-logy _not_ prove useful in evaluating human behavior?
> 
> [waves one of those tiny flags they give out at sportsball games]


Yup, you are right. Anthropology forced me to question some of my then existing beliefs, especially concerning race, religion and gender. I'd say it made me a much more accepting and open-minded individual which is not a bad thing. It's to the point I wish anthropology would be taught more even outside of university level, because I think that kind of acceptance is useful for anyone, really, and useful to society as a whole in developing a more tolerating and understanding mentality in order to help all kinds of people integrate better as a society.


----------



## Captain Mclain




----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> I took only survey courses in both as an undergrad, and that simply informs me that his assertions regarding your anthropological background are rooted in a faulty understanding of both disciplines. From that point forward, if we were to assume his assertions made sense to him, and he was attempting to convey them in the good faith that he has some kind of correct understanding, when he doesn't...
> 
> I, too, still don't see how any line of reasoning beyond his initial leap of faith is, in any way, linear. He dun goofed.


Can you explain how this anthropological expertise has been applied to types and where the cultural element is addressed specifically? You are too interested in subjective categories.


----------



## Captain Mclain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations
This is also cool


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you explain how this anthropological expertise has been applied to types and where the cultural element is addressed specifically?



Ye that be super interesting!


----------



## Kerik_S

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you explain how this anthropological expertise has been applied to types and where the cultural element is addressed specifically? You are too interested in subjective categories.


I was only talking about you putting under scrutiny the merits of Entropy's anthropological expertise. I believe Entropy said to you that typology is an interest separate from that; and to me, that it still, as an academic discipline plays a role in his information metabolism.

There's nothing inherent about any school of anthropology that can be applied to types. I suppose one could extrapolate and synthesize, but it would wholly conjecture and mental masturbation.

As for being "too" anything, you clearly have no idea as to the point of a Beta Hangout thread. It's too both highlight the differences between Quadras by direct observation of people in another quadra, and for Betas to just be Betas talking to Betas and possibly answering the questions of—or affirming/refuting the statements of—non-Betas.

Specifically, being “too interested”... That is impossible to determine because interest can't be measured quantitatively, nor can anything rooted in value or opinion. I like this shit.

“To interested in subjective” anything... That's double subjectivity. How can you possibly gauge where too much value, placed on a subjectively-valued unit of thought, breaks through to that "too much threshold".

Any, what's the point of forming an opinion of my opinions of subjective derivatives... especially on a forum that's basically just a place where we talk about whatever we want with no formal structure or protocol as to how much can be objective and how much can be subjective?

It's too subjective, and too much more into categories than _you_ believe.

Also, this was all conjecture. I can make conjecture without subscribing to it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> I was only talking about you putting under scrutiny the merits of Entropy's anthropological expertise. I believe Entropy said to you that typology is an interest separate from that; and to me, that it still, as an academic discipline plays a role in his information metabolism.
> 
> There's nothing inherent about any school of anthropology that can be applied to types. I suppose one could extrapolate and synthesize, but it would wholly conjecture and mental masturbation.
> 
> As for being "too" anything, you clearly have no idea as to the point of a Beta Hangout thread. It's too both highlight the differences between Quadras by direct observation of people in another quadra, and for Betas to just be Betas talking to Betas and possibly answering the questions of—or affirming/refuting the statements of—non-Betas.
> 
> Specifically, being “too interested”... That is impossible to determine because interest can't be measured quantitatively, nor can anything rooted in value or opinion. I like this shit.
> 
> “To interested in subjective” anything... That's double subjectivity. How can you possibly gauge where too much value, placed on a subjectively-valued unit of thought, breaks through to that "too much threshold".
> 
> Any, what's the point of forming an opinion of my opinions of subjective derivatives... especially on a forum that's basically just a place where we talk about whatever we want with no formal structure or protocol as to how much can be objective and how much can be subjective?
> 
> It's too subjective, and too much more into categories than _you_ believe.
> 
> Also, this was all conjecture. I can make conjecture without subscribing to it.


You over explained without actually touching down on anything. 

I asked where the anthropological element was applied beyond a shallow textbook categorization of it. Give me an answer. You just threw up some Ti smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Glory

Sociology, where projection is valid science.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> I
> As for being "too" anything, you clearly have no idea as to the point of a Beta Hangout thread. It's too both highlight the differences between Quadras by direct observation of people in another quadra, and for Betas to just be Betas talking to Betas and possibly answering the questions of—or affirming/refuting the statements of—non-Betas..


That is an interesting take on it! ;p It is basically a freeforall place to discuss everything from none important matters to politics on this forum. (ended up that way). The fact that there are more nonebetas then betas here would say that. In the end i think it is just a fun-thread. Who are you, never seen you on forums? You seem to have alot of opinions yet post rank newbie.


----------



## Kerik_S

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you explain how this anthropological expertise has been applied to types and where the cultural element is addressed specifically? You are too interested in subjective categories.


I was only talking about you putting under scrutiny the merits of Entropy's anthropological expertise. I believe Entropy said to you that typology is an interest separate from that; and to me, that it still, as an academic discipline plays a role in his information metabolism.

There's nothing inherent about any school of anthropology that can be applied to types. I suppose one could extrapolate and synthesize, but it would wholly conjecture and mental masturbation.

As for being "too" anything, you clearly have no idea as to the point of a Beta Hangout thread. It's too both highlight the differences between Quadras by direct observation of people in another quadra, and for Betas to just be Betas talking to Betas and possibly answering the questions of—or affirming/refuting the statements of—non-Betas.

Specifically, being “too interested”... That is impossible to determine because interest can't be measured quantitatively, nor can anything rooted in value or opinion. I like this shit.

“To interested in subjective” anything... That's double subjectivity. How can you possibly gauge where too much value, placed on a subjectively-valued unit of thought, breaks through to that "too much threshold".

Any, what's the point of forming an opinion of my opinions of subjective derivatives... especially on a forum that's basically just a place where we talk about whatever we want with no formal structure or protocol as to how much can be objective and how much can be subjective?

It's too subjective, and too much more into categories than _you_ believe.

Also, this was all conjecture. I can make conjecture without subscribing to it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> I was only talking about you putting under scrutiny the merits of Entropy's anthropological expertise. I believe Entropy said to you that typology is an interest separate from that; and to me, that it still, as an academic discipline plays a role in his information metabolism.
> 
> There's nothing inherent about any school of anthropology that can be applied to types. I suppose one could extrapolate and synthesize, but it would wholly conjecture and mental masturbation.
> 
> As for being "too" anything, you clearly have no idea as to the point of a Beta Hangout thread. It's too both highlight the differences between Quadras by direct observation of people in another quadra, and for Betas to just be Betas talking to Betas and possibly answering the questions of—or affirming/refuting the statements of—non-Betas.
> 
> Specifically, being “too interested”... That is impossible to determine because interest can't be measured quantitatively, nor can anything rooted in value or opinion. I like this shit.
> 
> “To interested in subjective” anything... That's double subjectivity. How can you possibly gauge where too much value, placed on a subjectively-valued unit of thought, breaks through to that "too much threshold".
> 
> Any, what's the point of forming an opinion of my opinions of subjective derivatives... especially on a forum that's basically just a place where we talk about whatever we want with no formal structure or protocol as to how much can be objective and how much can be subjective?
> 
> It's too subjective, and too much more into categories than _you_ believe.
> 
> Also, this was all conjecture. I can make conjecture without subscribing to it.


yah, cuz IEI types loves didacticism and are champions of it. Your entire argument is based on something that is supposedly your polr. I will be waiting on your own words to tell me why I am wrong.


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> That is an interesting take on it! ;p It is basically a freeforall place to discuss everything from none important matters to politics on this forum. (ended up that way). The fact that there are more nonebetas then betas here would say that. In the end i think it is just a fun-thread. Who are you, never seen you on forums? You seem to have alot of opinions yet post rank newbie.


I was a solitary contemplative/people-watcher for a while. I also trained in Zen, formally. It was counter to my practice to engage in such subjectivity and (ultimately) pseudoscience. Typology in and of itself, for me, is a place to celebrate that others like myself exist—thus celebrating that I'm not alone. However, because of this urge and fancy I had for typology, I eliminated it from my life for my practice in order to distance myself... from myself.

Now that I'm only using Zen techniques at my own prerogative, I finally lifted some restraints from my life.

Also, idk if it has anything to do with INFJ-' or IEI-'ness, but I think it plays a role in me "metabolizing" the particular kinds of information in this thread pretty well and quickly.


----------



## Captain Mclain

niffer said:


> question for iei
> 
> why do you guys act, or why are you, so posh?
> 
> is it fun?


Haha, how come you say that IEI act posh?  Is that from real life experience or people on forum?
I guess it is an almost calculated way of moving around in the world. But I can not see myself, I wish to see some example of this with my own eyes in real life some day.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> I said it wasn't applied here. I said that Entropy's exposure to it made him more likely to step back and make more macroscopic attributions to the way people behave, period. I was admiring the worth of the academic discipline.
> 
> Again, you dodged what I wrote because you're stuck in tunnel-vision right now.
> 
> And yea, in writing I tend to go pretty longwinded. And I can get wordy and tangential.
> 
> Someone said something about "normative Fi"... it was the same person who was (in the same post as you) criticized for making no sense. So, I'm assuming there's a bit of ganging-up going on.
> 
> If that's how you get your kicks, that's hella lame.
> 
> I'm proud of how much I've grown as a person, and I have no idea why you think I believe that anthropology can be applied to typology since I explicitly said that Entropy was highlighting how it is a _separate_ interest.
> 
> You're setting up (idk if it's intentional or not) a smokescreen between yourself and anyone who criticizes you by conveniently overlooking that they've already answered your question, or that they've told you that they never made such an assertion.
> 
> I've seen that from some tool in the Spirituality Thread (because, unlike your daft assertion that I systematize Zen, the Spirituality and Philosophy forums were my first go-to), and it's not going to work here.
> 
> Again... Now that I've told you that I never said (or never meant to have said anything that could be inferred as) believing anthropology can be reliably applied to typology. So, other than that,
> 
> What's your problem? What do you seek here? What about arguing, in a manner that shows clear cognitive bias and emotionally-driven myopathy, is so compelling to you?
> 
> Answer my question or don't post at all.
> 
> By the way, you can post whatever the frick you want, so I hope your reaction to that line right there was at least enough to make you realize how overbearing and pedantic you're being.



You are a machine trying to learn. 

You basically said I was a fool who doesn't understand basic academic classifications. I am asking you to back that up. You dismissed myself and another poster as fools. Back it up. Address the points of mine that you dispute. This is about Anthropology and how it is related to the subject. Address that. I don't care about your journey or history. Leave that out.


----------



## niffer

Captain Mclain said:


> Haha, how come you say that IEI act posh?  Is that from real life experience or people on forum?
> I guess it is an almost calculated way of moving around in the world. But I can not see myself, I wish to see some example of this with my own eyes some day.


Alllll real life experience.

From top left, SLE; top right, LSI; bottom left, EIE; bottom right IEI. or something










but yeah my perception of all iei is them being like this:


----------



## Kerik_S

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you explain how this anthropological expertise has been applied to types and where the cultural element is addressed specifically? You are too interested in subjective categories.


oh, you're talking about this post. (I had to scan back to see)...

My wording was off. I was saying that your faulty understanding of the difference between anthropology and sociology made you highly unqualified to say whatever it was you said to Entropy that had to do with his anthropological background.

The preface "I only took survey courses in" was basically my way of saying "It's Anthropology 101, and Sociology 101, that informed me that there's a difference between the two, and that what that difference hinges on seems entirely lost on FearAndTrembling."

That's really it. If you replaced "Anthropology" with "Sociology" in some of your assessments of Entropy (I honestly don't remember, but I can look back if you so desperately need me to), that you would have made more sense.

I then followed that up by saying, basically, that-- yeah, it'd make more sense to a certain point-- but eventually your line of reasoning just seemed to meander.

I don't think it's a coincidence that, since before I came here... As far back as September 29th, you've been under the scrutiny of most of the members who were currently looking at these posts, and you treated them the same way as you've treated me:

Presumptuous, irrational, and neurotic in the sense that I believe you're so insecure about other people seeing things differently than you, that you need to "inquire" things about them when they're thinly-veiled passive aggressive, pseudo-intellectual B.S.

What is so offensive about anything I said, or Entropy said, prior to actually explicitly calling you confused and/or neurotic... Why have you been so invested in this--- and latched onto the endeavor of expanding your hissy-fit to any outside dissenters--- that you'd be here after 11 days?

I don't understand what you're getting out of this.

And, your assertion that life needn't be placed into categories..?

Why aren't you getting onto Jeremy for talking about everything (hyperbole in case you wanted to derail my point by calling me hyberbolic) he says and does as his functions working: "My Xi tells me that...." ... "That's just my Xe doing such and such."

If you're really so concerned with what you perceive as "too much" of a fancying of "subjective categories", then

Why are you only _not_ critiquing the one person who's playing tag-along with you (Jeremy) and doing exactly what you're charging other people of doing? Why?

Why?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> oh, you're talking about this post. (I had to scan back to see)...
> 
> My wording was off. I was saying that your faulty understanding of the difference between anthropology and sociology made you highly unqualified to say whatever it was you said to Entropy that had to do with his anthropological background.
> 
> The preface "I only took survey courses in" was basically my way of saying "It's Anthropology 101, and Sociology 101, that informed me that there's a difference between the two, and that what that difference hinges on seems entirely lost on FearAndTrembling."
> 
> That's really it. If you replaced "Anthropology" with "Sociology" in some of your assessments of Entropy (I honestly don't remember, but I can look back if you so desperately need me to), that you would have made more sense.
> 
> I then followed that up by saying, basically, that-- yeah, it'd make more sense to a certain point-- but eventually your line of reasoning just seemed to meander.
> 
> I don't think it's a coincidence that, since before I came here... As far back as September 29th, you've been under the scrutiny of most of the members who were currently looking at these posts, and you treated them the same way as you've treated me:
> 
> Presumptuous, irrational, and neurotic in the sense that I believe you're so insecure about other people seeing things differently than you, that you need to "inquire" things about them when they're thinly-veiled passive aggressive, pseudo-intellectual B.S.
> 
> What is so offensive about anything I said, or Entropy said, prior to actually explicitly calling you confused and/or neurotic... Why have you been so invested in this--- and latched onto the endeavor of expanding your hissy-fit to any outside dissenters--- that you'd be here after 11 days?
> 
> I don't understand what you're getting out of this.
> 
> And, your assertion that life needn't be placed into categories..?
> 
> Why aren't you getting onto Jeremy for talking about everything (hyperbole in case you wanted to derail my point by calling me hyberbolic) he says and does as his functions working: "My Xi tells me that...." ... "That's just my Xe doing such and such."
> 
> If you're really so concerned with what you perceive as "too much" of a fancying of "subjective categories", then
> 
> Why are you only _not_ critiquing the one person who's playing tag-along with you (Jeremy) and doing exactly what you're charging other people of doing? Why?
> 
> Why?


Why Why Why. Words. Nothing underneath them. No meanings. 

I believe you were the first to throw neurotic around and act like you know something.

So again, what of any value have you added by making a trite distinction in academic categories? What has changed exactly? You spend so much time categorizing you never actually say anything.


----------



## Kerik_S

FearAndTrembling said:


> You are a machine trying to learn.
> 
> You basically said I was a fool who doesn't understand basic academic classifications. I am asking you to back that up. You dismissed myself and another poster as fools. Back it up. Address the points of mine that you dispute. This is about Anthropology and how it is related to the subject. Address that. I don't care about your journey or history. Leave that out.


You kept saying "Applied here" with no explanation of what "here" meant. I've been commenting on other people's stuff, so I read "applied here" as "How can anthropology be applied to typology?"

I didn't mean to imply that.

I said you were conflating anthropology and sociology. I never dismissed you. You take offense very easily, which leads me to think you're also neurotic.

I don't buy this "This is strictly a thing about making sure we stay on-topic and just address the issue at hand blah blah blah"... I believe you read in tunnel-vision (I'll admit, there was a bit of miscommunication... I worded something weird, like weird sentence structure or something.... and you kept saying "applied here" and I had no idea what that meant, apparently)...

You read in tunnel-vision at least when your sensibilities are offended, and then I believe you cover up your frustration or antipathy toward the other person by masking it as some Quest For The Most Objective Exchange On A Forum Ever.

This isn't about me not "sticking to a question." This has everything to do with you using basic touting of Argumentation 101, and being assertive about people on the forum sticking to that form, as a way to mask your emotional upheavals.

You're so on-fire about this, but using an intellectualist front to make it look like you're just striving for objective rigor in some kind of waxing nostalgia for whatever Old Guy in a Book from whom you learned about argumentation.

I really just don't believe your motives, and I think you're possibly unaware of them.

To the point where you'd start calling me a machine, demeaning and completely misinterpreting my stance on an old spiritual practice of mine (*You opened that can of worms, and now you're insisting I close it at your convenience*... There, you've got me riled up now.

Fine. I'm clearly not talking to a kind and/or self-aware person. I think there's still some posts you've made in response to me that have overlapped the time it's taken me to compose prior comments as well as this one, so I'll check that to see if you've lightened up.

Otherwise, I'm unsubscribing from this thread, so you and your friend Jeremy can have a circle-jerk about how my unsubscribing means that your points about me are proven. You can have fun with that. He's already whipped his dick out with your posts about robots and stuff, so if seeing a robot that "you totally saw right through" makes the circle-jerk more enjoyable,

You can keep on not caring about other people's stories that you challenged in the first place, and continue to be unaware of your neurotic passive agression and how you cover it up to fool either other people or yourself or both, and have a nice happy ending with the dude you tagged from the ropes of the wrestling ring you've tried to turn what was a fun conversation into.

Maybe you'll say something that isn't mean or transparent. I'll have to see.


----------



## Kerik_S

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why Why Why. Words. Nothing underneath them. No meanings.
> 
> I believe you were the first to throw neurotic around and act like you know something.
> 
> So again, what of any value have you added by making a trite distinction in academic categories? What has changed exactly? You spend so much time categorizing you never actually say anything.


I used neurotic to describe you because you have hang-ups that are driving your actions that you're completely unaware of, even when people are clearly reacting poorly to your behavior.

It was a nice way of calling you an oblivious [invective]. I don't think highly of you, and you read "words words empty words" with no meaning because you want to see me as some completely illogical novice machine who can't possibly be equipped enough to read the negative traits of your character with any degree of accuracy.

I don't need a textbook and citations to know that talking to you here is completely pointless.

You said (through rhetorical question) that I don't add anything to this thread.

I believe I do, and that you're just parroting that over and over again to avoid contemplating someone else's criticism of you.

I'm not going to write some mathematical proof as to why you're a tool.

I'm gonna take it ipso facto because you're just that much of a tool


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kerik_S said:


> I used neurotic to describe you because you have hang-ups that are driving your actions that you're completely unaware of, even when people are clearly reacting poorly to your behavior.
> 
> It was a nice way of calling you an oblivious [invective]. I don't think highly of you, and you read "words words empty words" with no meaning because you want to see me as some completely illogical novice machine who can't possibly be equipped enough to read the negative traits of your character with any degree of accuracy.
> 
> I don't need a textbook and citations to know that talking to you here is completely pointless.
> 
> You said (through rhetorical question) that I don't add anything to this thread.
> 
> I believe I do, and that you're just parroting that over and over again to avoid contemplating someone else's criticism of you.
> 
> I'm not going to write some mathematical proof as to why you're a tool.
> 
> I'm gonna take it ipso facto because you're just that much of a tool


Yet this started with you insulting me about how I categorized things wrong. I still haven't heard how. 

You referred to Jeremy as neurotic. I was simply "misinformed". Bring this into the objective arena and show me how. I want to see it. Take anthropology and apply it to this subject. Stop dancing. 

I don't care what you think of me. It is inconsequential. Your position is a house of cards.


----------



## Jeremy8419

What? I was criticized? Lol. I must have skimmed too much for relevant information to notice lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> You kept saying "Applied here" with no explanation of what "here" meant. I've been commenting on other people's stuff, so I read "applied here" as "How can anthropology be applied to typology?"
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that.
> 
> I said you were conflating anthropology and sociology. I never dismissed you. You take offense very easily, which leads me to think you're also neurotic.
> 
> I don't buy this "This is strictly a thing about making sure we stay on-topic and just address the issue at hand blah blah blah"... I believe you read in tunnel-vision (I'll admit, there was a bit of miscommunication... I worded something weird, like weird sentence structure or something.... and you kept saying "applied here" and I had no idea what that meant, apparently)...
> 
> You read in tunnel-vision at least when your sensibilities are offended, and then I believe you cover up your frustration or antipathy toward the other person by masking it as some Quest For The Most Objective Exchange On A Forum Ever.
> 
> This isn't about me not "sticking to a question." This has everything to do with you using basic touting of Argumentation 101, and being assertive about people on the forum sticking to that form, as a way to mask your emotional upheavals.
> 
> You're so on-fire about this, but using an intellectualist front to make it look like you're just striving for objective rigor in some kind of waxing nostalgia for whatever Old Guy in a Book from whom you learned about argumentation.
> 
> I really just don't believe your motives, and I think you're possibly unaware of them.
> 
> To the point where you'd start calling me a machine, demeaning and completely misinterpreting my stance on an old spiritual practice of mine (*You opened that can of worms, and now you're insisting I close it at your convenience*... There, you've got me riled up now.
> 
> Fine. I'm clearly not talking to a kind and/or self-aware person. I think there's still some posts you've made in response to me that have overlapped the time it's taken me to compose prior comments as well as this one, so I'll check that to see if you've lightened up.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm unsubscribing from this thread, so you and your friend Jeremy can have a circle-jerk about how my unsubscribing means that your points about me are proven. You can have fun with that. He's already whipped his dick out with your posts about robots and stuff, so if seeing a robot that "you totally saw right through" makes the circle-jerk more enjoyable,
> 
> You can keep on not caring about other people's stories that you challenged in the first place, and continue to be unaware of your neurotic passive agression and how you cover it up to fool either other people or yourself or both, and have a nice happy ending with the dude you tagged from the ropes of the wrestling ring you've tried to turn what was a fun conversation into.
> 
> Maybe you'll say something that isn't mean or transparent. I'll have to see.


Wait... What? Lol

I randomly entered your discussion and the first thing I saw was reference to what is called Normative Fi, so I defined it lol. Then I pointed out that you were missing what he was doing, and rather than heed me, you just kept going along with it lol.

Anyways...
Here's the link. It's a good read on socionics.
Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> What? I was criticized? Lol. I must have skimmed too much for relevant information to notice lol


I didn't skim, so much as just click the "Quoted you in a post" links. Looking back at your brief exchanges in the forum that had anything to do with me or what I was reading...

As terrible the timing is, given what you've basically told me is that I was being toyed with as some kind of hamster being observed...

I digress. When I first commented _you_ as "neurotic", it was not just in response to your post where you "typed someone from on paragraph" or something.

I basically lumped all his posts I had read prior, and your single post I had just read, together in my mind, and when I read you making a type attribution to someone from "one paragraph", I was calling bullshit on "you", when "you" was actually a mixture of FaT's posts and that post of yours.

That explains why FaT came back later after I said "I called you [FaT] neurotic blah blah blah failing missing the point and totally playing into a trap apparently", and corrected me and said I called _you_ neurotic.

Eventually, I divorced his prior posts from yours and focused on him, and then read your posts with him about "Abraxas", I jumped back on board with my prior lumping, and I read the "He doesn't [something...]. He observes" or something like that, and thought you were talking about me, playing around with the idea of me being a robot.

You were talking about this Abraxis person with someone who was familiar with them (FaT) and the way that they post, so I read any pronouns as talking about me in a shady way. Like when people establish someone as a mutual target of ridicule and omit their name and use "he" as if the person (me, in my mistaken case) wasn't there.

From there, again, I mixed you up. If I had read more carefully, I would have seen that FaT is both the neurotic, and the misinformed, one. And that you were basically non-chalantly interacting with others in the forum, possibly slightly amused that FaT was up to his own antics and I was falling for it, hook-line-sinker.

Nah, you're okay.

If you're correct about FaT's "just toying with me" thing as some form of observation and experimentation, I think you should still consider the ***possibility that he uses that as a way to seem as if he's in control, and any time anyone has validated his actions as clinical and impersonal, he simply piggybacked off that and continued to do what I accused him of, except now with the backing of some strange fandom that was buying into his bullshit front:

Using a cold logical tone and cadence, and asking pointed questions while dismissing everything else, as a way to mask passive aggression with an illusion of control of his own actions. Actions that I still believe are rooted in emotional reasoning. I think he gets a kick out of both treating people this way, as well as getting to exercise an unconscious defense mechanism to avoid criticism that he's actually probably just a toolbag trying to Fake-IEI his way through the forums and defend his position regardless of whether or not anyone's made an explicit challenge of his type.

I said as much in my posts, and now that I've finally seen your posts that I missed, I basically mentally exonerated you, and now I think that you having said "He's just [toying, whatever] with you", FaT must have taken that as validation of his (delusional) sense of control, giving him free reign to exercise his defense mechanism and convince himself that he's just "sticking to the subject at hand".

I might be wrong. If he really just likes toying with people to the point where he'd bait them, and then make a low-blow at a very (in my case) tumultuous and traumatizing part of my life (Zen), and _then_ flat-out say he doesn't care to even read it...

Then, regardless of whether or not he's in control and "observing", or being paranoid and unconsciously defending himself and then building an illusion of control around his actions...

He's still being an turd and an "invective" from which the turd comes from.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wait... What? Lol
> 
> I randomly entered your discussion and the first thing I saw was reference to what is called Normative Fi, so I defined it lol. Then I pointed out that you were missing what he was doing, and rather than heed me, you just kept going along with it lol.
> 
> Anyways...
> Here's the link. It's a good read on socionics.
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions


Yeah, you're cool man. It was selective reading to a point, which sucks because I just accused FaT of doing the same thing. Totally destroys my credibility.

I don't remember seeing the part about you heeding me (though apparently, you did it twice).

I should probably note, since I don't know how the Ignore function really works, that I've set FaT to my Ignore List. On the chance that he can see these posts pointing to him... and finds it cheap that I won't be reading his posts but am still talking about him...
@FearAndTrembling : I still think you're a tool, regardless of what you think you're doing, or what other people think you're doing, or what you may actually be doing. You're either neurotic and unaware, like I said; or, given these warnings Jeremy made, you're basically being a troll.

So, there's nothing else to say really except that, either way, you're a very sad person to behold.

I'll put you briefly off of Ignore so you can at least rebut or rebuke my statements. However, I find it unlikely that you'll change your M.O. enough for me to consider keeping you unIgnored.

I'm being generous here.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Yeah, you're cool man. It was selective reading to a point, which sucks because I just accused FaT of doing the same thing. Totally destroys my credibility.
> 
> I don't remember seeing the part about you heeding me (though apparently, you did it twice).
> 
> I should probably note, since I don't know how the Ignore function really works, that I've set FaT to my Ignore List. On the chance that he can see these posts pointing to him... and finds it cheap that I won't be reading his posts but am still talking about him...
> @FearAndTrembling : I still think you're a tool, regardless of what you think you're doing, or what other people think you're doing, or what you may actually be doing. You're either neurotic and unaware, like I said; or, given these warnings Jeremy made, you're basically being a troll.
> 
> So, there's nothing else to say really except that, either way, you're a very sad person to behold.
> 
> I'll put you briefly off of Ignore so you can at least rebut or rebuke my statements. However, I find it unlikely that you'll change your M.O. enough for me to consider keeping you unIgnored.
> 
> I'm being generous here.


I think you may still be missing part of the equation. You presume that he enjoys such, and that such is the ends to a means. Indeed, this could be the case; however, if you are wrong, then where are the real "ends?" And how does this affect your abilities to perceive each other adequately?


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think you may still be missing part of the equation. You presume that he enjoys such, and that such is the ends to a means. Indeed, this could be the case; however, if you are wrong, then where are the real "ends?" And how does this affect your abilities to perceive each other adequately?


I made a concession that he doesn't enjoy it, but does it reflexively to avoid unpleasant feelings associated with criticism from others. He's taken it way too personally to be doing it without having a reason for his actions, and I posited one scenario in which it's conscious, and one scenario in which it's unconscious.

After that, even if there's a third/fourth/quadrillionth way to looking at it, I feel enough conviction to know (to answer your second part) that my perception of him is adequately negative in my view to give me no motivation whatsoever to think about what might happen if I made other concessions.

If he has no ends, or his ends aren't for enjoyment, then I just find his discourse ****disruptive and reductive****, and I take no pleasure in postulating about someone who I'm pretty damn sure ****is guilty of trolling****.

Begging the question: How can I be so sure?

Which can only be answered by: If I don't process those things very consciously, and go with a gut feeling, and I also don't have much of strong suit for building more concrete paradigms of another person's possible disposition/character... then asking me to explain that will result in me saying things that likely won't even translate as a legitimate answer in your mind.

If "He's not worth my time" is intellectually lazy after all the time I've invested thusfar, then I don't understand anyone who thinks wasting time on people you assess to be disruptive to be of any consequence or fun.

I'm here for funsies. And I do get a kick out of calling out unbecoming behavior in public. It gives me a sense of helping others, and also a sense of righteous indignation that I allow myself to indulge in as long as I'm mindful and don't let that leak in unless the other person seems completely worthy of being sniped at.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think you may . . .


That's about the extent of how far I'm willing to stretch my imagination, or try to concretize what is largely abstract and subjective in my mind. That's kinda the point of a *Personality*-exploration forum: You know, to recognize that not everyone cares to-- or will waste time trying to-- use functions that suit the convenience of other people.

Your questions make sense to you; however, they seem inconsequential to me because I don't see this as an equation that needs to be solved. I see this as a situation I'd like to extricate myself from.

This is a Hangout Thread, not a laboratory. It can be a laboratory to anyone who comes in, but I have no interest in donning a labcoat or squeezing my hand to reveal a vein to be prodded at. I'm just here to talk and be entirely self-indulgent. If you can't see that self-indulgence manifests in different ways depending on type, then you'll never understand why you keep posing questions to people who are ***not likely to find them relevant***.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> That's about the extent of how far I'm willing to stretch my imagination, or try to concretize what is largely abstract and subjective in my mind. That's kinda the point of a *Personality*-exploration forum: You know, to recognize that not everyone cares to-- or will waste time trying to-- use functions that suit the convenience of other people.
> 
> Your questions make sense to you; however, they seem inconsequential to me because I don't see this as an equation that needs to be solved. I see this as a situation I'd like to extricate myself from.
> 
> This is a Hangout Thread, not a laboratory. It can be a laboratory to anyone who comes in, but I have no interest in donning a labcoat or squeezing my hand to reveal a vein to be prodded at. I'm just here to talk and be entirely self-indulgent. If you can't see that self-indulgence manifests in different ways depending on type, then you'll never understand why you keep posing questions to people who are likely to not care.


We are always asking questions, my friend. Whether someone else hears them or not, is an entirely different matter.

From Socionics standpoint, objectivity triggered a connection within his mind, and he was grasped with a very strong "feeling" about you. Due to his own personality type needing objective behaviors as secondary validation of his primary discernment, he watched your actions, which is why your words had no value to him in-and-of-themselves. Eventually, he was able to get his objective proof, and left. He now is firm in his views of who you are, and can better assist you in ways most conducive to your goals in the future.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> We are always asking questions, my friend. Whether someone else hears them or not, is an entirely different matter.
> 
> From Socionics standpoint, objectivity triggered a connection within his mind, and he was grasped with a very strong "feeling" about you. Due to his own personality type needing objective behaviors as secondary validation of his primary discernment, he watched your actions, which is why your words had no value to him in-and-of-themselves. Eventually, he was able to get his objective proof, and left. He now is firm in his views of who you are, and can better assist you in ways most conducive to your goals in the future.


In other words, Socionics assumes everyone functions without any imbalance or compensatory behaviors? Also, a regulated Superego would allow just about anyone to realize that they're acting in way that others would at least perceive as obstinate or passive aggressive.

Your ascriptions of his IE's working in such an efficient manner—to the point of lacking any regard to tact—contradicts itself. If he worked through all those instantaneously without being buffered by unsconscious parts of his metabolism, his delivery and the content of his dialogue would certainly be as you described. However, that would also indicate that he is possibly ****unable to process**** through his unconscious checks-and-balances, and end up functioning like a tactless machine.

Your hypothesis about his behavior conveniently excuses his—_I repeat_—****disruptive**** behavior, or ****unbalanced**** unconscious motivations to hide ****cognitive dissonance****.

You are just furthering my opinion that people on these forums buy into his illusion of control over his actions. He is not metabolizing information like an IEI. We don't—with zero regard for people, and playing some kind of laboratory-context “observation”—seek secondary validation in an _obstinate and pointed_ manner unless we're only using our valued functions at maximum and our subdued functions at a level of being completely suppressed out of extreme unconsciously self-imposed restraints.

We would have found another way. We're not objectivists. We adjust according to our social surroundings. If he's used this forum to the extent to have several thousand thanks and relatively high-ranking, he would have learned to adjust his behavior and use a subjectivist frame of reference to gauge the differences in his audiences, thus presenting his ideas and inquiries in a fashion most conducive to interacting with the people at-hand.

He would _absolutely *not*_, according to the Socionics model you cite, seek objective validation to the degree that it would overcome his subjectivist approach to communicating with other people, especially given his extensive interaction with me.

He would _*not*_ devalue words as semantic units in order to focus on and observe the objective behaviors behind them, as words are viewed as extremely useful indicators of differentiating the nuances between people.

Your insistence on using a rigid paradigm of Socionics—when rigidity runs counter to Socionics itself as a dynamic system—to explain his actions away by describing him as an objectivist... That simply (to a great degree) highlights either a deficiency in understanding in you despite how much you've encountered the information about Socionics...

Or—if you are otherwise well-versed in Socionics as a whole, demonstably elsewhere in these forums—you're one the people I basically peg as ****reflexively justifying his behavior because you actually believe his actions do not constitute disruptive or dysfunctional communication****, buying into his B.S. even at the cost of completely eschewing Socionics in the process.... in a Socionics forum of all places.

I do hold his posts in ill-refute, specifically because of the entire PerC forums' devaluing of subjectivists in favor of objectivists—that I view as a deep-rooted insecurity and need to see themselves as all being well-oiled objective machines, hence the high degree of mistyped self-espoused ILI's compared to what would statistically be expected (surely exacerbated by their corresponding MBTI being labeled “Masterminds”, and the Western industrialized world's obsession with efficiency and automated systems).

His actions, and the resultant “fandom” he's created (that I even guessed he'd be generating before your blatant justification of his behavior), furthers my conviction that his ****disruptive**** behavior is metaphorically contagious, and therefore unhealthy to the forums at large.

*****Conveniently skirting the rules of the forum by disguising disruption as repeated questions.... which in and of itself, since he also blatantly says he doesn't care about the WORDS in responses... amounts to BADGERING, which is a type of disruptive behavior. You can't badger people about their type when they are clearly not compliant to such inquiry, so it stands to reason that you cannot badger people with questions they've clearly answered, or conceded to not have even brought the subject in question up in the first place.

FearAndTrembling is BADGERING. This is a call on his behavior and posts, not on his character.*****

It totally sketches me out, I don't buy it, never have, and—if this is his honest behavior—he needs to critically examine either his subdued functions as an IEI, or realize he's being an exaggerated version of a Normative objectivist in spite of his typing as an IEI which is patently subjectivist.

And you're feeding into this.

If you want to see my actions as some objectivist need to prove my own hypothesis of his behavior, I would suggest reading the many concessions I've made to his other possible motives, and how his responses continued to be exactly how I said they'd be in following with my hypothesis.

If he sought to objectively validate his discernment, all he did was put himself up against the scrutiny of subjectivists who can see that his actions are not adding up to all the motives you've been chiming in and insisting upon, as if you hold some stake in whether or not he's legit.

Why do you care? I know why I care: because of his ****eschewing of the representation of IEI's*** are spreading to others, and these Others are also ****becoming *complicit in enabling him to badger other users*****.

But, what stake do you have in viewing him (using an incorrect understanding of both Socionics and IEI's in particular) as fully congruent with his type and its information metabolism? Why do you defend him as legit when others are—sorry not sorry—basically wanting to report him behind his back.

There, I said it: Since making my “primary discernment”, people of other Quadras and Sociotypes have come to me telling me to just not to ****continue to subject myself to badgering from FearAndTrembling or his apologists***. After I had already publicly stated that I don't buy it.

He's not viewed as some exemplary—or anywhere near ****healthy****—IEI or any sociotype in general. And I'm tired of people not having the gall to say that he's creating dissonance directly resultant of his ****unstable functions****. He's either entrenching his own maladaptive behaviors, or deliberately causing drama.

Both of which are worthy of public announcement. It's a shame we can't report him because he's not doing anything “wrong” as far as the ordinances of this website are concerned. However, he's acting especially unethical for someone with supposed Creative Fe—which is dynamic Fe when he's acting completely ethically static.

I've only read about Socionics for less than two weeks, and I can still read him in such a way that seasoned members are thanking me.

They've since withdrawn because they've seen his bull-hockey enough.

So, I'll use your last little bit of behavior highly-substantiating my view of FearAndTrembling to

*Explicitly decry that FearAndTrembling is Trouble, and that people should watch out for him and anyone who jumps in to justify or rationalize his actions.*

I'll extend the same courtesy (if it can even be seen amicably as a courtesy by this point) I extended to FaT, and keep you off my Ignore List (neither of you are on it, as I stated in a basic social contract) to give you a chance to rebut or rebuke my statements in a fashion that diverges from the obstinate and/or rationalizing manner in which you've both been operating since the inception of my contact with this forum.

*FearAndTrembling is easily perceived as ****badgering****. And he's amassed at least one other into his ****enablers****.*


----------



## Kerik_S

I'm done attempting to construct a thesis against both Jeremy8419 and FearAndTrembling.

Say your piece. But don't expect me to try any further to present any case whatsoever.

Can we move on? And . . . I dunno . . . HANGOUT? in a Hangout thread?


----------



## Kerik_S

niffer said:


> question for iei
> 
> why do you guys act, or why are you, so posh?
> 
> is it fun?


idk if you mean "posh"... like "sophisticated" or "snooty" or something?

I'm new to finding out I'm IEI and this is like my first Socionics thread I've posted in... So, I should try to read some more posts by IEIs and see if I can spot any "posh"-'ness.

What should I be looking for? Like the way they phrase things? or the type of music/clothes they like or something?

I can get kinda wordy if I get really into a debate... I like female-voiced (or males at typically-female high pitches) songs

and I like cool trance'y, ambient, or house background instrumentation. Vocal EDM is a good example, but some Top 40 pop artists are adding that into their music now, to some degree:

Jessie J collaborating with David Guetta, Kelly Clarkson's new album, Ariana Grande and Hayley Williams both with Zedd, Daft Punk with Pharrel, Kiesza, Halsey... to name a few.

If I could have any wardrobe in the world, with endless money, I'd go for Steampunk or Cyberpunk, or some fusion of the two. I live in a tropical climate, so I'd never wear them outside. I'd have to know I'm getting in a vehicle with good A/C and going to an indoor location.

The main thing one of the first posters of this entire Hangout thread said, was that it would end up as a bunch of IEI's talking about themselves.

So, I mean... I guess I just did that? (ﾉ´ヮ´)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ WORD VOMIT ✧･ﾟ:*✧


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> In other words, Socionics assumes everyone functions without any imbalance or compensatory behaviors? Also, a regulated Superego would allow just about anyone to realize that they're acting in way that others would at least perceive as obstinate or passive aggressive.
> 
> Your ascriptions of his IE's working in such an efficient manner—to the point of lacking any regard to tact—contradicts itself. If he worked through all those instantaneously without being buffered by unsconscious parts of his metabolism, his delivery and the content of his dialogue would certainly be as you described. However, that would also indicate that he is possibly a sociopath in being able to juggernaut through his unconscious checks-and-balances, and function like a tactless machine.
> 
> Your hypothesis about his behavior conveniently excuses his—_I repeat_—troll behavior, or neurotic unconscious motivations to hide passive aggression.
> 
> You are just furthering my opinion that people on these forums buy into his B.S. illusion of control over his actions. He is not metabolizing information like an IEI. We don't—with zero regard for people, and playing some kind of laboratory-context “observation”—seek secondary validation in an _obstinate and pointed_ manner unless we're only using our valued functions at maximum and our subdued functions at a level of being completely suppressed out of extreme unconsciously self-imposed restraints.
> 
> We would have found another way. We're not objectivists. We adjust according to our social surroundings. If he's used this forum to the extent to have several thousand thanks and relatively high-ranking, he would have learned to adjust his behavior and use a subjectivist frame of reference to gauge the differences in his audiences, thus presenting his ideas and inquiries in a fashion most conducive to interacting with the people at-hand.
> 
> He would _absolutely *not*_, according to the Socionics model you cite, seek objective validation to the degree that it would overcome his subjectivist approach to communicating with other people, especially given his extensive interaction with me.
> 
> He would _*not*_ devalue words as semantic units in order to focus on the observe the objective behaviors behind them, as words are viewed as extremely useful indicators of differentiating the nuances between people.
> 
> Your insistence on using a rigid paradigm of Socionics—when rigidity runs counter to Socionics itself as a dynamic system—to explain his actions away by describing him as an objectivist... That simply (to a great degree) highlights either a deficiency in understanding in you despite how much you've encountered the information about Socionics...
> 
> Or—if you are otherwise well-versed in Socionics as a whole, demonstably elsewhere in these forums—you're one the people I basically peg as part of his lapdog fandom, buying into his B.S. even at the cost of completely eschewing Socionics in the process.... in a Socionics forum of all places.
> 
> I do hold his actions in ill-refute, specifically because of the entire PerC forums' devaluing of subjectivists in favor of objectivists—that I view as a deep-rooted insecurity and need to see themselves as all being well-oiled objective machines, hence the high degree of mistyped self-espoused ILI's compared to what would statistically be expected (surely exacerbated by their corresponding MBTI being labeled “Masterminds”, and the Western industrialized world's obsession with efficiency and automated systems.
> 
> His actions, and the resultant “fandom” he's created (that I even guessed he'd be generating before your blatant justification of his behavior), furthers my conviction that his neuroses or troll-behavior is metaphorically contagious, and therefore unhealthy. It totally sketches me out, I don't buy it, never have, and—if this is his honest behavior—he needs to critically examine either his subdued functions as an IEI, or realize he's being an exaggerated version of a Normative objectivist in spite of his typing as an IEI which is patently subjectivist.
> 
> He's epic'ly failing at either feigning or self-convincing IEI'ness. And you're feeding into this.
> 
> If you want to see my actions as some objectivist need to prove my own hypothesis of his behavior, I would suggest reading the many concessions I've made to his other possible motives, and how his responses continued to be exactly how I said they'd be in following with my hypothesis.
> 
> If he sought to objectively validate his discernment, all he did was put himself up against the scrutiny of subjectivists who can see that his actions are not adding up to all the motives you've been chiming in and insisting upon, as if you hold some stake in whether or not he's legit.
> 
> Why do you care? I know why I care: because his ignorance and dysfunction are spreading to others.
> 
> But, what stake do you have in viewing him (using an incorrect understanding of both Socionics and IEI's in particular) as fully congruent with his type and its information metabolism? Why do you defend him as legit when others are—sorry not sorry—basically slandering him behind his back.
> 
> There, I said it: Since making my “primary discernment”, people of other Quadras and Sociotypes have come to me telling me to just not buy his bullshit. After I had already publicly stated that I don't buy it.
> 
> He's not viewed as some exemplary—or anywhere near stable—IEI or person in general. And I'm tired of people not having the gall to say that he's creating dissonance directly resultant of his instability. He's either entrenching his own maladaptive behaviors, or deliberately causing drama.
> 
> Both of which are worthy of public announcement. It's a shame we can't report him because he's not doing anything “wrong” as far as the ordinances of this website are concerned. However, he's acting especially unethical for someone with supposed Creative Fe—which is dynamic Fe when he's acting completely ethically static.
> 
> I've only read about Socionics for less than two weeks, and I can still read him in such a way that seasoned members are thanking me.
> 
> They've since withdrawn because they've seen his bull-hockey enough.
> 
> So, I'll use your last little bit of behavior highly-substantiating my view of FearAndTrembling to
> 
> *Explicitly decry that FearAndTrembling is Trouble, and that people should watch out for him and anyone who jumps in to justify or rationalize his actions.*
> 
> I'll extend the same courtesy (if it can even be seen amicably as a courtesy by this point) I extended to FaT, and keep you off my Ignore List (neither of you are on it, as I stated in a basic social contract) to give you a chance to rebut or rebuke my statements in a fashion that diverges from the obstinate and/or rationalizing manner in which you've both been operating since the inception of my contact with this forum.
> 
> *FearAndTrembling is easily perceived as a troll. And he's amassed at least one other into his horde.*


I think the oddest part of this whole post is that you assume you know his purpose lol. Not just possible purpose, but outright deliberately assume his purpose and run with it lol.

Also, I think you need to read my resource list thread. You have a lot of incorrect information underlying your posts. You also aren't IEI.


----------



## selena87

Why waste time arguing with them...? Let's just click "Add to ignore list" on their profiles, and then you will not see any of their posts anymore. Suddenly the world is so much better :laughing::laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Because he wants to know lol. Otherwise he wouldn't have spent pages on it and still be hoping for reconciliation of viewpoints.

Kerik, I'll drop the cryptic speak. When you were talking to him, he got the feeling you weren't IEI, so he tested you. He was typing you.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think the oddest part of this whole post is that you assume you know his purpose lol. Not just possible purpose, but outright deliberately assume his purpose and run with it lol.


You stated his purpose, even warning about not fully understanding what he's doing. Making a charge against me for doing the same thing is acting in denial of your own assumptions.

Ignoring you. Because those assumptions were entirely rationalizing.
Stalemate.
　



Jeremy8419 said:


> Also, I think you need to read my resource list thread. You have a lot of incorrect information underlying your posts.


I did read them, before I even came on these forums. I read a lot, and refreshed myself on them when you linked me.

Your post citing him as objectivist in any of his valued information metabolism is incorrect information underlying your post.

Stalemate again. And obstinate.


　



Jeremy8419 said:


> You also aren't IEI.


Not in the strictest of senses—no. And “No” if and only if you subscribe to the notion of correlating Reinin dichotomies, because I'm demonstrably more negativist and declarative. However, if you're familiar with the concept of _langue_ and _parole_, the difference between how people present themselves in speech and writing, my speech is very much asking-oriented, though I retain negativist qualities.

As far as my IE and metabolism, I've extensively mapped it, and I made sure to due this using only functions and placement into Blocks. I refused to look at what the sociotypes actually looked like in terms of what their label, quadra, etc... is.

I then contemplated Reinin values. I think a test was involved?

My last course was to compare my Model A to all the sociotypes, finding a fit in IEI in every Block, and in the order I mapped my metabolism using the dichotomies of Conscious/Unconscious, Strong/Weak, Valued/Subdued, Accepting/Producing, Inert/Contact and I believe Evaluatory/Situational possibly (though that one confounded me). I then visually mapped them on the 1,2,3,4 and 6,5,8,7 “loops” as well as the unconscious feedback of 2—>6, 8—>4, and more conscious feedback from 1—>5, 7—>3.

This was all before even knowing what the different Sociotypes were.

I then looked at the associated Reinin dichotomies. I matched every single one except Positivist and Asking. I, did, however match the important dichotomies that divide the sociotypes into four groups based on Decisive/Judicious, Merry/Serious, and (occasionally) Aristorcratic/Democratic.

I also consulted several tests administered to me during a course of Social Psychology, in which I was clearly shown as collectivist, results-oriented, and "resolute" among others.

I wanted to remain blind to the types going in because I'm aware of how extant typologies you've made on yourself in the past can influence your answers to questions and conceptualizations regarding other typology systems.

Considering you've been defending someone who I've outlined as an unlikely, or at least unhealthy IEI, I don't consider you a defining resource for this particular type.

　



Kerik_S said:


> Stalemate.





Kerik_S said:


> Stalemate again. And obstinate.


　
*Stalemate. And a clear straw-man. And if it continues, it will be against the rules.*


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because he wants to know lol. Otherwise he wouldn't have spent pages on it and still be hoping for reconciliation of viewpoints.
> 
> Kerik, I'll drop the cryptic speak. When you were talking to him, he got the feeling you weren't IEI, so he tested you. He was typing you.


That's what I doubted all along, and if you read one of my posts where I said:



Kerik_S said:


> I'm not on here to prove to you something you're already going to continue to reinforce in your mind.
> 
> Who the fuck cares what my type is or how I sound? On the deepest of levels, it's a self-masturbatory fun forum me, and I particularly like seeing patterns in people in order to feel more connected to them.
> 
> I'm assuming you're trying to peg me as a Logical type because I disputed your type as an IEI.
> 
> I said you were ****against rules****. I made a concession that you're not IEI. The fact that you've been so belligerent (particularly toward me) since around the time I made that assertion, just further reinforces that you're either ****{rules}**** or defending your self-ascription to a type that isn't your own.


I clearly called his bluff, at least to the extent of saying he was trying to peg me as a Logical type. I don't know if you believe, whatever you think his true motivations are, he is doing, but I more or less knew this long ago.

You weren't being cryptic. And neither was he.

I believe I used the terms "thinly-veiled", "disguised", and possibly "transparent" to refer to him... And by associating you explicitly as his "apologist", transitively I was calling your posts transparent, too.

*Regardless, now knowing that we both knew there was an element of inveigling all along:*

I believe he has simply convinced you that his goal was typological. I, however, believe that's exactly what I've been calling his "illusion of control that people are buying into" that I won't buy into.

He's acting erratic. His posts are coming from reactivity and reflexive defense mechanisms. It's disruptive. Or he's consciously causing disruptions and simply _espousing that_ he's doing it for a non-disruptive reason.

I have said from the beginning that I saw through what I honestly believe is a ruse.

Catching this before I added you to Ignore, @Jeremy8419 . . . I respect your decision to drop the cryptic veil. And for the sake of keeping some semblance of peace in a forum I do consider wonderful and stimulating, I'm actively reassessing your behavior as earnestly believing in his intentions.

I won't fault you for believing it, thus I see you no longer as an apologist.

We see the same presentation (his posts).
You think he's doing one thing.
I think he's doing another thing.

Your posts, by their nature, will swing toward affirming your view of his posts.
My posts will swing toward affirming my own.

Again, for that reason as well, I can't fault you. Just strongly disagree and consider whether or not you're feeding into someone else's delusion and/or smokescreen.

I've said a few times, while saying I hold him in ill-refute one way or the other, that "You're cool," because I've simply seen you as an accessory to his disruptive behavior.

I still have no qualms with you. Any antipathy shown toward you thusfar has been agitation that you're honestly buying what he's selling.

I would have blocked you as an active accessory. I won't block you as a passive enabler. Because I still see you as a passive enabler.

And we'll have to let these opinions stand, because I haven't been compelled otherwise from the start, and this is not the purpose of these forums, at all.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because he wants to know lol. Otherwise he wouldn't have spent pages on it and still be hoping for reconciliation of viewpoints.
> 
> Kerik, I'll drop the cryptic speak. When you were talking to him, he got the feeling you weren't IEI, so he tested you. He was typing you.


Also, I explicity request you stop refuting my type publicly. PM me if it's that important. Keep in mind, continuing to refute or make affirmations to people who are refuting it is against the rules for a reason: Because we have our own sophisticated understanding of Socionics, and we are all just as likely to think that we know better than someone else.

Typing other people when they've already exhaustively typed themselves using means I have no obligation to hash-out for you or FearAndTrembling... is pointless as far as trying to convince the other person.

I'm genuinely open to discovering nuances about my type or possible mistyping:

If they're direct, explicit, and not just a set of links to which I'm given no instruction as what to assimilate into my viewpoint on my own type.

If you're right about FaT, he was typing me belligerently, even if the belligerence was intentional and instrumental, without my consent, without clearly stating his intentions, ignoring my rebuttals, and doing it only for his own interest.

If his endgame was to reconcile our views, obfuscating his motivations from the get-go is a terrible idea.
@FearAndTrembling . . . Present to me, using Model A, slot-for-slot, and the conscious/unconscious, valued/subdued, strong/weak dichotomies for each slot... as to how you personally type me. Also assess which IE's connect as far as Producing/Accepting and Contact/Inert. I refuse to be a compliant toy.

Cut the cryptic crap. You have mountains of text from me. Make a call. Ask questions with clear intent. Or talk to me about something else.

Your actions aren't noble, even if Jeremy8419 is correct about your supposed master plan.


----------



## Darkbloom

Edit: Wrong thread :laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> That's what I doubted all along, and if you read one of my posts where I said:
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly called his bluff, at least to the extent of saying he was trying to peg me as a Logical type. I don't know if you believe, whatever you think his true motivations are, he is doing, but I more or less knew this long ago.
> 
> You weren't being cryptic. And neither was he.
> 
> I believe I used the terms "thinly-veiled", "disguised", and possibly "transparent" to refer to him... And by associating you explicitly as his "apologist", transitively I was calling your posts transparent, too.
> 
> *Regardless, now knowing that we both knew there was an element of inveigling all along:*
> 
> I believe he has simply convinced you that his goal was typological. I, however, believe that's exactly what I've been calling his "illusion of control that people are buying into" that I won't buy into.
> 
> He's acting erratic. His posts are coming from reactivity and reflexive defense mechanisms. It's disruptive. Or he's consciously causing disruptions and simply _espousing that_ he's doing it for a non-disruptive reason.
> 
> I have said from the beginning that I saw through what I honestly believe is a ruse.
> 
> Catching this before I added you to Ignore, @Jeremy8419 . . . I respect your decision to drop the cryptic veil. And for the sake of keeping some semblance of peace in a forum I do consider wonderful and stimulating, I'm actively reassessing your behavior as earnestly believing in his intentions.
> 
> I won't fault you for believing it, thus I see you no longer as an apologist.
> 
> We see the same presentation (his posts).
> You think he's doing one thing.
> I think he's doing another thing.
> 
> Your posts, by their nature, will swing toward affirming your view of his posts.
> My posts will swing toward affirming my own.
> 
> Again, for that reason as well, I can't fault you. Just strongly disagree and consider whether or not you're feeding into someone else's delusion and/or smokescreen.
> 
> I've said a few times, while saying I hold him in ill-refute one way or the other, that "You're cool," because I've simply seen you as an accessory to his disruptive behavior.
> 
> I still have no qualms with you. Any antipathy shown toward you thusfar has been agitation that you're honestly buying what he's selling.
> 
> I would have blocked you as an active accessory. I won't block you as a passive enabler. Because I still see you as a passive enabler.
> 
> And we'll have to let these opinions stand, because I haven't been compelled otherwise from the start, and this is not the purpose of these forums, at all.


Well, the purpose behind it is not for him to be able to circle jerk. If he understands you, he can more easily give you what you want/need.

You could just ignore posts without using the ignore feature. Knowing FAT, within a few days he will go into a long thesis about how Bruce Lee was the second coming of Christ lol. It's entertaining lol


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, the purpose behind it is not for him to be able to circle jerk. If he understands you, he can more easily give you what you want/need.
> 
> You could just ignore posts without using the ignore feature. Knowing FAT, within a few days he will go into a long thesis about how Bruce Lee was the second coming of Christ lol. It's entertaining lol


That made him more annoying to me. He aggravates and inveigles, and ninja's away into talking about something else, especially in that jab about robots and "Abraxas". I don't know who Abaxas is other then I think an aspect of some Infernal Pantheon or maligned mythology.

I doubt it's to "better assist me". I have no doubts he gets off on it and then moves on and finds another target or deliberately posts flippant tangential things to maintain an air of detached impartiality.

He sketches me out. I don't trust him, and I have disdain for his methods. They're completely for his own entertainment.
@FearAndTrembling (and here's lookin' at you, Jeremy): Link me to a thread in which you ascertained someone's type, and then illuminated it for them or to yourself, using that insight to help them.

That's really the only point of contention that I can remain open to: Helping or masturbating?


----------



## Kerik_S

And honestly:

After all this... after all the raw text I've put into this thread...
And regardless of whether or not I trust you or what I have to think of your methods, @FearAndTrembling

I repeat my request to get an alternate take on my sociotype. I did expressly request a specific rubric in another post, but I'm open to however you usually do this sort of thing. Even if your style annoys me, the potential you have for giving not-sucky, not-boring typology nuggets is apparently decent or at least persistent. What have you ascertained about me and why?

What more would you like to know? Keep in mind, I have the attention span of a flea-ridden Chihuahua when given questionnaires, so just tell me what you've got so far and ask questions based on content. I'm too much into reading _into motives_ for questions that seem off-topic for me to entertain the idea of answering questions about how or why Anthropology can be applied to a salient point in a thread.

I'm making a huge leap and, personally, it's an olive branch gesture for me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> That made him more annoying to me. He aggravates and inveigles, and ninja's away into talking about something else, especially in that jab about robots and "Abraxas". I don't know who Abaxas is other then I think an aspect of some Infernal Pantheon or maligned mythology.
> 
> I doubt it's to "better assist me". I have no doubts he gets off on it and then moves on and finds another target or deliberately posts flippant tangential things to maintain an air of detached impartiality.
> 
> He sketches me out. I don't trust him, and I have disdain for his methods. They're completely for his own entertainment.
> @FearAndTrembling (and here's lookin' at you, Jeremy): Link me to a thread in which you ascertained someone's type, and then illuminated it for them or to yourself, using that insight to help them.
> 
> That's really the only point of contention that I can remain open to: Helping or masturbating?


You assume a lot lol. For one, I've told FAT to hs face that he is EII on several occasions lol.

For two, I wasn't poking at you. I just read your long subjective post about subjectivity and realized one of your dimensionalities was much higher than another. I don't care what your type is, nor does FAT. I used the term "type" earlier simply because people on here talk about all personalities in such a manner. He was "feeling you out" got a good feel for your personality type, said, Eh, I get it.. He's cool... No need for me here. And he left lol. Now, next time you encounter him directly (if he isn't ignored), it will probably be posting some video or philosophical quote that he thinks may help with whatever discussion you are having.

Helping or masterbating? You insulted him on a core level, whereas I only saw him lightly picking on you, all of this after you yourself admitted miscommunication and assumption, then he left, you continue to call him out and criticize him, state you're going to put him on your ignore list and refuse a rebuttal, and in all of this, he's just sitting there chilling and thinking about you and what cool and helpful video or quote he can find for you.

You're very pessimistic lol. Chill out homie lol.

What funsies stuff did you wanna talk about anyways? I wasn't really paying attention to the conversation prior, so not sure what topic you were wanting to discuss.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> And honestly:
> 
> After all this... after all the raw text I've put into this thread...
> And regardless of whether or not I trust you or what I have to think of your methods, @FearAndTrembling
> 
> I repeat my request to get an alternate take on my sociotype. I did expressly request a specific rubric in another post, but I'm open to however you usually do this sort of thing. Even if your style annoys me, the potential you have for giving not-sucky, not-boring typology nuggets is apparently decent or at least persistent. What have you ascertained about me and why?
> 
> What more would you like to know? Keep in mind, I have the attention span of a flea-ridden Chihuahua when given questionnaires, so just tell me what you've got so far and ask questions based on content. I'm too much into reading _into motives_ for questions that seem off-topic for me to entertain the idea of answering questions about how or why Anthropology can be applied to a salient point in a thread.
> 
> I'm making a huge leap and, personally, it's an olive branch gesture for me.


How about you just drop it? Lol. He's on here all the time. Dude doesn't hate you or something, but he sure isn't going to come chat when you're whacking him in the face with an olive branch lol. Just drop the discussion, think about his personality to yourself, realize everyone in the world is intrinsically good, try and see how he too is good, and... Goosefrabaaaa.... Let it all go lol. Next time you run into him, I highly doubt he will even care about whatever the argument was lol.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I don't care what your type is, nor does FAT. . . . He was "feeling you out" got a good feel. . . . And he left lol. Now, next time you encounter him directly (if he isn't ignored), it will probably be posting some video or philosophical quote that he thinks may help with whatever discussion you are having.


I have trouble trusting people that give off an “air of detachment” because I could never use detached tactics to assess someone unless it was for a larger goal that required heightened versatility, or simply in a business setting bc business. I'd make sure we're either on the same page, or mutually understand that we're _not_ on the same page, in conversations of lateral power-dynamics.

　



Jeremy8419 said:


> You insulted him on a core level, whereas I only saw him lightly picking on you


I saw it as deceptively “lightly” because I've encountered Holier-Than-Thou people that do that shit all the time with a shitty agenda. Albeit, usually on Tumblr. So, I ascribed very self-serving motivations. Again, I see detachment of that nature as feigned and deliberate—salt that trolls put on wounds they've inflicted.

If people that use that cryptic observation tactic with good intentions exist, I've never met any.

　



Jeremy8419 said:


> . . . all of this after you yourself admitted miscommunication and assumption, then he left, you continue to call him out and . . . refuse a rebuttal. . . . he's just sitting there chilling and thinking about you and what cool and helpful video or quote he can find for you.
> 
> You're very pessimistic lol. Chill out homie lol.


I keep reserve-pessimism for certain situations because it's healthy. This wasn't an example of blanket pessimism, which is “judicious”—to borrow from Reinin—but moreso an utterly-convinced allowance to myself to remain, consciously, skeptically pessimistic. The most I can say is that I became cynical when I added in my previous experience of Never-Met-Anyone-Like-That-Before nuance.

From there, I felt this situation called for reprimand because we _both_ started with what I felt were low-blows—I actually felt his as such, and assessed my own as such after saying them, and I believe I made a post with a caveat inviting him to rebut and that I would refuse only an “obstinate“ (_repetitive_, if to strip of value judgment) response, and I've yet to ignore him. I made it clear that I knew it was unfair if I were to ignore him categorically after putting his motives under such criticism.

I stand by my actions and decisions. I give both of us grace to be like “Wow. What were we talking about again?” and I will, because I trust _you_, Jeremy, give him the benefit of the doubt and see if I can find a correlation between his posts and the potential development of points of discussion that his posts may help cultivate.

I have to maintain that I'm still critical of his tactics, and that it is taking quite a bit out of me to recalibrate my judgments; that being said, while explicitly attempting to curb more negative judgments in my words, I may fail because implicitly I'll still remain decidedly on one side of the fence or the other until I reconcile my previous encounters with others and how he may just be an odd-duck/outlier.

So, yea, I'll be civil and optimistic; however, I find when I communicate, the undercurrent of the conviction I place in my discernments about other people tends to remain static until I've had time to thoroughly disengage and receive information that pulls out a lynch-pin in my confidence that I'm correct or at least being just/ethical according to the situation at hand. It's really difficult, honestly, because I do have ADHD and I get really REALLY into things that I deem important, and I tend to deem perceived social infractions as super important.

So, I get very Gung-Ho Protect-the-Villagers-...'ish.

　



Jeremy8419 said:


> How about you just drop it?


Hot potato, hot potato

　



Jeremy8419 said:


> What funsies stuff did you wanna talk about anyways? I wasn't really paying attention to the conversation prior, so not sure what topic you were wanting to discuss.


As untimely as it is to state this particular intention, the “funsies” I came to this forum were to interact organically with others (regardless of whether it got heated) and see if someone came along and gave me examples of where in my text I've displayed particular parts of my information metabolism.

Which brings me full circle. Because now that you said you weren't taking FaT's type at face-value and considered other sociotypes for him, I'm interested (honest to Dogs, no antipathy) in why you said I'm not IEI. Particularly, if relevant, the “dimensionalities” that you saw as one stronger than the other.

Yes. This is fun for me. Though unreadable, my humor is deadpan and I'm dying inside at how brilliantly human this display was, and how asking for type-assessment after all of this is absurd yet possibly likely since you seem pretty chill. I walk away from these things thinking of people as little hamsters in one of those balls. Going everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and occasionally running in circles or into stationary objects. Then I laugh at myself, and contemplate. And force myself to contemplate because now I'm thinking about hamsters

Funsies is reading about Socionics and the occult, currently. Though more toward Socionics since I find it more compelling than any other system thusfar. Funsies is singing Ariana Grande egregiously loud in my head-voice to the point where it literally echoes down city blocks. Funsies is “that feeling you get when you rhetorically defend a marginalized community from systems of oppression.” And deliberately sitting on a city bus wearing both a purse and a Nike slingbag.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> I have trouble trusting people that give off an “air of detachment” because I could never use detached tactics to assess someone unless it was for a larger goal that required heightened versatility, or simply in a business setting bc business. I'd make sure we're either on the same page, or mutually understand that we're _not_ on the same page, in conversations of lateral power-dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it as deceptively “lightly” because I've encountered Holier-Than-Thou people that do that shit all the time with a shitty agenda. Albeit, usually on Tumblr. So, I ascribed very self-serving motivations. Again, I see detachment of that nature as feigned and deliberate—salt that trolls put on wounds they've inflicted.
> 
> If people that use that cryptic observation tactic with good intentions exist, I've never met any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reserve-pessimism for certain situations because it's healthy. This wasn't an example of blanket pessimism, which is “judicious”—to borrow from Reinin—but moreso an utterly-convinced allowance to myself to remain, consciously, skeptically pessimistic. The most I can say is that I became cynical when I added in my previous experience of Never-Met-Anyone-Like-That-Before nuance.
> 
> From there, I felt this situation called for reprimand because we _both_ started with what I felt were low-blows—I actually felt his as such, and assessed my own as such after saying them, and I believe I made a post with a caveat inviting him to rebut and that I would refuse only an “obstinate“ (_repetitive_, if to strip of value judgment) response, and I've yet to ignore him. I made it clear that I knew it was unfair if I were to ignore him categorically after putting his motives under such criticism.
> 
> I stand by my actions and decisions. I give both of us grace to be like “Wow. What were we talking about again?” and I will, because I trust _you_, Jeremy, give him the benefit of the doubt and see if I can find a correlation between his posts and the potential development of points of discussion that his posts may help cultivate.
> 
> I have to maintain that I'm still critical of his tactics, and that it is taking quite a bit out of me to recalibrate my judgments; that being said, while explicitly attempting to curb more negative judgments in my words, I may fail because implicitly I'll still remain decidedly on one side of the fence or the other until I reconcile my previous encounters with others and how he may just be an odd-duck/outlier.
> 
> So, yea, I'll be civil and optimistic; however, I find when I communicate, the undercurrent of the conviction I place in my discernments about other people tends to remain static until I've had time to thoroughly disengage and receive information that pulls out a lynch-pin in my confidence that I'm correct or at least being just/ethical according to the situation at hand. It's really difficult, honestly, because I do have ADHD and I get really REALLY into things that I deem important, and I tend to deem perceived social infractions as super important.
> 
> So, I get very Gung-Ho Protect-the-Villagers-...'ish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot potato, hot potato
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As untimely as it is to state this particular intention, the “funsies” I came to this forum were to interact organically with others (regardless of whether it got heated) and see if someone came along and gave me examples of where in my text I've displayed particular parts of my information metabolism.
> 
> Which brings me full circle. Because now that you said you weren't taking FaT's type at face-value and considered other sociotypes for him, I'm interested (honest to Dogs, no antipathy) in why you said I'm not IEI. Particularly, if relevant, the “dimensionalities” that you saw as one stronger than the other.
> 
> Yes. This is fun for me. Though unreadable, my humor is deadpan and I'm dying inside at how brilliantly human this display was, and how asking for type-assessment after all of this is absurd yet possibly likely since you seem pretty chill. I walk away from these things thinking of people as little hamsters in one of those balls. Going everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and occasionally running in circles or into stationary objects. Then I laugh at myself, and contemplate. And force myself to contemplate because now I'm thinking about hamsters
> 
> Funsies is reading about Socionics and the occult, currently. Though more toward Socionics since I find it more compelling than any other system thusfar. Funsies is singing Ariana Grande egregiously loud in my head-voice to the point where it literally echoes down city blocks. Funsies is “that feeling you get when you rhetorically defend a marginalized community from systems of oppression.” And deliberately sitting on a city bus wearing both a purse and a Nike slingbag.


Well, congratulations. You're now right smack dab in the middle of the neuroticism you told FAT he was in lol. Maybe you should go chill out for a spell? Come back when more at equilibrium?

As far as typing goes, reading through just this post alone, I can't discern much difference between what you've just expressed plus the manner in which you've expressed it and FAT's. Talk about full circle... Lol...


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, congratulations. You're now right smack dab in the middle of the neuroticism you told FAT he was in lol. Maybe you should go chill out for a spell? Come back when more at equilibrium?
> 
> As far as typing goes, reading through just this post alone, I can't discern much difference between what you've just expressed plus the manner in which you've expressed it and FAT's. Talk about full circle... Lol...


Hey hey. Neuroticism is a dirty word. I prefer “unseasoned”. I'd never call anyone neurotic. That'd be misinformed of me.

I had a wank. So, goosefrabaa....?

The wording was confusing, but you were getting at... in this exchange, it was possibly EII vis-a-vis EII or something? I could chart the difference to figure it out myself, but that took forever. Lend a hand? What's the major differences between IEI and EII? Like, something as basic as stereotyped “normative” statements. I can usually boil those down to their nitty gritty


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Hey hey. Neuroticism is a dirty word. I prefer “unseasoned”. I'd never call anyone neurotic. That'd be misinformed of me.
> 
> I had a wank. So, goosefrabaa....?
> 
> The wording was confusing, but you were getting at... in this exchange, it was possibly EII vis-a-vis EII or something? I could chart the difference to figure it out myself, but that took forever. Lend a hand? What's the major differences between IEI and EII? Like, something as basic as stereotyped “normative” statements. I can usually boil those down to their nitty gritty


Well, really, there isn't much of a difference between any of the types, not to mention variations intratype which can nearly erase the distinction between one type and another in certain cases. IEI and EII are just flipped on mental/vital. One consciously does stuff while the other unconsciously does it, and vice versa. The only difference isn't actually type, but rather the accumulation of certain forms of information based on type. IEI will enjoy absorbing information related to personal influence and protection. EII will enjoy absorbing information related to knowledge and praxis. Over time, the individuals may have vastly different information stored related to those elements, but from a processing perspective, there isn't a whole lot of difference, especially if the are borderline, such as IEI-N or EII-H.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, really, there isn't much of a difference between any of the types, not to mention variations intratype which can nearly erase the distinction between one type and another in certain cases. IEI and EII are just flipped on mental/vital. One consciously does stuff while the other unconsciously does it, and vice versa. The only difference isn't actually type, but rather the accumulation of certain forms of information based on type. IEI will enjoy absorbing information related to personal influence and protection. EII will enjoy absorbing information related to knowledge and praxis. Over time, the individuals may have vastly different information stored related to those elements, but from a processing perspective, there isn't a whole lot of difference, especially if the are borderline, such as IEI-N or EII-H.


I don't identify with the personal influence—anymore. It swung away from personal influence when I practiced Zen as a practice of diminishing Ego and restraining Id. But not protection: Self-protection in terms of having my ethics on lock and my physical assets secured, and swooping in to protect others). I was, even coming directly out of my Zen years, drawn away from doxa and more toward praxis. I was obsessed with Sociology, applied sociology, because I wanted to figure out what I could do to save the world, basically. 

I've been trying to put into words how I've been postulating how my testing (MBTI dichotomies in this case) moved from
*markedly INFJ— from childhood–early-adulthood: (100 I, 70'ish N, 70'ish F, 80'ish J)
*to almost INFP at the height of my Zen practice, (pretty much the same, a little less F, and like only 20 J)

　

Since, becoming acquainted with the functions rather than the limiting MBTI . . . just out of my Zen practice (and with psychosis remitting, so it was a good-run test), Fi was then higher than Fe by about 3:2, and Ne had almost reached the level of Ni.

And, after my psychosis was completely gone and I was clean off all the pharmaceuticals for a good while (and feeling happy again), I tested again. Fi was almost deadlocked with Fe slightly /*ahead*/, so I went with "INFx" when my nerd-friends would ask. Ni was about... yea 3:2 against Ne, so I was just like whatever dude.

However, being given the proverbial Gold Star by my psychiatrist (still a bit manic, but he considers it non-clinical), and having a great year 2014-15, last time I checked was like a week ago (raw numbers, haven't processed):

(Ni) ************************************************** (50.6)
(Fe) **************************************** (40.1)
(Ti) ************************************** (38.4)
(Ne) ******************************** (32.2)
(Fi) ******************************** (28.5)
(Se) ************************ (24.3)
(Te) *************** (15.8)
(Si) ********** (10.7)

The Ni Ne Fi Fe thing is weird. Could that put me on that borderline? And what do the suffixes "-N" and "-H" mean?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> I don't identify with the personal influence—anymore. It swung away from personal influence when I practiced Zen as a practice of diminishing Ego and restraining Id. But not protection: Self-protection in terms of having my ethics on lock and my physical assets secured, and swooping in to protect others). I was, even coming directly out of my Zen years, drawn away from doxa and more toward praxis. I was obsessed with Sociology, applied sociology, because I wanted to figure out what I could do to save the world, basically.
> 
> I've been trying to put into words how I've been postulating how my testing (MBTI dichotomies in this case) moved from
> *markedly INFJ— from childhood–early-adulthood: (100 I, 70'ish N, 70'ish F, 80'ish J)
> *to almost INFP at the height of my Zen practice, (pretty much the same, a little less F, and like only 20 J)
> 
> 
> 
> Since, becoming acquainted with the functions rather than the limiting MBTI . . . just out of my Zen practice (and with psychosis remitting, so it was a good-run test), Fi was then higher than Fe by about 3:2, and Ne had almost reached the level of Ni.
> 
> And, after my psychosis was completely gone and I was clean off all the pharmaceuticals for a good while (and feeling happy again), I tested again. Fi was almost deadlocked with Fe slightly /*ahead*/, so I went with "INFx" when my nerd-friends would ask. Ni was about... yea 3:2 against Ne, so I was just like whatever dude.
> 
> However, being given the proverbial Gold Star by my psychiatrist (still a bit manic, but he considers it non-clinical), and having a great year 2014-15, last time I checked was like a week ago (raw numbers, haven't processed):
> 
> (Ni) ************************************************** (50.6)
> (Fe) **************************************** (40.1)
> (Ti) ************************************** (38.4)
> (Ne) ******************************** (32.2)
> (Fi) ******************************** (28.5)
> (Se) ************************ (24.3)
> (Te) *************** (15.8)
> (Si) ********** (10.7)
> 
> The Ni Ne Fi Fe thing is weird. Could that put me on that borderline? And what do the suffixes "-N" and "-H" mean?


Honestly, I'm not really familiar with that test enough to compare it to anything.

Could you "clear your frame" and do 16personalities.com and one of the Big 5 tests?


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Honestly, I'm not really familiar with that test enough to compare it to anything.
> 
> Could you "clear your frame" and do 16personalities.com and one of the Big 5 tests?


Yeah sure. If by clear your frame, you mean just answer honestly, sure. Just post the raw results?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Yeah sure. If by clear your frame, you mean just answer honestly, sure. Just post the raw results?


Well, as in, mentally go to an equilibrium state free from external forces affecting you.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, as in, mentally go to an equilibrium state free from external forces affecting you.


I'm pretty good at unwinding and disengaging, despite the degree to which I engage. I meditated, if that instills any confidence.

Your personality type is:
Advocate (INFJ-A)

Extraverted
(72%
Introverted)

(Intuitive
55%)
Observant

Thinking
(47%
Feeling)

(Judging
2%)
Prospecting

(Assertive
55%)
Turbulent

That 2% is screwing with me. As far as MBTI is concerned, it'd flippy-floppy me INFx, just like the cognitive functions tests over the years. What would be the best Big 5 to clear up this particular ambiguity?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> She was my closest friend for 2 years. Literally hanging out at least twice a week. I know her background, I know what she considers to be explicitly her own troubles separate from the expectations of others. I know what she perceives to be her shortcomings, and how she explicitly connects those shortcomings to lackings she feels in her life. We talked explicitly about a lot of these nuances because I'm IEI and she's EII... and we're both rather high intelligence.
> 
> She's a hermit but doesn't want to be and complains about things and never fixes them, and blatantly admits that she was too tired/apathetic/dissociated to remember what day it was. She was late for work, she asked me to be there when she drank a full glass of highly-condensed absinthe (to the point where it was just a lot of wormwood and alcohol) in an 8-oz glass... She knew her parents would be back, she had her long-time friend over for awhile (who had a damsel in distress thing going on, which my friend explicitly said she liked because she could protect her best friend).....
> 
> Despite her hours of pining over getting to see this friend again, and how this friend is in a horrible position and needs her support, she has me over there because her shamanic ritual involving burying a dead-cat, striking a blood-oath with her friend, and casting a protection spell on this friend and a binding spell on those who were harming her (legit, psychological abuse)....
> 
> After all that, she forgot the logistics of the night (her parents were coming home the next morning, she was explicitly told and made it known that she was told, to do a few chores, and she wasn't supposed to have anyone over whose presence would prevent her from getting to work on time)...... and counted on me to not only watch over the ritual and her drunken'ness and her friend's drunken'ness....
> 
> They never utilized the wormwood, they barely kept each other engaged, and they talked about how great it was to be drunk because the rest of their lives are like one long episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion.
> 
> She also refused to get up from her backyard, even after I told her she had 4 hours until her parents came home, she needed to clean up the vomit, and get us both home, do her chores, go to work.
> 
> She said she didn't care about anything involving her, and that she just wanted to make sure her friend was alright, and taken care of.
> 
> It completely backfired, she woke up with still hours to not piss her parents off, and she ended up having nothing done, and she was banned from having her friend over (I was off the hook because I had a bus-pass). It took me five hours (I also drank the Super-Goopy condensed-packed absinthe, so I fully experienced the entire transition, mentally and physically) to remain alert, and clean up everything that had to do with the ritual and the drinking.
> 
> As far as her parents knew, she was simply derelict and mismanaged her time. They don't know what she did, but I was still running into the garage pretending to be helping with washing her work clothes while I was actually cleaning up vomit spots and tossing the rags into the wash.
> 
> Afterward, she seemed completely unmotivated by the event to get her shit together, and because of how late her friend got home, she wasn't just grounded from seeing her friend, but her friend was banned entirely from leaving the house where the psychological abuse had taken place.
> 
> Knowing this, she simply bemoaned how her past was repeating itself and how people always drift away, and she continued to ask me what day it is, never knew her work schedule off-hand until sometimes the day of, so I could never plan anything with her.
> 
> And she eventually just took two jobs doing manual labor. She told me she wants to help people but "Doesn't know how to people" and she made no efforts to try.
> 
> She was categorically unhealthy, and was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder by a psychiatrist recently. She was medicated and showed some promise. But she took herself off her medication for no other reason than "it made her sleep a lot. . . even though i already slept a lot lol" .. . . Literally lol'ing and *shrug*ing at the things most pivotal to her life.
> 
> I understand the need to defend the differences of subtypes, especially ones that are of types that tend to be exaggerated into these outliers that are maladapted.
> 
> She was an EII who happened to also be completely maladaptive and complicit in her own suffering, aware of her on complicity to the point of being able to verbalize the nuance when probed tremendously, yet taking no actions to change even when her self-espoused More-Important-Than-Her-Own-Life (her friend, for example) things were in jeopardy. She said she's been like this since she was 15. She's almost 22 now.
> 
> There comes a point where being open-minded about neuro-divergences turns into enabling. I'm diagnosed with two psychotic disorders, a mood disorder, and ADHD. I know I'm a statistical anomaly on most counts (functional IQ as well, IEI being rare in and of itself, singular psychotic disorders accounting for less than 1% of the population).
> 
> She has a mood disorder, too. We were even taking the same medication. We both were making progress, and she didn't like her medication because she had to set an alarm every day to take it and it just "got meh". That's her life. "Meh."
> 
> The reason I'm a bit touchy about this is because I wasted 2 years trying to get close to her when she is practically incapable of connecting with anyone other than someone in a worse situation than her that plays into her savior complex. When she knows she can't save anyone, but wants to anyway, but then doesn't try.
> 
> Needless to say, I let her drift away. I was the one who did most of the reaching out and arranging plans. Once I stopped, the Social IV Fluid just stopped flowing. And I have no idea what's she's doing. And neither does she.
> 
> She made me feel like shit for trying to type her personality. I told her "You don't give me anything to know how to interact with you in a way that doesn't grate on both our nerves. I have to analyze you like a lab-rat so I have some way to approach you that feels reliable." Because at that point I was done.
> 
> She was super invested in the first 98% of the process, during which I was actually happy that she was actively contemplating herself when she always said she was in constant existential "weirdness". And she even had moments where she was excited for new follow-up questions.
> 
> I gave her two last questions about which textbooks she would grab from a garage sale, and she suddenly went off the radar and didn't communicate with me for almost a month, after which I told her of my Laboratory motives. She got pissed off that I was "probing" her, and I told her that's exactly what I was doing as a last-ditch effort to find some way to bridge-over her shortcomings and keep her in my life because at that point I still loved her like a sister.
> 
> I learned a lot from her. I learned, especially, that INFPs aren't given enough credit for how relatively not-dissociated they are from the world. I've met way extreme cases. The unhealthy ones. And I've seen the same potential I saw in her, actually ... actualized in some self-typed INFPs, doing the things she always complained of not knowing how to do. Finding meaning, communicating their sort of Alien-syndrome in a way that's relateable in order to establish connections. Finding people who they can use their unique personalities to help in ways that other people are less likely able to do (conciliatory stuff, not necessarily counseling per se).
> 
> I'm saying some people should be noticed for being counter-examples of a healthy development of a matured ability to utilize ones IM. It can get pretty bad, and the trap with idealists is to think that "bad" is just a way to restrict people's behaviors. Some behaviors are unhealthy. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is great. Deconstructing language is great. But giving people so much benefit of the doubt that you've given them enough rope to hang themselves and tie knotted webs between themselves and the things they claim to need and care about...? That's too much


Why are you still flipping around MBTI and Socionics, when your MBTI preferences are so low that you wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two types? Lol. You could both be INFP or INFJ lol.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Why are you still flipping around MBTI and Socionics, when your MBTI preferences are so low that you wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two types? Lol. You could both be INFP or INFJ lol.


Because in my head-- because during the time I was "typing her to connect with her", I only knew MBTI. So, in my memory, the construct of Her-As-A-Friend-I-Had-A-Falling-Out-With involves heuristics like "unhealthy INFP". Even though I've explicitly switched to Socionics (an external and focused change of discourse to reflect recent changes in my attitude toward MBTI: that it's lacking)... I still haven't yet implicitly modified all my emotionally-charged memories involving type-confusion and that weird Typing-Backlash I had with her specifically as an "INFP"-in-my-mind-at-that-time.

Heuristics is how everyone's brains work on a neurological level to preserve sugars that can be allotted to other bodily functions.

I really don't appreciate you picking at what was clearly an emotionally-driven posting of mine by deriving some kind of "Lol"-able dismissal of my abilities to type people, simply by overlooking what is a common Pan-human phenomena (regardless of type): Heuristics, emotional memory, dual-attitudes in our social psychological processing.

You have taken little bitty "advice-giving moments" or tips and tricks or what have you, that seemed a little "off" to me. Like you were looking to tout some prowess or something.

This posting of yours isn't making me think your motives are to help as much as you said they were. The whole crux of the learning-to-trust-people and give them the benefit of the doubt. You criticized me then, and rightfully so. There was a lot of content to derive postulations from.

However, since I conceded that "You're cool," you've been striking me as someone who likes to See Themselves Telling People About Their Lackings In A Way That Just Also Happens To Be Advice, instead of just graciously take what people have to say into account.

At least I explain explicitly any critique I have of you.

You just make a blanket statement about my abilities as if its fact, and then just Lol it away. There's a difference between holding to your preferences unabashedly, and being just plain rude and shady.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Because in my head-- because during the time I was "typing her to connect with her", I only knew MBTI. So, in my memory, the construct of Her-As-A-Friend-I-Had-A-Falling-Out-With involves heuristics like "unhealthy INFP". Even though I've explicitly switched to Socionics (an external and focused change of discourse to reflect recent changes in my attitude toward MBTI: that it's lacking)... I still haven't yet implicitly modified all my emotionally-charged memories involving type-confusion and that weird Typing-Backlash I had with her specifically as an "INFP"-in-my-mind-at-that-time.
> 
> Heuristics is how everyone's brains work on a neurological level to preserve sugars that can be allotted to other bodily functions.
> 
> I really don't appreciate you picking at what was clearly an emotionally-driven posting of mine by deriving some kind of "Lol"-able dismissal of my abilities to type people, simply by overlooking what is a common Pan-human phenomena (regardless of type): Heuristics, emotional memory, dual-attitudes in our social psychological processing.
> 
> You have taken little bitty "advice-giving moments" or tips and tricks or what have you, that seemed a little "off" to me. Like you were looking to tout some prowess or something.
> 
> This posting of yours isn't making me think your motives are to help as much as you said they were. The whole crux of the learning-to-trust-people and give them the benefit of the doubt. You criticized me then, and rightfully so. There was a lot of content to derive postulations from.
> 
> However, since I conceded that "You're cool," you've been striking me as someone who likes to See Themselves Telling People About Their Lackings In A Way That Just Also Happens To Be Advice, instead of just graciously take what people have to say into account.
> 
> At least I explain explicitly any critique I have of you.
> 
> You just make a blanket statement about my abilities as if its fact, and then just Lol it away. There's a difference between holding to your preferences unabashedly, and being just plain rude and shady.


You're comparing J and P difference, but are using yourself as a point of reference compared to her, when you're not a good example of J nor P. Wouldn't it be better to compare her with someone more pronounced on the spectrum?


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're comparing J and P difference, but are using yourself as a point of reference compared to her, when you're not a good example of J nor P. Wouldn't it be better to compare her with someone more pronounced on the spectrum?


I wasn't comparing myself to her. I was basically just highlighting her flaws as a human being regardless of type. She happens to be typed INFP by both herself and me (when I had good motives). And I actually subscribed to MBTI ideas back then, so I do see her as a treatise on an unhealthy "INFP" for whatever that trope means anymore. FiNe people. That happen to be unhealthy. Not because they're FiNe, but because they're self-sabotaging and burdening other people, aware of their shortcomings, and remain in inertia.

I only compared myself to her once in that entire post by saying "I have a mood disorder, too". I mentioned my type being rare as a provision of saying I understand what it's like to be a statistical anomaly. And that statement was to solidify the understanding that I do appreciate neuro-atypicalities. And don't easily dismiss them as "disordered" without good reason.

I think the J/P thing in MBTI is so redonkulously off that it would be so unlikely for me to even imply that I was even _thinking_ about that.

You must be skimming hardcore, with a bias, and an ultimate desire to display your knowledge as what you may believe is your proverbial flourish of peacock feathers.

I'm saying you're making it pretty obvious that you have a tendency to skew what you read in order to simply tag on a pedantic response.

You claimed to be helping. And that your friend was helping, too. My trust that he was helping hinged on my trust that you were helping.

You said that putting his "helping" into question as self-masturbatory pretentiousness was a "core insult".

You seem to be doing it, too. Maybe you were offended so much by my read of _him_ because you knew the possibility that your own motives could be reduced down to pedantic auto-fellatio.

Do you even read people's posts in their entirety?

When do you take the time to copy-paste the QUOTE tag into little sections of people's content, and address them point by point?

You make little one-liners with "lol", and seem to reduce all activity of the other person into them acting as walking Flawed-Understandings that you can nit-pick at. The pure definition of being pedantic and pretentious.

Leave me alone. If you inadvertantly criticize my honestly Just-Wanting-To-Exercise-My-Interest-In-Seeing-The-World-Through-A-Socionics-Model-For-The-Time-Being .. .. without even QUOTEing specific points and explaining where the deficiency is... and without establishing a common lexic so I even come to understand your frame of reference (your only attempt is throwing links at people) . . .

If you keep raining on my parade, I think you're doing it in a way that can be reported.

And even though it might be on the fringes of Non-Reportable, my attention to the fun aspects of this forum is being sheered away by your trite, transparent responses... to such a degree that I'll blatantly say it:

If there's a way to report the bologna you're selling, even if it's spurious, I'd use it in a heartbeat because you're being _just that inconsiderate_.

Croc tears, or lol me. I'm so done. Go play with other pedants who've convinced themselves they're "helping".


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> I wasn't comparing myself to her. I was basically just highlighting her flaws as a human being regardless of type. She happens to be typed INFP by both herself and me (when I had good motives). And I actually subscribed to MBTI ideas back then, so I do see her as a treatise on an unhealthy "INFP" for whatever that trope means anymore. FiNe people. That happen to be unhealthy. Not because they're FiNe, but because they're self-sabotaging and burdening other people, aware of their shortcomings, and remain in inertia.
> 
> I only compared myself to her once in that entire post by saying "I have a mood disorder, too". I mentioned my type being rare as a provision of saying I understand what it's like to be a statistical anomaly. And that statement was to solidify the understanding that I do appreciate neuro-atypicalities. And don't easily dismiss them as "disordered" without good reason.
> 
> I think the J/P thing in MBTI is so redonkulously off that it would be so unlikely for me to even imply that I was even _thinking_ about that.
> 
> You must be skimming hardcore, with a bias, and an ultimate desire to display your knowledge as what you may believe is your proverbial flourish of peacock feathers.
> 
> I'm saying you're making it pretty obvious that you have a tendency to skew what you read in order to simply tag on a pedantic response.
> 
> You claimed to be helping. And that your friend was helping, too. My trust that he was helping hinged on my trust that you were helping.
> 
> You said that putting his "helping" into question as self-masturbatory pretentiousness was a "core insult".
> 
> You seem to be doing it, too. Maybe you were offended so much by my read of _him_ because you knew the possibility that your own motives could be reduced down to pedantic auto-fellatio.
> 
> Do you even read people's posts in their entirety?
> 
> When do you take the time to copy-paste the QUOTE tag into little sections of people's content, and address them point by point?
> 
> You make little one-liners with "lol", and seem to reduce all activity of the other person into them acting as walking Flawed-Understandings that you can nit-pick at. The pure definition of being pedantic and pretentious.
> 
> Leave me alone. If you inadvertantly criticize my honestly Just-Wanting-To-Exercise-My-Interest-In-Seeing-The-World-Through-A-Socionics-Model-For-The-Time-Being .. .. without even QUOTEing specific points and explaining where the deficiency is... and without establishing a common lexic so I even come to understand your frame of reference (your only attempt is throwing links at people) . . .
> 
> If you keep raining on my parade, I think you're doing it in a way that can be reported.
> 
> And even though it might be on the fringes of Non-Reportable, my attention to the fun aspects of this forum is being sheered away by your trite, transparent responses... to such a degree that I'll blatantly say it:
> 
> If there's a way to report the bologna you're selling, even if it's spurious, I'd use it in a heartbeat because you're being _just that inconsiderate_.
> 
> Croc tears, or lol me. I'm so done. Go play with other pedants who've convinced themselves they're "helping".


I'm not replying point-for-point, because 1) I am on my phone, and 2) I am not going to spend 30 minutes replying.

Nothing is even remotely reportable.

You seem very much like your friend. I'd guess IEI-Ni, by your descriptions. Also, both your last two posts were IEI-N behavior, not IEI-C. Perhaps this is due to speaking with an N type.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're comparing J and P difference, but are using yourself as a point of reference compared to her, when you're not a good example of J nor P. Wouldn't it be better to compare her with someone more pronounced on the spectrum?


And the "spectrum" of J-P, if I were to even entertain that construct again, is the least spectrum-like of those four dichotomies.

The J/P rearrange the whole stack, in a much greater degree than the E/I... And the other two are just as they are, modified from without.

Trying to reduce J/P to a spectrum shows me that _you_ have no idea what you're talking about.

Clearly grasping at straws to continue to ram into my head that I'm "borderline" IEI with EII, which you've now leaked over into some J-P spectrum of which my position is not "pronounced" enough to talk about anything that involves someone whose MBTI just happens to be the J-version of what my Sociotype is commonly converted to?

A) IEI is not INFJ
B) J/P are not a spectrum that make small changes to the functional stack: They're the most discriminating dichotomy, so I don't even know how one could display a "pronounced" or "not good example" of a J to P relation
C) I don't like MBTI as much anymore, but I realize it's relevance in identity politics
D) IEI-C is not borderline, so I'm sorry I took that little piece of your Target Practice For Pedantic People away from you
E) I'm not actually sorry, and I think it's funny that I'm resolute in how wrong you are
F) When I speak, I'm not automatically implying that I'm drawing a parallel to MBTI from Socionics
G) Even if I were, the conversion is not cut and dry and I would have to make it very apparent that I was drawing a parallel, especially between J/P (notice, they're lower-case in Socionics for a REASON)
H) It's so obvious that it's most complex of the Jungian dichotomies simply in how much confusion runs around the forums with what they do, when it's not important what the Four Letters Look Like, it's about the functions.
I) I think you believe I take much more stock in being a Dignified Rare Type than I actually do, and are trying at every angle to dismiss me as some wishy-washy in-between type who can't assess himself

J) I really really think you're showing your bum clearly in your posts recently. You're getting negligent—you had me fooled for awhile there.

and K)*****random potshot I took that was too on-the-nose*****


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> And the "spectrum" of J-P, if I were to even entertain that construct again, is the least spectrum-like of those four dichotomies.
> 
> The J/P rearrange the whole stack, in a much greater degree than the E/I... And the other two are just as they are, modified from without.
> 
> Trying to reduce J/P to a spectrum shows me that _you_ have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Clearly grasping at straws to continue to ram into my head that I'm "borderline" IEI with EII, which you've now leaked over into some J-P spectrum of which my position is not "pronounced" enough to talk about anything that involves someone whose MBTI just happens to be the J-version of what my Sociotype is commonly converted to?
> 
> A) IEI is not INFJ
> B) J/P are not a spectrum that make small changes to the functional stack: They're the most discriminating dichotomy, so I don't even know how one could display a "pronounced" or "not good example" of a J to P relation
> C) I don't like MBTI as much anymore, but I realize it's relevance in identity politics
> D) IEI-C is not borderline, so I'm sorry I took that little piece of your Target Practice For Pedantic People away from you
> E) I'm not actually sorry, and I think it's funny that I'm resolute in how wrong you are
> F) When I speak, I'm not automatically implying that I'm drawing a parallel to MBTI from Socionics
> G) Even if I were, the conversion is not cut and dry and I would have to make it very apparent that I was drawing a parallel, especially between J/P (notice, they're lower-case in Socionics for a REASON)
> H) It's so obvious that it's most complex of the Jungian dichotomies simply in how much confusion runs around the forums with what they do, when it's not important what the Four Letters Look Like, it's about the functions.
> I) I think you believe I take much more stock in being a Dignified Rare Type than I actually do, and are trying at every angle to dismiss me as some wishy-washy in-between type who can't assess himself
> 
> J) I really really think you're showing your bum clearly in your posts recently. You're getting negligent—you had me fooled for awhile there.
> 
> and K)*****random potshot I took that was too on-the-nose*****


J/P is a spectrum of preference strengths in MBTI.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm not replying point-for-point, because 1) I am on my phone, and 2) I am not going to spend 30 minutes replying.
> 
> Nothing is even remotely reportable.
> 
> 
> You seem very much like your friend. I'd guess IEI-Ni, by your descriptions. Also, both your last two posts were IEI-N behavior, not IEI-C. Perhaps this is due to speaking with an N type.


I seem very much like a friend I just clearly annihilated the character of.

That's a cheap way to insult me.

And no shit, I can show IEI-N behavior, because IEI's can "show behaviors" of other subtypes because it's such a subtle difference, and subtypes are specifically gauged for interpersonal interactions involving more than 2 people (I think). The more you divide, the more DCNH is saying you need to take into account the number of people presence.

I'm not particularly thrilled to be having this conversation when all you're doing is a tyrade against anyone who dare think they know their own type better than you.

I don't have a problem with EII's. I thought I was EII when you posited the EII-H scenario to me.

You then went "Ah so it's IEI-N" or something like that. So your vacillations on how you feel about my self-assessment is clearly rooted in your desire to Take Away My IEI Lollipop.

I don't really care.

Why would I be showing strengthened Ne and Se when I'm reaming someone who's not giving me any novel information?... just reintroducing the idea that they're agendized in their actions...? I think talking about these nuances with not just "an N person", but a type-bullying person, requires that I don't break into my ignoring or suggestive functions very much.

Fi and Ti are showing up because I'm swimming in how redundant you are.

I can't creatively innovate in this situation because you're not very much fun, and I'm reprimanding you because I believe you're here for your own selfish gain, which is what leads to entropy, which on a forum isn't very much fun.

You antagonize people and use their responses they make _while antagonized_ as points in your case against people you're type-bullying? Seriously.

Why would I be showing IEI-C now? Why? 

And if you're just reasserting that you think I'm EII, why add in something that directly implies that I'm "exactly like" someone I told you was the antithesis of healthy and stable?

You basically called me unhealthy and everything I leveraged against her. And you leveraged it against me, dressed in your usual YOU'RE NOT IEI OMFG LEMME SHOW YOU WHY.

You also told me that you told @FearAndTrembling that he's EII ("to his face", actually) when he lists himself as IEI.

What do you have? some treasured family member or friend who truly lived up to IEI-Greatness, and now you're on a quest to make sure any self-espoused IEI is taken down unless they're as legit as The-Great-IEI-Of-Yesteryear?

Or are you... 

Are you...

Jelly? Are you srsly type-jelly right now? Is my mockery striking a nerve and serving as proof that IEIs think we're better than EII's (bc we don't, this is rhetorical).

I respect EIIs. I don't condone, but respectfully note the shortcomings of, dysfunctional behavior.

She happened to be EII. And you happen to be EII. I don't think I'm better than both of you because of our types.

I think I'm better than both of you because I'm neither transparent nor transient.

I'm reporting the post I'm responding to as Type-Bullying.

IEI.
IEI.
IEI.
IEI-C, not IEI-N
IEI, not EII-H
not anywhere near normative EII

Arguing with this is type-bullying. Stahp the crap.

Love yourself enough to accept your own type without the thinly-veiled pseudo-acceptance that just manifests as belligerence.


----------



## fuliajulia

Kerik_S said:


> And the "spectrum" of J-P, if I were to even entertain that construct again, is the least spectrum-like of those four dichotomies.
> 
> The J/P rearrange the whole stack, in a much greater degree than the E/I... And the other two are just as they are, modified from without.
> 
> Trying to reduce J/P to a spectrum shows me that _you_ have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Clearly grasping at straws to continue to ram into my head that I'm "borderline" IEI with EII, which you've now leaked over into some J-P spectrum of which my position is not "pronounced" enough to talk about anything that involves someone whose MBTI just happens to be the J-version of what my Sociotype is commonly converted to?
> 
> A) IEI is not INFJ
> B) J/P are not a spectrum that make small changes to the functional stack: They're the most discriminating dichotomy, so I don't even know how one could display a "pronounced" or "not good example" of a J to P relation
> C) I don't like MBTI as much anymore, but I realize it's relevance in identity politics
> D) IEI-C is not borderline, so I'm sorry I took that little piece of your Target Practice For Pedantic People away from you
> E) I'm not actually sorry, and I think it's funny that I'm resolute in how wrong you are
> F) When I speak, I'm not automatically implying that I'm drawing a parallel to MBTI from Socionics
> G) Even if I were, the conversion is not cut and dry and I would have to make it very apparent that I was drawing a parallel, especially between J/P (notice, they're lower-case in Socionics for a REASON)
> H) It's so obvious that it's most complex of the Jungian dichotomies simply in how much confusion runs around the forums with what they do, when it's not important what the Four Letters Look Like, it's about the functions.
> I) I think you believe I take much more stock in being a Dignified Rare Type than I actually do, and are trying at every angle to dismiss me as some wishy-washy in-between type who can't assess himself
> 
> J) I really really think you're showing your bum clearly in your posts recently. You're getting negligent—you had me fooled for awhile there.
> 
> and K)*****random potshot I took that was too on-the-nose*****


I don't know, I think Socionics is a deeper more nuanced version of what MBTI is grasping at.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> I seem very much like a friend I just clearly annihilated the character of.
> 
> That's a cheap way to insult me.
> 
> And no shit, I can show IEI-N behavior, because IEI's can "show behaviors" of other subtypes because it's such a subtle difference, and subtypes are specifically gauged for interpersonal interactions involving more than 2 people (I think). The more you divide, the more DCNH is saying you need to take into account the number of people presence.
> 
> I'm not particularly thrilled to be having this conversation when all you're doing is a tyrade against anyone who dare think they know their own type better than you.
> 
> I don't have a problem with EII's. I thought I was EII when you posited the EII-H scenario to me.
> 
> You then went "Ah so it's IEI-N" or something like that. So your vacillations on how you feel about my self-assessment is clearly rooted in your desire to Take Away My IEI Lollipop.
> 
> I don't really care.
> 
> Why would I be showing strengthened Ne and Se when I'm reaming someone who's not giving me any novel information?... just reintroducing the idea that they're agendized in their actions...? I think talking about these nuances with not just "an N person", but a type-bullying person, requires that I don't break into my ignoring or suggestive functions very much.
> 
> Fi and Ti are showing up because I'm swimming in how redundant you are.
> 
> I can't creatively innovate in this situation because you're not very much fun, and I'm reprimanding you because I believe you're here for your own selfish gain, which is what leads to entropy, which on a forum isn't very much fun.
> 
> You antagonize people and use their responses they make _while antagonized_ as points in your case against people you're type-bullying? Seriously.
> 
> Why would I be showing IEI-C now? Why?
> 
> And if you're just reasserting that you think I'm EII, why add in something that directly implies that I'm "exactly like" someone I told you was the antithesis of healthy and stable?
> 
> You basically called me unhealthy and everything I leveraged against her. And you leveraged it against me, dressed in your usual YOU'RE NOT IEI OMFG LEMME SHOW YOU WHY.
> 
> You also told me that you told @FearAndTrembling that he's EII ("to his face", actually) when he lists himself as IEI.
> 
> What do you have? some treasured family member or friend who truly lived up to IEI-Greatness, and now you're on a quest to make sure any self-espoused IEI is taken down unless they're as legit as The-Great-IEI-Of-Yesteryear?
> 
> Or are you...
> 
> Are you...
> 
> Jelly? Are you srsly type-jelly right now? Is my mockery striking a nerve and serving as proof that IEIs think we're better than EII's (bc we don't, this is rhetorical).
> 
> I respect EIIs. I don't condone, but respectfully note the shortcomings of, dysfunctional behavior.
> 
> She happened to be EII. And you happen to be EII. I don't think I'm better than both of you because of our types.
> 
> I think I'm better than both of you because I'm neither transparent nor transient.
> 
> I'm reporting the post I'm responding to as Type-Bullying.
> 
> IEI.
> IEI.
> IEI.
> IEI-C, not IEI-N
> IEI, not EII-H
> not anywhere near normative EII
> 
> Arguing with this is type-bullying. Stahp the crap.
> 
> Love yourself enough to accept your own type without the thinly-veiled pseudo-acceptance that just manifests as belligerence.


You can't report someone typing you after you ask them to, LOL.

You're just extroverting emotions. Have been for pages. Doesn't bother me.

Did your friend actually use functional analysis to determine being INFP? Or just took an online test? The tests are inaccurate often.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> You can't report someone typing you after you ask them to, LOL.
> 
> You're just extroverting emotions. Have been for pages. Doesn't bother me.
> 
> Did your friend actually use functional analysis to determine being INFP? Or just took an online test? The tests are inaccurate often.


Yes. The point your missing is that you're bothering me.

And you're proving your inconsiderate by reducing other people's words and time to "extroverting emotions." Yes, that's technically what I'm doing, with a great deal of reading your character and calling you out for being the inconsiderate self-involved forum-user that you are.

You won't spend time chopping people's responses up to respond to specific points. You continue to make pedantic statements.

I clearly expressed that I wanted you to stop typing me, and you didn't.

This isn't a Type-Me thread. I'm pretty sure in one of my "extroverted emotions" pages, I specifically said I wanted to move away from that B.S. and just hangout. And only be typed by people with my consent. Especially when you're not even reading my shit clearly enough to derive whether or not I've told you to drop that EII-not-IEI thing.

Your cavalier attitude, while it does show composure, does not show anything good about your character.

Composure without compassion is useless and mean.

"I'm on my phone." "I won't spend 30 minutes editing a post." "Doesn't bother me." You didn't even use "It." Totally distancing language from someone who has been too distanced to notice that I've been refuting not only their typing but also their discourse in general. ...

That doesn't make you sound like Cool-In-Comparison-To-The-Guy-Typing-A-Lot.

It makes me look like a sad sack. And makes you look like a troll.

It's easy to be cool, calm, and composed when you miss the Fourth C: Caring about other people.

I did report you.

I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO YOU REFUTING ANY OF MY LISTED TYPINGS.
I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO YOU HIGHLIGHTING WHICH FUNCTIONS YOU THINK I'M DISPLAYING.

I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW from your cool-headed egotistical narcissistic troll-bag of a self, any hold you had on me thusfar. I'm done.

You've been reported, and your tactics to look Cool, Calm, and Collected make you look like you're not just a bully, but an unaware or completely aware, and thus even more malignant, mean-spirited person.

Calling your friend's help "masturbatory" was so deeply insulting, yet you just read everything else as "extroverting emotion"?

Convenient way to dehumanize people that you've had an agenda against, and are pretending like you're too cool to have an agenda against, for like 2 weeks now.

Leave me alone.


----------



## Kerik_S

goosefrabaahhhh

chill bro


----------



## The_Wanderer

Yeah, I was about to say "chill bro" too...


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Yes. The point your missing is that you're bothering me.
> 
> And you're proving your inconsiderate by reducing other people's words and time to "extroverting emotions." Yes, that's technically what I'm doing, with a great deal of reading your character and calling you out for being the inconsiderate self-involved forum-user that you are.
> 
> You won't spend time chopping people's responses up to respond to specific points. You continue to make pedantic statements.
> 
> I clearly expressed that I wanted you to stop typing me, and you didn't.
> 
> This isn't a Type-Me thread. I'm pretty sure in one of my "extroverted emotions" pages, I specifically said I wanted to move away from that B.S. and just hangout. And only be typed by people with my consent. Especially when you're not even reading my shit clearly enough to derive whether or not I've told you to drop that EII-not-IEI thing.
> 
> Your cavalier attitude, while it does show composure, does not show anything good about your character.
> 
> Composure without compassion is useless and mean.
> 
> "I'm on my phone." "I won't spend 30 minutes editing a post." "Doesn't bother me." You didn't even use "It." Totally distancing language from someone who has been too distanced to notice that I've been refuting not only their typing but also their discourse in general. ...
> 
> That doesn't make you sound like Cool-In-Comparison-To-The-Guy-Typing-A-Lot.
> 
> It makes me look like a sad sack. And makes you look like a troll.
> 
> It's easy to be cool, calm, and composed when you miss the Fourth C: Caring about other people.
> 
> I did report you.
> 
> I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO YOU REFUTING ANY OF MY LISTED TYPINGS.
> I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO YOU HIGHLIGHTING WHICH FUNCTIONS YOU THINK I'M DISPLAYING.
> 
> I EXPLICITLY WITHDRAW from your cool-headed egotistical narcissistic troll-bag of a self, any hold you had on me thusfar. I'm done.
> 
> You've been reported, and your tactics to look Cool, Calm, and Collected make you look like you're not just a bully, but an unaware or completely aware, and thus even more malignant, mean-spirited person.
> 
> Calling your friend's help "masturbatory" was so deeply insulting, yet you just read everything else as "extroverting emotion"?
> 
> Convenient way to dehumanize people that you've had an agenda against, and are pretending like you're too cool to have an agenda against, for like 2 weeks now.
> 
> Leave me alone.


Dude, wtf are you talking about? LOL

"Yes, that's technically what I'm doing, with a great deal of reading your character and calling you out for being the inconsiderate self-involved forum-user that you are."

You are, literally, self-absorbed as hell in your entire pages long rant. The entire thing outright said "come amuse me and listen to me blabber."

Empathy? Compassion? You come and insult people, then flip out when someone turns what you say back to you? You rip on your "friend"s character, yet get pissed when someone makes you question your own actions concerning her? Dehumanizing people left and right, but I guess, as long as it is YOUR feelings, it's all cool right?


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> You can't report someone typing you after you ask them to, LOL.
> 
> You're just extroverting emotions. Have been for pages. Doesn't bother me.
> 
> Did your friend actually use functional analysis to determine being INFP? Or just took an online test? The tests are inaccurate often.


You're also being ignored. Yes.

Ignored with no change to rebuke or rebuff me.

Let the record stand that _*it was I*_ who actually the asshole here.

"Goosefraabaahhh" was your best way of utilizing the ability to be both Pedantic and Holier-Than-Thou.

I will make blanket statements about you before I ignore you.

You've been type-bullying or just writing half-attentive "On my phone/won't waste time" Low quality posts anyway.

So you're what the moderators would probably find to be something reportable for some reason.

I hope more people report you.

I hope someone that can assert influence on your sanctions of behaviors will sufficiently provide you with enough of a lesson to help you realize that you're not as calm and detached as you think you are.

I'm adding FearAndTrembling to my Ignore list (he isn't yet, but now will be), just because it's part-and-parcel of distrusting you.

Have fun "Extroverting" No-Emotion.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Dude, wtf are you talking about? LOL
> 
> "Yes, that's technically what I'm doing, with a great deal of reading your character and calling you out for being the inconsiderate self-involved forum-user that you are."
> 
> You are, literally, self-absorbed as hell in your entire pages long rant. The entire thing outright said "come amuse me and listen to me blabber."
> 
> Empathy? Compassion? You come and insult people, then flip out when someone turns what you say back to you? You rip on your "friend"s character, yet get pissed when someone makes you question your own actions concerning her? Dehumanizing people left and right, but I guess, as long as it is YOUR feelings, it's all cool right?


Notice that we're both dehumanizing and self-absorbed.

I'll admit to being self-absorbed.

I'm on this forum to scratch some itch. And you've been baiting me.

Now you're gaslighting.

Ignored.

Gosh, That Kerik_S is trouble. Totally narcissistic.

(Hint: So are you, you just hide behind smaller posts.)


----------



## Kerik_S

The_Wanderer said:


> Yeah, I was about to say "chill bro" too...


self-deprecation is just my way of trying to look less self-absorbed :jupiter: I fight on so my sempai will notice me


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> Notice that we're both dehumanizing and self-absorbed.
> 
> I'll admit to being self-absorbed.
> 
> I'm on this forum to scratch some itch. And you've been baiting me.
> 
> Now you're gaslighting.
> 
> Ignored.
> 
> Gosh, That Kerik_S is trouble. Totally narcissistic.
> 
> (Hint: So are you, you just hide behind smaller posts.)


You have very odd usage of "dehumanizing." Your rants are just "I feel this way, eff everyone else."

You also could use a xanex.


----------



## Kerik_S

well, now other Betas will know whether they want to send me friend requests or try and throw ban hammers at me


----------



## Valtire

Kerik_S said:


> well, now other Betas will know whether they want to send me friend requests or try and throw ban hammers at me


...?

I'll throw an inflatable hammer at you if you like.


----------



## Kerik_S

Fried Eggz said:


> ...?
> 
> I'll throw an inflatable hammer at you if you like.


Some people see $SHEER_AMOUNT_OF_TXT and b liek "wtf dude?"

I was also just extending my self-deprecation to show that I have, in fact, moved on from the quibble. And will speak about it openly bc I stand by everything I said.

I'm grandstanding. It's a pride thing.


----------



## Kerik_S

I will be checking the Infraction/Ban board every day like it's Christmas Morning!

:exterminate:


----------



## selena87

LOL! Guys don't stop :laughing:

:brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli:


----------



## Kerik_S

selena87 said:


> LOL! Guys don't stop :laughing:
> 
> :brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli:


I've emptied my clip. Only my railgun can shoot shiny light awake my desire


----------



## Valtire

selena87 said:


> LOL! Guys don't stop :laughing:
> 
> :brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli:


It's been a while since I've seen the dancing banana, and it's not even a banana any more.


----------



## selena87

Jeremy8419 said:


> Why are you still flipping around MBTI and Socionics, when your MBTI preferences are so low that you wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two types? Lol. You could both be INFP or INFJ lol.


Yo jeremy bro since Kerik refused your offer to type him how about you give me a type instead? I bet you can already reach a conclusion based on this very post itself


----------



## Jeremy8419

selena87 said:


> Yo jeremy bro since Kerik refused your offer to type him how about you give me a type instead? I bet you can already reach a conclusion based on this very post itself


Post is ILE at the beginning, switches to EII at the end.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Post is ILE at the beginning, switches to EII at the end.


:computer::computer::computer::computer::computer: ...nthego:


----------



## selena87

Jeremy8419 said:


> Post is ILE at the beginning, switches to EII at the end.


THANK YOU! In that case I'm going to be an EII!


----------



## Jeremy8419

selena87 said:


> THANK YOU! In that case I'm going to be an EII!


Each type needs some kinda animal mascot. I vote EIIs is a frog. I like frogs. They are like the cats of the amphibian/reptile world.


----------



## selena87

Jeremy8419 said:


> Each type needs some kinda animal mascot. I vote EIIs is a frog. I like frogs. They are like the cats of the amphibian/reptile world.


Nice suggestion bro! Gonna be a frog now


----------



## d e c a d e n t

selena87 said:


> Nice suggestion bro! Gonna be a frog now


kawaii


----------



## Jeremy8419

selena87 said:


> Nice suggestion bro! Gonna be a frog now


ilu <3 day is so much better with a frog on forums now lol


----------



## atarulum

I am your daddy


----------



## Captain Mclain




----------



## Lunatics

There's a lot of banter going on here!  I like that.


----------



## Captain Mclain

This one is kinda cool;


----------



## Kerik_S

Lunatics said:


> There's a lot of banter going on here!  I like that.


Hey! I'm a Yang Metal Horse Acquarian, too, which means you must be born in early February 1991 like me! I'm also 4w5 heart triad, though 5w6 in the head. Also a 1 in gut, but with a 9 wing instead. And I'm demisexual as well.

[X-Files theme]


----------



## Lunatics

Kerik_S said:


> Hey! I'm a Yang Metal Horse Acquarian, too, which means you must be born in early February 1991 like me! I'm also 4w5 heart triad, though 5w6 in the head. Also a 1 in gut, but with a 9 wing instead. And I'm demisexual as well.
> 
> [X-Files theme]


Wha... xD Yes, I am! So funny and so cool at the same time. 'Sup Aqua-bro?  Which February are you? I'm exactly on the border - 14th. Great to see another person into astrology.


----------



## Captain Mclain

wadaap. :emmersed::distracted::anonymous:


----------



## Entropic

AngrySpirit said:


> Yeah, and INF will easily mistype as type 4 as well, for example. 4s are easily described as "intuitive" "emotional" and "artistic", so INFs (And even NF in general I guess) can easily identify to it. As you said 2s have also this image description, "helpful" "empathetic" "people oriented", and Fe-dom can fit with that.
> 
> Enneagram is also a vast and deep theory, and it requires a lot of time too. Those basic lines and stereotypes are quite frequent, because people try to put simple words on complex systems and concepts.
> 
> I'm less informed about 2s, but 4s have mainly this inabilty to perceive the Holy Origin, and how everything in the universe is connected to the same origin. As we can see, it's very different from being an ethical intuitive, because it is just not linked to cognition.
> 
> I'm also curious about stats or something that will point out some common combinations. But that seems very hard because 1) we need to collect information from a very various and wide range of people, and 2) most people aren't correctly typed, and thus will spoil the accuracy of the information.


Yep, and 4s in general mistype as NFs because of the same buzzwords in the 4 description. Seen this issue in particular for SFs and NTs who are 4s. I know of only one example of an ST 4 who is is a fictive character, but I never doubted in her being an ST.


----------



## Lunatics

Kerik_S said:


> So you're also a Tiger–month-animal like me! Since you were born on a Thursday, our day-animal will be different, and our double-hour–animal might be different (mine's in the 1:00–2:59am Chinese double-hour). Are you familiar with the month/day/hour?
> 
> Monday *(*Ram/“Goat”*)* the 11th, 3:35am (GMT–5) @ 84º26' W longitude. In determining your hour animal, you have to adjust from GMT/UTC (Universal Time Coordinated) to where the Sun was actually in the sky above the East–West axis. It's called True Solar Time. Google/search *“*_true solar time calculator_*”,* find the hospital/location you were born, and determine its longitude. Plug in your time of birth and longitude, and it'll convert GMT/UTC to True Solar.
> 
> Since my True Solar Time of birth was 2:43am, I actually got knocked from the 3:00–4:59am double-hour back into the previous double-hour, changing what I thought was my animal (Rat, maybe?) to the double-hour of the Ox.
> 
> It's important, because the Year determines the expectations you've internalized from the existing structures in society, essentially shaping your Super-Ego. The Month determines the deepest aims you built in childhood/adolescence that drive you to strive for growing into a person more meaningfully connected to greater society—which could be seen as the Super-Id, since it strives to learn from seeking duals and is also driven by a hidden agenda. The Double-Hour determines your strongest desires when stripped of all societal conditioning, so that could be seen as your Id. And the Day mediates between your Year/Month (Super-Ego/-Id, in my schematic) and your Double-Hour, which is clearly your Ego.
> 
> I'd be interested if the Double-Hours and Months *(*Ego and Super-Id, respectively*)*of IEI's match, or are governed by the same animals or animals with similar traits/elementals. Or, perhaps, some 2-combination of the Socionics Blocks are the same, meaning the other two will automatically match up as well.
> 
> It's kinda fascinating. I don't know about Western Zodiac very much. I believe my Natal Chart is a bunch of Cap, Sag and Aquarius.


I finally get to reply to this... *TT_TT* Right, first of all this post is awesome! Thank you so much for the info! How come do you know so much about Chinese astrology?? I've always had more difficulties understanding it. 

It's very weird how my yearly astrology sign, e.i. the Metal Horse, does not entirely define my 'personality'. Once I did an online calculation and it told me I was born in the hour of the Pig (lol). Anywayz, how come did that Tiger appear all of a sudden? So I'm born in the Year of the Metal Horse, the Month of the Tiger, the Hour of the Pig (10:50PM) if that's true and I also finally got the hospital name where I was from my mom. Place of birth was Sofia, Bulgaria with the hospital longitude of 42.6995456,23.286755. Is this of any help? Where do I interpret this? Haha, I'm sorry. Too many questions, but I'm excited. Definitely not familiar with the month/day/hour theory. -__- Sadly. 

So we are 3 days apart? Cool. ^_^ I'm a bit skeptical about socionics and astrology being interconnected but it will be intriguing, nonetheless. 

With regards to Western Astrology, I like this website a lot as it generates your full profile (go to Free Horoscopes>Short Horoscopes'Personal Portrait'>Guest User) and then after reading the main profile you can go and research the sign patronizing each of your 7 main planets(from the Sun to Saturn) and your Ascendant from this website and see how it aligns with you in actuality. Moreover, the signs in yours and your partner's Venus and Mars planets can define the romantic and sexual chemistry between you two. It's important to remember the elements! Water, Fire, Air and Earth. Water&Fire, Air&Earth cancel each other out. Water&Earth, Air&Fire attract each other. Water&Air, Earth&Fire are neutral and not necessarily good combos, it depends on the sun sign. I'm more than happy to help you with these. 

I also really like decans and astrological weeks. For Aquarius 11th & 14th we fall under the third decan of Aquarius which is the most romantic and people oriented one. I also find the our decan description in the spoiler below pretty funny and thrilling. As of the week, we're born in the Week of Acceptance. 


* *





Aquarius decan 3 is ruled by the Moon and Venus. It brings the confrontation of the old with the new, so this is the most revolutionary and edgy decan of Aquarius. The Sun travels through the goat, the foal, the water-bearer, the swan and the male water-snake from approximately February 9 to 18. This decan marries the swan’s unbridled imagination (and libido) with the transformative spiralling tail of the sea-goat. Saturn rules both Aquarius and Capricorn and is the last planet one can see with the naked eye, so it has no illusions and is plain speaking. This is Aquarius at its most scientific and sceptical, but at the same time is open to explore other realms, it just needs to test them out first. This testing is very marked in everything they do. Aquarian decan 3 test limits, push boundaries and most of all test peoples patience! The goats influence here is at its most capricious and devilish, mainly because of the swan’s poetic influence and the fact it is also ruled by two feminine planets. This means we have a nice balance of masculine, left brain logic and feminine right brain imagination. These are the flirty Aquarians, the ones with a “horny”sex drive and seductive pan pipes, since the sea-goat was originally the god pan. The swan is artistic, the male water-snake is sleazy and the goat loves a good romp, so Aquarius decan 3 is a bohemian hedonist and seducer. This decan works so hard, it believes it has also earned itself the right to play hard too.

Aquarian decan 3 can be skittish and playful like the foal. Some of them, despite their intelligence, can manage to come across as real airheads. I love how the now obsolete constellation of the air balloon used to be positioned here. Others are more like the “Devil-may-care” Fool in the tarot, a wondering troubadour with a dash of Peter Pan thrown in. They tend to push their luck but somehow get away with it through a blend of genuine innocence and sheer good fortune. Here we find the famous Aquarian commitment phobia. They dump you, but then want to keep their cake and eat it. So you get the line. “ We’ll still see each other, you’re my best friend!…”

*Horny Pan Pipers & Judge Mental*

Very often Aquarius decan 3 lives on a knife-edge, they are the revolutionary and activist on the frontline of change. These people are the innovators, the breakers of moulds and societies catalysts for change. A restless, experimental, inventive mind will bring success in their career, but inevitably their personal life suffers. It is very hard for these subjects to get excited about mundane, domestic matters so they are often accused of being cold and distant. In relationships they get bored very easily and need constant novelty. Some are in such a constant state of flux that it is difficult for them to put down the roots necessary for a stable homelife. They may operate better as the eternal bachelor or bachelorette or need a very open minded partner!

Even though these natives might be pretty unconventional, they do have their own moral code that they adhere to quite rigidly. Aquarius decan 3 is where the fixed sign stubbornness excels. They are very much all or nothing, they do not commit to anything easily because they know how vacillating they can be. Conversely when they do finally jump in, you can expect rock solid immovability. Be patient, it really will be worth the wait if you can stomach the manic Saturn testing. This sometimes goes as far as locking you in their lab, conduct a multitude of experiments, then running you through their study over and over again until they are satisfied with the results. When those Aquarian Peter Pans do finally grow up, the sudden change is often extreme and shocking. One day your Aquarian friend was a punky, leather-clad, chain-smoking, hard drinking reactionary the next they are a teetotal, clean-cut, respected, pillar of the community. Sometimes it can happen the other way round of course with the midlife crisis turning a“goody-two-shoes” into a debauched drop-out.

Whether they are extreme rebels or uptight conservatives Aquarius decan 3 will stay true to themselves above all else. Sometime they are purposely contrary to the mainstream because they just want to make a point about being an individual, so if everyone is wearing suits they will turn up in jeans and vice versa. They enjoy breaking the rules and toying with convention. Their purpose is to forever question and provoke the status quo. Aquarius decan 3 cannot abide sheep mentality or “Keeping up with the Jones.” That’s not to say they aren’t impressed with high status. It just has to be done their way! Aquarius decan 3 can also be a great inverted snob, so they will be impressed with niche markets, exclusive clubs, boutiques, cults, and anything cool and anti-mass market.


----------



## rieth

I'm sorry to barge back in here!

Long ago, I asked, "Is this quadra valid? Do the xSTP/xNFJ/SLI/SLE/EII/EIE types really 'belong' together? Do we really share any special affinity? And thus, is Soconics valid?" Then I went away, because I did not think anyone would actually answer. But a couple of LSIs DID answer (thanks!) and now thinking more...yes, perhaps Beta grouping may be valid...?

Although EII/EIE feel comfortable and familiar to me, I realize that I have always liked the LSI/SLE types I've met. They are 'chill', they are playful (like I am, when I know someone well). I also feel that that they don't 'judge' - I can "turn off" my people-sensor antenna which is usually gauging what the person will think of me if I say this or that ...I can relax and just say whatever. xSTPs seem to take people are they are. 

I do have one ESTP friend and although I only do about 1 in 20 of all the things she suggests that I do with her or our group of friends, she never holds it against me. I can have long discussions with her (ok, mostly me, talking) but also run around with frisbees and soccer balls. Out of our group of friends, she and I are the two that most like to "play". We also want everybody to "be one happy group"(Fe). So maybe there is something to grouping of "Beta Quadrant"...

(And sorry about previous motorcycle stereotype - just using it to exagerrate what i perceive to be a big difference between the action-oriented types and the more inward types like me -IEI!) 

OK, going to relax and just hang out now.


----------



## Sygma

Kerik_S said:


> Hey! I'm a Yang Metal Horse Acquarian, too, which means you must be born in early February 1991 like me! I'm also 4w5 heart triad, though 5w6 in the head. Also a 1 in gut, but with a 9 wing instead. And I'm demisexual as well.
> 
> [X-Files theme]


Sup horses, I'm your bestie Tiger. A fire and 7 one  let's hang out.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

RIP Don Vito, fellow IEI

RIP that Gamma bitch Ronda Rousey too.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> that *Gamma* bitch Ronda Rousey


Citation needed, son. She seems an almost stereotypical SLE, and a pretty fucking awesome person.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Citation needed, son. She seems an almost stereotypical SLE, and a pretty fucking awesome person.


What is awesome about her? She is a miserable brat and bully, who was reigning in ankle deep division, fighting against accountants and hobbyists. I honestly could beat the "fighter" she fought in her last defense just as easily. She fought somebody actually skilled for once and looked foolish.


----------



## Sygma

Heh she had good, skilled and experienced fighters in front of her more than once ... they just let her be in close distance. She's barely learning how to strike really, but her coach made her believe she's a world beater.

So she believed in her own hype ... the rest was old school fight. Grappler vs skilled striker. She desperately tried to get close and the striker played the edge, keeping distance, picking away at the pray.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

It would be nice if they added personality type to tale of the tape. Height, weight, reach, type... Maybe the UFC can partner with Celebrity Types and do that.

:untroubled:

I could see Rousey as Ti-Se/Se-Ti and have considered it. I think she is an SP. I went with SFP because she is all about being authentic and very serious. Ridiculously confrontational. Burns bridges. I associate ESTP as more businessmen, they will act like that but they use Ti to be careful not to go too far and realize how far social rules can be bent. There is a more critical evaluation of one's actions too. There is some semblance of Fe there. Some awareness. Or maybe that is Fi polr. lol. I don't know. I don't like her either way.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Sygma said:


> Heh she had good, skilled and experienced fighters in front of her more than once ... they just let her be in close distance. She's barely learning how to strike really, but her coach made her believe she's a world beater.
> 
> So she believed in her own hype ... the rest was old school fight. Grappler vs skilled striker. She desperately tried to get close and the striker played the edge, keeping distance, picking away at the pray.




I admit I was shocked Rousey lost, but she wins on pure physicality. Many women are instinctual fighters or something. Most men are too but many have been training combat sports since childhood. Few women have had the training that Rousey has. She is a true elite athlete. You can't compare her to someone like Miesha Tate who is some kind of champion wrestler. Female wrestling does not have many participants or competition, Judo does. 

The point is, Rousey knows how to actually fight. lol. The main difference between male and female fights in the UFC is gameplan. When the bell rings, the women run at each other full speed and collide in the center. Men feel each other out more. Holm fights more like men do. Like somebody who has been fighting for decades. Even Miesha Tate is trying to clinch with Rousey. It is absurd. Rousey is willing to eat punches to take you down. That is her style. That is why I thought she would never lose. Because a puncher's chance is the most people have and that is diminished in WMMA because of lack of power. You rarely see one punch knockouts at high levels in WMMA. Even Cyborg takes massive flurries to put people away. So Ronda can basically walk into anybody and take their punch. She can take a single punch from anybody. But Holm is a decorated boxer with great footwork. That Octagon is big and you cannot cut people off like you can in a ring. It is every hard to corner a person with good footwork. The bottom line is, Rousey does not have the skill to corner Holm like that. She also has no wrestling. She doesn't go for legs with takedowns. She has to clinch you. She can't shoot from far out. Judo is limiting there.


----------



## Sygma

FearAndTrembling said:


> I admit I was shocked Rousey lost, but she wins on pure physicality. Many women are instinctual fighters or something. Most men are too but many have been training combat sports since childhood. Few women have had the training that Rousey has. She is a true elite athlete. You can't compare her to someone like Miesha Tate who is some kind of champion wrestler. Female wrestling does not have many participants or competition, Judo does.
> 
> The point is, Rousey knows how to actually fight. lol. The main difference between male and female fights in the UFC is gameplan. When the bell rings, the women run at each other full speed and collide in the center. Men feel each other out more. Holm fights more like men do. Like somebody who has been fighting for decades. Even Miesha Tate is trying to clinch with Rousey. It is absurd. Rousey is willing to eat punches to take you down. That is her style. That is why I thought she would never lose. Because a puncher's chance is the most people have and that is diminished in WMMA because of lack of power. You rarely see one punch knockouts at high levels in WMMA. Even Cyborg takes massive flurries to put people away. So Ronda can basically walk into anybody and take their punch. She can take a single punch from anybody. But Holm is a decorated boxer with great footwork. That Octagon is big and you cannot cut people off like you can in a ring. It is every hard to corner a person with good footwork. The bottom line is, Rousey does not have the skill to corner Holm like that. She also has no wrestling. She doesn't go for legs with takedowns. She has to clinch you. She can't shoot from far out. Judo is limiting there.


Exactly, it was a nightmare situation for her, being a grappler. She really have a shitty coach tho, I wonder what she'd be able to do with a truly good one instead


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Sygma said:


> Exactly, it was a nightmare situation for her, being a grappler. She really have a shitty coach tho, I wonder what she'd be able to do with a truly good one instead


I said to somebody it was like the worst coaching vs the best coaching in the sport. lol. Which it pretty much was. Rousey's gameplan is basically: impose your will on the person and finish them. Which pretty much worked up till that point. That Correia fight still makes me lol. That fight was a joke. There was no skill involved. It was just an ass whooping. You could take Ronda and Correia at ten years old, have them each know nothing about fighting, and have them fight, and that same thing happens. Ronda just walks over and wallops her. lol. There was no Judo, no boxing. That is how that fight goes every time. UFC is hilarious.


----------



## Kerik_S

AngrySpirit said:


> Yeah, and INF will easily mistype as type 4 as well, for example. 4s are easily described as "intuitive" "emotional" and "artistic", so INFs (And even NF in general I guess) can easily identify to it. As you said 2s have also this image description, "helpful" "empathetic" "people oriented", and Fe-dom can fit with that.
> 
> Enneagram is also a vast and deep theory, and it requires a lot of time too. Those basic lines and stereotypes are quite frequent, because people try to put simple words on complex systems and concepts.
> 
> I'm less informed about 2s, but 4s have mainly this inabilty to perceive the Holy Origin, and how everything in the universe is connected to the same origin. As we can see, it's very different from being an ethical intuitive, because it is just not linked to cognition.
> 
> I'm also curious about stats or something that will point out some common combinations. But that seems very hard because 1) we need to collect information from a very various and wide range of people, and 2) most people aren't correctly typed, and thus will spoil the accuracy of the information.


Yeah, esoteric intuitive is more of a “just-_Ni_” thing. I'm gnostic, and I don't have trouble with Holy Origin inasmuch as my Ni can make up for it with elaborate thought-schemas regarding syncretism (cross-spirituality, cross-comparative religion) and interconnectedness. I will say that I do identify with being a (_weak_) 4-fix because I believe I wouldn't bother with gnosticism if I weren't 4-fix—I'd have likely just stuck with agnosticism and felt connected without having to conceptualize and experience.


----------



## Kerik_S

AngrySpirit said:


> I'm also curious about stats or something that will point out some common combinations. But that seems very hard because 1) we need to collect information from a very various and wide range of people, and 2) most people aren't correctly typed, and thus will spoil the accuracy of the information.


I remember an MBTI<—>Ennea thread *(*yea, I know it's MBTI, so more confounding variables, but let's just say I see no problem with people like me who type INFJ MBTI _and_ IEI Socionics*)* that was very extensive and had a bunch of charts compiled not only from data on here at-face-value, but also adjusted for the rates of mistyping (which were extrapolated from self-reports somehow, and measured against real-life representation).

I should really find that and link it *[brb]*



Dalton said:


> The eighth (which is the last) table shows the difference of the prediction from the actual. *INTP 5s are 800 more than predicted, INFP 4s 733 more, and INTJ 4s 280 less. There is a positive skew, so we can say that certain type combinations are more typical, instead of saying that certain combinations are especially odd.* However, it is very likely that these are just the most common mistypes. The top and bottom 1% are outlined with red. Since I have personal experience being mistyped as INTP 5 when I'm actually ENTJ 1, I recommend that reconsider your type if it is outside of the predicted 98%, merely for the sake of statistical oddity.


When I tested 5w4 despite identifying more as 6w5 (and thinking the 4w5-fix was just influencing my answers a bit), I referenced this chart to see if the “statistical oddity” of a 5w4 INFJ was common; and, apparently, not only was it low in the 15% but the 5-wingless was in the negative 200s, while 6w5 was pretty squarely common.

idk, it just feels better knowing that what I type _myself as_ is more common, since INFJs often get crap for “trying to be special snowflakes”.

Heck, wing-specific, 4w5 as I originally thought I was (and thought was sufficiently common to undermine any “special snowflake” accusations) is actually outside the 98%, and 6w5 is actually _more likely to be accurate_ and common IRL.

That gives me strange comfort.

If I were truly 4w5-core (or even 5w4 to some extent) that would _not be comforting_.

However, even though an 8-fix in general might be less common and even less _likely_ than a 9-fix INFJ, 8w9 is almost square with 9w8 as far as this table I trust goes, so I was fine adjusting the 9w8-fix test to an 8w9. Just to emphasize darkness/edginess and assertiveness over compliance and “harmony”—if you've seen my posts in this thread, I'm a little more on the _assert_’y side than the _give-a-rat's-ass_’y side.
@AngrySpirit , take a closer look at that thread! (by clicking the fast-forward







button next to Dalton).


----------



## Kerik_S

Dalton's whole post there is golden. I'd be interested to see a set of tables like that, with MBTI replaced with the Socionics “analogues”.


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Dalton's whole post there is golden. I'd be interested to see a set of tables like that, with MBTI replaced with the Socionics “analogues”.


I began filling one out but I gave up after a while, mostly because there's no way to really definitely say that that person is X enneagram type without knowing them intimately. I began doing a spreadsheet based on PerC members but it's more like an indication rather than an absolute rule; nevermind that there's not sufficient data to really tell how accurate how any of this is in the first place. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y6zjuM2dmyrskRkpm93DtVBtt_ou1l76W6tkR8CMaL8/edit


----------



## Kerik_S

Lunatics said:


> Place of birth was Sofia, Bulgaria with the hospital longitude of 42.6995456,23.286755. Is this of any help? Where do I interpret this? Haha, I'm sorry. Too many questions, but I'm excited. Definitely not familiar with the month/day/hour theory. -__- Sadly.


Thursday, February the 14th, 1991 at 10:50pm Eastern European (Standard) Time (UTC/GMT +2 hours):
[HR][/HR]
YEAR ANIMAL: Family background/Presentation in high-self-monitors:
Jan 27, 1990 - Feb 14, 1991 (Year of “Geng-wǔ”)
GENG-Wǔ = “Metal-Horse”
[HR][/HR]
--------------------
YANG METAL (Metal = “Geng”)
Yang = West
––––––––––––
Metal‡ = Autumn•, Venus†, White Tiger as guardian-beast
• Autumn = Silver, gold
† Venus = symbolic death, rise of the evening star
‡ Metal = likened to Air in western thought
--------------------
Conquers:　Wood, likended to Ether/Void in western thought
Conquered by:　Fire
--------------------
METAL: Determined, Ambitious, Philosophical, Self-reliant, Influential
--------------------
––––––––––––
HORSE = South (Horse = “Wǔ”)
South = Fire
––––––––––––
Fire‡ = Summer•, Mars†, Vermillion Bird as guardian-beast
• Summer = good fortune, joy
† Mars = grain ripening, farmwork
‡ Fire = symbolic of the summer solstice
--------------------
FIRE: Dynamic, Passionate, Social, Intuitive, Sensitive
HORSE: Energetic, warm, intelligent, articulate, jovial, charismatic, kind, stubborn

　
[HR][/HR]
MONTH ANIMAL: Parents/childhood, source of motivations
February of Geng-wǔ (Month of “Wu-yin”)
WU-YIN = “Earth-Tiger”
[HR][/HR]
--------------------
TIGER = East (Tiger = “In”)
OF Geng-wǔ = Earth *(*1990—Early-’91*)*
––––––––––––
Earth‡ = Interseasonal transitions•, Saturn†, Yellow Dragon as gaurdian Beast
• In-between = birth and growth, fidelity
† Saturn = symbolic of rebirth
‡ Earth = symbolic of centrality and a return to source
--------------------
Conquers:　Metal, likended to Air in western thought
Conquered by:　Wood, likened to Ether/Void in western thought
--------------------
EARTH: Grounded, Practical, Unifying, Empathic, Patient
--------------------
––––––––––––
TIGER = East(-northeast) ENE
East = Wood
––––––––––––
Wood‡ = Spring•, Jupiter†, Azure Dragon as guardian-beast
• Spring = healing
† Jupiter = symbolic of wind in the trees
‡ Wood = likened to Ether/Void in western thought
--------------------
Conquers:　Earth
Conquered by:　Metal (‘Air’, roughly)
--------------------
WOOD: Flexible, Idealistic, Outgoing, Cooperative, Altruistic
TIGER: Tolerant, trustworthy, brave, articulate, sympathetic, protective, rebellious
--------------------

　
[HR][/HR]
DAY ANIMAL: Adulthood, self-cultivation
Thursday of Wu-yin, Geng-wǔ (Day of “Geng-xu”)
GENG-XU = “Earth-Dog”
[HR][/HR]
--------------------
Dog = West (Dog = “Xu”)
OF Wu-yin Geng-wǔ = Earth *(*Feb 4th through Mar 5th*)*
––––––––––––
Earth‡ = Interseasonal transitions•, Saturn†, Yellow Dragon as gaurdian Beast
• In-between = birth and growth, fidelity
† Saturn = symbolic of rebirth
‡ Earth = symbolic of centrality and a return to source
--------------------
Conquers:　Metal, likended to Air in western thought
Conquered by:　Wood, likened to Ether/Void in western thought
--------------------
EARTH: Grounded, Practical, Unifying, Empathic, Patient
--------------------
––––––––––––
DOG = West(-northwest) WNW
West = Metal
––––––––––––
Metal‡ = Autumn•, Venus†, White Tiger as guardian-beast
• Autumn = Silver, gold
† Venus = symbolic death, rise of the evening star
‡ Metal = likened to Air in western thought
--------------------
Conquers:　Wood, likended to Ether/Void in western thought
Conquered by:　Fire
--------------------
METAL: Determined, Ambitious, Philosophical, Self-reliant, Influential
DOG: Valiant, loyal, responsible, clever, courageous, affectionate, sensitive, emotional
--------------------

　
[HR][/HR]
DOUBLE-HOUR ANIMAL: Deconditioned, Authentic-self
10:09pm True Solar Time (10:50pm Eastern European Time)
Hour of the Fire Pig (“Ding-Hai”, 9:00pm–10:59pm)
DING-HAI = “Fire-Pig”
[HR][/HR]
--------------------
Pig = South (Pig = “Hai”)
OF Geng-xu Wu-yin Geng-wǔ = Fire *(*Feb 14th, 1991*)*
––––––––––––
Fire‡ = Summer•, Mars†, Vermillion Bird as guardian-beast
• Summer = good fortune, joy
† Mars = grain ripening, farmwork
‡ Fire = symbolic of the summer solstice
--------------------
FIRE: Dynamic, Passionate, Social, Intuitive, Sensitive
--------------------
––––––––––––
PIG = North(-east) NE
North = Water
––––––––––––
Water‡ = Winter•, Mercury†, Black Tortoise as guardian-beast
• Winter = Wisdom
† Mercury = symbolic of introspection and moving inward
‡ Water = symbolic of fluidity
-------------------- 
Conquers:　Fire
Conquered by:　Earth
--------------------
WATER: Fluid, Conservational, Opportunistic, Resourceful, Dependable
PIG: Warm-hearted, good-tempered, loyal, honest, gentle, naive, lethargic
--------------------

[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]
All I can gather is that you may have a deep-rooted belief that you're expected to be self-reliant, expect people to be stubborn and that you may have to do that to in order to get by;

　
that your motivations (month) as to how you'd like to integrate into society is to stick to your guns, even to the point of rebelling against the same society you wish to have sympathy for and wish to be a part of, balancing your own ideals with your concern for helping others, and finding a way to cooperate without jeopardizing your integrity, but still maintaining that you can bend without breaking.

　
The "day animal" isn't referenced very much anymore, but it exists (Chinese associate the 12 animals with a lot of things, even more than dates and such). And I suppose it's the mediator that allows you to cultivate yourself as _"Lunatics"_ in the world without being stuck on being who you know _Lunatics_ actually is - we need to compromise for our aspirations; our explicit self-concept doesn't always align with our implicit gut feelings and construction of Me-As-A-Person-Without-Social-Constraints. Your philosophical/sensitive side (which is a yang sign, Metal associated with your day Animal, Dog) lends itself to this deconstruction of role vs. self-sovereignty.

　
It might make sense for you, if you find that you turn to your philosophical point (via Dog, day animal) to enter a space where you touch base with the determination you've cultivated - setting the intention to engender within yourself ambition, self-reliance, courage, and social sensitivity (all metal'ly Dog stuff);

　
your hour animal, making this determination a bit tricky to carry-out with its gentleness (and naive idealism) and inner honesty (Pig-like in that you may refuse to redirect your intentions in life without first deeply philosophizing and discerning where your ambitions come from: Is it in line with your authentic self, or are you being swayed by externals?, and should you back off despite your convictions in order to remain loyal to those you care about? Will changing course hurt others? so you may vacillate);

Perhaps you are stuck between what you've come to believe you want, and the doubt that it's the right thing to do, worried about whether sticking to your guns will cause discord (maybe, trouble speaking up? idk i'm going blind here) - maybe feeling like you may be walking the tightrope between betraying yourself for the sake of others and vice-versa;

　
Umm. Yeah, when you need to assess how to integrate into society without being in disharmony with others, Dog-ness may come in handy. And when you face the dissonance of how you should follow your ambitions when it seems like that may compromise your social sphere, you may need the wisdom and fluidity of your Water (Pig) side, and you gather yourself, pool yourself in introspection - and connect to what you know is true for you;


　
(Water introspection, Pig sensitivity and loyalty, Dog honesty and ethics, Earth groundedness and empathy, Tiger rebellion tempered with sympathy and tolerance, Fire passion and social intuition)

[in a world you believe on some subconscious level either requires that you cultivate Metal self-reliance and influence, and Horse charisma and positivity??]


----------



## Kerik_S

rieth said:


> Long ago, I asked, "Is this quadra valid? Do the xSTP/xNFJ/SLI/SLE/EII/EIE types really 'belong' together? Do we really share any special affinity? And thus, is Soconics valid?" Then I went away, because I did not think anyone would actually answer. But a couple of LSIs DID answer (thanks!) and now thinking more...yes, perhaps Beta grouping may be valid...?


Quadras are grouped by valued functions:

*NOTE:* _In Socionics, introverts' J and P are switched, because Socionics groups us into rationals and irrationals based on the Leading information element. Extroverts in MBTI were already grouped into rationals and irrationals using J and P, respectively, and introverts weren't (they were grouped into rational strongest-extroverted "function").

That's why you have the S/L and E/I swapped into the wrong part of your labels in the introverts (IEI and LSI as per your quote's "EII" and "SLI")._


In MBTI, this would be the "non-shadow" functions (Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, Inferior), which you could link to the Socionics functions Leading, Creative, Mobilizing, and Suggestive (1, 2, 6, 5)... if you equate "discursive" (MBTI dom-aux-tert-inferior) with "valued" (Socionics 1-2-6-5), "conscious"/"unconscious" (dom+aux/ tert-inf) with "mental"/"vital" (1+2/ 6+5), and "permanent"/"variable" (dom+tert/ aux+inf) with "inert"/"contact" (1+6/ 2+5).

That being said, Socionics valued functions (Leading, Creative, Mobilizing, Suggestive) are roughly equivalent to MBTI's "function stack" (Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, Inferior), so each quadra has the same information elements in their "stack" but in a different order.

Beta Quadra is _*all*_ Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se information elements, just placed in different functions in the Ego and Super-Id blocks. Our Ni-Fe-Ti-Se is 1-2-6-5 *(*IEI*).* While *EIE*'s _placement relative to ours_ is _*2-1-5-6*_ Fe-Ni-Se-Ti (Ego functions reversed, Super-id functions reversed). *SLE*'s _is *5-6-2-1*_ Se-Ti-Fe-Ni (both reversed, and then swapped between Ego and Super-id). And *LSI*'s _is *6-5-1-2*_ Ti-Se-Ni-Fe (not reversed, but still swapped between Ego and Super-id).

All Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, but in each of us they metabolize information differently depending on which function they operate within in Model A:
1–Leading	–Mental	-(Accepting + Inert)	---Strong	(Valued , Evaluatory)	Bold -----(Internal) 
2–Creative	–Mental	(Producing + Contact)	Strong	(Valued , Situational)	Cautious (Persona)
6–Mobilizing	–Vital	-(Producing + Inert)	---Weak	--(Valued , Situational)	Bold -----(Persona)
5–Suggestive	–Vital	(Accepting + Contact)	Weak	--(Valued , Evaluatory)	Cautious (Internal)


----------



## Valtire

Entropic said:


> I began filling one out but I gave up after a while, mostly because there's no way to really definitely say that that person is X enneagram type without knowing them intimately. I began doing a spreadsheet based on PerC members but it's more like an indication rather than an absolute rule; nevermind that there's not sufficient data to really tell how accurate how any of this is in the first place.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y6zjuM2dmyrskRkpm93DtVBtt_ou1l76W6tkR8CMaL8/edit


Oh wow. There is a member on there who I only remember because he's exceedingly typist against sensers, and you have him typed as a senser lol.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> I began filling one out but I gave up after a while, mostly because there's no way to really definitely say that that person is X enneagram type without knowing them intimately. I began doing a spreadsheet based on PerC members but it's more like an indication rather than an absolute rule; nevermind that there's not sufficient data to really tell how accurate how any of this is in the first place.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y6zjuM2dmyrskRkpm93DtVBtt_ou1l76W6tkR8CMaL8/edit


I'm just interested in it as an _indication_ of your thought process. I also am waiting for Beta-Hangouters that are on there to chime and be liek "YOU THINK I'M _WHAT??_" [rubs hands together maniacally]


----------



## Kerik_S

Fried Eggz said:


> Oh wow. There is a member on there who I only remember because he's exceedingly typist against sensers, and you have him typed as a senser lol.


That's friggin' hilarious


----------



## Lunatics

Kerik_S said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday, February the 14th, 1991 at 10:50pm Eastern European (Standard) Time (UTC/GMT +2 hours):
> [HR][/HR]
> YEAR ANIMAL: Family background/Presentation in high-self-monitors:
> Jan 27, 1990 - Feb 14, 1991 (Year of “Geng-wǔ”)
> GENG-Wǔ = “Metal-Horse”
> [HR][/HR]
> --------------------
> YANG METAL (Metal = “Geng”)
> Yang = West
> ––––––––––––
> Metal‡ = Autumn•, Venus†, White Tiger as guardian-beast
> • Autumn = Silver, gold
> † Venus = symbolic death, rise of the evening star
> ‡ Metal = likened to Air in western thought
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Wood, likended to Ether/Void in western thought
> Conquered by:　Fire
> --------------------
> METAL: Determined, Ambitious, Philosophical, Self-reliant, Influential
> --------------------
> ––––––––––––
> HORSE = South (Horse = “Wǔ”)
> South = Fire
> ––––––––––––
> Fire‡ = Summer•, Mars†, Vermillion Bird as guardian-beast
> • Summer = good fortune, joy
> † Mars = grain ripening, farmwork
> ‡ Fire = symbolic of the summer solstice
> --------------------
> FIRE: Dynamic, Passionate, Social, Intuitive, Sensitive
> HORSE: Energetic, warm, intelligent, articulate, jovial, charismatic, kind, stubborn
> 
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> MONTH ANIMAL: Parents/childhood, source of motivations
> February of Geng-wǔ (Month of “Wu-yin”)
> WU-YIN = “Earth-Tiger”
> [HR][/HR]
> --------------------
> TIGER = East (Tiger = “In”)
> OF Geng-wǔ = Earth *(*1990—Early-’91*)*
> ––––––––––––
> Earth‡ = Interseasonal transitions•, Saturn†, Yellow Dragon as gaurdian Beast
> • In-between = birth and growth, fidelity
> † Saturn = symbolic of rebirth
> ‡ Earth = symbolic of centrality and a return to source
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Metal, likended to Air in western thought
> Conquered by:　Wood, likened to Ether/Void in western thought
> --------------------
> EARTH: Grounded, Practical, Unifying, Empathic, Patient
> --------------------
> ––––––––––––
> TIGER = East(-northeast) ENE
> East = Wood
> ––––––––––––
> Wood‡ = Spring•, Jupiter†, Azure Dragon as guardian-beast
> • Spring = healing
> † Jupiter = symbolic of wind in the trees
> ‡ Wood = likened to Ether/Void in western thought
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Earth
> Conquered by:　Metal (‘Air’, roughly)
> --------------------
> WOOD: Flexible, Idealistic, Outgoing, Cooperative, Altruistic
> TIGER: Tolerant, trustworthy, brave, articulate, sympathetic, protective, rebellious
> --------------------
> 
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> DAY ANIMAL: Adulthood, self-cultivation
> Thursday of Wu-yin, Geng-wǔ (Day of “Geng-xu”)
> GENG-XU = “Earth-Dog”
> [HR][/HR]
> --------------------
> Dog = West (Dog = “Xu”)
> OF Wu-yin Geng-wǔ = Earth *(*Feb 4th through Mar 5th*)*
> ––––––––––––
> Earth‡ = Interseasonal transitions•, Saturn†, Yellow Dragon as gaurdian Beast
> • In-between = birth and growth, fidelity
> † Saturn = symbolic of rebirth
> ‡ Earth = symbolic of centrality and a return to source
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Metal, likended to Air in western thought
> Conquered by:　Wood, likened to Ether/Void in western thought
> --------------------
> EARTH: Grounded, Practical, Unifying, Empathic, Patient
> --------------------
> ––––––––––––
> DOG = West(-northwest) WNW
> West = Metal
> ––––––––––––
> Metal‡ = Autumn•, Venus†, White Tiger as guardian-beast
> • Autumn = Silver, gold
> † Venus = symbolic death, rise of the evening star
> ‡ Metal = likened to Air in western thought
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Wood, likended to Ether/Void in western thought
> Conquered by:　Fire
> --------------------
> METAL: Determined, Ambitious, Philosophical, Self-reliant, Influential
> DOG: Valiant, loyal, responsible, clever, courageous, affectionate, sensitive, emotional
> --------------------
> 
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> DOUBLE-HOUR ANIMAL: Deconditioned, Authentic-self
> 10:09pm True Solar Time (10:50pm Eastern European Time)
> Hour of the Fire Pig (“Ding-Hai”, 9:00pm–10:59pm)
> DING-HAI = “Fire-Pig”
> [HR][/HR]
> --------------------
> Pig = South (Pig = “Hai”)
> OF Geng-xu Wu-yin Geng-wǔ = Fire *(*Feb 14th, 1991*)*
> ––––––––––––
> Fire‡ = Summer•, Mars†, Vermillion Bird as guardian-beast
> • Summer = good fortune, joy
> † Mars = grain ripening, farmwork
> ‡ Fire = symbolic of the summer solstice
> --------------------
> FIRE: Dynamic, Passionate, Social, Intuitive, Sensitive
> --------------------
> ––––––––––––
> PIG = North(-east) NE
> North = Water
> ––––––––––––
> Water‡ = Winter•, Mercury†, Black Tortoise as guardian-beast
> • Winter = Wisdom
> † Mercury = symbolic of introspection and moving inward
> ‡ Water = symbolic of fluidity
> --------------------
> Conquers:　Fire
> Conquered by:　Earth
> --------------------
> WATER: Fluid, Conservational, Opportunistic, Resourceful, Dependable
> PIG: Warm-hearted, good-tempered, loyal, honest, gentle, naive, lethargic
> --------------------
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> [HR][/HR]
> All I can gather is that you may have a deep-rooted belief that you're expected to be self-reliant, expect people to be stubborn and that you may have to do that to in order to get by;
> 
> 
> that your motivations (month) as to how you'd like to integrate into society is to stick to your guns, even to the point of rebelling against the same society you wish to have sympathy for and wish to be a part of, balancing your own ideals with your concern for helping others, and finding a way to cooperate without jeopardizing your integrity, but still maintaining that you can bend without breaking.
> 
> 
> The "day animal" isn't referenced very much anymore, but it exists (Chinese associate the 12 animals with a lot of things, even more than dates and such). And I suppose it's the mediator that allows you to cultivate yourself as _"Lunatics"_ in the world without being stuck on being who you know _Lunatics_ actually is - we need to compromise for our aspirations; our explicit self-concept doesn't always align with our implicit gut feelings and construction of Me-As-A-Person-Without-Social-Constraints. Your philosophical/sensitive side (which is a yang sign, Metal associated with your day Animal, Dog) lends itself to this deconstruction of role vs. self-sovereignty.
> 
> 
> It might make sense for you, if you find that you turn to your philosophical point (via Dog, day animal) to enter a space where you touch base with the determination you've cultivated - setting the intention to engender within yourself ambition, self-reliance, courage, and social sensitivity (all metal'ly Dog stuff);
> 
> 
> your hour animal, making this determination a bit tricky to carry-out with its gentleness (and naive idealism) and inner honesty (Pig-like in that you may refuse to redirect your intentions in life without first deeply philosophizing and discerning where your ambitions come from: Is it in line with your authentic self, or are you being swayed by externals?, and should you back off despite your convictions in order to remain loyal to those you care about? Will changing course hurt others? so you may vacillate);
> 
> Perhaps you are stuck between what you've come to believe you want, and the doubt that it's the right thing to do, worried about whether sticking to your guns will cause discord (maybe, trouble speaking up? idk i'm going blind here) - maybe feeling like you may be walking the tightrope between betraying yourself for the sake of others and vice-versa;
> 
> 
> Umm. Yeah, when you need to assess how to integrate into society without being in disharmony with others, Dog-ness may come in handy. And when you face the dissonance of how you should follow your ambitions when it seems like that may compromise your social sphere, you may need the wisdom and fluidity of your Water (Pig) side, and you gather yourself, pool yourself in introspection - and connect to what you know is true for you;
> 
> 
> 
> (Water introspection, Pig sensitivity and loyalty, Dog honesty and ethics, Earth groundedness and empathy, Tiger rebellion tempered with sympathy and tolerance, Fire passion and social intuition)
> 
> [in a world you believe on some subconscious level either requires that you cultivate Metal self-reliance and influence, and Horse charisma and positivity??]


OMG!! So I'm practically this? DX


* *
















And I aim to be a horse?? So what is my leading element then? Water? Haha, how interesting. Hey, you can make money out of this! xD

Right, my animals are Horse, Tiger, Dog and then all of a sudden a Pig ._. Explains a lot... I knew there's something within myself that always sabotages me and that's my piglet-self indeed. *sigh* Thank you so much for all of this information, Kerik!! ^_^ Saving this on my laptop.

Did you find any connection to socionics at all?

Also have you heard of day astrology and primal astrology??


----------



## Kerik_S

Lunatics said:


> Did you find any connection to socionics at all?


Other than me connecting each animal to the Block pairs:
Year = Super-ego (PoLR, Role) Si, Te
Month = Id (Demonstrative, Observing) Fi, Ne
Day = Ego (Leading, Creative) Ni, Fe
Hour = Super-id (Mobilizing, Suggestive) Ti, Se

*In both our cases, our subdued (under-valued) elements take on the same flavors...*
[HR][/HR]
Super-ego: Si + Te
*(*_Horse_-like information aspects of any kind _Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te, Si, Se_ are coded into our unvalued, conscious information _elements_* Si+Te)*
[HR][/HR]
Id: Fi + Ne *(*_Tiger_-like IAs coded into our unvalued, _unconscious_ IEs*)*

　
*My valued IEs process Goat and Ox flavors of IA's...*
*Your valued IEs take on the Dog and Pig flavors of IA's...*
[HR][/HR]
My Ego: Ni-Fe *(*_Goat_ IAs processed by valued, _conscious_ IE's*)*
My Super-id: Ti-Se *(*_Ox_ IAs processed by valued, _unconscious_ IE's*)*
[HR][/HR]
Your Ego: Ni-Fe *(*_Dog_ IAs processed by valued, _conscious_ IE's*)*
Your Super-id: Ti-Se *(*_Pig_ IAs processed by valued, _unconscious_ IE's*)*
[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]
Goat Ego (my _Ni-Fe_ "fixates" on info that cultivates: _compassion, diplomacy, a contemplative nature, and hyper-sensitivity_)
Dog Ego (your _Ni-Fe_ fixates on info that cultivates: _courage, loyalty, an affectionate yet responsible nature, and emotional sensitivity_)
[HR][/HR]
Ox Super-id (my _Ti-Se_ fixates on info that cultivates: _faith, receptivity, self-assertion, and a will to build autonomous ethics_)
Pig Super-id (your _Ti-Se_ fixates on info that cultivates: _gentleness, honesty, emotional-temperance, and a will to dismantle your naïveté_)
[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]

　



Lunatics said:


> Also have you heard of day astrology and primal astrology??


Nope, I don't understand anything other than Chinese.


----------



## Serpent

Entropic said:


> I began filling one out but I gave up after a while, mostly because there's no way to really definitely say that that person is X enneagram type without knowing them intimately. I began doing a spreadsheet based on PerC members but it's more like an indication rather than an absolute rule; nevermind that there's not sufficient data to really tell how accurate how any of this is in the first place.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y6zjuM2dmyrskRkpm93DtVBtt_ou1l76W6tkR8CMaL8/edit


Theon Greyjoy as an ENTJ is interesting. What's your reasoning behind that?


----------



## Entropic

Quentyn said:


> Theon Greyjoy as an ENTJ is interesting. What's your reasoning behind that?


I don't remember, lol. I struggled a lot with typing Theon so idk why he's even enlisted as an ENTJ there.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley

Entropic said:


> I began filling one out but I gave up after a while, mostly because there's no way to really definitely say that that person is X enneagram type without knowing them intimately. I began doing a spreadsheet based on PerC members but it's more like an indication rather than an absolute rule; nevermind that there's not sufficient data to really tell how accurate how any of this is in the first place.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y6zjuM2dmyrskRkpm93DtVBtt_ou1l76W6tkR8CMaL8/edit


Updated. I haven't been calling myself An Obese Skeleton since the best part of a year now.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley

On that note, the more I've observed my actions, the more Enneagram 5 has started making sense to me. My actions are little more than perpetual thought in most cases. And the 8 and 7 integrations fit pretty well; My strong desire to create presence; and seeing that presence as a reality while I'm at my best seems exactly like integration towards type 8. At my worst, I'm basically a perpetual escapist: a negative manifestation of type 7.


----------



## Kerik_S

*Me dancing toe-to-toe with unconscious Fi*

I remembered this thread when I had a Fi-reckoning earlier tonight after a fall-out with a friend who, as of four hours ago, no longer sees himself as a friend. Someone insisted that I'm capable of showing Fi like an EII, and this is a good example of how much using Fi feels like pulling teeth if I try and use it * consciously*.

I'm assuming the link will show people who confuse _consciously- referenced Fi_ with actual Ego Fi. Mine is an example of Fi referenced through Ni+Fe (and Si + Ne to some degree, I think).

I would also suggest applying Reinin dichotomies, when inferenced, from the passage in the link, to see how many modes of IEI expression are accessed and prominent. I've yet to do so myself, but I'd be interested to see if _what was essentially an exercise of breaking-type_ was still phrased in a Beta manner, or if it shifted to Delta (Fi, some Ne, Si, and fighting back some 1D Te...?)

Difficult use of Fe+Fi: when "It's Nobody's Fault"


----------



## Kerik_S

Kerik_S said:


> I remembered this thread when I had a Fi-reckoning earlier tonight after a fall-out with a friend who, as of four hours ago, no longer sees himself as a friend. Someone insisted that I'm capable of showing Fi like an EII, and this is a good example of how much using Fi feels like pulling teeth if I try and use it * consciously*.
> 
> I'm assuming the link will show people who confuse _consciously- referenced Fi_ with actual Ego Fi. Mine is an example of Fi referenced through Ni+Fe (and Si + Ne to some degree, I think).
> 
> I would also suggest applying Reinin dichotomies, when inferenced, from the passage in the link, to see how many modes of IEI expression are accessed and prominent. I've yet to do so myself, but I'd be interested to see if _what was essentially an exercise of breaking-type_ was still phrased in a Beta manner, or if it shifted to Delta (Fi, some Ne, Si, and fighting back some 1D Te...?)
> 
> Difficult use of Fe+Fi: when "It's Nobody's Fault"


Also, bc I trust the minds who frequent this hangout for this:

Having trouble assessing whether I'm Enneatype 6 with a 9 fix, or 9 and 6 fix. Maybe reading something I typed when actively skirting the line between fear and orderly reason will be good for possibly probing that conundrum


----------



## Valtire

Kerik_S said:


> Also, bc I trust the minds who frequent this hangout for this:
> 
> Having trouble assessing whether I'm Enneatype 6 with a 9 fix, or 9 and 6 fix. Maybe reading something I typed when actively skirting the line between fear and orderly reason will be good for possibly probing that conundrum


I don't know much about enneagram. Core fears and motivations are about as far as I go.


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Also, bc I trust the minds who frequent this hangout for this:
> 
> Having trouble assessing whether I'm Enneatype 6 with a 9 fix, or 9 and 6 fix. Maybe reading something I typed when actively skirting the line between fear and orderly reason will be good for possibly probing that conundrum


I see you as neither and I'd look into type 1 or even 8 for you tbh. 7 could work as well.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> I see you as neither and I'd look into type 1 or even 8 for you tbh. 7 could work as well.


*If going by the descriptions by themselves:*
*2)* too other-involved, don't derive my sense-of-self from my image as a helpful person
*3)* too success-driven, don't derive my sense-of-self from my image as a successful person
*4)* too individuality-driven; self-involvement is there but not what I derive my confidence from

*5)* too competence-driven; I want to be certain of who I am and how I deal with my psyche, but the actual thought of screwing up doesn't faze me at all
*6)* perhaps too doubt-driven; like I said, I want to be certain, but I'm more interested in whether or not I'm _trying my best_ to continue letting my growth unfold, not whether or not I actually get to that place of security
*7)* too distraction-driven; the concept of distractions goes against everything I stand for, but is also something I know I need to allow myself more of

*8)* perhaps too action-oriented; I see myself as always plowing-through and taking action because I have to (because I know I've been far from happy, and "doing something about it" seemed like it was a no-brainer), not because I always think action is necessary
*9)* perhaps too harmony-oriented; I will plow through, but I'm always limiting myself based on the in-the-moment instance of feeling like I just _know_ it will create discord... I've been getting better at pushing past that and doing what I know needs to be done
*1)* too perfectionism-driven; I don't care what it looks like to the outside world, and while I do know that (regardless of value-judgments) people will still react and perhaps make a fuss (and often have been hindered by trying to prevent that reaction), I always have done what I've needed to for myself.

　
I'm sure about the 4w5, and depending on how individualism-myopic the questionnaires are, I've even typed as such all-around. I can't see 5 or 7, so I default to six with a five wing because I do know I'm a thinker but am not interested in _exactitude of thought_ like a Five-core or Five-fix.

It's the gut type that gets me. Definitely not 1, but 9w8 and 8w9 as a fix are practically perfect fits for that fix (unless it _is_ core) because, out of all the types at face value alone, 1 (and 2 and 3) and 7 are the absolute least like me, without any doubt, even to the point where having them as a wing doesn't make sense. Just going by what I'm _not_, 4 is a fix, 3 is not its wing; 6 is a fix or core, 7 is not its wing; 9 or 8 are the gut fix and possibly Enneatype core, and must have the other as their wing because 7 or 1 is just not it.

Out of all the triads, 9w8/8w9 is the one that has so many facets in common, that I can't eliminate one or the other.

I've always been big on the "self-work" thing, so Enneatype is actually more important to me than any other typological system. I'm interested to see, now that I'm basically taking a break and resting on the laurels of my previous self-cultivation in my magnum opus, I'd like to see if Enneagram can give me any derivative insight on how far I may have to go from here.

I don't need to know that I'm doing anything *[2]* for others' sake (I do it for others in a secondary sense: I'm not going to be much to the world unless I'm integrated internally),
*[3]* for _appearing successful_ (I'd rather simply know I'm doing what I can in context of where I know I'm at),
*[4]* for the _sake of_ being an individual (I want to individuated in the Jungian sense, but I don't care if that manifests as looking totally basic and boring),
*[5]* for the sake of correctness or adhering to synthesized knowledge (I'd rather be doing the right thing, subjectively for me, then objectively),
*[6]* for the sake of being courageous (I know that what I've had to do _required courage_, but I don't feel any angst if I'm not constantly confronting some mind-fucky "self-truth"),
*[7]* for the sake of being involved and engaged (I'd rather face things head-on and embody my life)
*[8]* for the sake of simply doing something (I'd rather act with full conviction when necessary, not just to act)
*[9]* ... umm... I do take other people's reactions into account, but only in the sense that "Action X may result in Reaction A from Person N, and that may result in my losing access to what I need, but I can ultimately simply decide to take Action X in a different situation that doesn't involve Person N to avoid such a loss;
*[1]* for the sake of some nebulous concept such as "perfection" or "ideal state"

If going by identity, I'm a very "gutsy" person, and I act decisively no matter how much stress I'm under. I don't give a crap about image, and I simply enjoy thinking while I don't necessarily identify with it.

I took the test with the cards (the paid test) and got typed as 9, but that didn't indicate wing at all, so I discarded it because it said in the results page that types 6 and 9 should further investigate their typings as they are the least accurately-gauged by the test itself.


----------



## Kerik_S

I would be willing to concede to 8-6-4 or 9-6-4, and maybe some of the wings (of the fixes) are "balanced", though I don't necessarily follow the balanced wing theory. I can't reconcile 1, 2, 3, or 7 as even a wing of my core type, ever, though.


----------



## Valtire

@Kerik_S I wouldn't expect an IEI to be strongly action oriented, even if you are an 8.



Entropic said:


> I see you as neither and I'd look into type 1 or even 8 for you tbh. 7 could work as well.


Kinda curious, do you have me typed in enneagram?


----------



## Entropic

Fried Eggz said:


> @Kerik_S I wouldn't expect an IEI to be strongly action oriented, even if you are an 8.
> 
> 
> Kinda curious, do you have me typed in enneagram?


Nope and re: 8 and Se DS, yes, I think you are right in a sense.


----------



## Kerik_S

entropic said:


> fried eggz said:
> 
> 
> 
> @_Kerik_S_ I wouldn't expect an IEI to be strongly action oriented, even if you are an 8.
> 
> 
> Kinda curious, do you have me typed in enneagram?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope and re: 8 and Se DS, yes, I think you are right in a sense.
Click to expand...

I'll have to look into how 8 would be expressed in an INFJ if it ever were to be expressed. It may not be action in the way we think of it. It might be a sort of identification with and involvement in the anger/frustration/dissonance, and an impulse to ensure that my life has some sort of self-perpetuating emotional anchor to which I can attach myself; from such a cornerstone, I continue to amass more "stuff" (in a non-materialistic sense) to feast my emotional being upon, ultimately in a way that is still very Id but not necessarily classically materialistic.

I'm just trying to think of how an INFJ could attach to viscera in spite of being an INFJ. I think the most basic way to describe it is to say, for instance: I flounder without a visceral creative outlet, like singing. And my reactions are usually rooted in trying to make sure that any logistical connections I have to maintaining that outlet are not threatened.

Personally, I'm experiencing protracted physical health issues that directly impact my ability to sing, and this past year I've developed a couple salient neuroses to try and maneuver around my absent sense of Myself As A Singer, that have been pervasive (though subconscious until I was forced to see them through mirroring with a significant other recently) enough to make me think that they could be coming from a near-constant place of _Trying-To-Manufacture-An-Identity-in-absentia-Of-Being-Able-To-Have-My-Main-Outlet-Available-To-Me. _A lot of mental gymnastics to hold onto the idea that I'm still trying to get "my groove back". And a very reflexive and flat-out defensive insistence that I _will find a way to make it so I can sing again _(even if that involves paying out-of-pocket and out-of-network for medical procedures).

　
I haven't investigated the two Triads (they both start with "H", I think), but I think that that would be the next way to go since I'm at the point of mentally grasping at straws as to what a Type 8 even is.

I think in healthy persons who have simply hit a roadblock, it's a good measure of their Enneagram to look at what the bulk of their mental hang-ups consist of (and what they intend to insist about themselves by exercising these hang-ups in real time).


----------



## Kerik_S

Also, @Entropic :

Before I even look into 9, does the fact that the word "peace" makes me scoff and presents an element of "that's not fun at all, and seems highly overrated" eliminate 9 from being my core? I understand not wanting conflict, but basing my actions on some endgoal of "peace" or "unity" seems neither attainable nor desirable.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> Also, @Entropic :
> 
> Before I even look into 9, does the fact that the word "peace" makes me scoff and presents an element of "that's not fun at all, and seems highly overrated" eliminate 9 from being my core? I understand not wanting conflict, but basing my actions on some endgoal of "peace" or "unity" seems neither attainable nor desirable.


9 basically absorb anger.


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> 9 basically absorb anger.


Like... they absorb it so quickly that they don't feel it?

Or they stuff it down to the point where they're numb to it?

Or they feel it all the time and just deal with it?


----------



## Recede

Kerik_S said:


> Before I even look into 9, does the fact that the word "peace" makes me scoff and presents an element of "that's not fun at all, and seems highly overrated" eliminate 9 from being my core? I understand not wanting conflict, but basing my actions on some endgoal of "peace" or "unity" seems neither attainable nor desirable.


I don't like the words "peace" or "unity" either. Enneagram is really unconscious and won't necessarily be evident from what you consciously like or dislike. 

The signs that were most conscious and visible for me were indifference/apathy and the sense of having an underdeveloped identity.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kerik_S said:


> Also, @_Entropic_ :
> 
> Before I even look into 9, does the fact that the word "peace" makes me scoff and presents an element of "that's not fun at all, and seems highly overrated" eliminate 9 from being my core? I understand not wanting conflict, but basing my actions on some endgoal of "peace" or "unity" seems neither attainable nor desirable.


I don't think it's _that _conscious. 

I don't know if this is true of other 9s, but I wouldn't be surprised-- I am insanely patient with other people. When other people would get mad and throw shit out the window, I can hold that shit back, and act as I would if I were not angry-- But I can still be angry beneath the surface. This came in handy when I worked at a kindergarten.

It's just that I can maintain my cool, which is what 9 does. (I think. Maybe this is more true of 9w1 than 9w8-- I just find that I relate more to 8, and I _can _be aggressive/dominant at times when I'm pushed far enough-- It's just that it depends on the situation).

I rather react negative to 'apathy', because it has a negative connotation for it-- That's not how I experience being a 9. I'm pretty positive (or try to be). Although when I _am _negative, then I can identify with being apathetic-- It's just that I resist it, probably because this is not something I like to admit.

And that's the thing with your enneagram crap-- It's gonna have some shame associated with it that you don't want to admit, but you know deep down it's true.


----------



## Kerik_S

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think it's _that _conscious.
> 
> I don't know if this is true of other 9s, but I wouldn't be surprised-- I am insanely patient with other people. When other people would get mad and throw shit out the window, I can hold that shit back, and act as I would if I were not angry-- But I can still be angry beneath the surface. This came in handy when I worked at a kindergarten.
> 
> It's just that I can maintain my cool, which is what 9 does. (I think. Maybe this is more true of 9w1 than 9w8-- I just find that I relate more to 8, and I _can _be aggressive/dominant at times when I'm pushed far enough-- It's just that it depends on the situation).
> 
> I rather react negative to 'apathy', because it has a negative connotation for it-- That's not how I experience being a 9. I'm pretty positive (or try to be). Although when I _am _negative, then I can identify with being apathetic-- It's just that I resist it, probably because this is not something I like to admit.
> 
> And that's the thing with your enneagram crap-- It's gonna have some shame associated with it that you don't want to admit, but you know deep down it's true.


I'm only ashamed of apathy in the sense that I'm a bit repulsed by my /lack of need/ to have anything to show for myself. That only seems to indicate that I'm not a Type 1, 2, 3 or 4 (Heart/image types, especially not).

I identify with everything else you said, but I feel strongly and only "take action" to defend /against/ things I believe as an INFJ are unethical. I also have no problem with anger bc it's healthy


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kerik_S said:


> I'm only ashamed of apathy in the sense that I'm a bit repulsed by my /lack of need/ to have anything to show for myself. That only seems to indicate that I'm not a Type 1, 2, 3 or 4 (Heart/image types, especially not).
> 
> I identify with everything else you said, but I feel strongly and only "take action" to defend /against/ things I believe as an INFJ are unethical. I also have no problem with anger bc it's healthy


I may acknowledge that anger is healthy, but seeing it _expressed_ in other people scares me. When someone is overtaken by passion and they explode-- Shout, or sometimes worse... Is that necessary? Why? 

And anger is a source of shame, because I don't want to admit that I actually get angry. And most of the time, I don't, really-- Most of the anger dissolves into sadness instead, which may be unhealthy, but I prefer it. In my view, anger causes more problems than it solves. When does anger ever really help anyone? It just causes conflict. It's better to just tell people what you disapprove of, and search for solutions instead of giving over to blatant, aggressive instincts.


----------



## Cataclysm

Word Dispenser said:


> I may acknowledge that anger is healthy, but seeing it _expressed_ in other people scares me. When someone is overtaken by passion and they explode-- Shout, or sometimes worse... Is that necessary? Why?
> 
> And anger is a source of shame, because I don't want to admit that I actually get angry. And most of the time, I don't, really-- Most of the anger dissolves into sadness instead, which may be unhealthy, but I prefer it. In my view, anger causes more problems than it solves. When does anger ever really help anyone? It just causes conflict. It's better to just tell people what you disapprove of, and search for solutions instead of giving over to blatant, aggressive instincts.


Anger is an emotion and as such it could be used to motivate not only yourself but others as well.


----------



## Kyusaku

Word Dispenser said:


> I may acknowledge that anger is healthy, but seeing it _expressed_ in other people scares me. When someone is overtaken by passion and they explode-- Shout, or sometimes worse... Is that necessary? Why?
> 
> And anger is a source of shame, because I don't want to admit that I actually get angry. And most of the time, I don't, really-- Most of the anger dissolves into sadness instead, which may be unhealthy, but I prefer it. In my view, anger causes more problems than it solves. When does anger ever really help anyone? It just causes conflict. It's better to just tell people what you disapprove of, and search for solutions instead of giving over to blatant, aggressive instincts.


I think anger is better expressed (to a degree) than internalized and transformed into bitterness. People should definitely manage efficiently their feelings, but as a beta I prefer direct confrontation in the resolution of conflicts. Only if you verbalize a problem can you solve it properly from both sides.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Cataclysm said:


> Anger is an emotion and as such it could be used to motivate not only yourself but others as well.


I don't work like that-- I do know others who do, though. 

Anger just doesn't motivate _me_ very well-- It tends to cause more problems than it does to fuel energy or assist me in endeavours as it may for others, such as in working out and pushing themselves to do something they want to do. :kitteh:


----------



## Captain Mclain

people of enneagram 1,9 and 8 is suppose to flourish in anger and if suppressed too much it become bitterness. But that kind of anger is not necessary aggressive, or maybe it is. Who knows this enneagram thingy anyways?


----------



## myst91

Captain Mclain said:


> people of enneagram 1,9 and 8 is suppose to flourish in anger and if suppressed too much it become bitterness. But that kind of anger is not necessary aggressive, or maybe it is. Who knows this enneagram thingy anyways?


There are many refined levels of anger/aggression/whatever, in my view. So yes, it's not always outright aggressive in the coercive or violent sense.


----------



## myst91

*To everyone: 

Want skype chat? We have a Beta groupchat. PM me if interested  Only open for Betas, though, sorry.*


----------



## Cataclysm

myst91 said:


> *To everyone:
> 
> Want skype chat? We have a Beta groupchat. PM me if interested  Only open for Betas, though, sorry.*


Is this chat meant for talking, with your voice, or is typing fine?


----------



## myst91

Cataclysm said:


> Is this chat meant for talking, with your voice, or is typing fine?


Typing by default.


----------



## Kerik_S

Kyusaku said:


> I think anger is better expressed (to a degree) than internalized and transformed into bitterness. People should definitely manage efficiently their feelings, but as a beta I prefer direct confrontation in the resolution of conflicts. Only if you verbalize a problem can you solve it properly from both sides.


I've made some of the best, most healthy boundary-setting decisions rooted in anger that I funneled into righteous indignation. It strengthens my resolve and helps me have more a more stable identity.

I don't like _misdirected_ anger, so when I feel it, I try and see what new lesson I can learn and what ethic I can fine-tune to ensure that I respond more sensibly and justly to things that are just patently Not-Okay with me.

I don't suppress my anger-- I transform it into change or use it to make impactful statements to both myself and others.


----------



## Captain Mclain

I do not see anyone being a Shame type around here, there almost seem to be a bias that backfire on shame types, like that is in a desirable thing to be.


----------



## Entropic

myst91 said:


> *To everyone:
> 
> Want skype chat? We have a Beta groupchat. PM me if interested  Only open for Betas, though, sorry.*


Mah feelz r so hurt riaght nau.


----------



## Kyusaku

Kerik_S said:


> I've made some of the best, most healthy boundary-setting decisions rooted in anger that I funneled into righteous indignation. It strengthens my resolve and helps me have more a more stable identity.
> 
> I don't like _misdirected_ anger, so when I feel it, I try and see what new lesson I can learn and what ethic I can fine-tune to ensure that I respond more sensibly and justly to things that are just patently Not-Okay with me.
> 
> I don't suppress my anger-- I transform it into change or use it to make impactful statements to both myself and others.


Overcoming outbursts of emotions like anger or other passions are some of the most rewarding achievements. It's managing to get out of temporary insanity. Emotions are a great drive for change and self realization, but when you don't manage it well it can be extremely destructive. As an EIE that's the exact point I focus on improving, but it's tough. You need outlets to funnel them into.


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> I do not see anyone being a Shame type around here, there almost seem to be a bias that backfire on shame types, like that is in a desirable thing to be.


I thought about the growth and stress arrows in Enneagram, and I think they might present a bias against Shame types.

*One* to Seven *(*Growth*): *_grow out of being perfection oriented, which means growing away from Image-orientation *(*Heart*)*_*
Seven* to Five *(*Growth*): *_grow out of a typecast that retreats from their core vice, and integrate into one that embraces it *(*Head*)
*_*Five* to Eight *(*Growth*): *_grow out of a typecast that embraces one kind of vice, and into another that also embraces it *(*Gut, Anger*)*_*
Eight* to Two *(*Growth*): *_grows to be (when healthy) reasonably assertive, and integrates into "helpfulness"-oriented_*
Two* to Four *(*Growth*): *_grows out of embracing the vice and living by that image-orientation, and into one that fights it

So far, a healthy Seven grows to be a more integrated person by embracing their vice and sort of overcompensating for it by diving into the Head-type fixation. And a healthy Two grows to be more integrated essentially by rejecting being run by their vice and working against the Heart-type fixation. Fours then grow to something that is a healthy version of being perfectionism-driven.

_If being driven by perfectionism is usually seen to be something that needs to integrate to something (Seven) that would (if they were a core seven) then integrate into embracing a vice instead of rejecting it, it seems like Ones are biased against. They "grow" by becoming part of a Triad whose growth indicates that they eventually all embrace Head vice? And One is integrated _into _by a type (Four) that is integrated into by Twos who learn to _reject_ Heart vice?

By having Twos grow into type characteristics that reject Heart's vice, as a matter of _growth_, I feel like that's saying that Heart's driving vice is "bad", while Head's driving vice is "good." Why don't 5's grow to 7? It would follow the pattern of growing to live _in spite of the vice_ rather than embracing it and diving into your mind.

It's like Gut is considered the "best" overall Triad in terms of not having any inherent value judgments placed on its growth arrows, then Head (positive judgment), then Heart (negative judgment).

And, if the Triads themselves are taken out of the picture,

Two is idyllic only if it's Eights in an integration state. Otherwise, you want to grow out of it because its vice shouldn't be embraced.
Four is idyllic because it's vice is to be fought against before integration. And then you integrate into a Gut type, which doesn't have much judgment attached to it, other than that it _doesn't integrate into a Heart type_.
One is idyllic only if it grows into a Head type.

Seven is idyllic only if it grows into another Head type that _embraces the vice of all Head types_.
Five is idyllic because it's got a vice that should be embraced, apparently, so much that a Seven would be better off that way, and it grows into a type that can _only be "better" if it climbs remotely up its health ladder and only integrates the positive aspects of what is otherwise the least-idyllic type._

_Now, that's only on the 1-7-5-8-2-4 integration pattern._ But, it still shows deference _against Heart*** types_ the whole time. So, given just the 175824 arrows (which are 2/3 of the Enneagram), Gut is kinda neutral, but contains one type that is overly-idolized (8) and one that is kinda mid-tier (1). Head contains one that is slightly-better (5) than one that is considered only a slight imporvement over mid-tier 1 (7). Heart contains one that is only good if its aspects are integrated into (2) by the overly-idolized type, and another that is considered a slight improvement of a Two (4), but still not balanced in terms of counter-phobia and phobia like a Three.

For all intents are purposes:
Gut = Rank A (8) + Rank B (1)
Head = Rank B (7) + Rank B (5)
Heart = Rank B (4) + Rank C (2)
*Gut = 3.5 /// Head = 3.0 /// Heart = 2.5

And that's weighted as 66% (*_because it's two-thirds of the Enneagram*).*_

　
9 grows to Three (Gut 3.5 grows to Heart 2.5, so this means that the 9-3-6 triangle doesn't really have any deference to the triads).
3 grows to Six (Heart grows to Head)
6 grows to Nine (Head grows to Gut).

It just seems kind even, so this _*33% *_of the possible "intrinsic judgment" of types is even, so all you can do to differentiate them is to use the 66% and say that Enneagram has a built-in negative judgment against Heart types/shame_._


----------



## Kerik_S

Just something I thought about. Not too in-depth or using anything to back it up. More like a thought experiment.


----------



## Kerik_S

Kyusaku said:


> Overcoming outbursts of emotions like anger or other passions are some of the most rewarding achievements. It's managing to get out of temporary insanity. Emotions are a great drive for change and self realization, but when you don't manage it well it can be extremely destructive. As an EIE that's the exact point I focus on improving, but it's tough. You need outlets to funnel them into.


I believe I overcome outbursts of anger by refusing to let the ideas, that pop into my head during those states of emotional-reasoning, hold any sway over my overall attitudes about things. I let them vent themselves in the healthiest way I find possible: By focusing on strengthening a healthy resolve I have that is separate from the emotional state.

For example, if someone pisses me off by lacking self-awareness, rather than focusing on my hurt feelings, I funnel the nervous energy created by the state of anger by distilling it into frustration, refusing to pin the frustration on the other person or myself, and then figuring out what about the other person's actions (or about my own disposition, or both) has led me to react "in a pissed off fashion". Once I pinpoint an "inherent vice" (something that goes against what I know, through pre-existing contemplation during times of level-headedness that have led me to believe certain things are unethical)-- regardless of whether I'm the one committing such a trespass or if it's the other person, I funnel my _no-longer-anger/now-simply-frustration_ by contemplating a way in which I can either *(*A*)* learn not to exhibit that kind of vice again, or at least set the resolve to work on it actively or *(*B*)* learn how to recognize it in other people and not get trapped by their negative influence in the future.

By working on it my own ethical trespasses, I create what I believe will be a smoother connection for my Sx proclivities (enneagram, desire to connect interpersonally in an intensive way with a small number of people, one at a time). By working on recognizing signs that other people may be led by their own devices into exhibiting those vices, I create opportunities to set healthy boundaries for my Sp proclivities (phobic) or learn how to speak against it openly (counter-phobic) ... (self-preservation, completely _intra_-personal desire to remain unscathed or fight against the scathing).

Coming up with those contemplations, framing them while still in a state of frustration, and using them to better my life... that's an outlet. It may not _produce anything tangible,_ and therefore not look like an "outlet" in the way production-obsessed culture would have its constituents believe, but it's still creative and it's still good for the creator, me.

Choosing to create something that _looks like production_, and foregoing my existing outlet, would just be pandering to the notions of worth that others impose on me, and that's nothing but Image-fixation if going by Enneagram. It's an act of internalizing shame, and that's usually not healthy unless there's something you can learn from the shame. What's there to learn from the shaming mechanism of "If it doesn't look like typical production, I should change my outlet"? Nothing, other than to discard that notion entirely.


----------



## Valtire

Kerik_S said:


> Just something I thought about. Not too in-depth or using anything to back it up. More like a thought experiment.


You know there's an edit button to add this to your existing post? Naughty triple poster.


----------



## Kerik_S

Fried Eggz said:


> You know there's an edit button to add this to your existing post? Naughty triple poster.


Uhh... ok


----------



## Valtire

@Kerik_S

How's your enneagram search going?


----------



## Kerik_S

Fried Eggz said:


> @_Kerik_S_
> 
> How's your enneagram search going?


I've been asking my mom. My childhood and adolescence were pretty marred by personal tragedies and some medical issues, so I'm asking her stuff about who I became more attached/rejecting/frustrated (my dad, who was actually my nurturing, or her as she was more protective and masculine growing up).

It's not really helping: Because after my parents divorce, my dad started turning me against my mom, my mom became more nurturing (so, even if I was rejecting her _post-divorce_, it's not like I was rejecting a "protective" figure like she was because by the time I rejected her, my whole idea of nurture and protection was skewed by my father).

So, as far as the origin of my "stuff", I can't gauge my Hornevian triad based on something objective like my historical affect toward my parents.

I can say that my mom apparently has always seen me as confrontational, and "admires how much I speak up for myself and assert myself", so that leads me to think that 9w8 isn't a thing. If you've ever seen me on the forums, I'm "reactive" in terms of coping, and I'm certainly not "optimistic". I affirm my life through antithesis: "This isn't terrible" (_a la_ negativism) and I don't always flip to the positive-- sometimes I used to hate about myself with all that "positive thinking", typist bullshit out there.

I've always been incredibly intense. I once thought I might be bipolar. xD

I just found out that "reactive" types have been re-labled by Riso-Hudson as "Intense" types. Unfortunately, even if I flip the 9w8 to 8w9, it doesn't tell me which of the two (6w5, 8w9... or 4w5 while we're at it) is dominant, because all three are reactive/intense.

And also, if 9w8 is closer to me than 8w9 as a fix, having 6w5 on top could still explain the intensity because 9 (an optimistic type) would simply be sandwiched in the middle of two reactive fixes.

However, the type of avoidance (particularly, the method of avoidance that 9's do in which they withdraw and downplay and sometimes negate their needs and convictions) is absolutely not my kind of avoidance.

Any minute avoidance I may engage in would be more like the Hornevian Withdrawal, which is represented in my tritype by 4 (once), 5 (twice, wings), and 9 (wherever it is, 8w9 or 9w8). And withdrawal in the hornevian sense has more to do with the act of pulling away. Withdrawal types pull away in order to pull-off their superordinate coping mechanism, which can be either planning (5), negation-of-conflict (9) or flat-out rebellion (4).

I withdrew to rebel, a lot. I withdrew to plan... a lot. Did I withdraw to negate anything about myself that might cause conflict: yes, but only in times of ridiculous deterioration. My instinct isn't to withdraw, though.

My process of elimination, that means that 4w5 is a fix but isn't my core. 6w5 is a fix, but can't be my core, and the 9w8 that's left is accurate to an extent but may be explained by another core because it can't be 9.

　
Also, as noted above, Hornevian can't narrow it down given my fixes.

And the parental affect thing is too convoluted to figure out given logistics.

　

I know that it has to be 8, 9, or 1, by elimination. I have no interest in perfectionism, but some have said that "perfectionism in Enneagram isn't the typical perfectionism".

So, I made a table with "buzzwords" for each type (hornevian, harmonic, coping, essence, holy ideas, fixations, virtue, vice, desire, fear, and then one key characteristic from each of the 9 levels of health). I've yet to do a tally of how much each one in 8/9/1 matches up.

I've been to all 9 levels of health except maybe the higher ones, so this little exercise should settle it.

The lowest levels of health are impossible for me to gauge-- even though I've been there-- because I was clinically insane at the time and my executive functions were almost completely shut-off

I honestly just stopped caring about Enneagram for about a week. xD I'll post it and do a LIVE TALLY! *sparkle sparkle* right here. Why not?

　

*Eight:* Assertiveness, Intensity, Control, Strength, The Sacredness of Truth, Objectification, Innocence/Guilelessness, Forcefulness, Self-protection, Fear of Domination; Surrender, Magnanimity, Initiative, Influence, Territoriality, Brutishness, Ruthlessness, Delusion of Omnipotence, "Sociopathy"

*Nine:* Withdrawal, Optimism, Avoidance (_"negation-of-conflict"_), Wholeness, The Sacredness of Unconditional Love, Daydreaming, Judiciousness-of-Action, Disengagement, Peace, Fear of Fragmentation-of-self; Presence-of-experience, Self-determination, Inclusivity (resolving conflicting agendas, or "Coexisting"), Accomodation, Complacency, "Being a doormat", Dissociation, Delusion of Numbness/Unfazedness, Catatonia

*One:* Dutifulness, Competence, Perfectionism, Alignment (Orientation of convictions), The Sacredness of Inherent Perfection, Judgment, Serenity, Resentment, Fairness, Fear of Corruption; Tolerance, Life-affirmation, Impartiality, Idealism, Rigidity, Pedanticism, Intolerance, Delusion of Self-righteousness, Condemnation

　
8: ///// ///// |||||
9: ///// |||
1: ///// ||

(I asked my mom for a tally first. We actually agreed on everything.)

In the process, she said that both Assertiveness and Withdrawal fit, but not Dutifulness (otherwise known as "Compliance" in the Hornevian Triad). She also agreed with both Intensity and Competence, but not Optimism (Harmonic).

Withdrawal is explained by an 9-wing, two 5-wings, and a 4-fix, as I thought. 4w5 is definitely a fix, so what's left is whether my core is 6 or 8 (Dutiful/Intense or Assertive/Intense) for which she didn't agree with dutifulness and neither did I, not as a core.

Intensity is a moot point. So 8-core if going by Hornevian.

So, tally for 6!

6: ///// |||

My mom said no to "Anxiety?... If it's non-pathological." Confirms my idea that I'm simply a reactive person with an anxiety _disorder_ (that doesn't include the symptom of rumination, which is more what 6's anxiety/worry is).

I'm going with 8w9-6w5-4w5 Sx/Sp


----------



## Kerik_S

.


----------



## Kerik_S

I'm thinking that... given my hang-up about whether or not Anxiety Disorder = Must Be a 6 being put into question... that 5w6 could explain my "frenetic"-ness without pathologizing me as a _completely-anxiety-ridden person. _A 6-wing could explain why I do meet some of the criteria without meeting the core-fear orientation. I'm gonna go with 5w6 just for good faith.

8w9-5w6-4w5. It explains my tendency toward nihilism when my health weakens. Can also explain the psychosis if we're talking _mind-of-a-5-in-absolute-bottom-level-health.
_
And don't 8's disintengrate to take on both Low-Level-TypeEight stuff AND unhealthy 5 stuff?

Rather than going "sociopathic, ruthless 8", I showed more nihilism and was actually hospitalized and assessed as having "self-annhilation, like legit written on my medical chart were the words "psychotic disorder, self-annihilation, spiritual emergency" (8-disintegrated, + a 5 wing in 4w5, + the 5 in the 5w6/6w5).

But, with 8 as a core, and 5 showing up twice in the tritype, the fix doesn't necessarily have to be 5w6 to explain it.

I'll have to look into 5 and 6's disintegrations to see which were more involved in my psychotic period

　
EDIT: I definitely don't disintegrate into 3-unhealthy (which is 6)
I without a doubt disintegrate into 7-unhealthy (feeling trapped and scared of being constantly dissatisfied, paralysis).

Yay. This was easy


----------



## Mr inappropriate

pst ! :wink: SLE in da house !


----------



## Valtire

crashbandicoot said:


> crashbandicoot LII





crashbandicoot said:


> pst ! :wink: SLE in da house !


...? Why does your profile disagree with you?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Fried Eggz said:


> ...? Why does your profile disagree with you?


Its my cover for penetrating into alpha land. :wink:


----------



## Kerik_S

crashbandicoot said:


> Its my cover for penetrating into alpha land. :wink:


Don't you mean it's your cover for...


... Crashing the party....?


YYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Kerik_S said:


> Don't you mean it's your cover for...
> 
> 
> ... Crashing the party....?
> 
> 
> YYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH.


:frustrating:

Test Result

Your Sociotype: ESE-1Si FeSi (ESFj) 
Ethical Sensing Extrovert - The Enthusiast

- See more at: Tests

Other Possible Types

SEI (ISFp): 87% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and SEI (ISFp) types here!
LSE (ESTj): 56% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and LSE (ESTj) types here!
SLI (ISTp): 52% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and SLI (ISTp) types here!
- See more at: Tests

I'll be going guys, sorry ! :crying:

*Fun fact :* Some months ago, I didnt have any friends and was sorta isolated, I kept being tested as SLI with LSE in %90 range or LSE-Si depending on occasion. Now, since I'm more involved I test as ESE-Si or SEI. When I spent some time "partying hard!" with others I test as SLE ESTP. How I see myself in relation to society depends on the last couple of weeks. I guess this is weak Ni with Fe>Fi (recent emotional exchange matters more than personal connections which are more long-term). I wonder if any type is charactirazed something like this ?


----------



## Darkbloom

@crashbandicoot , don't think it's low Ni related, I mean I am very similar, I tend to relate too much to what I'm currently doing, mood atm, etc., been trying to find deep patterns for a long time, I find some but then I forget all about it as soon as some external change happens. 
Fe>Fi maybe
(Of course, doesn't help your Ni sucks lol
But idk, maybe my does too and I'm actually SLE :tongue: )


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@Amaranthine
I thought low Ni because, just like you said i tend to forget(or ignore) once a change has happened. With Ni beimg flow of time, how can I be so blind to some weeks (ok months at mosts) ago ? But yeah, Fe>Fi was the part I was more sure. 

So u think im SLE ? :afro:


----------



## fuliajulia

SLE vs IEI in a nutshell...


----------



## Captain Mclain

therandomsciencegirl said:


> SLE vs IEI in a nutshell...
> View attachment 454074


I wish it was readable


----------



## fuliajulia

Sry, Here's the text (written by an SLE about IEI)
Me, and my INFJ communication problems

Me:*says something*
INFJ:*gets grumpy, says something*
Me:okay, this word means this, they said exactly this. I know what they said, but I don't really understand why they said it.
Me:*repeats back exact statement, asks what they meant by it*
INFJ:I didn't say that. I said *says exact same sentence to me*
Me:...
Me:...
Me:You just said the same thing
INFJ:No, I didn't. I said *says literally the same thing again*
Me:*getting frustrated but maintaining a calm appearance* yes, you said *repeats statement, verbatim, back to them, asks what they meant again*
INFJ:No, I didn't say that.
Me:
Me:
Me:
Me:I literally heard you say that multiple times. Once just now, and once exactly 3 minutes ago. You keep saying the same thing. WHAT DO YOU MEAN
INFJ:*brings up completely unrelated topic*
Me:...
Me:...
Me:we weren't even discussing that. That is a non sequitur
INFJ:SEE YOU ARE ALWAYS PRESSURING ME TO TALK whY DO you DO THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT BEING PRECISE WITH MY WORDS LIKE YOU
Me:...
Me:So when you said *initial statement* you meant *makes valiant attempt to tie it to secondary, seemingly unrelated statement*
INFJ:*is quiet, getting very visibly distressed*
Me:*thinking: I want to leave...but I've come this far and I need to figure out what they're thinking*
Me:*decides the only way to get the real thoughts of the INFJ is to piss them off as much as humanly possible*
Me:*begins antagonizing to get them to articulate themselves*
INFJ:*brings up how and why exactly I suck, stumbles over words, gets increasingly irritated with themselves, storms off*
Me:k


----------



## Captain Mclain

therandomsciencegirl said:


> Sry, Here's the text (written by an SLE about IEI)
> Me, and my INFJ communication problems
> 
> Me:*says something*
> INFJ:*gets grumpy, says something*
> Me:okay, this word means this, they said exactly this. I know what they said, but I don't really understand why they said it.
> Me:*repeats back exact statement, asks what they meant by it*
> INFJ:I didn't say that. I said *says exact same sentence to me*
> Me:...
> Me:...
> Me:You just said the same thing
> INFJ:No, I didn't. I said *says literally the same thing again*
> Me:*getting frustrated but maintaining a calm appearance* yes, you said *repeats statement, verbatim, back to them, asks what they meant again*
> INFJ:No, I didn't say that.
> Me:
> Me:
> Me:
> Me:I literally heard you say that multiple times. Once just now, and once exactly 3 minutes ago. You keep saying the same thing. WHAT DO YOU MEAN
> INFJ:*brings up completely unrelated topic*
> Me:...
> Me:...
> Me:we weren't even discussing that. That is a non sequitur
> INFJ:SEE YOU ARE ALWAYS PRESSURING ME TO TALK whY DO you DO THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT BEING PRECISE WITH MY WORDS LIKE YOU
> Me:...
> Me:So when you said *initial statement* you meant *makes valiant attempt to tie it to secondary, seemingly unrelated statement*
> INFJ:*is quiet, getting very visibly distressed*
> Me:*thinking: I want to leave...but I've come this far and I need to figure out what they're thinking*
> Me:*decides the only way to get the real thoughts of the INFJ is to piss them off as much as humanly possible*
> Me:*begins antagonizing to get them to articulate themselves*
> INFJ:*brings up how and why exactly I suck, stumbles over words, gets increasingly irritated with themselves, storms off*
> Me:k


I wonder what the topic was. :teapot:


----------



## Darkbloom

crashbandicoot said:


> @Amaranthine
> I thought low Ni because, just like you said i tend to forget(or ignore) once a change has happened. With Ni beimg flow of time, how can I be so blind to some weeks (ok months at mosts) ago ? But yeah, Fe>Fi was the part I was more sure.
> 
> So u think im SLE ? :afro:


Idk, I meant generally bad Ni could make it worse)

Actually a while ago I talked about something similar but with enneagram, how sometimes when put in a peaceful situation with TV shows, music and sweets I think "I'm such a sp 9, and definitely Si, how did I not see it before?" 
I think I mentioned Se or lack of Ni, also lack of Fi, not sure how people responded though, might try to find it


----------



## Kerik_S

crashbandicoot said:


> *Fun fact :* Some months ago, I didnt have any friends and was sorta isolated, I kept being tested as SLI with LSE in %90 range or LSE-Si depending on occasion. Now, since I'm more involved I test as ESE-Si or SEI. When I spent some time "partying hard!" with others I test as SLE ESTP. How I see myself in relation to society depends on the last couple of weeks. I guess this is weak Ni with Fe>Fi (recent emotional exchange matters more than personal connections which are more long-term). I wonder if any type is charactirazed something like this ?


*Months ago:*
SLI (ISTp): =100% = 1.00
LSE (ESTj): =90% = 0.90

*Partying Hard:*
SLE (ESTp): =100% = 1.00

*Now:*
ESE (ESFj): =100% = 1.00
SLE (ESTp): <52% = ~0.50 (approximation for sake of averaging)
SLI (ISTp): =52% = 0.52
LSE (ESTj): =56% = 0.56
SEI (ISFp): =87% = 0.87

*Average per function (Valued)
Leading:** Fe: 1.00 + 0.00 = 1.00/6.35 ...?*
*Fi:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Ne:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Ni:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Se:* 1.00 + 0.50 = 1.50/6.35
*Si:* 1.00 + 0.52 + 0.87 = 2.39/6.35
*Te:* 0.90 + 0.56 = _*1.46*_/6.35
*Ti:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0​*Creative:**Fe: *0.87 + 0.00 = 0.87/6.35
*Fi:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Ne:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Ni:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Se:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Si:* 1.00 + 0.46 + 1.00 = _*2.46*_/6.35
*Te:* 1.00 + 0.52 = 1.52/6.35
*Ti:* 1.00 + 0.50 = 1.50/6.35​*Mobilizing:**Fe: *1.00 + 0.50 = 1.50/6.35
*Fi:* 1.00 + 0.52 = 1.52/6.35
*Ne:* 1.00 + 0.46 + 1.00 = _*2.46*_/6.35
*Ni:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Se:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Si:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Te:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Ti:* 0.87 + 0.00 = 0.87/6.35​*Suggestive:**Fe: *0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Fi:* 1.00 + 0.46 = _*1.46*_/6.35
*Ne:* 1.00 + 0.52 + 0.87 = 2.39/6.35
*Ni:* 1.00 + 0.50 = 1.50/6.35
*Se:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Si:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
*Te:* 0.00 + 0.00 = 0
_*Ti: 1.00 + 0.00 = 1.00/6.35 ...?*_​
　
_*ESXj*_ =*
(Vulnerable Ni) LSE-Fe (DCNH subtype, with Role function-Fe boosted, explaining your Superego/Ego boundaries being so thin and leading to you emulating your surrounding unconsciously)*
or _(Vulnerable Ni) ESE-Fe (not likely, because even if your leading Fe were extra boosted, you'd still have considerable 3-dimension Fi to balance it out)_

_*****ES*__*T*__*j
*__Also, with Suggestive Fi, you'd need other people to give you a lexicon for how to process your own subjective internal workings... meaning you'd pick up on their ways of expressing themselves and then project it with Fe into your testing of yourself.
This is why ESTj's are stereotyped as "authoritarian" when it's really just that they're social chameleons
_


----------



## Kerik_S

therandomsciencegirl said:


> Sry, Here's the text (written by an SLE about IEI)
> Me, and my INFJ communication problems
> 
> Me:*says something*
> INFJ:*gets grumpy, says something*
> Me:okay, this word means this, they said exactly this. I know what they said, but I don't really understand why they said it.
> Me:*repeats back exact statement, asks what they meant by it*
> INFJ:I didn't say that. I said *says exact same sentence to me*
> Me:...
> Me:...
> Me:You just said the same thing
> INFJ:No, I didn't. I said *says literally the same thing again*
> Me:*getting frustrated but maintaining a calm appearance* yes, you said *repeats statement, verbatim, back to them, asks what they meant again*
> INFJ:No, I didn't say that.
> Me:
> Me:
> Me:
> Me:I literally heard you say that multiple times. Once just now, and once exactly 3 minutes ago. You keep saying the same thing. WHAT DO YOU MEAN
> INFJ:*brings up completely unrelated topic*
> Me:...
> Me:...
> Me:we weren't even discussing that. That is a non sequitur
> INFJ:SEE YOU ARE ALWAYS PRESSURING ME TO TALK whY DO you DO THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT BEING PRECISE WITH MY WORDS LIKE YOU
> Me:...
> Me:So when you said *initial statement* you meant *makes valiant attempt to tie it to secondary, seemingly unrelated statement*
> INFJ:*is quiet, getting very visibly distressed*
> Me:*thinking: I want to leave...but I've come this far and I need to figure out what they're thinking*
> Me:*decides the only way to get the real thoughts of the INFJ is to piss them off as much as humanly possible*
> Me:*begins antagonizing to get them to articulate themselves*
> INFJ:*brings up how and why exactly I suck, stumbles over words, gets increasingly irritated with themselves, storms off*
> Me:k


It sounds like they were talking to a stupid person or an emotionally-volatile, not an INFJ or IEI.
It also sounds like they're stupid because they actually attributed stupidity or emotional volatility to type.

Ironic. Opposite dichotomies. Same stupidity. Possessing a vocabulary that includes "_verbatim_" and "_non sequitir_" doesn't make someone intelligent. It sounds like this entire diatribe was some kind of posturing to shine a negative light on a person of the opposite side of each MBTI dichotomy.

It's also a reblog from a Tumblr user listing themselves as ENFP: ☆*･゜ﾟ･*✧

Can I get an infraction for calling anonymous people stupid?


----------



## Kerik_S

@_crashbandicoot_ 

I'd list your Sociotype as LSE, and your MBTI as Fe-tert with Ni-inferior (SeTiFeNi) and just say your Fe is ridiculously overused and some BS like ("and since it's tertiary, I use it a lot but use it poorly when I'm testing and end up blah blah blah").

It's MBTI, you can afford to be inexact: "ESTP with overused tertiary Fe!" Gold star. A lot of people won't even question it bc they don't know that the J/P switch _doesn't _apply to extroverts.

You can crash EP parties! And crash Delta parties!

EDIT: also, you'll avoid the vicious stereotypes against SJs AND STJs that are rampant on the MBTI forums.

EDIT EDIT: Delta Quada is fun! They have EIIs and IEEs, which are some of my favorite peoplez


----------



## Ninjaws

crashbandicoot said:


> :frustrating:
> 
> Test Result
> 
> Your Sociotype: ESE-1Si FeSi (ESFj)
> Ethical Sensing Extrovert - The Enthusiast
> 
> - See more at: Tests
> 
> Other Possible Types
> 
> SEI (ISFp): 87% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and SEI (ISFp) types here!
> LSE (ESTj): 56% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and LSE (ESTj) types here!
> SLI (ISTp): 52% as likely as ESE. Compare the ESE (ESFj) and SLI (ISTp) types here!
> - See more at: Tests
> 
> I'll be going guys, sorry ! :crying:
> 
> *Fun fact :* Some months ago, I didnt have any friends and was sorta isolated, I kept being tested as SLI with LSE in %90 range or LSE-Si depending on occasion. Now, since I'm more involved I test as ESE-Si or SEI. When I spent some time "partying hard!" with others I test as SLE ESTP. How I see myself in relation to society depends on the last couple of weeks. I guess this is weak Ni with Fe>Fi (recent emotional exchange matters more than personal connections which are more long-term). I wonder if any type is charactirazed something like this ?


Haha, the same happened to me.
I used to test LSE-Si practically all the time. Then, after I met a nice group of people to work with I started testing ESE-Si and SEI.

Goes to show how pointless these tests really are.


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> i been watching weeds lately and it is just a big feast with Te creative.


It's been a while since I caught on to a show. Supernatural was my jam for a while, most recently.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> It's been a while since I caught on to a show. Supernatural was my jam for a while, most recently.


whats a jam?


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> whats a jam?


"My jam" means "Something I really liked," or "a major hobby taking up a great deal of my time". I never really thought about the meaning before-- it's just slang where I've lived.

Watching "Supernatural" was something I really liked and took up a great deal of my time.


----------



## Kerik_S

Linguistics is fun!


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> "My jam" means "Something I really liked," or "a major hobby taking up a great deal of my time". I never really thought about the meaning before-- it's just slang where I've lived.
> 
> Watching "Supernatural" was something I really liked and took up a great deal of my time.


I was thinking being jammed, like broken. Stuck. Thats why I asked. ; )


----------



## Valtire

This got me thinking. The word jam has a heck of a lot of meanings.

It can mean any of these stuck/wedged/blocked/disrupt/squeezed/cram/ram/break/jazz up/enjoy. It's a fruit preserve and it's short for James.


----------



## Graveyard

It's funny, lots of words have more than just one meaning, and it depends on the context of the conversation.

Take for example the word "like".


----------



## Kerik_S

Fried Eggz said:


> This got me thinking. The word jam has a heck of a lot of meanings.
> 
> It can mean any of these stuck/wedged/blocked/disrupt/squeezed/cram/ram/break/jazz up/enjoy. It's a fruit preserve and it's short for James.


Linguistics!!! ^-^

This is why this Beta Hangout thread ends up dispersing: We can't resolve to stay on a single topic, and then we branch out to other threads that have more focus in them

*Who wants to go to my new thread I'm about to make?? [Beta Quadra] What are you currently listening to?

*　_*
[Beta Quadra] What are you listening to right now?
*_


----------



## Kerik_S

But, in here:

Linguistics! Who here made a point to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet?


----------



## Schweeeeks

That sounds like too many letters and not enough words.


----------



## Captain Mclain

EIE are really in minority on this forum along side with SLE.


----------



## Valtire

Captain Mclain said:


> EIE are really in minority on this forum along side with SLE.


I don't think they are. There are a lot of them, mistyped, on the forum. We don't often get many in the Socionics section though.


----------



## Graveyard

Lurking around (and I lurk a lot) I've found many EIEs and SLEs, just that they're not really interested in socionics whatsoever. So, yahh, there's that.


----------



## Entropic

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't think they are. There are a lot of them, mistyped, on the forum. We don't often get many in the Socionics section though.


SLEs and LSIs tend to have the propensity to think they are awesome gamma NTs for some reason. EIEs no idea what they think they are, but possibly deltas?


----------



## Graveyard

Entropic said:


> SLEs and LSIs tend to have the propensity to think they are awesome gamma NTs for some reason. EIEs no idea what they think they are, but possibly deltas?


To be fair, that's because MBTI in itself is a mess. The descriptions of the dichotomies are very vague. I've seen people on Twitter put (for example) "INFJ-T", because there's a belief that being an F means that you have deep feelings, and that being a T means you're a robot. Also, the N is used almost as a special snowflake indicator. Most people with an N in their types do it because, yes, the N description almost makes you seem like a prodigy.

So, many sensors have typed themselves as intuitives; in a similar fashion, logical types usually self identify as ethical types (probably explaining the SLE and LSI thingie).

EIEs usually believe they're the ultimate IEE. The J/P dichotomy has led to many confusions. Because they're Si PoLR, they think they're a P. So, yahh.


----------



## Kerik_S

Graveyard said:


> Because they're Si PoLR, they think they're a P. So, yahh.


Could you explain? I'm not well-versed in Socionics.

How does a P-- I'm assuming you mean EP and IP, so Ep and Ij in Socionics-- seem like something an xIE might identify with?


----------



## Graveyard

Kerik_S said:


> Could you explain? I'm not well-versed in Socionics.
> 
> How does a P-- I'm assuming you mean EP and IP, so Ep and Ij in Socionics-- seem like something an xIE might identify with?


Well uh, the P thing is basically "im lazy i dont know how to life lol but im quirky!"

And Si PoLR translates as a lack of awareness of your own physical comfort. You overeat, or eat too little. You leave things messy (but knowing EIEs, they might as well clean up when guests are coming). Just... Si doms' worst nightmare. Everthing they stand for is basically thrown out of the window or just ignored. Just not giving half a thought to your enviroment or your body.

IEEs are also described as fun loving, energetic, random, quirky (again), the soul of the party. Just the best type to be for an ENF. EIEs are much more boring in MBTI, and no one wants to be boring in MBTI.

I know two IEEs, and they're not all of that. They're rather serious but kind. And a tad bit silly, too, but not as described in MBTI. ;P


----------



## Kerik_S

Graveyard said:


> Well uh, the P thing is basically "im lazy i dont know how to life lol but im quirky!"
> 
> And Si PoLR translates as a lack of awareness of your own physical comfort. You overeat, or eat too little. You leave things messy (but knowing EIEs, they might as well clean up when guests are coming). Just... Si doms' worst nightmare. Everthing they stand for is basically thrown out of the window or just ignored. Just not giving half a thought to your enviroment or your body.


Wow. That sounds terrible. :L　My Si is weaksauce... even less-used than my Te. But, I can't get behind ignoring my physical needs. I often wait until something like my focus going to shit before I realize that I need to eat, but I at least have a baseline for my needs. I guess that's the difference between 2D Si and 1D Si?

　


Graveyard said:


> IEEs are also described as fun loving, energetic, random, quirky (again), the soul of the party. Just the best type to be for an ENF.


I know one who is loving, optimistic, random, "quirky", and the hearth-of-warmth of the two-person-group...? It's a toned-down version of the stereotype, but it's still got that "definitely ENFp" to it.

　


Graveyard said:


> EIEs are much more boring in MBTI, and no one wants to be boring in MBTI.


I find them sharp and cool! Warm fuzzies get old sometimes. I want some BITE.

　


Graveyard said:


> I know two IEEs, and they're not all of that. They're rather serious but kind. And a tad bit silly, too, but not as described in MBTI. ;P


I love my IEE! He understands the emotional reasons behind why I say what I say, and I often have no idea how he's reaching that conclusion because I often downplay my emotional motives as to not look like I'm pressuring him for affection because he's been going through some rough family stuff and is kinda needing to ghost for awhile.


----------



## Graveyard

Kerik_S said:


> Wow. That sounds terrible. :L　My Si is weaksauce... even less-used than my Te. But, I can't get behind ignoring my physical needs. I often wait until something like my focus going to shit before I realize that I need to eat, but I at least have a baseline for my needs. I guess that's the difference between 2D Si and 1D Si?


Well, in my case, I just can't bring myself to care about any Si-related thing. To give you an example, I have multiple scratch marks (and no, it isn't anything kinky  I have lots of allergies, my skin starts to itch and I scratch... a lot) and usually I keep scratching over them, sometimes re-opening some wounds. And I dooooon't caaaaaare. 

I also hate cleaning and organizing. I just *hate* it. 

Talking about food bores me. My mother (Si HA) usually speaks about the things she's eaten/she's cooking and different tastes and this and that and the other thing and mmhmgmh. I smile politely, as if paying attention, but not really.

Oh, and speaking about diseases makes me a little bit nervous.



> I know one who is loving, optimistic, random, "quirky", and the hearth-of-warmth of the two-person-group...? It's a toned-down version of the stereotype, but it's still got that "definitely ENFp" to it.


I'm not saying IEEs aren't all of that; it's that EIEs and IEEs have mixed themselves to make a... mess. Like the INFJ-INFP mess there's around the MBTI forums. Some INFPs are IEIs, some INFJs are EIIs. ;P



> I find them sharp and cool! Warm fuzzies get old sometimes. I want some BITE.


Oh, I know you like some bite. I've seen you in a certain forum. 



> I love my IEE! He understands the emotional reasons behind why I say what I say, and I often have no idea how he's reaching that conclusion because I often downplay my emotional motives as to not look like I'm pressuring him for affection because he's been going through some rough family stuff and is kinda needing to ghost for awhile.


The ones that I know are really cute, too. :3
Well, I've been told one of them is cute.

The one that's younger than me sees me as an older brother. We even call each other "brother". He's a little cutesy, and from time to time sends me a message telling me how much he loves me. He's always trying to keep in touch, and he's so random sometimes, it's cute.

The one that's older is... a bit weird. I mean, I don't know her on a personal level (according to the other IEE, she's a sweetheart), but we've only seen each other in public and... you know how extinguishment works in public!


----------



## Kerik_S

Graveyard said:


> Well, in my case, I just can't bring myself to care about any Si-related thing. To give you an example, I have multiple scratch marks (and no, it isn't anything kinky  I have lots of allergies, my skin starts to itch and I scratch... a lot) and usually I keep scratching over them, sometimes re-opening some wounds. And I dooooon't caaaaaare.
> 
> I also hate cleaning and organizing. I just *hate* it.


Hmm.... I feel a sense of "This will be more acceptable if other people come over", but I guess that's a super-ego control. Otherwise, I'm like, "Fuck that. No one comes over, and I can just meet them at my grandma's empty condo!" xD

I do occasionally rearrange my room to force my mind to remember new ways in which I'd like to handle things: If I get too much of a homebody and want to break a habit, I'll rearrange my room to remind myself to not try too hard but still remember not to slip back into the old habit. That's more Se impact than Si since it's about forcing a change and using outer sensory data to remind me of that change.

　


Graveyard said:


> Talking about food bores me. My mother (Si HA) usually speaks about the things she's eaten/she's cooking and different tastes and this and that and the other thing and mmhmgmh. I smile politely, as if paying attention, but not really.


My mind likes vacuums me inside myself when people talk about food. And if they keep going it's like I'm having an out of body experience hovering over the situation, staring blankly and thinking "Oh my god. So basic. WTF." with a stale lukewarm wind whipping against my face. With the whooshing sound and everything.




Graveyard said:


> Oh, and speaking about diseases makes me a little bit nervous.


Gross.

　


Graveyard said:


> I'm not saying IEEs aren't all of that; it's that EIEs and IEEs have mixed themselves to make a... mess. Like the INFJ-INFP mess there's around the MBTI forums. Some INFPs are IEIs, some INFJs are EIIs. ;P


Ugh. I don't understand how people can get confused between two types that have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, all four of them.

I'm more understanding of ISFj vs INFj confusion because irrational functions can be confusing when they're not at the top of the stack/Model.

Confusion between IEI and ILI makes more sense to me than IEI and EII. My Ti is just like "How hard could this be, guys??" though.

　


Graveyard said:


> Oh, I know you like some bite. I've seen you in a certain forum.


I never got my dick pics if that's what you're talking about! :'( _[cheated, abandoned, broken inside, a mere husk where a man once stood]_

　


Graveyard said:


> The ones that I know are really cute, too. :3
> Well, I've been told one of them is cute.


He makes me want to make cute little cat noises around him. C=

　


Graveyard said:


> The one that's younger than me sees me as an older brother. We even call each other "brother".


You're his "aniki"! That's rad as hecky.

　


Graveyard said:


> He's a little cutesy, and from time to time sends me a message telling me how much he loves me.


I miss having a platonic guy friend that tells me he loves me like a brother. It's nice because my actual blood-related "brother" is a druggie and a loser and treated my parents like shit, and treated me like shit before he developed a panic disorder from never learning how to cope with life and is now just a waste of space. (^^)v

It's funny because the gay stereotype is that we had no male figure to look up to, and therefore look to men for affection, or some bullshit: Nah. I want to be specfically platonic with a dude-friend-guy because my brother is a disappointment.

　


Graveyard said:


> He's always trying to keep in touch, and he's so random sometimes, it's cute.


/mew/

　


Graveyard said:


> The one that's older is... a bit weird. I mean, I don't know her on a personal level (according to the other IEE, she's a sweetheart), but we've only seen each other in public and... you know how extinguishment works in public!


Intertype relations aren't my forte, but I remember that it's basically like... really good at surface stuff, to the point where if social norms are involved too much, you'll basically just exchange pleasantries but won't get anywhere unless you forge a private interest in them, like cuddle buddies or meeting on a dating website where the purpose is to get to know each other more than just the surface.

I heard they suffer from "burn-out" sometimes, but I don't think that's a problem because I don't care much for "stoking friendships". I like them to rest when they want to rest, and ignite when they want to ignite.


----------



## Captain Mclain

@ Panda


----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> Does it work with pictures of cute cats too ?


I see your cuddly cat and raise you an adorable dwarf cat.


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> I see your cuddly cat and raise you an adorable dwarf cat.


Owh he looks so sad and afraid ! *Fe overload* What did you do to that poor thing, raising it like a mug ? :laughing:


----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> What did you do to that poor thing


Well...err...










Nothing. I did nothing to it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

*lid pops off*
*cat glomps face*
"Aaaaah! Oh gawd whyyyyy!"
*runs off into the distance*


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> Well...err...
> 
> Nothing. I did nothing to it.


Thank you, it's both adorable and hilarious !


----------



## Captain Mclain

At my home at the moment


----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> Thank you, it's both adorable and hilarious !


Have you ever met Lil Bub?


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> Have you ever met Lil Bub?


Never met him before, but he is so cute with his little tongue sticking out ! Thanks for sharing the channel too.  Please, if you have anything else I'm interested !


----------



## Captain Mclain

"im just gona finish this"


----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> Please, if you have anything else I'm interested !


Am I supposed to have a limited amount?

What kinda stuff are you interested in? Cats being mean?


* *















Cats being helpful?


* *




[











What about monkey business?


* *















Or dogs being silly?


* *




[











Or just the typical aww stuff?


* *




[


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> Am I supposed to have a limited amount?
> 
> What kinda stuff are you interested in? Cats being mean?
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats being helpful?
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about monkey business?
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or dogs being silly?
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just the typical aww stuff?
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [


Thanks a lot, I'm interested in everything you've got ! 










I love the monkey and the helpful cat !

You're the best !


----------



## Valtire

@Kyusaku


* *
















* *
















* *















http://i.imgur.com/Cj6rcPw.gifv

http://i.imgur.com/DA7Isua.gifv

http://i.imgur.com/ogVcpNg.gifv


----------



## Kerik_S

Den of basicness. I love it


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

SOOOO MUUUCH CUUUTEE!!!1!!1!!11!


----------



## Captain Mclain

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> SOOOO MUUUCH CUUUTEE!!!1!!1!!11!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart




----------



## Valtire

Captain Mclain said:


>


----------



## karmachameleon

I hung out with 4 week old puppies today. it was awesome


----------



## Valtire

Cat discovers wresling techniques:
http://i.imgur.com/k8W8Pu7.gifv

Tiger stalks it's prey:
https://i.imgur.com/h6ojVki.gifv

Bear plays with a stick:
bear stick twirling

Puppy:
Into the bushes!

Cat waits in ambush:
Cat sneaks up and startles sneaking cat


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> @Kyusaku
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I regret nothing!! Ahhhh!
> 
> Big dog bullies little dog
> 
> Insert Here Witty Title





Fried Eggz said:


> Cat discovers wresling techniques:
> http://i.imgur.com/k8W8Pu7.gifv
> 
> Tiger stalks it's prey:
> https://i.imgur.com/h6ojVki.gifv
> 
> Bear plays with a stick:
> bear stick twirling
> 
> Puppy:
> Into the bushes!
> 
> Cat waits in ambush:
> Cat sneaks up and startles sneaking cat


Do you have a blog, Tumblr or anything like it ? I'm interested in seeing more of your findings !



Fried Eggz said:


>


That is so cool, mind blown ! Did you do it yourself ?


----------



## Captain Mclain




----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> Do you have a blog, Tumblr or anything like it ? I'm interested in seeing more of your findings !


I filter through far too much stuff to ever keep a record.



Kyusaku said:


> That is so cool, mind blown ! Did you do it yourself ?


Nah, that gif is at least 5 years old. I remembered it, googled it and posted it.


----------



## Kerik_S

These past few pages read like a Tumblr roll. Is this the true essence of Beta?

I mean:

Merry + Aristocrat seems pretty Tumblr to me.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> These past few pages read like a Tumblr roll. Is this the true essence of Beta?
> 
> I mean:
> 
> Merry + Aristocrat seems pretty Tumblr to me.


It seems like a new low to me. x)


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> It seems like a new low to me. x)


Great expectations :lemmings_by_mirz123


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> Great expectations :lemmings_by_mirz123


I love that gif x)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Kerik_S said:


> These past few pages read like a Tumblr roll. Is this the true essence of Beta?
> 
> I mean:
> 
> Merry + Aristocrat seems pretty Tumblr to me.


I ****ing LOVE Tumblr. I have a list of Facebook friends I keep around because they share the best things that come out of Tumblr, so I get the Tumblr goodness without actually needing to sift thrugh it! ^^


----------



## Kerik_S

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I ****ing LOVE Tumblr. I have a list of Facebook friends I keep around because they share the best things that come out of Tumblr, so I get the Tumblr goodness without actually needing to sift thrugh it! ^^


I couldn't do it. I don't like Facebook either


----------



## Graveyard

Kerik_S said:


> These past few pages read like a Tumblr roll. Is this the true essence of Beta?
> 
> I mean:
> 
> Merry + Aristocrat seems pretty Tumblr to me.


Oh don't question it. Just have fun. It's just being silly for the sake of being silly.

Is it really that bad?


----------



## Valtire

Graveyard said:


> Oh don't question it. Just have fun. It's just being silly for the sake of being silly.
> 
> Is it really that bad?


LSI steps out of his comfort zone and tries to get in touch with his inferior Fe...

...IEIs pick on him.


----------



## Graveyard

Fried Eggz said:


> LSI steps out of his comfort zone and tries to get in touch with his inferior Fe...
> 
> ...IEIs pick on him.


Oh goodness no!

I was having fun with those pictures. Please do continue. :C


----------



## Kyusaku

Fried Eggz said:


> I filter through far too much stuff to ever keep a record.
> 
> 
> Nah, that gif is at least 5 years old. I remembered it, googled it and posted it.


Well, if you don' t keep record, I will. :tongue: I'm adding all those to my newly created Tumblr. That gif was perfect haha, see, you can keep record with your Ti brain !



Captain Mclain said:


> It seems like a new low to me. x)


Well, Ni blabbering gets tiresome after a while, I think this thread is reaching a new high !


----------



## leftover crack

what is this im invading your little tumblr-walled garden be afraid


----------



## leftover crack

satan has arrived


----------



## karmachameleon

Typeless said:


> what is this im invading your little tumblr-walled garden be afraid


never had tumblr


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Tumblr does tend to seem aristocratic. Well, that depends on the people you're following too (like most social media, I expect). One day I'll figure out the sociotype of all the people I follow.


----------



## Valtire

Kyusaku said:


> Well, if you don' t keep record, I will. :tongue: I'm adding all those to my newly created Tumblr. That gif was perfect haha, see, you can keep record with your Ti brain !


You know you could just go to an image conglomerate?










http://i.imgur.com/gX3x7gx.gifv


----------



## Kerik_S

if your fun train can be stopped by a single post, that baby could probably have stood to have picked up a bit more steam before being called a "train"


----------



## Kerik_S




----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> Eh, sounds like far too much work. Can I come back after the revolution has taken place and set up shop?


We need a general to command our troops, but sure, why not?


----------



## Graveyard

> Just to check, IEIs are mystical, gentle and warm creatures. They have no idea how to exert control over others, so they typically play the victim instead, trying to guilt-trip to gain control or recruit others to help them. Their mystical and metaphorical nature is their Ni.


Am IEI, can confirm.


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> We need a general to command our troops, but sure, why not?


I strongly recommend you outsource and put @Pinina on payroll as the general for our troops. I think you will find he is much better suited for it.


----------



## Coburn

myst91 said:


> You sound cool btw.


Just saw this. 

Thanks, I don't often get compliments. I think maybe I come across too stuffy.


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> I strongly recommend you outsource and put @Pinina on payroll as the general for our troops. I think you will find he is much better suited for it.


Fair enough! I shall recruit more people, and then, the Be(s)ta Quadra will rule once more!

And by the way, what you said fits you in the SLE description is the Fe hidden agenda and preference of Merry over Serious. That's one of the major differences (in my non-so-expert opinion) between SLE and LSE. 

If you truly feel a merry environment is the best, I tell ya, 'tis a good place for that! Feel free to be silly.


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> Fair enough! I shall recruit more people, and then, the Be(s)ta Quadra will rule once more!
> 
> And by the way, what you said fits you in the SLE description is the Fe hidden agenda and preference of Merry over Serious. That's one of the major differences (in my non-so-expert opinion) between SLE and LSE.
> 
> If you truly feel a merry environment is the best, I tell ya, 'tis a good place for that! Feel free to be silly.


"What I said?" 

Can you reference which post you're referring to? Will help me better understand socionics.I'm not aware of what hidden Fe Agenda looks like.


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> "What I said?"
> 
> Can you reference which post you're referring to? Will help me better understand socionics.I'm not aware of what hidden Fe Agenda looks like.


This post: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...hangout-thread-post26090506.html#post26090506

Do you want me to explain Model A to you?


----------



## Valtire

Coburn said:


> Just to confirm, the last letter determines the orientation of the first, yeah?


Yes.



Coburn said:


> I believe they share Te/Se in the highest value/devalue position, only in opposite orders?


They both have the strongest possible Te-Se (4D) and the weakest possible Ni-Fi (1D). The SLE has a subconscious LSE and vice versa. So SLEs will do Se things and leave Te in their wake. The differences between them are all concerning values.



Coburn said:


> Interesting. So LSI and INTJ shouldn't work if you tried to match the two typing systems up by cog functions. So what do you rely on to determine INTJ?


Test results mostly. As a (Jungian) introvert, I'm an subjective/abstract person; hence xNxx. I go for Ixxx because I'm low on social focus. J is because I'm a rational type. I also fit the INTJ descriptions better than any other, not that I fit any of them very well. I don't take MBTI very seriously though.



Coburn said:


> So what you mean is PerC drama extends even to the far reaches of the socionics galaxy. Good to know.


LOL



Coburn said:


> Well I've known her for about four days and have only discussed socionics in detail. The Ni mystical and metaphorical aspect is clear. Everything else not so much.


You quite likely have your dual there. But there is still a chance of LSE-EII duality. EII/IEI are extremely similar just like SLE/LSE.


----------



## myst91

Coburn said:


> So what you mean is PerC drama extends even to the far reaches of the socionics galaxy. Good to know.


Haha, right...




Coburn said:


> Language or tone? Or perhaps both?


Language, but maybe it's just extra strong Te with Ne role.

Do you not relate to Fi suggestive then? Just to Fi PoLR?


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> This post: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...hangout-thread-post26090506.html#post26090506
> 
> Do you want me to explain Model A to you?


Sure, if you've got time. I don't even know what a Model A is.


----------



## Coburn

myst91 said:


> Haha, right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Language, but maybe it's just extra strong Te with Ne role.
> 
> Do you not relate to Fi suggestive then? Just to Fi PoLR?


Let's make this easier. Assume I have zero knowledge of socionics.

What is Fi suggestive and what is Fi Polr?


----------



## myst91

Fried Eggz said:


> Test results mostly. As a (Jungian) introvert, I'm an subjective/abstract person; hence xNxx. I go for Ixxx because I'm low on social focus. J is because I'm a rational type. I also fit the INTJ descriptions better than any other, not that I fit any of them very well. I don't take MBTI very seriously though.


Hmmm I don't fit INTJ in terms of how it emphasizes the INTJ is fully conceptual. I know I am not. Superficially I relate to preferring Ni and J stuff and some abstract conceptual thinking but not that terribly much...

Things like this I just can't relate to:

_"With Introverted Intuition dominating their personality, INTJs focus their energy on observing the world, and generating ideas and possibilities. Their mind constantly gathers information and makes associations about it. They are tremendously insightful and usually are very quick to understand new ideas. 

They usually don't see the value of a direct transaction, and will also have difficulty expressing their ideas, which are non-linear. 

They are the supreme strategists - always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency. 

When under a great deal of stress, the INTJ may become obsessed with mindless repetitive, Sensate activities, such as over-drinking. They may also tend to become absorbed with minutia and details that they would not normally consider important to their overall goal."_ 

(From Portrait of an INTJ)

I mean I'm sure I'm insightful too and but not to this degree of constantly doing that stuff, nah, and I don't have this weak Sensing that would come out under stress. I don't keep making associations like that and I don't have to translate my thoughts into something else when explaining. Etc.

You being LSI-Ti makes sense with this of course.


Anyway I'm still curious as to why you feel you don't fit with the ISTPs. About your experiences or conclusions on that.


----------



## myst91

Coburn said:


> Let's make this easier. Assume I have zero knowledge of socionics.
> 
> What is Fi suggestive and what is Fi Polr?



Which one fits you better? One of them is receptive to Fi and the other one is not, otherwise they are both similarly bad at and sensitive about Fi.


1)

_The individual does not normally pay attention to the nuances of interpersonal relationships; he is either overly suspicious or overly assuming of his relations with others when they are not clearly defined. More importance is given to these relations as they pertain to objective mutual benefit; entertaining one another and accomplishing mutual goals are seen as the main focus, rather than seeing the relationships as rewarding in and of themselves. The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not fully registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions. Suggestions that the individual may have acted unethically in the eyes of another person who has not clearly expressed disapproval are met with bafflement by the individual; those that are expressed without tact are either dismissed or reacted to aggressively.

Expressions of deep personal sentiments are awkward for the individual, whether coming from another or himself. He does not see it as his "right" to place the burden of his true emotions on another, both because he knows how uncomfortable those of others make him (even when they are positive and genuine), and because of his own awkwardness in expressing them._

2)

_The individual longs for close personal relationships where personal and private experiences can be shared easily in an atmosphere of mutual trust, sustained by shared sentiments and ethical beliefs that make external expression of emotions unnecessary. The individual is inclined to take first steps, but he is not confident of his ability to correctly evaluate the existence or status of such a relationship and therefore is attracted to persons who value clear and unambiguous personal relationships with others and who follow a clear set of ethical principles, which gives them credibility and makes them deserving of trust in the individual's eyes.

The individual tends not to consider whether people are friends or enemies or whether they feel good will or ill will towards them. Instead, he or she usually acts right from the start as if the other person were a friend or an enemy based on their prior knowledge of what the person does. This makes it possible to mistake a friend for an enemy and vice versa. Only gradually does the individual come to recognize what feelings others have for him, and there is always an element of doubt unless others express those feelings verbally and unambiguously and act in a way that clearly matches their stated feelings, over a sufficient period of time. The individual is easily made insecure about the status of personal relationships and needs frequent reassurance that the other person's feelings have not changed.

The individual is sheepish about expressing his personal feelings about people ("I find you really interesting" or "I like you a lot"), but responds very well to these statements, as if they were unexpected treats. Instead, the person tends to focus on whether others' behavior makes sense or not._


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> Sure, if you've got time. I don't even know what a Model A is.


As an Ni dom, I _always_ have time. ;D

I'm not the best explaining, and I may mess something up, but I'll do my best.

To identify a type, socionics has something called models, which organize functions in blocks to help you understand how it works. You must assume this first: all people have all 8 functions. No exceptions. Some functions are strong, some of them are weak; some are valued, some of them are not. But you have them all.

There's Model A, which is widely accepted because not only did it come first, it's pretty easy to understand; there's Model G, which organizes information elements (IE, for short) in a different order, and then Model B but I know nothing about it.

Regardless;

In Model A (the one I've studied), you can divide your psyche in four stacks: Ego, Super Ego, Super ID and ID.

In your Ego block, you'll find two strong and valued IEs. In my case, as an Intuitive Ethical Introtim (IEI), my two ego IEs are Ni and Fe. They are both *strong* and *valued*. A valued IE is... that which you appreciate. You like it, basically. 

In the Super Ego block you will find your most painful IEs, because they're *weak* and *devalued*. These two IEs, however, are how you _believe_ you should behave around others. But you suck at that. You present yourself with these two IEs to the world, and when people get to know you better, you'll show your true self.

In IEI's case, the painful IEs are Si (god I hate Si), and Te (don't even get me _started_ here). By the way, the first IE (Si in this case) is your _role_; that which you can do under stress though you'd rather not. And the second one is your point of least resistance. Something that, if criticized, will make you feel insecure.

The third block is what I needed to get at to explain this. 

It's called Super ID. This one has your *weak* but *valued* IEs. The ones you try to be good at, but you can't. You appreciate other's input here, because it's comforting and complements your Ego. The stack here _also_ constitutes your dual's Ego block.

The first one (for us, IEIs) is Se. The second, Ti. The first IE in this block is your *dual seeking* (which, to make it simple, is the thing you didn't know you wanted). The second one is your *hidden agenda*. This one is somewhat conscious. You know you want people to help you with your HA, and you seek someone who can provide it. In SLE's case, the hidden agenda is Fe, which translates to seeking a fun, light hearted, non judgemental enviroment where you can discuss things and have fun at the same time. Also big groups, because big groups = more fun!

The last stack is your ID. These IEs are *strong* and *devalued*. Sure, you _could_ use these, but why? It's such a bother. You'd rather use your Ego functions.

The first (the *ignoring*) for me is Ne (see the pattern? Ni - most appreciated; Ne - ignored). The second one (*demonstrative*) is Fi (this one, I use sometimes, but not often).

--

This is overly simplified. If you want me to explain something in detail, lemme know! Or, if you want me to explain the IEs in each block for the SLE, I can do that too.


----------



## Coburn

@myst91

Second one is most applicable, although there are trace elements of the first.


----------



## myst91

Coburn said:


> @myst91
> 
> Second one is most applicable, although there are trace elements of the first.


LSE then for you 

That one was the Fi suggestive of LSE.

Btw when I said your language is LSE>SLE, I meant this very pragmatic style you seem to have that's just Te overload in a sense - at least that's what it seems to me.


----------



## Coburn

myst91 said:


> LSE then for you
> 
> That one was the Fi suggestive of LSE.
> 
> Btw when I said your language is LSE>SLE, I meant this very pragmatic style you seem to have that's just Te overload in a sense - at least that's what it seems to me.


Hmm, interesting. But then what about the SLE descriptions? I relate more to SLE, but it sounds like descriptions don't account for much.

Re: my language, if you can, ignore it. How I present online is very different from offline, so it's not a solid basis for function judgement.


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> As an Ni dom, I _always_ have time. ;D
> 
> I'm not the best explaining, and I may mess something up, but I'll do my best.
> 
> To identify a type, socionics has something called models, which organize functions in blocks to help you understand how it works. You must assume this first: all people have all 8 functions. No exceptions. Some functions are strong, some of them are weak; some are valued, some of them are not. But you have them all.
> 
> There's Model A, which is widely accepted because not only did it come first, it's pretty easy to understand; there's Model G, which organizes information elements (IE, for short) in a different order, and then Model B but I know nothing about it.
> 
> Regardless;
> 
> In Model A (the one I've studied), you can divide your psyche in four stacks: Ego, Super Ego, Super ID and ID.
> 
> In your Ego block, you'll find two strong and valued IEs. In my case, as an Intuitive Ethical Introtim (IEI), my two ego IEs are Ni and Fe. They are both *strong* and *valued*. A valued IE is... that which you appreciate. You like it, basically.
> 
> In the Super Ego block you will find your most painful IEs, because they're *weak* and *devalued*. These two IEs, however, are how you _believe_ you should behave around others. But you suck at that. You present yourself with these two IEs to the world, and when people get to know you better, you'll show your true self.
> 
> In IEI's case, the painful IEs are Si (god I hate Si), and Te (don't even get me _started_ here). By the way, the first IE (Si in this case) is your _role_; that which you can do under stress though you'd rather not. And the second one is your point of least resistance. Something that, if criticized, will make you feel insecure.
> 
> The third block is what I needed to get at to explain this.
> 
> It's called Super ID. This one has your *weak* but *valued* IEs. The ones you try to be good at, but you can't. You appreciate other's input here, because it's comforting and complements your Ego. The stack here _also_ constitutes your dual's Ego block.
> 
> The first one (for us, IEIs) is Se. The second, Ti. The first IE in this block is your *dual seeking* (which, to make it simple, is the thing you didn't know you wanted). The second one is your *hidden agenda*. This one is somewhat conscious. You know you want people to help you with your HA, and you seek someone who can provide it. In SLE's case, the hidden agenda is Fe, which translates to seeking a fun, light hearted, non judgemental enviroment where you can discuss things and have fun at the same time. Also big groups, because big groups = more fun!
> 
> The last stack is your ID. These IEs are *strong* and *devalued*. Sure, you _could_ use these, but why? It's such a bother. You'd rather use your Ego functions.
> 
> The first (the *ignoring*) for me is Ne (see the pattern? Ni - most appreciated; Ne - ignored). The second one (*demonstrative*) is Fi (this one, I use sometimes, but not often).
> 
> --
> 
> This is overly simplified. If you want me to explain something in detail, lemme know! Or, if you want me to explain the IEs in each block for the SLE, I can do that too.


Fantastic breakdown. This clarifies a lot. If you can do the same for SLE it would be much appreciated. Thank you!


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> Fantastic breakdown. This clarifies a lot. If you can do the same for SLE it would be much appreciated. Thank you!


I wouldn't call it fantastic, I think it's a bit messy... But thank you!

Well, I can't give good explanations of how these work on the SLE or the LSE, so... I will just list them for you. 

SLE:

Ego - Se base/Ti creative
Super ego - Ne role/Fi PoLR
Super ID - Ni dual seeking/Fe hidden agenda
ID - Si ignoring/Te demonstrative

LSE:

Ego - Te base/Si creative
Super ego - Fe role/Ni PoLR
Super ID - Fi dual seeking/Ne hidden agenda
ID - Ti ignoring/Se demonstrative



Coburn said:


> How I present online is very different from offline, so it's not a solid basis for function judgement.


Here's an example of an SLE.


* *












Do you act like him?


----------



## Valtire

Graveyard said:


> SLE:
> 
> Ego - Se base/Ti creative
> Super ego - Ne role/Fi PoLR
> Super ID - Ni dual seeking/Fe hidden agenda
> ID - Si ignoring/Te demonstrative
> 
> LSE:
> 
> Ego - Te base/Si creative
> Super ego - Fe role/Ni PoLR
> Super ID - Fi dual seeking/Ne hidden agenda
> ID - Ti ignoring/Se demonstrative


You missed the tags:
Ego is loved and talented
Super ego is disliked, but you assume it's expected of you.
Super ID is semi-loved. You like it in others and you know you need to work on it.
ID is "well I could do it this way, but why would I want to?"



Graveyard said:


> Here's an example of an SLE.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you act like him?


Some are even more silly or serious.


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> I wouldn't call it fantastic, I think it's a bit messy... But thank you!
> 
> Well, I can't give good explanations of how these work on the SLE or the LSE, so... I will just list them for you.
> 
> SLE:
> 
> Ego - Se base/Ti creative
> Super ego - Ne role/Fi PoLR
> Super ID - Ni dual seeking/Fe hidden agenda
> ID - Si ignoring/Te demonstrative
> 
> LSE:
> 
> Ego - Te base/Si creative
> Super ego - Fe role/Ni PoLR
> Super ID - Fi dual seeking/Ne hidden agenda
> ID - Ti ignoring/Se demonstrative
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of an SLE.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you act like him?


I feel like Fe as something I need help with makes a lot more sense than Ne in the same spot. Regarding Fi/Ni, not sure. 

Regarding the video, same kind of energy, but much more spacey. Not so grounded. His energy is a bit heavier than mine.


----------



## Graveyard

Fried Eggz said:


> You missed the tags:
> Ego is loved and talented
> Super ego is disliked, but you assume it's expected of you.
> Super ID is semi-loved. You like it in others and you know you need to work on it.
> ID is "well I could do it this way, but why would I want to?"


Oh true. Sorry 'bout that. 



> Some are even more silly or serious.


Yeah... He's just the first one I came across. I know a pretty serious SLE, but he speaks Spanish, so... Can't use him as an example here.


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> I feel like Fe as something I need help with makes a lot more sense than Ne in the same spot. Regarding Fi/Ni, not sure.
> 
> Regarding the video, same kind of energy, but much more spacey. Not so grounded. His energy is a bit heavier than mine.


Well, uhm... Do you appreciate people who lighten up the mood, or would you like to have serious conversations about things that interest you?

And he's a bit energetic too, so I wouldn't expect it to be a 100% match, but that kinda speaks in favor to ESTx.
Why do you think he's heavier than you?


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> Well, uhm... Do you appreciate people who lighten up the mood, or would you like to have serious conversations about things that interest you?
> 
> And he's a bit energetic too, so I wouldn't expect it to be a 100% match, but that kinda speaks in favor to ESTx.
> Why do you think he's heavier than you?


Yeah, I'm realizing I suck at describing myself. 

I enjoy people who lighten the mood. I don't mind a serious discussion (usually exploration of an idea or concept) if it's interesting and has momentum and leads to either a new level of awareness or a physical action.

But overall I prefer people who are lighthearted and fun and looking to just enjoy doing whatever. I like people who are up for adventure and trying new things. 

If we get into in-depth discussions along the way, even better.

With people I'm close to, I tend to shoot a lot of ideas or thoughts and then explore them together on a conversational level. Taking their insights and building off them to explore new ideas. Open brainstorming, sort of.

If people approach me with a negative or pessimistic attitude, I will usually attempt to lighten the mood first. If that can't be done, I'll try to address whatever issue they have seriously, although that's not a natural or comfortable position to be in unless it's something I can really talk to. I'm pretty good at handling people who are going through negative times, but my reactions are all learned and formulaic to a large extent. I have trouble expressing my understanding because I understand on an empathy level, not a sympathy one.

Generally speaking, I joke around a lot. If I feel I can treat someone on a friend level when I first meet them, I will, even if it takes them awhile to catch up and adjust. I tend to do a lot of verbal play (playing off the meaning of words people say) in conversation.

His dialgoue has more force to it. I tend to be more push-pull. I'll put momentum out there, but I look for pushback. It feels like his dialogue is all push, without looking for a response.


----------



## Coburn

Fried Eggz said:


> You missed the tags:
> Ego is loved and talented
> Super ego is disliked, but you assume it's expected of you.
> Super ID is semi-loved. You like it in others and you know you need to work on it.
> ID is "well I could do it this way, but why would I want to?"
> 
> 
> Some are even more silly or serious.


Hm, is there a description of what Ne hidden agenda looks like?


----------



## Coburn

Also, I was explaining this elsewhere, but I tend to prefer people who will clearly express where they stand on something. I would rather a strong reaction in conversation than a mild one, because I can't read a mild one. Unless it's accompanied by some sort of physical indicator, I can't read a person's feelings. And that puts me in an uncomfortable spot that forces me to either seek clarification or willingly ignore the ambiguity.


----------



## Graveyard

Coburn said:


> Yeah, I'm realizing I suck at describing myself.
> 
> I enjoy people who lighten the mood. *I don't mind a serious discussion (usually exploration of an idea or concept) if it's interesting and has momentum and leads to either a new level of awareness or a physical action*.
> 
> But overall I prefer people who are lighthearted and fun and looking to just enjoy doing whatever. I like people who are up for adventure and trying new things.
> 
> If we get into in-depth discussions along the way, even better.
> 
> With people I'm close to, I tend to shoot a lot of ideas or thoughts and then explore them together on a conversational level. Taking their insights and building off them to explore new ideas. Open brainstorming, sort of.
> 
> If people approach me with a negative or pessimistic attitude, I will usually attempt to lighten the mood first. If that can't be done, I'll try to address whatever issue they have seriously, although that's not a natural or comfortable position to be in unless it's something I can really talk to. I'm pretty good at handling people who are going through negative times, but my reactions are all learned and formulaic to a large extent. I have trouble expressing my understanding because I understand on an empathy level, not a sympathy one.
> 
> Generally speaking, I joke around a lot. If I feel I can treat someone on a friend level when I first meet them, I will, even if it takes them awhile to catch up and adjust. I tend to do a lot of verbal play (playing off the meaning of words people say) in conversation.
> 
> His dialgoue has more force to it. I tend to be more push-pull. I'll put momentum out there, but I look for pushback. It feels like his dialogue is all push, without looking for a response.


Don't worry. We all do. 

Everything you've described really, really sounds like an SLE. Putting the momentum and expecting a response is a Se kind of thing; Se in socionics isn't about perception and looking at pretty things. It's about force, power, influence. Pushing things in order to get a response is related to that. 

The bolded also sounds a bit like I imagine a Beta group interaction, a bit. 

I'm not dead sure, but I think we can agree this is kind of SLE-ish?

I'm not sure?

Please don't hate me?

--

I think the reason he seems to push only is because he's recording himself and he's not expecting a direct response. He's just speaking to a camera and there's no one to answer. That may be it?


----------



## Valtire

Graveyard said:


> Everything you've described really, really sounds like an SLE. Putting the momentum and expecting a response is a Se kind of thing; Se in socionics isn't about perception and looking at pretty things. It's about force, power, influence.


Se is also about gathering new experiences (vs Si which prefers to find good ones and re-live them). Se often seems to like being a collector of some kind, but not always. And to be fair, Se is slightly about pretty things. A Ti-Se approach would be to analyse _why_ things are pretty and to find a bunch of general rules of beauty.


----------



## Graveyard

Fried Eggz said:


> Se is also about gathering new experiences (vs Si which prefers to find good ones and re-live them). Se often seems to like being a collector of some kind, but not always. And to be fair, Se is slightly about pretty things. A Ti-Se approach would be to analyse _why_ things are pretty and to find a bunch of general rules of beauty.


Ah, sorry. :c

I was trying to explain the difference between Se in MBTI and in socionics. Sine, y'know, in MBTI it's all about looking at things and... just that. 

But don't expect the 1D Se to know this stuff.


----------



## Valtire

Graveyard said:


> Ah, sorry. :c


Quit apologising. I was expanding on what you were saying, not telling you off.


----------



## Coburn

Graveyard said:


> Don't worry. We all do.
> 
> Everything you've described really, really sounds like an SLE. Putting the momentum and expecting a response is a Se kind of thing; Se in socionics isn't about perception and looking at pretty things. It's about force, power, influence. Pushing things in order to get a response is related to that.
> 
> The bolded also sounds a bit like I imagine a Beta group interaction, a bit.
> 
> I'm not dead sure, but I think we can agree this is kind of SLE-ish?
> 
> I'm not sure?
> 
> Please don't hate me?
> 
> --
> 
> I think the reason he seems to push only is because he's recording himself and he's not expecting a direct response. He's just speaking to a camera and there's no one to answer. That may be it?


Okay, so what I wrote sounds more SLE then. Ha, this feels a bit confusing though, since I apparently relate more to LSE's Fi orientation as per that description a couple pages back.

Would looking at renins help?

Re: the video, I expect that's probably part of it. The other part is the editing, now that I rewatch it.


----------



## Graveyard

Fried Eggz said:


> Quit apologising. I was expanding on what you were saying, not telling you off.


Ah. Uh. Eh. Thanks? 

I just fear that what I said is entirely wrong. Sorry (sorry again for saying sorry ) about that. 



Coburn said:


> Okay, so what I wrote sounds more SLE then. Ha, this feels a bit confusing though, since I apparently relate more to LSE's Fi orientation as per that description a couple pages back.
> 
> Would looking at renins help?
> 
> Re: the video, I expect that's probably part of it. The other part is the editing, now that I rewatch it.


It's confusing indeed. Don't trust me much; I'm bad at typing and I have a hard time explaining the mess that is my head.

I think Reinins are a bit off, but you can try. It would help a lot, actually.

Yeah, most likely. And his purpose is to entertain anyway, so... Yeah, another factor to consider.


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Ah. Uh. Eh. Thanks?
> 
> I just fear that what I said is entirely wrong. Sorry (sorry again for saying sorry ) about that.


Lol, did you just apologize for apologizing and then in brackets apologize for _that_ apology?

You're actually pretty good at explaining things and at explaining your thought process; you just seem to be kinda insecure about it. No reason to be insecure though.
@Coburn , if you're interested, you could try this Reinin quiz: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...mies-blind-description-test.html#post24492129

Post your result and I can run it through my spreadsheet to list out most likely types/quadras :crazy:

Also this is an online quiz: Sociotypograph — determine sociotype


----------



## myst91

Fried Eggz said:


> vs Si which prefers to find good ones and re-live them


Eh, no, SxI isn't really described as that. They do want to find new ones too. It's just going to be a subjective impression instead of objective sensation.




> A Ti-Se approach would be to analyse why things are pretty and to find a bunch of general rules of beauty.


I don't ever do that.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, did you just apologize for apologizing and then in brackets apologize for _that_ apology?
> 
> You're actually pretty good at explaining things and at explaining your thought process; you just seem to be kinda insecure about it. No reason to be insecure though.


Yes, and it could have been an infinite chain of bracketed apologies, but it wouldn't have been fun. 

Ah, I don't feel confident enough in mi ability to explain concepts. Or explaining myself. 
You should know, I'm the pinacle of insecurity. ;D


----------



## myst91

Coburn said:


> Okay, so what I wrote sounds more SLE then. Ha, this feels a bit confusing though, since I apparently relate more to LSE's Fi orientation as per that description a couple pages back.
> 
> Would looking at renins help?
> 
> Re: the video, I expect that's probably part of it. The other part is the editing, now that I rewatch it.


Reinin is not really useful.

What you wrote there IMO could be either SLE or LSE. Not specific enough.

I'm sure you'll be able to tell after more exploring of the system for yourself.


----------



## Coburn

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, did you just apologize for apologizing and then in brackets apologize for _that_ apology?
> 
> You're actually pretty good at explaining things and at explaining your thought process; you just seem to be kinda insecure about it. No reason to be insecure though.
> 
> @Coburn , if you're interested, you could try this Reinin quiz: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...mies-blind-description-test.html#post24492129
> 
> Post your result and I can run it through my spreadsheet to list out most likely types/quadras :crazy:
> 
> Also this is an online quiz: Sociotypograph â€” determine sociotype


Got Robespierre, or LII.

Regarding the other test:

A, except I care much more about work environment than pay. I have a bad habit of forgetting to submit timesheets and keeping track of my hours. If I didn't need money to pay bills and rent and food, I would probably rarely collect a paycheck.

A, although I was B for a short while, before I found goals I really wanted to achieve.

B, although I tend to be the one asking questions in a conversation. But none of the A stuff applies besides being inquisitive.

A.

A, although fuck no to this part: "would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other."

B.

Relate to nothing in question seven.

B.

B.

B.

B.


----------



## Valtire

myst91 said:


> Eh, no, SxI isn't really described as that. They do want to find new ones too. It's just going to be a subjective impression instead of objective sensation.


Si is biased sensation. Se is not. Si egos do like to relive things, you can see it in their behaviour, regardless of the cause of it. I also didn't say Si users have no Se.

It happened to be one of Carl Jung's observations that the most extremely pronounced Se dominants would do nothing but gather new experiences and would only use those experiences to gain even more ones. It stands to reason that the most extremely pronounced Si-dominants would never gather new experiences.



myst91 said:


> I don't ever do that.


I didn't say you would. I said that would be how Ti-Se would try to understand beauty. Looking for criteria/principles that defines it.


----------



## Valtire

Coburn said:


> Hm, is there a description of what Ne hidden agenda looks like?


Sorry for not responding. I could try to answer that, but as I'm not a Ne HA I can't guarantee that it'd be an accurate or equatable description.

Here's one opinion:


> The individual deeply appreciates people who are full of ideas and imagination and who give them a sense of connectedness to what is happening "out there in the world," even if this information cannot be applied practically at the present moment. He is even more grateful for people who provide insightful ideas and unconventional analysis to enhance what he is working on or going through at the present moment.


----------



## myst91

Fried Eggz said:


> Si is biased sensation. Se is not. Si egos do like to relive things, you can see it in their behaviour, regardless of the cause of it.


Socionics describes Si as liking new sensations.




> I also didn't say Si users have no Se.
> 
> It happened to be one of Carl Jung's observations that the most extremely pronounced Se dominants would do nothing but gather new experiences and would only use those experiences to gain even more ones. It stands to reason that the most extremely pronounced Si-dominants would never gather new experiences.


Jung's Si is a *tiny little bit* different from Socionics's Si.

In any case, I don't see how it's logical to assume that Si specifically has anything to do with sticking to the same old. In MBTI yes there is this silly idea, otherwise nah it doesn't directly follow from the idea of applying the introverted attitude to Sensation.




> I didn't say you would. I said that would be how Ti-Se would try to understand beauty. Looking for criteria/principles that defines it.


I didn't say you said that, obviously. I just mentioned how this is a completely foreign idea to me. I don't analyze aesthetics, it just is. It doesn't interest me enough to go deeper in the "why" for it. Sounds like too much Ne guesswork being involved, too.


Btw, did you see me asking about you vs ISTPs?


----------



## myst91

Where are the EIEs -.-


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

In the bottomless pits of the abyss.


----------



## myst91

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> In the bottomless pits of the abyss.


*calculating quickest route to go down there*


----------



## counterintuitive

There should be a Alta Quadra hangout thread for people who relate equally to Alpha and Beta Quadras.

Sorry, I'll leave now. Lol. I have problems :crazy:


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> There should be a Alta Quadra hangout thread for people who relate equally to Alpha and Beta Quadras.
> 
> Sorry, I'll leave now. Lol. I have problems :crazy:


Do you mean a "Merry Quadras Hangout Thread"? Sure, that would work!

Though we call those "parties".


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Do you mean a "Merry Quadras Hangout Thread"? Sure, that would work!
> 
> Though we call those "parties".


I was going to revise it to Merry Quadras actually but then I decided to leave it. :crazy: That would work though.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> I was going to revise it to Merry Quadras actually but then I decided to leave it. :crazy: That would work though.


Oh, it definitely would. Even so, there's the possibility Alphas will find Betas too extreme, or Betas will find Alphas too mild for their tastes. Group interaction, if not too deep, could be ideal.


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Oh, it definitely would. Even so, there's the possibility Alphas will find Betas too extreme, or Betas will find Alphas too mild for their tastes. Group interaction, if not too deep, could be ideal.


Lol, yeah, that's the mild/extreme or kinda, er, wimpy/aggressive or, ahem, apathetic/go-getter vibe that I get from Alpha/Beta... I find myself in the middle on those, which is why I identify with Alta.  I see Alphas as too wimpy, Betas as too aggressive, etc.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, yeah, that's the mild/extreme or kinda, er, wimpy/aggressive or, ahem, apathetic/go-getter vibe that I get from Alpha/Beta... I find myself in the middle on those, which is why I identify with Alta.  I see Alphas as too wimpy, Betas as too aggressive, etc.


You'd have to see yourself in a group filled with Alphas, and another one with Betas. Dunno, I can't help ya decide, it's up to you!

But I get an Alpha vibe from you, if that helps.


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> You'd have to see yourself in a group filled with Alphas, and another one with Betas. Dunno, I can't help ya decide, it's up to you!
> 
> But I get an Alpha vibe from you, if that helps.


Lol well if those groups exist IRL in a confirmable way - i.e. one can confirm that those groups are actually Alpha or Beta dominated - then sure! :crazy: I can test it out. AFAIK groups are mixed between all 4 quadras and I cannot tell if one dominates. Frankly IRL I'm fine just mixing with everyone~~~ :kitteh:

I bet the vibe is more Alpha. I think I devalue Se. I've gotten into arguments both times I posted in the Alpha thread though. Lol. :crazy: And some of the, er, well-known Alphas in this subforum don't think I am one, at least going by that thread. So I thought I'd move in here for a bit. xD So far it's going better. Lol.




myst91 said:


> Where are the EIEs -.-


I can be your honorary EIE for like 10-15 minutes before the Fe wears off!!! :crazy: :laughing:


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> Lol well if those groups exist IRL in a confirmable way - i.e. one can confirm that those groups are actually Alpha or Beta dominated - then sure! :crazy: I can test it out. AFAIK groups are mixed between all 4 quadras and I cannot tell if one dominates. Frankly IRL I'm fine just mixing with everyone~~~ :kitteh:
> 
> I bet the vibe is more Alpha. I think I devalue Se. I've gotten into arguments both times I posted in the Alpha thread though. Lol. :crazy: And some of the, er, well-known Alphas in this subforum don't think I am one. So I thought I'd move in here for a bit. xD So far it's going better. Lol.
> 
> I can be your honorary EIE for like 10-15 minutes before the Fe wears off!!! :crazy: :laughing:


Oh yes they do. You usually gravitate towards your own quadra, and you'll find yourself friend with more members of your quadra without noticing. 

For example, my country is the epitome of Beta groups. Everyone knows at least one group of friends that goes wild on weekends - and I mean REALLY wild. Or the Deltas, who complain about everything. That's pretty much the only two I see around. 

And sure! As long as you don't hit our LSIs PoLR, you're welcome!


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I can be your honorary EIE for like 10-15 minutes before the Fe wears off!!! :crazy: :laughing:


Please, feel free to. 

Btw, I'm curious to see those arguments with the Alphas =P If you have links.


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Oh yes they do. You usually gravitate towards your own quadra, and you'll find yourself friend with more members of your quadra without noticing.
> 
> For example, my country is the epitome of Beta groups. Everyone knows at least one group of friends that goes wild on weekends - and I mean REALLY wild. Or the Deltas, who complain about everything. That's pretty much the only two I see around.
> 
> And sure! As long as you don't hit our LSIs PoLR, you're welcome!


So are you claiming that you can empirically confirm that those groups are actually dominated by one Quadra? I'm not going to accept that on faith, or because the theory says so, or something like that. Has that been empirically verified?

_"you'll find yourself friend with more members of your quadra"_ - This is a straightforward claim that should be easily empirically verified. Has it?

Again I'll say, _"if those groups exist IRL *in a confirmable way* - i.e. one can confirm that those groups are actually Alpha or Beta dominated - then sure! I can test it out."_ I'm not going to accept it on faith.

I don't notice anyone who would fit the mirror, dual, or activator description around me. Lol I complain about everything too. I must be Delta now. The group of friends going wild on weekends is like 90% of college students, I'm pretty sure 90% of college students aren't Beta.

I said this to Myst already but my communication with her is better than it is with 90% of people I know IRL or online, yet we're supposedly in different quadras and she's my "Supervisee". Alrighty.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, yeah, that's the mild/extreme or kinda, er, wimpy/aggressive or, ahem, apathetic/go-getter vibe that I get from Alpha/Beta... I find myself in the middle on those, which is why I identify with Alta.  I see Alphas as too wimpy, Betas as too aggressive, etc.


My problem with alphas isn't really that they are so mild, the jokes of alpha NTs bother me more due to the Ne. Betas are easy to understand, if I actually get included, I can warm up to Ni jokes pretty well. =)


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> So are you claiming that you can empirically confirm that those groups are actually dominated by one Quadra? I'm not going to accept that on faith, or because the theory says so, or something like that. Has that been empirically verified?
> 
> _"you'll find yourself friend with more members of your quadra"_ - This is a straightforward claim that should be easily empirically verified. Has it?


I think there were some studies on marriages, not sure about this one. You may have seen those already...

It wouldn't be too hard to carry out a study on this though.




> Again I'll say, _"if those groups exist IRL *in a confirmable way* - i.e. one can confirm that those groups are actually Alpha or Beta dominated - then sure! I can test it out."_ I'm not going to accept it on faith.
> 
> I don't notice anyone who would fit the mirror, dual, or activator description around me. Lol I complain about everything too. I must be Delta now. The group of friends going wild on weekends is like 90% of college students, I'm pretty sure 90% of college students aren't Beta.
> 
> I said this to Myst already but my communication with her is better than it is with 90% of people I know IRL or online, yet we're supposedly in different quadras and she's my "Supervisee". Alrighty.


Yeah you are delta :crazy:

I do get along with several alpha NTs btw. Eh, beyond that, I'm pretty sure there are also NTR factors here. roud:

Btw, it's more one on one with them, in groups that are full of Alpha NT jokes (with those alpha NT people I know participating in them) I don't fare well.


----------



## myst91

@Graveyard you're only on the forum right now? =P


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> So are you claiming that you can empirically confirm that those groups are actually dominated by one Quadra? I'm not going to accept that on faith, or because the theory says so, or something like that. Has that been empirically verified?
> 
> _"you'll find yourself friend with more members of your quadra"_ - This is a straightforward claim that should be easily empirically verified. Has it?
> 
> Again I'll say, _"if those groups exist IRL *in a confirmable way* - i.e. one can confirm that those groups are actually Alpha or Beta dominated - then sure! I can test it out."_ I'm not going to accept it on faith.
> 
> I don't notice anyone who would fit the mirror, dual, or activator description around me. Lol I complain about everything too. I must be Delta now. The group of friends going wild on weekends is like 90% of college students, I'm pretty sure 90% of college students aren't Beta.
> 
> I said this to Myst already but my communication with her is better than it is with 90% of people I know IRL or online, yet we're supposedly in different quadras and she's my "Supervisee". Alrighty.


Sorry sorry, I generalize a lot. I know I shouldn't, but I'm used to it. ;D

I cannot confirm any of my claims. Therefore, you are free to disregard them if you please. I'm a young and naive kid, don't mind me. 

When I said Deltas complain about everything, I was joking. They might, they might not. It's not a quadra-specific behaviour.


----------



## Graveyard

myst91 said:


> @Graveyard you're only on the forum right now? =P


Yup, but I can open Skype. I was avoiding someone, and I think he's asleep now.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> I think there were some studies on marriages, not sure about this one. You may have seen those already...
> 
> It wouldn't be too hard to carry out a study on this though.
> 
> Yeah you are delta :crazy:
> 
> I do get along with several alpha NTs btw. Eh, beyond that, I'm pretty sure there are also NTR factors here. roud:
> 
> Btw, it's more one on one with them, in groups that are full of Alpha NT jokes (with those alpha NT people I know participating in them) I don't fare well.


I think I saw the marriage ones... It should be easy to carry out a study on a straightforward claim like that though.

ETA: The other thing for me personally is that I don't choose most of the people I'm around. I go to work and there they are. I go to a group and there they are. The other people are already there. So it's not like any gravitation effect would be visible regardless.

Yay NTR factors roud:

JK about Delta btw :crazy:

I miss most Ne jokes too, like double meanings, hidden meanings, stuff like that, just goes over my head. Bizarre analogies and metaphorical jokes and stuff like that. I just get confused. Lol. :crazy: It doesn't annoy me though, I just stand there confused. OTOH I see double meanings where no double meaning was intended, I hear puns everywhere where no one else hears puns, etc. Basically those things that unintentionally reference multiple contexts. Lol.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I miss most Ne jokes too, like double meanings, hidden meanings, stuff like that, just goes over my head. Bizarre analogies and metaphorical jokes and stuff like that. I just get confused. Lol. :crazy: It doesn't annoy me though, I just stand there confused. OTOH I see double meanings where no double meaning was intended, I hear puns everywhere where no one else hears puns, etc. Basically those things that unintentionally reference multiple contexts. Lol.


This sounds more Ni than Ne to me, tbh, but I can't be sure from this much. I actually fare surprisingly well with some of the double meaning thingies Ni creatives throw at me =)

The Ne jokes I don't like/can't follow are more about random juxtapositions and word plays.


----------



## karmachameleon

Wtf Kerik trying to steal the attention from me.. pff


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> Wtf Kerik trying to steal the attention from me.. pff


You were gone, too?


----------



## Graveyard

Oh great. Ye ole NFs are here.

And I thought I could be famous for once.


----------



## Valtire

Graveyard said:


> Oh great. Ye ole NFs are here.
> 
> And I thought I could be famous for once.


You missed your opportunity. You should have dominated the thread when they were banned.

Speaking of which, do you have zero infractions?


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> You were gone, too?


Yeah i was banned for a month and then it took a while until i went on here lol


----------



## karmachameleon

Btw i think im EIE and not IEI. im very much an introvert and i dont care about Fe in the sense of following trends, sharing opinions. i tend to go against the general opinion of everyone because idk why. But im social last in enneagram and the functions makes way more sense and that im not as soft as IEIs and omgad it all makes sense. 

Ni subtype tho


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> i tend to go against the general opinion of everyone because idk why.


I do too. I go around making arguments against absolutely everything that is commonly accepted.

But I'm not anti-Te to the degree that I would comfortably claim Jung was wrong about his own functions. I just hate commonly accepted ideas that go unquestioned.


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> I do too. I go around making arguments against absolutely everything that is commonly accepted.
> 
> But I'm not anti-Te to the degree that I would comfortably claim Jung was wrong about his own functions. I just hate commonly accepted ideas that go unquestioned.


Yeah for me it's a mix of everyone just going along with what's accepted and that im just drawn to it because i like arguing lol and being different probably.


----------



## myst91

Fried Eggz said:


> I do too. I go around making arguments against absolutely everything that is commonly accepted.
> 
> But I'm not anti-Te to the degree that I would comfortably claim Jung was wrong about his own functions. I just hate commonly accepted ideas that go unquestioned.


You don't really have to accept Jung via Te... I accept some of his ideas through my own observations, my own way of making sense of his writings.

And heh, I go around like that too


----------



## FearAndTrembling

myst91 said:


> You don't really have to accept Jung via Te... I accept some of his ideas through my own observations, my own way of making sense of his writings.
> 
> And heh, I go around like that too


I don't think most "founders" know what they are doing. Jung included. Like I was watching a video by Naranjo recently. lol. This guy is telling me how special the number 9 is. One of the first examples he gives is the planets. First of all, there are only 8 planets now. But that is besides the point. There is nothing magical about any number of planets. Anymore than there is something special about dropping a plate on the ground and it breaking into 5 pieces. It doesn't make the number 5 magic. I really don't get why anyone would believe these people. The planets formed similarly to the plate. I doubt Naranjo knew that. Or much at all.

Not knowing how numbers come about but being overtaken by them. Jailed by them. It reminds of William James saying people are dazzled by number and it makes them come to a full stop intellectually:

*


In spite of this obvious fact the unity of things has always been considered more illustrious, as it were, than their variety. When a young man first conceives the notion that the whole world forms one great fact, with all its parts moving abreast, as it were, and interlocked, he feels as if he were enjoying a great insight, and looks superciliously on all who still fall short of this sublime conception. Taken thus abstractly as it first comes to one, the monistic insight is so vague as hardly to seem worth defending intellectually. Yet probably everyone in this audience in some way cherishes it. A certain abstract monism, a certain emotional response to the character of oneness, as if it were a feature of the world not coordinate with its manyness, but vastly more excellent and eminent, is so prevalent in educated circles that we might almost call it a part of philosophic common sense. Of COURSE the world is one, we say. How else could it be a world at all? Empiricists as a rule, are as stout monists of this abstract kind as rationalists are.

The difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled. Unity doesn't blind them to everything else, doesn't quench their curiosity for special facts, whereas there is a kind of rationalist who is sure to interpret abstract unity mystically and to forget everything else, to treat it as a principle; to admire and worship it; and thereupon to come to a full stop intellectually.

'The world is One!'—the formula may become a sort of number-worship. 'Three' and 'seven' have, it is true, been reckoned sacred numbers; but, abstractly taken, why is 'one' more excellent than 'forty-three,' or than 'two million and ten'? In this first vague conviction of the world's unity, there is so little to take hold of that we hardly know what we mean by it.*


----------



## SheWolf

Kerik_S said:


> Nope. Just giving up on any personality type being inherently socially intelligent (FB groups....)


Bruh don't get me started on FB groups. Especially the MBTI ones.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Bruh don't get me started on FB groups. Especially the MBTI ones.


lol i could just imagine how mbti fb groups are. all mbti communities are shit shows.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> lol i could just imagine how mbti fb groups are. all mbti communities are shit shows.


Everyone is a mistype it seems. They fall on stereotype. ALL the NT's are complete assholes and associate that with being an NT. 

The INFP groups are people whining. All the time. "Woe is me!" stuff. If you want a good, knowledgeable discussion over type theory...

_Don't go the FB type groups._


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Everyone is a mistype it seems. They fall on stereotype. ALL the NT's are complete assholes and associate that with being an NT.
> 
> The INFP groups are people whining. All the time. "Woe is me!" stuff. If you want a good, knowledgeable discussion over type theory...
> 
> _Don't go the FB type groups._


I don't like mbti at all because theres no official information and the information is different wherever you go. Also it doesnt make sense that the introverted percievers have J and vice versa. Socionics is more in detail and makes sense.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> I don't like mbti at all because theres no official information and the information is different wherever you go. Also it doesnt make sense that the introverted percievers have J and vice versa. Socionics is more in detail and makes sense.


MBTI is just a different system. It's not as "complete" or systematic as Socionics. It's a bit easier to type someone using Socionics because of it's detail. Socionics, however, I've viewed as being a bit "rigid" at times but you are correct that MBTI does differ from person to person I think. But I believe that's because the Internet has fed so many people with false information. I type as probably an IxFP (Likely ISFP) in MBTI and ExE in Socionics. I'm having some people give me a bit of help distinguishing EIE or ESE. The functions have different definitions especially regarding the Sensing and Feeling functions between the two systems.

However, when it comes to personal growth advice and terms of "labeling/defining" myself I lean toward the Enneagram. I love the Enneagram so bloody much. In Socionics AND MBTI type descriptions can vary and rely on stereotypes or "molds." Enneagram doesn't do this quite as much and for most, the descriptions of Egrams are spot-on.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> MBTI is just a different system. It's not as "complete" or systematic as Socionics. It's a bit easier to type someone using Socionics because of it's detail. Socionics, however, I've viewed as being a bit "rigid" at times but you are correct that MBTI does differ from person to person I think. But I believe that's because the Internet has fed so many people with false information. I type as probably an IxFP (Likely ISFP) in MBTI and ExE in Socionics. I'm having some people give me a bit of help distinguishing EIE or ESE. The functions have different definitions especially regarding the Sensing and Feeling functions between the two systems.
> 
> However, when it comes to personal growth advice and terms of "labeling/defining" myself I lean toward the Enneagram. I love the Enneagram so bloody much. In Socionics AND MBTI type descriptions can vary and rely on stereotypes or "molds." Enneagram doesn't do this quite as much and for most, the descriptions of Egrams are spot-on.


How to know if youre EIE or ESE, look at mobilizing and polr..
The enneagram is the least rigid of all of them because it has no official theory, theres a bunch of theories around it and about the types/instnics but there are some really popular ones


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> How to know if youre EIE or ESE, look at mobilizing and polr..


Know of anywhere that gives descriptions of the Polr and mobilizing for each type?


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Know of anywhere that gives descriptions of the Polr and mobilizing for each type?


Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Descriptions by Functions

"Se as Mobilizing Function (EIE, LIE)

This individual feels that he needs support of others to provide the gusto and motivation for his endeavors. The individual tends to feel capable of achieving his goals, but he first hesitate and trying to think of possible outcomes instead of moving forward, and thus miss out on opportunities which he comes to regret later. He is passively perceptive and evaluative of the external physical conditions, but is lacking in ability to forcefully change them, instead relying on others to do this for him. This makes him seem somewhat unsure and dependent on other's activities and volitional activities to mobilize himself. Nevertheless this individual is usually quite competitive and enjoys being involved in challenging endeavors to see his will and personal abilities develop as he overcomes obstacles together with other people."

"Ne as Mobilizing Function (ESE, LSE)

The individual deeply appreciates people who are able to easily transverse the sea of information and keep themselves informed, who readily form opinions about what they have just seen or read, and who like voicing and discussing hypothetical proposals, ideas, and go on imaginative tangents. Such individuals provide them with a sense of connectedness to what is happening "out there in the world" and allow them to keep up with all the new developments and options. Even if this information cannot be applied practically at the present moment, they appreciate being made aware of what could be because they are often all too aware of what is. Such an individual is even more grateful to people who provide insightful ideas and voice unconventional notions that could enhance what he is working on or going through at the present moment."

Mobilizing is the easiest to spot in other ppl imo. Polr=vulnerable


----------



## SheWolf

@Fenix Wulfheart

The above description of Mobilizing Se fits me _quite _well, yet in my questionnaire you say I seem more FeSi. How do I make sense of this?

Oh, this is troublesome.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> @Fenix Wulfheart
> 
> The above description of Mobilizing Se fits me _quite _well, yet in my questionnaire you say I seem more FeSi. How do I make sense of this?
> 
> Oh, this is troublesome.


I'd say that if you identify strongly with Mobilizing Se, then you should see what Se is like as Demonstrative and compare. If you are ESE, you have Se Demonstrative. If you are EIE you have Se Mobilizing. I could maybe see EIE for you, indeed, I think I mentioned it earlier. I think you have strong Si, so I ruled it out.

"Se as Demonstrative Function (ESE, LSE)

The individual is in touch with the physical reality around him and is able to provide accurate evaluations of material properties of objects and physical qualities of people around him. He considers this to be on secondary importance, however, and will dismiss or even ridicule those who draw attention to their physical prowess, material might and external appearance. He himself generally has little interest in displaying such attitudes and will attempt to quench their displays wherever possible."

"Se as Mobilizing Function (EIE, LIE)

This individual feels that he needs support of others to provide the gusto and motivation for his endeavors. The individual tends to feel capable of achieving his goals, but he first hesitate and trying to think of possible outcomes instead of moving forward, and thus miss out on opportunities which he comes to regret later. He is passively perceptive and evaluative of the external physical conditions, but is lacking in ability to forcefully change them, instead relying on others to do this for him. This makes him seem somewhat unsure and dependent on other's activities and volitional activities to mobilize himself. Nevertheless this individual is usually quite competitive and enjoys being involved in challenging endeavors to see his will and personal abilities develop as he overcomes obstacles together with other people."

Or, you could see the SEI's Se. (See what I did there, senora? Ha. Haha. Ha. Ha.)

"Se as Ignoring Function (SEI, SLI)

The individual is dismissive of exerting direct physical impact to move himself towards meet his goals and needs in favor of preserving his own resources and efforts. He is preferably aware and in tune with the physical and material world around him, but sees little sense in aggressive expansionism and exertion of his own powers. He is adept at observing and perceiving potential conflicts of interests and aggression around him, but typically tries to maneuver around such conflicts to not over extend himself and picks the middle ground. However, if a direct confrontation and collision is inevitable, he is able to provide resistance or even actively participate in them if that is seen as unavoidable. Participating in vigorous physical activities where such fights may take place, martial arts for example, these individuals are motivated not by competition in itself, but by the impressions and sensations those activities generate. When making evaluation of physical nature he prefers to listen internal responses and impressions, rather than going by what he can clearly see on the outside."


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> Do you have 4 in your tritype because only a CP6 with a 4 would latch onto the idea of being "more fluid" in that sense.
> 
> If you waffled around with CP and phobia, you'd be pretty miserable, I think. It wouldn't give you any time to set a cognitive behavioral habit.
> 
> The "sometimes P" thing might be due to social anxiety.


I'm a 631 and I agree with her that using the labels of counterphobia and phobia to distinguish between two "types" of 6s is pointless because people react fluidly depending on their feelings and circumstances.

Also, identifying as CP/P doesn't change that someone is a 6, and there are better ways to identify 6s than latching onto some exaggerated stereotypes that they may or may not display. Every type has a passion and a counterpassion, but you don't see anyone trying to type people by saying they're a "counter-envy" 4 or a "counter-hedonism" 7 or a "counter-vengeance" 8. The reason is counterpassions are not set in stone. 

A 6 is a 6, plain and simple.


----------



## SheWolf

If someone was SOLIDLY a CP 6 then I imagine they would be a very unstable individual. Wouldn't be able to hold a job, probably wind up in jail, etc. 

Because that would mean constantly defying authority and being confrontational over every little thing that they perceive as a threat perhaps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A solid phobic 6 would have absolutely no voice or opinions outside of those they deem as an authority or higher up.

By the way, @karmachameleon I'm curious to hear why I strike you as a Se ego? Because it is really split down the middle for Fe and Se ego and everyone has pretty solid arguments for both types.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> If someone was SOLIDLY a CP 6 then I imagine they would be a very unstable individual. Wouldn't be able to hold a job, probably wind up in jail, etc.
> 
> Because that would mean constantly defying authority and being confrontational over every little thing that they perceive as a threat perhaps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> A solid phobic 6 would have absolutely no voice or opinions outside of those they deem as an authority or higher up.
> 
> By the way, @_karmachameleon_ I'm curious to hear why I strike you as a Se ego? Because it is really split down the middle for Fe and Se ego and everyone has pretty solid arguments for both types.


Malcolm X to a T and he did wind up in prison. Then believed everything Elijah Muhammad said after he got out.


----------



## myst91

Night Huntress said:


> I'm a 631 and I agree with her that using the labels of counterphobia and phobia to distinguish between two "types" of 6s is pointless because people react fluidly depending on their feelings and circumstances.
> 
> Also, identifying as CP/P doesn't change that someone is a 6, and there are better ways to identify 6s than latching onto some exaggerated stereotypes that they may or may not display. Every type has a passion and a counterpassion, but you don't see anyone trying to type people by saying they're a "counter-envy" 4 or a "counter-hedonism" 7 or a "counter-vengeance" 8. The reason is counterpassions are not set in stone.
> 
> A 6 is a 6, plain and simple.


What's the passion/counterpassion for 8, 1 and 5?


----------



## myst91

karmachameleon said:


> Everyone HAS to memorize rules of mathematics. Wtf is this argument? So what would an Fe Ni person say on here constantly according to you?
> Theres no way im an Se ego. I dont relate to it and especially not the romantic style. Just no. Im Ni ego.


Where it came off as Te>Ti to me was that you memorized them like Te would, without (conscious) understanding. (No, Ti does not simply just memorize.) This is most true for when Te is higher dimensionality than Ti, especially if weak Te and when Te comes with Sensing. Strong Te would of course have some unconscious understanding provided by Ti wherever truly needed.

Granted, what this truly shows is 2D Te and 1D Ti, however I definitely lean towards Te HA for you from several expressions I've seen from you over time.

What do you relate to in romantic styles?




karmachameleon said:


> Yeah and anyone that says the sky is blue is _obviously_ Te valuing :laughing:
> 
> Ni lead descriptions actually fit me better than Ni creative thats why im still considering IEI.


One instance does not prove any type, sure, I am looking at it in context.

How do Ni lead descriptions fit you?


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a 631 and I agree with her that using the labels of counterphobia and phobia to distinguish between two "types" of 6s is pointless because people react fluidly depending on their feelings and circumstances.
> 
> Also, identifying as CP/P doesn't change that someone is a 6, and there are better ways to identify 6s than latching onto some exaggerated stereotypes that they may or may not display. Every type has a passion and a counterpassion, but you don't see anyone trying to type people by saying they're a "counter-envy" 4 or a "counter-hedonism" 7 or a "counter-vengeance" 8. The reason is counterpassions are not set in stone.
> 
> A 6 is a 6, plain and simple.


I don't mind describing 3s, 6s, and 9s in terms of counterpassions. I thought that those three types had to sort of "pick a side" in order to integrate their health levels.

I like subdivisions. I believe if someone is integrating in the 3-6-9 triangle, they'll try and stick to one or the other, but can choose either.

3s need to hold to competence-for-self or competence-for-others'-sake, 6s need to hold fast to counterphobia or phobia (phobic isn't a bad thing, it's just honoring aversions to deal with shit instead of deliberately fighting them), and 9s need to figure out if they want to be chaotic-neutral (8) or lawful-neutral (1), basically.

I don't think people are "not fluid", but they tend to integrate faster and better if they don't bifurcate based on circumstances.

　
The 1-7-5-8-2-4 hexa-whatever, tend to _all_ integrate specifically by working counterpassion if they share a Triad Border with a higher number, and by working slightly-adjusting-the-passion's-aim if they're border-adjacent with a lower number.

　
1 tends to work better counter-resentment (1 | 2) = higher number border-adjacent = counterpassionate = educating
2 tends to work better adjusting-ingratiation (2 | 1) = lower number border-adjacent = passionate growth = helping

4 tends to work better counter-envy (4 | 5) = higher = counter = appreciating (individuality of self/others)
5 tends to work better adjusting-avarice (5 | 4) = lower = passion = mastering (amassing knowledge)

7 tends to work better counter-gluttony (7 | 8) = higher = counter = energizing
8 tends to work better adjusting-forcefulness (8 | 7) = lower = passion = "holding it down" as I call it (magnanimity)

　
3s, 6s, and 9s have a freedom to go either way, but I think they tend to "Waffle" and remain at an average level unless they "commit" to one or the other all around.


----------



## Kerik_S

ShieldMaiden said:


> If someone was SOLIDLY a CP 6 then I imagine they would be a very unstable individual. Wouldn't be able to hold a job, probably wind up in jail, etc.
> 
> Because that would mean constantly defying authority and being confrontational over every little thing that they perceive as a threat perhaps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> A solid phobic 6 would have absolutely no voice or opinions outside of those they deem as an authority or higher up.


I don't think so.

I think waffling creates a problem. People who stick to CP6 learn to adjust the "fight" so it's not all outward and self-destructive. People who stick to P6 learn to adjust the "retreat" so it's not all inward and also self-destructive.

If they don't commit to one or the other, I think it just extremely "bipolar" and "borderline"-esque, and they be better off embracing an orientation until they learn to not overexternalize counter-aversion or over-internalize adjusting-for-aversions.

It's like the way to the "center" is actually through initially being rather dualistic and sticking to it.

I see 3s and 9s the same way. If they waffle and let themselves be "one way for one thing, and another for the other" they tend to be unhealthy or average.

3s will be overcompensatory and vain, and 9s tend to get passive-aggressive and sanctimonious.

And, the self-destructive loose-cannon 6 is probably a 6w7 who didn't commit to one or the other even though their seven wing allows for either distraction or deliberately "working on things".

And, the self-destructive ball-of-nerves 6 is probably a 6w5 who didn't commit to one or the other: knowledge can be distracting or therapeutic


----------



## Kerik_S

myst91 said:


> What's the passion/counterpassion for 8, 1 and 5?


These are the terms I use, but any synonym could suffice:

Passions are also called "Vices", and counterpassions _aren't necessarily_ the "virtue" in _antithesis_, sometime rather by adjusting the thesis.　I think 1s, 4s, and 7s are good when they work counterpassionately against their Vices, and that makes their Virtue appear-- Antithetical virtues.　I think 2s, 5s, and 8s are good when they work learning to re-route the energy of their Vices, and that makes their Virtue appear-- "Skillful-usage" virtues.

These are all my terms in the paragraph above. The list below contains some words that are considered acceptable for the names of Vices/Virtues:

　
*(1)* Counterpassionate growth = Against Resentment = Antithetical of Vice = "*Serenity*" *(Virtue)*
*(2)* Passionate growth = _Skillful_ Pride = Adjustment of Vice (being proud of helping others) = *Humility* in self-traits

*(4)* Counterpassionate growth = Against Envy = Antithetical of Vice = "*Equanimity*"
*(5)* Passionate growth = _Skillful_ Avarice = Adjustment of Vice (being steadfast in acquiring knowledge) = *Non-attachment*

*(7)* Counterpassionate growth = Against Gluttony = Antithetical of Vice = "*Sobriety*"
*(8)* Passionate growth = _Skillful_ Forcefulness = Adjustment of Vice (being forceful in healthy boundaries) = *Guilelessness*


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> If someone was SOLIDLY a CP 6 then I imagine they would be a very unstable individual. Wouldn't be able to hold a job, probably wind up in jail, etc.
> 
> Because that would mean constantly defying authority and being confrontational over every little thing that they perceive as a threat perhaps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> A solid phobic 6 would have absolutely no voice or opinions outside of those they deem as an authority or higher up.
> 
> By the way, @karmachameleon I'm curious to hear why I strike you as a Se ego? Because it is really split down the middle for Fe and Se ego and everyone has pretty solid arguments for both types.


Just a vibe. Dont take it too seriously. I havent even seen you in person. Actuallydont take anyone seriously here. A lot of people dont know what theyre talking about including me. Best thing to do is just read up on the types


----------



## karmachameleon

> Where it came off as Te>Ti to me was that you memorized them like Te would, without (conscious) understanding. (No, Ti does not simply just memorize.) This is most true for when Te is higher dimensionality than Ti, especially if weak Te and when Te comes with Sensing. Strong Te would of course have some unconscious understanding provided by Ti wherever truly needed.


Everyone has to memorize in school to pass. I just dont memorize it right away, i couldnt do that lol. I can only do it if it makes sense.

Romantic style, Ni ego for sure.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Just a vibe. Dont take it too seriously. I havent even seen you in person. Actuallydont take anyone seriously here. A lot of people dont know what theyre talking about including me. Best thing to do is just read up on the types


Aha, well, you're certainly not the only one that gets Se vibes from me. People IRL do, too. May or may not have anything to do with actual typing, but I've been referred to as externally cold and intimidating a number of times by family and friends.

I will be doing some reading up. I'm sure it will help me learn, it's just somewhat difficult for me to apply this knowledge to myself. I'm sure if I read descriptions of Fe to my family and said "that's me" they'd likely laugh in my face. But, it's best not to fall on stereotype. I don't care about creating a light-hearted atmosphere outside of sarcastic jokes, but that means little. Do you know of some reliable sources for this information? I've seen Wikisocion and the16types linked before.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Aha, well, you're certainly not the only one that gets Se vibes from me. People IRL do, too. May or may not have anything to do with actual typing, but I've been referred to as externally cold and intimidating a number of times by family and friends.
> 
> I will be doing some reading up. I'm sure it will help me learn, it's just somewhat difficult for me to apply this knowledge to myself. I'm sure if I read descriptions of Fe to my family and said "that's me" they'd likely laugh in my face. But, it's best not to fall on stereotype. I don't care about creating a light-hearted atmosphere outside of sarcastic jokes, but that means little. Do you know of some reliable sources for this information? I've seen Wikisocion and the16types linked before.


Im not getting Se vibe anymore, idk why. Do you have a typing video?

Mm yeah 16type and sociotypes.com. join a socionics group on fb


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Im not getting Se vibe anymore, idk why. Do you have a typing video?
> 
> Mm yeah 16type and sociotypes.com. join a socionics group on fb


Lol. Vibes are just kinda dumb things anyway. I get IEE vibes from you even though you're EIE/IEI. 

I used to have a typing video but it was kind of bad so I deleted it. I'm awful on camera. Very awkward and I never know what to talk about. The last one I answered a questionnaire but I never have much to say on them. I might make another one but I have no idea what to talk about.

Type FB groups are terrible in my experience, though.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Lol. Vibes are just kinda dumb things anyway. I get IEE vibes from you even though you're EIE/IEI.
> 
> I used to have a typing video but it was kind of bad so I deleted it. I'm awful on camera. Very awkward and I never know what to talk about. The last one I answered a questionnaire but I never have much to say on them. I might make another one but I have no idea what to talk about.
> 
> Type FB groups are terrible in my experience, though.


IEE, never heard that before. 
Which ones? Join the group thats just called socionics, or world socionics society


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> IEE, never heard that before.
> Which ones? Join the group thats just called socionics, or world socionics society


I'm not part of any Socionics groups so I'll look into that.

Is there anything that is recommended to talk about for a video or does it matter at all? I'll probably record a new one whenever I have time since people want to actually see it now.


----------



## SheWolf

Idea!

Ask me some questions, guys, and I'll write them down and answer them in the video when I get around to it. It can be anything I suppose.


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> text


Is this your own idea or is it supported by Enneagram theory? I have not seen any prominent Ennegram theorist speak of personality as being constructed by vacillation.

If we're discussing personal theories, I don't believe individuals have pendulum-like personalities. The Enneagram allows for an behaviors, mindsets, and tendencies under the blanket of specific holy ideas, fears, and fixations. When an individual fits the essence of the type's mindset, their behavior can manifest in SEVERAL different ways based on that specific motivation.

Positing pendulum-like personalities has two faulty consequences:

a) All possible behaviors and mindsets are not contained by dualities. The assumption that an order of 2 is capable of encompassing everything related to a concept is a mental construct that is a shortcut. It provides the illusion of completeness and "balance" (yin and yang, light and dark, up and down, good and bad), but balance often transcends dualities and has many different components that can vary in number and relative intensity depending on the individual and content. 

If people are primarily constructed out of dualities, then there are an infinite number of logical constructs capable of incompletely describing aspects of their mental patterns. Following that train of thought, it would never be possible to understand an individual _holistically, _which is really the entire point of interacting with individuals and treating them fairly. Individuals can never be understood by logical constructs that have clearly defined limits, because we are all inherently irrational, and best understood in open-ended terms.

b) The Enneagram itself posits that integration arises from *transcending *the ego's delusions and fixed mental patterns, not from picking sides. Waffling between extreme patterns still constitutes being trapped by the ego's delusions and not realizing that there are attitudes and lifestyles that lie outside that paradigm.



myst91 said:


> What's the passion/counterpassion for 8, 1 and 5?


https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/the-traditional-enneagram/


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> Is this your own idea or is it supported by Enneagram theory? I have not seen any prominent Ennegram theorist speak of personality as being constructed by vacillation.
> 
> If we're discussing personal theories, I don't believe individuals have pendulum-like personalities. The Enneagram allows for an behaviors, mindsets, and tendencies under the blanket of specific holy ideas, fears, and fixations. When an individual fits the essence of the type's mindset, their behavior can manifest in SEVERAL different ways based on that specific motivation.
> 
> Positing pendulum-like personalities has two faulty consequences:
> 
> a) All possible behaviors and mindsets are not contained by dualities. The assumption that an order of 2 is capable of encompassing everything related to a concept is a mental construct that is a shortcut. It provides the illusion of completeness and "balance" (yin and yang, light and dark, up and down, good and bad), but balance often transcends dualities and has many different components that can vary in number and relative intensity depending on the individual and content.
> 
> If people are primarily constructed out of dualities, then there are an infinite number of logical constructs capable of incompletely describing aspects of their mental patterns. Following that train of thought, it would never be possible to understand an individual _holistically, _which is really the entire point of interacting with individuals and treating them fairly. Individuals can never be understood by logical constructs that have clearly defined limits, because we are all inherently irrational, and best understood in open-ended terms.
> 
> b) The Enneagram itself posits that integration arises from *transcending *the ego's delusions and fixed mental patterns, not from picking sides. Waffling between extreme patterns still constitutes being trapped by the ego's delusions and not realizing that there are attitudes and lifestyles that lie outside that paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/the-traditional-enneagram/


Yes, which is why I specifically said it's better not to waffle.

I never said the personality was a duality, or a pendulum. It's just better for faster integration to work with a certain orientation to your passion in Enneagram.

Like it or not, Enneagram gauges very particular roadmaps of behavior. No amount of nonduality or permutations of dualistic dichotomies will change that it's a closed, limited system.


----------



## myst91

Kerik_S said:


> These are the terms I use, but any synonym could suffice:
> 
> Passions are also called "Vices", and counterpassions _aren't necessarily_ the "virtue" in _antithesis_, sometime rather by adjusting the thesis.　I think 1s, 4s, and 7s are good when they work counterpassionately against their Vices, and that makes their Virtue appear-- Antithetical virtues.　I think 2s, 5s, and 8s are good when they work learning to re-route the energy of their Vices, and that makes their Virtue appear-- "Skillful-usage" virtues. (...)


Hm, ok, so what is Serenity vs Guilelessness?




karmachameleon said:


> Everyone has to memorize in school to pass. I just dont memorize it right away, i couldnt do that lol. I can only do it if it makes sense.
> 
> Romantic style, Ni ego for sure.


Well what you originally said sounded like you simply memorize on the surface. That's why I said Te.

Btw I didn't memorize on the surface to pass in school. I did need it to make sense first (in a Ti way).

I get you are saying you relate to Ni ego in romantic styles but can you elaborate on exactly how you relate to it?





ShieldMaiden said:


> Aha, well, you're certainly not the only one that gets Se vibes from me. People IRL do, too. May or may not have anything to do with actual typing, but I've been referred to as externally cold and intimidating a number of times by family and friends.
> 
> I will be doing some reading up. I'm sure it will help me learn, it's just somewhat difficult for me to apply this knowledge to myself. I'm sure if I read descriptions of Fe to my family and said "that's me" they'd likely laugh in my face. But, it's best not to fall on stereotype. I don't care about creating a light-hearted atmosphere outside of sarcastic jokes, but that means little. Do you know of some reliable sources for this information? I've seen Wikisocion and the16types linked before.


I get the Se valuing vibes too. 

Fe base is pretty much about focusing on atmosphere, it may be light hearted or may be other kinds of atmosphere, if you don't do this, forget Fe base. 




ShieldMaiden said:


> Lol. Vibes are just kinda dumb things anyway. I get IEE vibes from you even though you're EIE/IEI.


What's a IEE vibe like to you?

I think vibes are only reliable if you can directly match it to the logical system (of Socionics in this case).




> I used to have a typing video but it was kind of bad so I deleted it. I'm awful on camera. Very awkward and I never know what to talk about. The last one I answered a questionnaire but I never have much to say on them. I might make another one but I have no idea what to talk about


You seemed very much fine in your videos before


----------



## myst91

Night Huntress said:


> a) All possible behaviors and mindsets are not contained by dualities. The assumption that an order of 2 is capable of encompassing everything related to a concept is a mental construct that is a shortcut. It provides the illusion of completeness and "balance" (yin and yang, light and dark, up and down, good and bad), but balance often transcends dualities and has many different components that can vary in number and relative intensity depending on the individual and content.
> 
> If people are primarily constructed out of dualities, then there are an infinite number of logical constructs capable of incompletely describing aspects of their mental patterns. Following that train of thought, it would never be possible to understand an individual _holistically, _which is really the entire point of interacting with individuals and treating them fairly. Individuals can never be understood by logical constructs that have clearly defined limits, because we are all inherently irrational, and best understood in open-ended terms.
> 
> b) The Enneagram itself posits that integration arises from *transcending *the ego's delusions and fixed mental patterns, not from picking sides. Waffling between extreme patterns still constitutes being trapped by the ego's delusions and not realizing that there are attitudes and lifestyles that lie outside that paradigm.


I would agree on the part that a person/mind/brain is more complex than a few dichotomies trying to describe it. I would disagree that logical constructs have that many limits though. They may have limits with our current understanding but I don't think it means we need to discard all that and just go for whatever open-ended terms you may have meant.




> https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/the-traditional-enneagram/


Thanks for the link.


----------



## counterintuitive

ShieldMaiden said:


> I used to have a typing video but it was kind of bad so I deleted it. I'm awful on camera. Very awkward and I never know what to talk about. The last one I answered a questionnaire but I never have much to say on them. I might make another one but I have no idea what to talk about.


Oh shit, I totally forgot about your video. I did get your PM but then I never watched it. I'm so sorry. If you ever make a new video, I'm glad to watch it.

It would be fun though to answer viewer questions. I thought about doing one in real time, lol, having people ask me questions on the fly and answer them in real time. But then I thought people might ask overly personal questions. Lol.




myst91 said:


> Btw I didn't memorize on the surface to pass in school. I did need it to make sense first (in a Ti way).


Yes and I really did not enjoy courses/professors/teachers who said "just memorize it" :angry: :crazy:

Then later when I tutored younger students, I would try to help them understand it and I wouldn't let them say "Oh, I'll just memorize it" or "give me steps to solve the problem and I will just memorize the steps" - yes, they did really say this to me. Lol. But I was like "NO, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT" :angry: :laughing:

If they absolutely insisted on memorization, I told them to find another tutor. Lol.

I did have one student who I thought at that time was a Ti ego, I still think that's right. Very smart too. She picked up on stuff so fast, we'd cover literally 5-10 hours of lecture material in a 1 hour tutoring session.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> Oh shit, I totally forgot about your video. I did get your PM but then I never watched it. I'm so sorry. If you ever make a new video, I'm glad to watch it.
> 
> It would be fun though to answer viewer questions. I thought about doing one in real time, lol, having people ask me questions on the fly and answer them in real time. But then I thought people might ask overly personal questions. Lol.


Then you could just refuse to answer. Lol. That's what I would do.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

myst91 said:


> Hm, ok, so what is Serenity vs Guilelessness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what you originally said sounded like you simply memorize on the surface. That's why I said Te.
> 
> Btw I didn't memorize on the surface to pass in school. I did need it to make sense first (in a Ti way).
> 
> I get you are saying you relate to Ni ego in romantic styles but can you elaborate on exactly how you relate to it?


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'm certainly not confrontational all the time. But, I have social anxiety and that is an entirely different ball game than typing. I don't care to call any 6 solidly CP or P because I think that's more fluid. I'm very CP in some places/with some people and very P in others. Sure, they can demonstrate a preference for one another but I think it's going to be varying degrees.


Ahh, I relate...._again_ (we are pretty similar, lol).

4-fixed 6w7 here, I can definitely swing either way (P or CP), depending on the situation.


----------



## Kintsugi

Also, I actually do know a few CP 6s that I've never seen display any phobic behaviours (whether that matches their internal emotional landscape idk, but on the surface it's hard to detect their "fear").

I think there are people that can be either more CP or P and others that are more unpredictable (can swing either way). It's a spectrum.

I've also been thinking how gut fixes affect this (i.e. 9-fixed 6s appear more stereotypically phobic than 8-fixed 6s. Similarly, 1-fixed 6s are more of a mixed bag and can embody both styles).


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I completely detest being told to "just memorize" something. I need to understand something in order to remember it. Besides, how can I fit it into my understanding of the world without, you know, understanding it? I'd rather completely fail at a task than "just memorize" something without knowing the why.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> Lol. Vibes are just kinda dumb things anyway. I get IEE vibes from you even though you're EIE/IEI.
> 
> I used to have a typing video but it was kind of bad so I deleted it. I'm awful on camera. Very awkward and I never know what to talk about. The last one I answered a questionnaire but I never have much to say on them. I might make another one but I have no idea what to talk about.
> 
> Type FB groups are terrible in my experience, though.


Heh. This is why I try not type on vibes - although I am sure I make that mistake sometimes whether I realize it or not. No one is perfect. Anyway, if I go purely on vibes for you I'd probably say an Fi type; it's when I look at your language and questionnaires that I see the Fe-Ti axis. That's why I could see See for you, even though that isn't my initial assessment. How the hell could I know your true internal configuration through text communication on the internet? 

BTW, I will look over your video when I am not on my school campus where I could disturb the other people - I don't have headphones any more, so I don't watch videos at school. If I forget (I don't think I will, but just in case), please feel free to remind me!

Interestingly, I've been told my own vibe is any of these: SEI, IEI, EIE, LII, LIE, ILI, EII, IEE, once even ESE. If you go by vibe, then what the **** am I? Seriously, there isn't even a common denominator in all of those (although more of them are iNtuitive than not, so there is that).

Personally, I contemplated the MBTI versions of LII, ILI, IEI, and EII before settling on their idea of IEI. When I found Socionics, I settled on Beta values almost immediately, and the IEI fits way better than the INFJ in my opinion. I feel Merry, Decisive, and Aristocratic all suit me quite strongly. Only one I am unsure of is Serious vs. Merry, but when I ask other people I usually hear "MERRY!" as the immediate response. Apparently I give off quite a Merry vibe to the people that know me :3

Have you settled on any of the Quadra Values for yourself? Merry or Serious? Aristocratic or Democratic? Judicious or Decisive?


----------



## Kerik_S

myst91 said:


> Hm, ok, so what is Serenity vs Guilelessness?


Serenity is a sense that you've done what you can and are ready but not hypervigilant to do anything should anything happen again, if we're talking about the Virtue for Enneagram.

Guilelessness is also called "Innocence" in Enneagram, but its closer meaning is "not putting on any airs" kind of like a "kid who hasn't been hurt yet".


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I completely detest being told to "just memorize" something. I need to understand something in order to remember it. Besides, how can I fit it into my understanding of the world without, you know, understanding it? I'd rather completely fail at a task than "just memorize" something without knowing the why.


It seems that's a lot of people and why American schools are changing the way they teach maths. My sister is an elementary school teacher so she has talked about it. My college math teacher talked about this as well a couple weeks ago. So.... I don't think this can be attributed to type. Lol.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Mmm...I think it can though. There is a wider world out there of people that do in fact just memorize enough information to get by without caring about understanding the why, and indeed, it is those people that are more common to run into the business world and in manual labor and/or factory work.

School was initially designed more for keeping kids busy during the work day while teaching them the skills to enter the work force. For that, very basic maths and reasoning skills and so forth were a necessary thing. As time has progressed, things have changed in the world, and it is no longer necessary for our kids to be taught just for that reason alone.

As such, the curriculum has been changing. What hasn't changed is the underlying system that is being used, and _that system is not optimized for breeding true internalized understanding_. It is optimized to train a skill and throw the kid into a job. As the years go by, we institute new things like excessive group work and various electives, but the system is not being changed to accommodate for the differences in people and how they learn at the root level.

To effect a change in this, we need to restructure the entire school system to better account for the basic ways that people are different. This has actually started happening in college and universities, but it has yet to reach the lowest echelons of the education system - and it is the lowest echelons that are the most important, developmentally speaking! Sure, there are some changes there, but they are insufficient in my experience for the variability that exists within mankind.

Indeed, mathematical skill is prioritized much higher over artistic skills, and sports are lauded above and beyond the norm. Why do we things this way? This does not make sense, nor does it account for the people that are and the priorities of the collective that is out culture. It serves a dominant few more than anything.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Mmm...I think it can though. There is a wider world out there of people that do in fact just memorize enough information to get by without caring about understanding the why, and indeed, it is those people that are more common to run into the business world and in manual labor and/or factory work. School was initially designed more for keeping kids busy during the work day while teaching them the skills to enter the work force. For that, very basic maths and reasoning skills and so forth were a necessary thing. As time has progressed, things have changed in the world, and it is no longer necessary for our kids to be taught just for that reason alone. As such, the curriculum has been changing. What hasn't changed is the underlying system that is being used, and _that system is not optimized for breeding true internalized understanding_. It is optimized to train a skill and throw the kid into a job. As the years go by, we institute new things like excessive group work and various electives, but the system is not being changed to accommodate for the differences in people and how they learn at the root level. To effect a change in this, we need to restructure the entire school system to better account for the basic ways that people are different. This has actually started happening in college and universities, but it has yet to reach the lowest echelons of the education system - and it is the lowest echelons that are the most important, developmentally speaking! Sure, there are some changes there, but they are insufficient in my experience for the variability that exists within mankind.


Not gonna lie, I zoned out about 3 times reading that. Haha!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

My apologies. I didn't format that message for ease of reading. It is better now, though; I edited it.

By the by, have you considered SLE? Your hardship with comforting others makes me wonder if maybe you are not a feeler at all, but rather allow yourself to be emotional as a thinker. I found an interesting thing in the Dimensionality article:

"Inability to apply norms of one-dimensional function, assessments of situation on base Fi. In typing, one can frequently observe a link between the 1st and 4th functions. The 4th function is constantly "pushing" the base 1st function to work (to avoid trouble).

Often a person becomes fully aware that he cannot utilize norms of one-dimensional function, and feels lost in a new situation.

Examples:

I don't know how to sympathize. And when I find myself in such a situation, I am lost and don't know what to do. I have one desire – to pat the person on the shoulder and say: enough whining, get up, lets solve the problem. *(One-dimensional Fi : SLE "Zhukov")*

Husband's brother came over to help move the refrigerator. They moved the refrigerator in its place, he quickly departs – it's evening, and he has to be somewhere else. So I told him "thank you", said it five times before he walked out the door. And then I thought: "what's with me?" I realized that I wanted to sincerely express that I am grateful to him. But besides saying "thank you" I don't know how to sincerely express my gratitude. Saying it once – doesn't seem very convincing. So it happened 5 times. This, coming from me, meant: "I am really very grateful for the help, and not just saying this as a formality."* (One-dimensional Fi : LSE "Stirlitz")*

An example of how vital function manifests: first reaction, then awareness. Idiosyncratic understanding of norms. Reflection of individual understanding of the aspect."

Source: Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions

I don't actually think you are an SLE, but I do want to take some alternate perspectives here and I found that valuable for getting to the heart of the matter.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Double post, sorry


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. This is why I try not type on vibes - although I am sure I make that mistake sometimes whether I realize it or not. No one is perfect. Anyway, if I go purely on vibes for you I'd probably say an Fi type; it's when I look at your language and questionnaires that I see the Fe-Ti axis. That's why I could see See for you, even though that isn't my initial assessment. How the hell could I know your true internal configuration through text communication on the internet?


Yes, that is the thing. Online I'm a bit more expressive. Though, I don't know if I'm merry in the Fe sense of the word? I don't know if I told you this, but if I were to read an Fe description to my family and say, "That's me" they'd probably laugh. My sister jokes with my baby niece by referring to me as "the scary aunt." Reference this post for example. This, and I'm not even totally exaggerating for humorousness, is how my family sees me.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Interestingly, I've been told my own vibe is any of these: SEI, IEI, EIE, LII, LIE, ILI, EII, IEE, once even ESE. If you go by vibe, then what the **** am I? Seriously, there isn't even a common denominator in all of those (although more of them are iNtuitive than not, so there is that).


Oh, don't get me started. I've been typed just about every type there is. Though, with the Socionics folks it is narrowed down some. 




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Have you settled on any of the Quadra Values for yourself? Merry or Serious? Aristocratic or Democratic? Judicious or Decisive?


See, this is difficult for me to answer. Personally? I don't see me being quite as merry as Alpha is, but I am also not as serious as Gamma is said to be. Being constantly merry and never taking things seriously would get irritating and be draining for me, but being serious all the time is sure to make me "stir-crazy." I've mentioned before that I think I've witnessed Alpha behavior and I'm certainly singled out for finding their strange conversations overly childish and their loudness irritating. (_Theater kids, man..._)

I'd like to stick myself in a room with each quadra and see which one I enjoy the most.  But obviously that can't happen.

I consider myself a fun loving and jovial person, yes. But... I can be very serious too. I know Alphas tend to like to make light of everything as to not poison the emotional atmosphere, but I get irritated with that. For example, I have a friend that I can't talk to anything "real" about because he always tries to turn it into a joke and in general is very random. I think he's a fun guy and he has cracked me up, but yet, he really pisses me off when he won't have a serious conversation. Personally I think, going by what little knowledge of Socioncs that I have, he's an ILE.

I'm just going to create my own Quadra.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> My apologies. I didn't format that message for ease of reading. It is better now, though; I edited it.
> 
> By the by, have you considered SLE? Your hardship with comforting others makes me wonder if maybe you are not a feeler at all, but rather allow yourself to be emotional as a thinker. I found an interesting thing in the Dimensionality article:
> 
> "Inability to apply norms of one-dimensional function, assessments of situation on base Fi. In typing, one can frequently observe a link between the 1st and 4th functions. The 4th function is constantly "pushing" the base 1st function to work (to avoid trouble).
> 
> Often a person becomes fully aware that he cannot utilize norms of one-dimensional function, and feels lost in a new situation.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> I don't know how to sympathize. And when I find myself in such a situation, I am lost and don't know what to do. I have one desire – to pat the person on the shoulder and say: enough whining, get up, lets solve the problem. *(One-dimensional Fi : SLE "Zhukov")*
> 
> Husband's brother came over to help move the refrigerator. They moved the refrigerator in its place, he quickly departs – it's evening, and he has to be somewhere else. So I told him "thank you", said it five times before he walked out the door. And then I thought: "what's with me?" I realized that I wanted to sincerely express that I am grateful to him. But besides saying "thank you" I don't know how to sincerely express my gratitude. Saying it once – doesn't seem very convincing. So it happened 5 times. This, coming from me, meant: "I am really very grateful for the help, and not just saying this as a formality."* (One-dimensional Fi : LSE "Stirlitz")*
> 
> An example of how vital function manifests: first reaction, then awareness. Idiosyncratic understanding of norms. Reflection of individual understanding of the aspect."
> 
> Source: Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions
> 
> I don't actually think you are an SLE, but I do want to take some alternate perspectives here and I found that valuable for getting to the heart of the matter.



When I hear SLE I think... Donald Trump. No. 

But I do relate to this some. For example, my mother came into my room and told me that I needed to tell my oldest nephew that I was proud of him for making the basketball team. I was proud of him, but... I'm not the best at articulating those sorts of things. I have trouble giving outward affirmation. So, after a quick flit of rejection of her request, I caved and said ok and called my nephew over. Very awkwardly, I choked out that I was proud of him for making the team and working hard. He gave me a very strange look, because this isn't a common display for me, but said thanks. 

Then, when he left, I heard him literally ask my mother, "Is Ashley feeling okay? She just said she was proud of me and that's weird."

True story.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Ahh, I relate...._again_ (we are pretty similar, lol).
> 
> 4-fixed 6w7 here, I can definitely swing either way (P or CP), depending on the situation.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


>


----------



## SheWolf

By the way...

Even if we settle on Gamma Quadra for me, I think I'll be hanging around here still because I've bonded with you nut cases and can't leave. Mwahaha! And if I end up in Alpha, well I'll still be here because no one talks in the Alpha thread.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
Click to expand...

Yup. Perfect representation of our friendship in that last gif


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> See, this is difficult for me to answer. Personally? I don't see me being quite as merry as Alpha is, but I am also not as serious as Gamma is said to be. Being constantly merry and never taking things seriously would get irritating and be draining for me, but being serious all the time is sure to make me "stir-crazy." I've mentioned before that I think I've witnessed Alpha behavior and I'm certainly singled out for finding their strange conversations overly childish and their loudness irritating. (_Theater kids, man..._)
> 
> I'd like to stick myself in a room with each quadra and see which one I enjoy the most.  But obviously that can't happen.
> 
> I consider myself a fun loving and jovial person, yes. But... I can be very serious too. I know Alphas tend to like to make light of everything as to not poison the emotional atmosphere, but I get irritated with that. For example, I have a friend that I can't talk to anything "real" about because he always tries to turn it into a joke and in general is very random. I think he's a fun guy and he has cracked me up, but yet, he really pisses me off when he won't have a serious conversation. Personally I think, going by what little knowledge of Socioncs that I have, he's an ILE.
> 
> I'm just going to create my own Quadra.


Fwiw, take online descriptions with a pinch of salt.

Yes, Gamma is "serious" compared to other quadras (but it also has the SEE/ESFp - who has absolutely no problem being playful and "merry" when in the mood, just look at me. ).

What you've written above suggests Se over Si and Ni over Ne....

(it seems like the "playfulness" and "whimsical" nature of Ne can get a little wearing for you....I understand, I feel the same ).


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> I can see that, I think.
> 
> My dad was SEE, so... no way. xD
> 
> SEE is like genki as fuck. Like how IEE is kawaii as fuck ^______^


no way? you think shes an Se dom but theres nooo way shes SEE? doesnt make sense. and just because shes not like your dad doesnt mean shes not an SEE. 
genki?

I've started seeing you as ILE btw. Or at least alpha.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Truth. I was thinking Ti PoLR from just the questionnaire when I looked it over. That said, she seems to be a Gamma to me after closer inspection. *sweatdrop*


You talking about me? Lol.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Yes.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> no way? you think shes an Se dom but theres nooo way shes SEE? doesnt make sense. and just because shes not like your dad doesnt mean shes not an SEE.
> genki?
> 
> I've started seeing you as ILE btw. Or at least alpha.


No way I have Ne. I can't brainstorm or "jump tracks" without feeling like it's pointless or boring. I can see the Ti because I overuse it.

My mom blind-tested answering based on how she "thinks I come across", and it scored ENFP in MBTI, though.

I don't see her having Fi in her valued functions. She's always looking at more macroscopic social patterns and seeing herself in the context of her roles and is collectivist in her thinking.

It does mean she's not SEE if I'm capable of looking at my dad and taking him within the context of his Enneagram, being able to expand SEE theoretically by superimposing other Enneagrams.

It's just a hunch that she can't be that.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> No way I have Ne. I can't brainstorm or "jump tracks" without feeling like it's pointless or boring. I can see the Ti because I overuse it.
> 
> My mom blind-tested answering based on how she "thinks I come across", and it scored ENFP in MBTI, though.
> 
> I don't see her having Fi in her valued functions. She's always looking at more macroscopic social patterns and seeing herself in the context of her roles and is collectivist in her thinking.
> 
> It does mean she's not SEE if I'm capable of looking at my dad and taking him within the context of his Enneagram, being able to expand SEE theoretically by superimposing other Enneagrams.
> 
> It's just a hunch that she can't be that.


Dont you like always make these threads with theories you came up with?

Ive only watched one interview. Can you link a video where she does that?


----------



## Valtire

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Truth. I was thinking Ti PoLR from just the questionnaire when I looked it over. That said, she seems to be a Gamma to me after closer inspection. *sweatdrop*


What did you see that struck you of PoLR rather than Suggestive?


----------



## karmachameleon

Questionnaires are not accurate imo.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> Dont you like always make these threads with theories you came up with?
> 
> Ive only watched one interview. Can you link a video where she does that?


She shows some pretty weak Fi in this video:

"I was suddenly a girl with breasts, and things got very loud, and all of a sudden I got famous."

Even when she's describing her role as an actress or a director, she only talks about emotions in terms of:

Actor: "Emotions and stamina" and doesn't talk about how she felt. She immediately goes to talking about the industry and her role in it and how that affected people or how they affected her.

Director: Even when she's describing how the emotional stamina in acting translates to being a director, she talks about how it allows her to _emote_ an _example_ of emotion in her actions, in a didactic way, and she doesn't actually even talk about _relating_ to the actors themselves.

It's very Fe (emoting, objectively) rather than Fi (relating, subjectively).


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Questionnaires are not accurate imo.


No, not totally. But obviously I don't think, say, an ILI is going to answer the questions like an ESE would.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> Dont you like always make these threads with theories you came up with?


Not really. They all tend to condense upon the same spiritual theme, anyway.

I think the only two main ones are The Special Snowglobe, which is packed with Fe information about my interactions here, and if you read my follow-ups, even in rather engaged and automatic argument, you'll see me always devolving to a main premise and being rather tunnel-visioned.

The other one is my Gender of Functions idea, but that is rooted in a long-running theme of Taoism and elements that tie back to an intensive Zen practice and subsequent period of psychosis. I explained to someone in there why it wasn't a "new interest in Taoism", and that should tell you that it's one of those "Core Ni premises" (irrational premise, not rational like Ti).


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Fried Eggz said:


> What did you see that struck you of PoLR rather than Suggestive?


Honestly? I no longer recall XD

She was going by Vespera with that questionnaire, though. It was a bit ago.


----------



## SheWolf

@Fenix Wulfheart

I love your new avatar. :O


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> @Fenix Wulfheart
> 
> I love your new avatar. :O


Thank you. It's not my usual sort of thing, but it is very nice. I normally do something more like this:


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Thank you. It's not my usual sort of thing, but it is very nice. I normally do something more like this:
> View attachment 504650


Ooohhh I love that too!

I'm currently loving this picture I found recently.


----------



## Kintsugi

@ShieldMaiden

OMG! xD

Your new avatar is the image I had for my old avatar....

GET OUT OF MY HEAD! (joking )

Seriously though, I keep seeing comments you've made and think they are mine (because of it) LOL.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_
> 
> OMG! xD
> 
> Your new avatar is the image I had for my old avatar....
> 
> GET OUT OF MY HEAD! (joking )
> 
> Seriously though, I keep seeing comments you've made and think they are mine (because of it) LOL.


Okay.... this is getting creepy. xD


----------



## Dragheart Luard

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_
> 
> OMG! xD
> 
> Your new avatar is the image I had for my old avatar....
> 
> GET OUT OF MY HEAD! (joking )
> 
> Seriously though, I keep seeing comments you've made and think they are mine (because of it) LOL.


I also got confused with the picture lol so I have to check the username for not getting trolled.


----------



## counterintuitive

I was like wait a second, @The Perfect Storm changed her avatar back? Nope. That's awesome lol. That is a pretty cool avatar though, both of you have good taste I have to say 


EDIT, it has been 1.5 hours now and I'm still getting confused :laughing:

This is actually hilarious.

OMG I just saw both of you have the same first two fixes in your tritype, and of course the same Sociotype. Lol. That's actually freaking me out a little!


----------



## myst91

FearAndTrembling said:


> The atmosphere in this thread is boring as fuck really.


Please fix it up 




Kerik_S said:


> Serenity is a sense that you've done what you can and are ready but not hypervigilant to do anything should anything happen again, if we're talking about the Virtue for Enneagram.
> 
> Guilelessness is also called "Innocence" in Enneagram, but its closer meaning is "not putting on any airs" kind of like a "kid who hasn't been hurt yet".


Explain more about the hypervigilance to do anything if something happens?

And what does "putting on airs" means in this context?




The Perfect Storm said:


> I actually don't think the distinction is that helpful. I mean, Quadras are an interesting way of categorizing types, and there is definitely merit to it, but I tend to look at the individual types themselves (and their cognitive function "map") rather than the group they belong to (when it comes to typing others). Put it this way, Beta is considered "merry" but a lot of LSIs definitely _do not (_superficially_) _fit this stereotype.


Yeah, Club comes before Quadra, IMO. 




ShieldMaiden said:


> (...) I care nothing about creating an emotional atmosphere and prefer to keep my truest emotions to myself. I view being overly goofy and light hearted is a bit embarrassing in most situations. I could go on, but those are two ESE stereotypes I certainly don't fit and that's satisfying enough.


They aren't just stereotypes actually.. the part about how you vs ESEs treat emotions is core to type.




ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh I have friends that are geniuses with puns and jokes. I'm TERRIBLE at puns. Ne-Ti has that "quick wit" that enables them to be able to come up with puns and the like. Reminds me of the time I was in theater appreciation and two of my friend I was sitting pmbetween were constantly calling out puns in relation to the movie. It was funny but it got kind of irritating after awhile. I'm really bad at riddles/puzzles and stuff too.


Same, I'm terrible at wordplays, riddles/puzzles as long as they only require pure logic (or maybe a bit of Ni, not too much) can work 

Btw I still remember how you answered the Ne questions but eh, maybe Ne role can do that too, SEE is a decent typing for you. Especially with how you say you tolerate Alpha Ne jokes for a while. Though I do know this ESI-Fi that also can tolerate it a bit.




Fried Eggz said:


> Err... that's not how Socionics works. That's actually the reason Zamyatin mentioned ESE for you. He saw conscious Te use in your questionnaire.


I don't find those markers very reliable for 2D functions for some reason tbh.




> Yup. LSI problems. We're notoriously grumpy and mean and don't want to be, but have very little awareness/control of our emotions.


What do you mean by grumpy? Where did you read that LSI is grumpy? In what sense?




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Only one I am unsure of is Serious vs. Merry, but when I ask other people I usually hear "MERRY!" as the immediate response. Apparently I give off quite a Merry vibe to the people that know me :3


You do give off that Merry vibe :wink: Even when you were just typing INFJ (when you were starting on Socionics while typing me in MBTI), I could see you were the IEI variant of INFJ.

Ah btw, I'm not stereotypical ISTP in MBTI. ISTPs on this forum seem to type as SLI a lot of the time though sometimes they do type into LSI-Se. Just adding to our discussion in that type thread. 




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I completely detest being told to "just memorize" something. I need to understand something in order to remember it. Besides, how can I fit it into my understanding of the world without, you know, understanding it? I'd rather completely fail at a task than "just memorize" something without knowing the why.


Good example of how Ti HA differs from Te HA.




karmachameleon said:


> Why do so many people have no idea about Fi vs Fe here? If someone states their opinion you're a Fi valuer. Like hahaha. Fe valuers have no opinions^^


Your misunderstanding on this was already corrected in this thread.




karmachameleon said:


> I've started seeing you as ILE btw. Or at least alpha. (...) Dont you like always make these threads with theories you came up with?


Lol just because he can create theories? That's pretty poor understanding of the socionics theory.


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> Kerik is pretty typical for an IEI. Did you see his argument with Jeremy a while back? Kerik was even stereotypically playing the victim and everything.
> 
> 
> G'day.
> 
> 
> Is that a joke or serious? Because I've actually seen it happen quite a few times.


that argument thoo "he was playing the victim and everything"
everyone can act like a victim, especially ethical types. its not exclusive to, or typical for only IEI. have you heard of Adele?


----------



## Prada

Anyone cares to link/explain something about the relationships between types? Dual, conflictor, etc. ideally with specific examples.


----------



## Valtire

counterintuitive said:


> Yeah, I agree, that's what I was trying to say. I meant that I don't agree that he's an Alpha. Haha.


I know. I was supporting your statement.



karmachameleon said:


> that argument thoo "he was playing the victim and everything"
> everyone can act like a victim, especially ethical types. its not exclusive to, or typical for only IEI. have you heard of Adele?


Congrats, you took my comment excessively literally.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fried Eggz said:


> Kerik is pretty typical for an IEI. Did you see his argument with Jeremy a while back? Kerik was even stereotypically playing the victim and everything.
> 
> 
> G'day.
> 
> 
> Is that a joke or serious? Because I've actually seen it happen quite a few times.


If we are gonna type people who play victims as IEI then I think we may need to start from scratch. I see so called gammas always doing it. Also a 6 thing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fried Eggz said:


> I know. I was supporting your statement.
> 
> 
> Congrats, you took my comment excessively literally.


As literally as you take the system. Like it is some algorithm with no moving parts.


----------



## Valtire

Prada said:


> Anyone care to link/explain something about the relationships between types? Dual, conflictor, etc. ideally with specific examples.


I don't like any of the real sources because nothing's ever quite as typical as the descriptions say.



FearAndTrembling said:


> As literally as you take the system. Like it is some algorithm with no moving parts.


You being oblivious has nothing to do with me.


----------



## counterintuitive

Prada said:


> Anyone cares to link/explain something about the relationships between types? Dual, conflictor, etc. ideally with specific examples.


Well, do you mean descriptions of how different intertypes tend to play out in reality? Because in that case, I agree with @Fried Eggz .

Or do you mean how to determine who is in what relation to you? In that case I recommend this: Socionics Intertype Relations Chart

Though I've found some errors in that table, heh.

Also, if you are familiar with the basic relations of Identity, Dual, Mirror, and Kindred, you can *check out my thread here* that will allow you to calculate the rest of the relations based on those! :kitteh: /self-promotion


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> I know. I was supporting your statement.
> 
> 
> Congrats, you took my comment excessively literally.


How else should i have taken it?


----------



## Prada

@counterintuitive I was kinda hoping for a discussion on the matter but thanks anyway.


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> How else should i have taken it?


I didn't say, "everyone who plays victim is Ni ego." The argument and subsequent victim playing I referred to spanned roughly 12 pages of this thread in long posts. The Ni was clear, and the Se seeking focus in the victim playing was clear is well.

But, considering you disagree with Jungian Ni, which Socionics was built upon, it's not likely you would come to the same conclusion. You seem to have made up your own Ni, which begs the question, why do you even call it Ni if you're going to go against the meaning of Ni?


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> I didn't say, "everyone who plays victim is Ni ego." The argument and subsequent victim playing I referred to spanned roughly 12 pages of this thread in long posts. The Ni was clear, and the Se seeking focus in the victim playing was clear is well.
> 
> But, considering you disagree with Jungian Ni, which Socionics was built upon, it's not likely you would come to the same conclusion. You seem to have made up your own Ni, which begs the question, why do you even call it Ni if you're going to go against the meaning of Ni?


How do i disagree with Jungian Ni? And what does that have to do with socionics? Socionics is a seperate system.


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> How do i disagree with Jungian Ni?


I quoted this from Jung a dozen pages back and you just flat out stated that Jung was wrong:


> The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other.


----------



## Kerik_S

Dang.

It's pretty obvious how an Enneagram 8 with ADHD can appear Alpha. At least to me. If anything, I overuse the fuck out of Ti and am rather non-squeamish.

I saw FAT's comments by facsimile in people who quoted them, and if any of you are interested in my seeing their comments, I'm really not because I denounced them as a credible typologist probably about 3 weeks into my venture on here.

Anyway, the point is, INFJ 8s' intentions can often be skewed because Non-Body-types assume Body-Types process things based on self-image ("playing a card") or fear ("projection"). 8s, 9s, 1s don't operate like that typically. We just say what we feel needs to be said, with the exception of 9s who will still be compelled to say something but will-- within the course of their statements-- nerf them all to hell and doubt the validity of their frustration.


----------



## Kerik_S

Wait, let me be terse about it:

Y'all obsessed with me lol

FAT can't type me lol

Terseness achieved?


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> I quoted this from Jung a dozen pages back and you just flat out stated that Jung was wrong:


Well that statements doesnt say how Ni works or what it is. Ni in socionics _is_ in fact different than what Jung said it to be.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> Well that statements doesnt say how Ni works or what it is. Ni in socionics _is_ in fact different than what Jung said it to be.


Correct, in a sense.

I find looking at Fe-Fi-Ne-Ni-Se-Si-Te-Ti alongside E-R-I-T-F-S-P-L, there's a core to the corresponding elements in each theory though.


----------



## SheWolf

Hm. I quickly figured out I wasn't Ni when I actually heard how a Ni user talks.

David Bowie for example. (World Socionics types him as an EIE, however. Most of those into MBTI type him INFJ) 

I can't follow a word that man says. His abstractions and tendency to dismiss what is there for his own symbolic impression completely throw the interviewer off in this video, who tries to pull Bowie back to reality but it's rather futile. Bowie really starts to light up with Ni around 7 minutes and obviously the interviewer is just _not_ able to follow along.


----------



## SheWolf

Ugh. The World Socionics link doesn't work but if you google "World Socionics David Bowie" it's the first link.


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> Well that statements doesnt say how Ni works or what it is. Ni in socionics _is_ in fact different than what Jung said it to be.


Socionics was invented because MBTI isn't close enough to Jung. So something in your understanding is missing.

Mystical is genuinely how I see IEIs. It's not a compliment. It's a statement of how unrealistic and symbolic/spiritual they generally are; which I am not. I'm not counting the mass fake IEIs who come from the MBTI sections and think Ti is Ni.


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> Socionics was invented because MBTI isn't close enough to Jung. So something in your understanding is missing.
> 
> Mystical is genuinely how I see IEIs. It's not a compliment. It's a statement of how unrealistic and spiritual they generally are; which I am not. Not counting the mass fake IEIs who come from the MBTI sections and think Ti is Ni.


I know. That doesnt mean socionics describes Ni exactly like Jung.


----------



## karmachameleon

FearAndTrembling said:


> What? It goes in the direction of integration. 1 goes to 7 for the same reason 5 goes to 8.


Oh yeah nvm.
But then why is it just negative stuff?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

"The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves."

One of my favorite examples of this is Superman. Star Wars obviously is about that too. But Superman 3 is hilarious. lol. Superman turns bad. His costume is all dirty. He drinks. Destroys things. Stops shaving.

Then has to fight his shadow and bring it into him. Then he opens up his shirt and he is Superman again. Love it.


----------



## SheWolf

Superman 3 is a cringe-worthy movie. :frustrating:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Superman 3 is a cringe-worthy movie. :frustrating:


lol. maybe the worst Superman ever. My favorite was always Superman 2. Fuckin 80s had more blatant product placements. Superman gets thrown into a Marlboro truck. lol. Then he throws another guy into a huge Pepsi or Coke sign.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> So why wouldnt you be able to say an insult to someone? What is stopping you? What do you see happening? Is it that youre afraid of hurting their feelings or what?
> 
> If you were angry, then it wouldn't stop you. That's what the reactive types do. When anger bubble up they react, then think about it after. Being an INFJ has nothing to do with this.


There is no fear. It's reasoning, telling me it'd be counter-intuitive to anything I'm saying to just pop off at the mouth whenever I feel like it.

I find another way to phrase it. And I don't get angry to the point of direct insults that often, and when I do, I at least explain my reasoning in the scope of wanting to help someone or the people around me.

Look at my actions from when I got banned-- that's my inner dialogue a lot of the time, regardless of how I end up phrasing it, because the reactivity can be more intellectualized if we're not complete butthurt, juggernaut assholes.

What's stopping me is not wanting to get banned on a website where the moderators message me often to have to coach me to stop "sparring" with people. And also, wanting to make sure that people don't shut their ears if I feel like what I have to say is important.

The Wannabe-Sociopath Eight is a stereotype, and it's based in the Low-Average and Unhealthy Levels of the type.

Eights are not all about just blowing off their steam unless they're unhealthy. Anybody who identifies with Eight for the soul reason of "I don't care what other people think" are lying to themselves and giving themselves an excuse to take the easy way out:

The easy way out for an Eight is to be unscrupulous and just lash out whenever their core frustration is triggered.

We can, and do, find other ways to assert ourselves, no matter how reactive we are.

This is why common literature on Enneagram has changed the wording from "Reactive" to "Intense".


----------



## Kerik_S

@_karmachameleon_ 

If you don't even remember Growth and Stress arrows until someone lays it out explicitly to you (FAT's list of "Childlike" nature of types), why are you speaking with any level of authority on what Eights should and shouldn't be able to do?

　
EDIT: Are you in the early stages of identifying with a new self-espoused type? I've got a hunch that you're identifying more with what's listed as your third-fixation (8), and thus being more outspokenly interested in confronting people.

If what you're seeing in yourself is what you think that Type 8 is, you really need to revise your idea. Anything in a Core (first) position is going to be heavily influenced by two other Types, meaning that someone whose only window into a type being their third-fix is the equivalent of a Se-inferior trying to really know from experience what it's like to be a Se-dominant.

　
~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, I've been open since the beginning of my typing solicitation to the idea of being a CP6.

However, as I was pondering it even briefly, I thought (because I couldn't remember the Growth/Stress for the 3-6-9 triangle, if 6 stressed to 3 or 9) "If 6 stresses to 3, there's no way I'm a 6."

Refreshing myself on the Growth/Stress, there's absolutely no way I Stress to 3-- I never _ever_ became more competitive or arrogant in the most mild to the most profound stress.

I've been stressed to the point of psychosis before, and when I was approaching that breaking point, I was practicing a style of Zen that involved a shit ton of metacognitive awareness.

If I stressed to 3, I would know it like the back of my hand.
　

*In order of likelihod of what my "Stress Type" is:

2:  * Less than 25%, I've never people pleased and have been voraciously self-interested

*3:* Less than 25%, I would scoff at the idea of competitiveness

*4:* 50/50.... I did want to "know myself", but it wasn't to get a kick out of individualism

*5:* At least 80%: My classic go-to was to withdraw and seek information, even checking myself in to Psych Wards to get people to give me information on myself

*6:* No more than 65%: You could classify the "Classic Go-To" as an engaged and intense 6 thing, but I was thoroughly disengaged and hyper-intellectualized, focusing more on journaling and barely speaking to anyone in the psych wards
*
7:* Less than 25%: Just, no. As a Se-inferior, disintegrating to 7 would easily cause the classic sensory binging and I never did that

*8: *No more than 65%: Only possible if I was somehow _not disintegrated_ while on psychiatric intake units... seems pretty fucking unlikely

*9:* 50/50... There's no way I'm a Type 3, and any reticence I had was based more in "I'm not going to speak if I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about anymore" and not based on "Harmony" or any of that bullshit
*
1:* No more than 50%: Arbitrary justice-seeking and perfectionism has always seemed pretty stupid and pointless. I don't identify with any Competence type, even when stressed, other than a 5.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> @_karmachameleon_
> 
> If you don't even remember Growth and Stress arrows until someone lays it out explicitly to you (FAT's list of "Childlike" nature of types), why are you speaking with any level of authority on what Eights should and shouldn't be able to do?
> 
> 
> EDIT: Are you in the early stages of identifying with a new self-espoused type? I've got a hunch that you're identifying more with what's listed as your third-fixation (8), and thus being more outspokenly interested in confronting people.
> 
> If what you're seeing in yourself is what you think that Type 8 is, you really need to revise your idea. Anything in a Core (first) position is going to be heavily influenced by two other Types, meaning that someone whose only window into a type being their third-fix is the equivalent of a Se-inferior trying to really know from experience what it's like to be a Se-dominant.
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~
> Anyway, I've been open since the beginning of my typing solicitation to the idea of being a CP6.
> 
> However, as I was pondering it even briefly, I thought (because I couldn't remember the Growth/Stress for the 3-6-9 triangle, if 6 stressed to 3 or 9) "If 6 stresses to 3, there's no way I'm a 6."
> 
> Refreshing myself on the Growth/Stress, there's absolutely no way I Stress to 3-- I never _ever_ became more competitive or arrogant in the most mild to the most profound stress.
> 
> I've been stressed to the point of psychosis before, and when I was approaching that breaking point, I was practicing a style of Zen that involved a shit ton of metacognitive awareness.
> 
> If I stressed to 3, I would know it like the back of my hand.
> 
> 
> *In order of likelihod of what my "Stress Type" is:
> 
> 2:  * Less than 25%, I've never people pleased and have been voraciously self-interested
> 
> *3:* Less than 25%, I would scoff at the idea of competitiveness
> 
> *4:* 50/50.... I did want to "know myself", but it wasn't to get a kick out of individualism
> 
> *5:* At least 80%: My classic go-to was to withdraw and seek information, even checking myself in to Psych Wards to get people to give me information on myself
> 
> *6:* No more than 65%: You could classify the "Classic Go-To" as an engaged and intense 6 thing, but I was thoroughly disengaged and hyper-intellectualized, focusing more on journaling and barely speaking to anyone in the psych wards
> *
> 7:* Less than 25%: Just, no. As a Se-inferior, disintegrating to 7 would easily cause the classic sensory binging and I never did that
> 
> *8: *No more than 65%: Only possible if I was somehow _not disintegrated_ while on psychiatric intake units... seems pretty fucking unlikely
> 
> *9:* 50/50... There's no way I'm a Type 3, and any reticence I had was based more in "I'm not going to speak if I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about anymore" and not based on "Harmony" or any of that bullshit
> *
> 1:* No more than 50%: Arbitrary justice-seeking and perfectionism has always seemed pretty stupid and pointless. I don't identify with any Competence type, even when stressed, other than a 5.


tldr maybe ill read it later but no, this type is not new to me. "the only way of knowing a type is to be one" dafuq. so how do people type other people?


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> tldr maybe ill read it later but no, this type is not new to me. "the only way of knowing a type is to be one" dafuq. so how do people type other people?


Having it in your tritype, but it not being your core, is going to skew your image of it.

People are probably better at intellectually understanding types that are their core or aren't even in their tritype to begin with.

You sound like you're using Type 8 as an excuse to be terse and just say whatever you want to be "edgy".

"TL;DR" so fucking edgy

"Maybe i'll read it later" when you should have just kept your mouth shut, so fucking edgy

Type 8 isn't an excuse to be terse and not consider the opinions of others, especially if you have Fe in your stack.

You sound like a tryhard.


----------



## Kerik_S

@karmachameleon

"Argue with me"
"lol tl;dr"

That doesn't make you assertive. That makes you unscrupulous. And several other words I won't say because even though I'm an 8 (or maybe CP6), I'm not just about blowing off steam.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> @karmachameleon
> 
> "Argue with me"
> "lol tl;dr"
> 
> That doesn't make you assertive. That makes you unscrupulous. And several other words I won't say because even though I'm an 8 (or maybe CP6), I'm not just about blowing off steam.


Huh? I was bored at the time. Now I'm not. What does this have to do with our conversation? 
Anyways keep thinking youre an 8 if it makes you happy, thats fine.


----------



## SheWolf

@thread

I really don't think this is the place to be debating people's types. Especially in such an underhanded way. Please stop.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> Having it in your tritype, but it not being your core, is going to skew your image of it.
> 
> People are probably better at intellectually understanding types that are their core or aren't even in their tritype to begin with.
> 
> You sound like you're using Type 8 as an excuse to be terse and just say whatever you want to be "edgy".
> 
> "TL;DR" so fucking edgy
> 
> "Maybe i'll read it later" when you should have just kept your mouth shut, so fucking edgy
> 
> Type 8 isn't an excuse to be terse and not consider the opinions of others, especially if you have Fe in your stack.
> 
> You sound like a tryhard.


No, not if you actually read about them. Having it in your tritype makes you understand them even more. 
"You sound like you're using Type 8 as an excuse to be terse and just say whatever you want to be "edgy"." haha, you think im edgy?  aw.

"Type 8 isn't an excuse to be terse and not consider the opinions of others, especially if you have Fe in your stack."
Who's said that? Also what does Fe have to do with not considering opinions of others?

You sound like a 9 year old having a temper tantrum. Cute.


----------



## Kerik_S

@_karmachameleon_ 

I've already been open to typing as something else, so your reactive mess of a comment shows that you use 8 as an excuse to just say whatever you want.

~~~~~~~~~

Don't be surprised if karmachameleon starts typing as a Core-8 somewhere down the road. She seems like she's trying to push the narrative toward accepting her unhealthy-only definition of Enneagram 8.

Many women who are Intense/Reactive types, in English-speaking countries these days, see being belligerent and "outspoken" as a form of empowerment.

They begin to actively take on the characteristics of Intense/Reactive men because they're more likely to vent their frustrations or externalize their fear or shame in a way that is very relieving to the Intensity.

It's a _working strategy_, but it chains them to low levels of health, so it's sad to see what could be an awesome truly-empowering trend of post-genderism leading to women taking on unhealthy qualities of similar-intensity men.

Just tell karmachameleon that she's Totally Major League Gaming, regularly, to assuage her fears of not being dudebro'y enough.

8 does not mean "lol I was bored" and then being painfully transparent in how underhanded you are at seeking confrontation and dismissing people.

　 @_karmachameleon_ 

You see me as an obstacle to what you want Type Eight to mean, because if I'm Type Eight, you feel like it won't fit your own, and you desperately want to see yourself as assertive because you spend too much time on Reddit or your gaming headset with fedora dudebros.

It's hilariously sad (I have to laugh it off to not feel frustrated about the state of women's pseudo-empowerment), because I'm not even claiming to be an 8 with certainty at the moment.

I'm sorry if you feel like I'm taking away your favorite toy.

Actually, I'm not sorry for alluding to your insecurities. You could be doing better things to be assertive than just pretending to be nonplussed.


----------



## Kerik_S

If you're going to argue, learn how to.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Kerik_S said:


> There is no fear. It's reasoning, telling me it'd be counter-intuitive to anything I'm saying to just pop off at the mouth whenever I feel like it.


Indeed, it would. You could even say it would be impulsive in an Se manner. If Socionics and Enneagram can interplay, then an IEI 8 is going to have strong 8ish impulses that are channeled through the SeTi block, which is supposed to not be as strong as NiFe. This would mean it would be a more aggressive and more reactive IEI than usual, but would NOT be actually consistently aggressive, instead being consistently reactive but knowing how to control/channel that in an NiFe _way_.


----------



## SheWolf

I find Enneagram and Socionics/type in general "blur" together and it's pretty difficult to distinguish what is what?


----------



## Jeremy8419

That's cute. You both have all your various system types in your signatures.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> I find Enneagram and Socionics/type in general "blur" together and it's pretty difficult to distinguish what is what?


Same thing. Different number of divisions. People create internal contrary stereotypes to easily pawn off to other system when they can't figure out where they went wrong.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Kerik_S said:


> Don't be surprised if karmachameleon starts typing as a Core-8 somewhere down the road. She seems like she's trying to push the narrative toward accepting her unhealthy-only definition of Enneagram 8.


Openly talking to the community about a specific person's behavior in this manner is open ridicule, and not only that but it insinuates that she is being childish. I believe it would be better for all of us if you take this argument to its own thread, or to private messaging, or drop it.
@karmachameleon
In other words, I am asking you two, personally, to stop having this out here, specifically.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> Same thing. Different number of divisions. People create internal contrary stereotypes to easily pawn off to other system when they can't figure out where they went wrong.


Uh, alright then.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Uh, alright then.


You wanting a clearer translation between them?


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> You wanting a clearer translation between them?


I'm good.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'm good.


So you are requesting what, then? A distinction rather than a reconciliation?


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> So you are requesting what, then? A distinction rather than a reconciliation?


I just made a statement. That's all.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> I just made a statement. That's all.


Well then, it was correct and it was a good one.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

So, anyway, I just started taking Sociology 101 in college. Its interesting to see that the first thing they start talking about is the Social Imagination, which is basically just putting yourself in other people's shoes. I've already spotted some people that appear to struggle with this concept, which is slightly strange to me. Maybe I'll help them out with it.

Did anyone here study Sociology at all? What did you think of it?


----------



## Entropic

@Kerik_S is like such a stereotype 8 but oooook people.


----------



## SheWolf

Entropic said:


> @Kerik_S is like such a stereotype 8 but oooook people.


I think he's 8 too, but people just loooovve to argue over this sort of thing.


----------



## Kerik_S

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Indeed, it would. You could even say it would be impulsive in an Se manner. If Socionics and Enneagram can interplay, then an IEI 8 is going to have strong 8ish impulses that are channeled through the SeTi block, which is supposed to not be as strong as NiFe. This would mean it would be a more aggressive and more reactive IEI than usual, but would NOT be actually consistently aggressive, instead being consistently reactive but knowing how to control/channel that in an NiFe _way_.


Yes, but if I can't be the Eight that people need to believe in as a stereotype so they can consider it for themselves and be all Quasi-Sociopath Great Leader, I can see why people would be threatened by a typological "mis-match" between Enneagram and Socionics.

I get enough slack for being an assertive and reactive IEI from other IEIs-- I guess I can expect the same kind of "type purity gatekeeping" in Enneagram.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Openly talking to the community about a specific person's behavior in this manner is open ridicule,


Not when the person is literally asking people to argue with them.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> and not only that but it insinuates that she is being childish.


No, it insinuates that they're doing something that many people do when their identity is in play.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I believe it would be better for all of us if you take this argument to its own thread, or to private messaging, or drop it.


I respect you; however, I can't comply with this request because I don't feel I'm breaking the rules or causing any widespread upset. If this were just an IEI thread, maybe, but this encompasses four types.

If my intuition about karma is incorrect, then it's incorrect. I just would not be surprised if she's gunning to type herself as an assertive type, and I'm not going to be party to that type-purist power-play that's going on here.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> In other words, I am asking you two, personally, to stop having this out here, specifically.


I'm sorry that this makes you uncomfortable. I can't make it a point to edit myself as soon as someone is uncomfortable.

I consented to figuring out my typology (revising it), and people are going to have their own reactions to this. If someone is going to feign a lack of reaction to me just to dismiss me, I'm not going to start a new thread to insulate that behavior.


　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So, anyway, I just started taking Sociology 101 in college. Its interesting to see that the first thing they start talking about is the Social Imagination, which is basically just putting yourself in other people's shoes. I've already spotted some people that appear to struggle with this concept, which is slightly strange to me. Maybe I'll help them out with it.
> 
> Did anyone here study Sociology at all? What did you think of it?


I majored in it for a while.

I've only taken Intro, Gender in Society, and Social Problems.

NiFe is good at a social imagination. I just don't always imagine nice things ^_^


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> @_Kerik_S_ is like such a stereotype 8 but oooook people.


I think people who aren't 8s that like the "assertive" label (it's as glamorized in Enneagram as INTJ/INFJ are in MBTI) will try and gatekeep what "is and isn't Type Eight" because it threatens who they eventually plan on typing as (an 8).

That's just the vibe I'm getting from karmachameleon.

Not sure what myst thinks, but earlier in thread I responded to myst anyway.

　
So, you don't see CP6 as an option for me? I don't either bc of the growth/stress, but I'm open to another type. Because I'm not attached to 8 as an icon-- I just think it fits.


----------



## Kerik_S

ShieldMaiden said:


> I think he's 8 too, but people just loooovve to argue over this sort of thing.


Even as a Se-lead looking at a Se-inferior, your perception of my 8-core isn't lost in the whole "But Fe makes him consider others" thing...?


----------



## Kerik_S

.


----------



## SheWolf

Kerik_S said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's 8 too, but people just loooovve to argue over this sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Even as a Se-lead looking at a Se-inferior, your perception of my 8-core isn't lost in the whole "But Fe makes him consider others" thing...?
Click to expand...

Eh. I haven't been paying too much attention. But what I've read sounds 8-ish. Enneagrams and type are strange things, so I've learned not to make assumptions, think that nothing meets the eye, and to be unsurprised by the unexpected.


----------



## Kerik_S

ShieldMaiden said:


> Eh. I haven't been paying too much attention. But what I've read sounds 8-ish. Enneagrams and type are strange things, so I've learned not to make assumptions, think that nothing meets the eye, and to be unsurprised by the unexpected.


Fair enough ^_^


----------



## Kintsugi

@_Kerik_S_

Seeing as you were asking for feedback, I'll give my thoughts;

I could see an argument for both 8 and CP 6 (for your core). I don't really know you very well, but I do think IEI is a good fit for you, and I imagine that a core 8 IEI will come across very differently than, say, an SLE 8. 

However, (and I am going purely on "vibe" here, so bear with me); you do have that certain brand of "reactivity" that I tend to associate more with CP 6 than 8. It's hard to put into words exactly what I mean by this (haha), so take that for what you will.

CP 6s almost feel more "aggressive" and "fiery" than core 8s in the heat of the moment. Its not that they are feeble or inferior to 8s, it's just they lack the more solid "gut energy" that 8 exudes. Similarly, the "head" energy of the core 6 is another key factor (and I'm wondering if what people think is Ne in you is actually more of a "head-type" vibe.)

Btw, I'm not saying you are either 6 or 8 - just offering thoughts and observations. You know yourself best.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@Kerik_S (and Karma if you plan on continuing to argue)
Mmm, yes, it makes me uncomfortable in the sense that I consider the Hangout Thread a place to, you know, hangout, and I consider arguments to be a thing you don't do when you are just hanging out. But if you guys won't take it elsewhere, then you won't.

However, that said, if it does veer into rulebreaking you can consider this a friendly warning. I will submit a report if I see it crossing the line. That is not a threat, as I know threats aren't going to sway you and besides, you certainly aren't scared of the banhammer. Rather, it is a declaration of intent, my own way of being assertive. (And I will take no further action if no rules are actually broken)

Caveats fully in place...carry on.

Anyway, my own thoughts on your type. I see a strong fighting spirit from you, yes, but is it 8? That I cannot be sure. I do get a strong sense of "boundary setting" from you, and that is something 8s are known for as I recall. I don't really see cp6 for you, personally, although I do get a strong vibe of "Come at me bro, I'm right here, I ain't scared of nuttin" that I would expect from a cp6. Have you considered that your head fix might just be cp6/w5 instead of head-5 fix? The 8ish energy could be going to five, and the wing goes to five, so it would be strong five energies while still manifesting strong 8 and 6 energy at the same time. This would result in explaining the behavior I am actually seeing, anyway.


----------



## counterintuitive

Kerik_S said:


> It's reasoning, telling me it'd be counter-intuitive to anything I'm saying to just pop off at the mouth whenever I feel like it.


Lol, I'm not even an 8 and that's the only thing stopping me from unleashing a stream of profanity at everyone I know.

Here, it's the forum rules. Lol. At work, I don't want to get fired. Some factor like that everywhere, eh.


----------



## Kintsugi

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, I'm not even an 8 and that's the only thing stopping me from unleashing a stream of profanity at everyone I know.
> 
> Here, it's the forum rules. Lol. At work, I don't want to get fired. Some factor like that everywhere, eh.


Frustrated much?! 

I recently dealt with a lot of issues regarding repressed frustration/anger (that was threatening to consume EVERYTHING). 

Taking a plastic bat to a bunch of pillows, (imagining they were the heads of people who irritated me), helped a lot. xD


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> Seeing as you were asking for feedback, I'll give my thoughts;
> 
> I could see an argument for both 8 and CP 6 (for your core). I don't really know you very well, but I do think IEI is a good fit for you, and I imagine that a core 8 IEI will come across very differently than, say, an SLE 8.
> 
> However, (and I am going purely on "vibe" here, so bear with me); you do have that certain brand of "reactivity" that I tend to associate more with CP 6 than 8. It's hard to put into words exactly what I mean by this (haha), so take that for what you will.


The "8 with a head-twist" that I originally considered in typing _myself_ a CP6 is why I settled on 5w6 as my second-fix despite not being a particularly fearful person anymore. I see the 5 pull as being "doubled-down" in the 8-disintegrates-to-5, with 5 as my secondary.

I do have an element of "If I let this go when I don't believe I should have to let it go," I can get rather agitated, but I don't know if that's 6 anxiety because it has an edge of "But this is the truth, and I can't censor the truth without good reason".

It's definitely possible for a CP6 to present like me, yeah.

　


The Perfect Storm said:


> CP 6s almost feel more "aggressive" and "fiery" than core 8s in the heat of the moment. Its not that they are feeble or inferior to 8s, it's just they lack the more solid "gut energy" that 8 exudes. Similarly, the "head" energy of the core 6 is another key factor (and I'm wondering if what people think is Ne in you is actually more of a "head-type" vibe.)


Definitely, my ability to be more "comprehensive" and take multiple viewpoints into account makes people think Ne a lot. That's why I go with "Ne subtype" in DCNH. It's why I think I have 8-to-5, plus 5-fix, plus a 5-wing on my third-fix.

You have no idea how fucking neurotic I used to be!!! xD

　


The Perfect Storm said:


> Btw, I'm not saying you are either 6 or 8 - just offering thoughts and observations. You know yourself best.


I appreciate it!

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Mmm, yes, it makes me uncomfortable in the sense that I consider the Hangout Thread a place to, you know, hangout, and I consider arguments to be a thing you don't do when you are just hanging out. But if you guys won't take it elsewhere, then you won't.


Thanks for being cool about it.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> However, that said, if it does veer into rulebreaking you can consider this a friendly warning. I will submit a report if I see it crossing the line. That is not a threat, as I know threats aren't going to sway you and besides, you certainly aren't scared of the banhammer. Rather, it is a declaration of intent, my own way of being assertive. (And I will take no further action if no rules are actually broken)


I respect that.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Anyway, my own thoughts on your type. I see a strong fighting spirit from you, yes, but is it 8? That I cannot be sure. I do get a strong sense of "boundary setting" from you, and that is something 8s are known for as I recall. I don't really see cp6 for you, personally, although I do get a strong vibe of "Come at me bro, I'm right here, I ain't scared of nuttin" that I would expect from a cp6."


That's surprising. I don't like to be aggressive. I just am rather forthright and feel viscerally wrong if I try and taper it back to a degree I can't ethically justify.

I hope I'm not coming across as "fearless" because I'm not. I have aversions. I don't want to be banned, for instance. It was boring as fuck. All of my reactionary nature comes from feeling like someone is stepping on a line that I don't think is "fair".

Like a little kid's idea of "That's not fair." It's always been my thing. When people in fiction would get stomped on or someone would be power-playing, I would as a kid _hate_ those characters.

For instance, Tom and Jerry drove me absolutely batshit as a kid. xD The way The Brain treated Pinky, the way Bugs treated Daffy.

I was just up in arms and could not enjoy seeing even fictional characters power-play like that. It made it so I couldn't even find it funny.

　


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Have you considered that your head fix might just be cp6/w5 instead of head-5 fix? The 8ish energy could be going to five, and the wing goes to five, so it would be strong five energies while still manifesting strong 8 and 6 energy at the same time. This would result in explaining the behavior I am actually seeing, anyway.


That's true. I just don't "pre-emptively problem solve" like a 6-fix. I hold my cards until I need them. However, I don't hoard information like a 5. I barely read, barely study, and just go off of working with the information I've got and just give myself a refresher if I forget something.

I used to list my type as 8w9--6w5--4w5, actually. I just don't identify with the 468 tritype.

tbph, I identify more with 478 than 458, but I'm seeing that since I am only now a "positive" person, I think it's probably just integration that's affected my happiness.

I'm happy. I absolutely hate positive thinking though, and despise the idea of distraction until I'm dying inside.

　


counterintuitive said:


> Lol, I'm not even an 8 and that's the only thing stopping me from unleashing a stream of profanity at everyone I know.
> 
> Here, it's the forum rules. Lol. At work, I don't want to get fired. Some factor like that everywhere, eh.


Being an 8 almost _requires_ you get a handle on your reactivity because we're also assertive.

If someone is typing as an 8 just because they can't control their mouths, they need to look into health levels as well, and take it as an opportunity to grow.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_Kerik_S_
> 
> Seeing as you were asking for feedback, I'll give my thoughts;
> 
> I could see an argument for both 8 and CP 6 (for your core). I don't really know you very well, but I do think IEI is a good fit for you, and I imagine that a core 8 IEI will come across very differently than, say, an SLE 8.
> 
> However, (and I am going purely on "vibe" here, so bear with me); you do have that certain brand of "reactivity" that I tend to associate more with CP 6 than 8. It's hard to put into words exactly what I mean by this (haha), so take that for what you will.
> 
> CP 6s almost feel more "aggressive" and "fiery" than core 8s in the heat of the moment. Its not that they are feeble or inferior to 8s, it's just they lack the more solid "gut energy" that 8 exudes. Similarly, the "head" energy of the core 6 is another key factor (and I'm wondering if what people think is Ne in you is actually more of a "head-type" vibe.)
> 
> Btw, I'm not saying you are either 6 or 8 - just offering thoughts and observations. You know yourself best.


Don't know what this means to Kerik, but you've all the more confirmed that I'm a CP6. XD 468 tritype is also one of the most reactive/fiery of the archetypes.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> I'm assuming that's why Karma started saying I "played the victim" when I didn't. I don't believe that anyone else is against me other than the person I'm talking to if they don't like me. That struck me as a shit ton of projection, paired with my original hypothesis that she's trying to be a type gatekeeper
> 
> In terms of 8 "fairness", authority is not taken into account. Authority can be unfair, but it doesn't mean I can't see it as necessary and just.


No idea why she said the stuff she did (you'll have to ask her).

I can't comment on 8 and "fairness" because I'm a 6 and I'm not close enough with any 8s to feel that I have enough experience to understand their perspective/world-view. 

6 is the type that does tend to be more preoccupied with "authority" though (and "authority" comes in many different forms).


----------



## Kerik_S

Word. I'm pretty damned sure I'm 8, especially after speaking with 6s.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> Word. I'm pretty damned sure I'm 8, especially after speaking with 6s.


I said that about being a core 7 once (before I realised I was a 6), LOL. xD

Seriously, 6 is a _very _diverse type. For example, I have very little in common with very phobic 9-fixed 6s. Next to them even I could pass as an 8. One guy even asked me if I could teach him how to be more "assertive" (although, he was an EII and I am SEE...so...go figure ).

If you are certain of your 8 then roll with it (screw the the haters).


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> I said that about being a core 7 once (before I realised I was a 6), LOL. xD
> 
> Seriously, 6 is a _very _diverse type. For example, I have very little in common with very phobic 9-fixed 6s. Next to them even I could pass as an 8. One guy even asked me if I could teach him how to be more "assertive" (although, he was an EII and I am SEE...so...go figure ).
> 
> If you are certain of your 8 then roll with it (screw the the haters).


I don't care if they believe it. I just wanted to make it known that I'm not particularly attached to 8 as a thing.

Regardless of what I type as, my growth doesn't change.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> I don't care if they believe it. I just wanted to make it known that I'm not particularly attached to 8 as a thing.
> 
> Regardless of what I type as, my growth doesn't change.


I think not being too attached to it is a healthy thing. I see too many people use it as a justification and excuse to avoid confronting real "issues".

And on that note, I really must go grocery shopping now. xD


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> I think not being too attached to it is a healthy thing. I see too many people use it as a justification and excuse to avoid confronting real "issues".
> 
> And on that note, I really must go grocery shopping now. xD


My dad was an ESFP.

Probably had 2w1 at either first or second position.

He was kind of a conspiracy theorist, but didn't really think about it too hard, so maybe 2w1--7w6--8w7


----------



## SheWolf

Kerik_S said:


> The Perfect Storm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think not being too attached to it is a healthy thing. I see too many people use it as a justification and excuse to avoid confronting real "issues".
> 
> And on that note, I really must go grocery shopping now. xD
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was an ESFP.
> 
> Probably had 2w1 at either first or second position.
> 
> He was kind of a conspiracy theorist, but didn't really think about it too hard, so maybe 2w1--7w6--8w7
Click to expand...

Funny, conspiracy theorists are stereotypically Intuits of some sort XD


----------



## Kintsugi

I was just thinking, conspiracy theories + inferior Ni has gotta lead to all kinds of crazy, lol. :crazy:


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> I think people who aren't 8s that like the "assertive" label (it's as glamorized in Enneagram as INTJ/INFJ are in MBTI) will try and gatekeep what "is and isn't Type Eight" because it threatens who they eventually plan on typing as (an 8).
> 
> That's just the vibe I'm getting from karmachameleon.
> 
> Not sure what myst thinks, but earlier in thread I responded to myst anyway.
> 
> 
> So, you don't see CP6 as an option for me? I don't either bc of the growth/stress, but I'm open to another type. Because I'm not attached to 8 as an icon-- I just think it fits.


Nope, because your reactivity isn't 6 style of reactivity, and your egoic thinking patterns don't like up with 6 either. People have his weird idea that reactivity in general is cp6, especially if it's with bluster, but that's not what 6 reactivity is about. 8 _is_ a reactive type and 8 reactivity is more anger focused, especially when it comes to issues pertaining injustice and the like. People have such weird ideas of 8 on this forum, I swear. You're not allowed to be emotional (reactivity _is_ emotionality) and aggressive at the same time because that's what 6s are for some reason. 

6s and 8s react from very different positions.


----------



## Kintsugi

@Entropic

To be fair though, a lot of what people say about type 6 and 8 comes directly from what they've read about in books on Enneagram by various different authors.

You seem to have your own interpretation that differs from this though; so, the issue is more that mainstream ideas don't match _your _​system. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Jeremy8419

I'd just write a book about it. That's the best part about metaphysics, new age, self-help, whatever books... Doesn't matter if they are full of retarded stuff, because some retard will buy it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Conspiracy theories are usually confused ST's. Best friend is an SLE and he comes up with all kinds of weird conspiracies about stuff like sugar and caffeine and stuff, then says his dad is a conspiracy theory nut, then says he himself isn't one because his conspiracies aren't conspiracies because they are real. Then I tell him he sounds nuts and retarded. Apparently he gets way out in left-field with gimpy intuition when I'm not around.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_Entropic_
> 
> To be fair though, a lot of what people say about type 6 and 8 comes directly from what they've read about in books on Enneagram by various different authors.
> 
> You seem to have your own interpretation that differs from this though; so, the issue is more that mainstream ideas don't match _your _​system.
> 
> Just sayin.


Bingo. It's like he refuses to admit that 6 and 8 can even be mistyped. There are sixes on this forum who disagree with his six typings. He types people as sixes that other people type as eights and vice versa. There is a debate. He doesn't want anyone to think there is, but it is actually an open question with differing viewpoints.

Ripley from Alien. Six. He says 8. Fucking Six. lol


----------



## karmachameleon

Entropic said:


> @Kerik_S is like such a stereotype 8 but oooook people.


Why?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Gut energy vs head energy. I said gut types are often cool as cucumbers in a bowl of hot sauce. It is quite noticeable when one isn't one. Does the debate style of people in question remind you more of Malcolm X or MLK?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Conspiracy theories are usually confused ST's. Best friend is an SLE and he comes up with all kinds of weird conspiracies about stuff like sugar and caffeine and stuff, then says his dad is a conspiracy theory nut, then says he himself isn't one because his conspiracies aren't conspiracies because they are real. Then I tell him he sounds nuts and retarded. Apparently he gets way out in left-field with gimpy intuition when I'm not around.


Somebody said that conspiracy theories are an irresistible labor saving device in the face of complexity. Typology is similar.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> Somebody said that conspiracy theories are an irresistible labor saving device in the face of complexity. Typology is similar.


some of them is just weird. Like Jeremy8419 said demostrative Te with creative Ti might be able to create the most fantastic theories. I know I do not create them but find most of them highly entertaining. Them trying to connect facts with low Ni? I know some SEE are into it also. just my 2 cents


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Somebody said that conspiracy theories are an irresistible labor saving device in the face of complexity. Typology is similar.


Probably because it's similarly full of confused ST's that don't realize their intuitions sound retarded.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> some of them is just weird. Like Jeremy8419 said demostrative Te with creative Ti might be able to create the most fantastic theories. I know I do not create them but find most of them highly entertaining. Them trying to connect facts with low Ni? I know some SEE are into it also. just my 2 cents


Conscious Ti in the service of all relationships without the presence of materialistic desires. Self-servicing theories are shallow and short-sighted, because they only need to serve the self.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Conscious Ti in the service of all relationships without the presence of materialistic desires. Self-servicing theories are shallow and short-sighted, because they only need to serve the self.


ya. But also there are those about lizards having power over the world and such


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Conscious Ti in the service of all relationships without the presence of materialistic desires. Self-servicing theories are shallow and short-sighted, because they only need to serve the self.


I think that is it. It is for their own ego. It is a way for people of less than average intelligence to feel smarter than everybody else. You can fool countless experts but not them and that makes them feel special. It makes them feel more intelligent and ethical than the general public. Of course it actually makes them dumber and less ethical than the general public. 

Typology is similar.

"The world is one!"

When a young man first conceives the notion that the whole world forms one great fact, with all its parts moving abreast, as it were, and interlocked, he feels as if he were enjoying a great insight, and looks superciliously on all who still fall short of this sublime conception. Taken thus abstractly as it first comes to one, the monistic insight is so vague as hardly to seem worth defending intellectually. 

. Of COURSE the world is one, we say. How else could it be a world at all? Empiricists as a rule, are as stout monists of this abstract kind as rationalists are.

 The difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled. Unity doesn't blind them to everything else, doesn't quench their curiosity for special facts, whereas there is a kind of rationalist who is sure to interpret abstract unity mystically and to forget everything else, to treat it as a principle; to admire and worship it; and thereupon to come to a full stop intellectually.

 'The world is One!'—the formula may become a sort of number-worship. 'Three' and 'seven' have, it is true, been reckoned sacred numbers; but, abstractly taken, why is 'one' more excellent than 'forty-three,' or than 'two million and ten'? In this first vague conviction of the world's unity, there is so little to take hold of that we hardly know what we mean by it.


----------



## Captain Mclain




----------



## FearAndTrembling

There should be a "Dear Jeremy" thread. lol. People write to Jeremy with their problems and he responds with life advice. Then they would complain he isn't listening to them.

:laughin:


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think that is it. It is for their own ego. It is a way for people of less than average intelligence to feel smarter than everybody else. You can fool countless experts but not them and that makes them feel special. It makes them feel more intelligent and ethical than the general public. Of course it actually makes them dumber and less ethical than the general public.
> 
> Typology is similar.
> 
> "The world is one!"
> 
> When a young man first conceives the notion that the whole world forms one great fact, with all its parts moving abreast, as it were, and interlocked, he feels as if he were enjoying a great insight, and looks superciliously on all who still fall short of this sublime conception. Taken thus abstractly as it first comes to one, the monistic insight is so vague as hardly to seem worth defending intellectually.
> 
> . Of COURSE the world is one, we say. How else could it be a world at all? Empiricists as a rule, are as stout monists of this abstract kind as rationalists are.
> 
> The difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled. Unity doesn't blind them to everything else, doesn't quench their curiosity for special facts, whereas there is a kind of rationalist who is sure to interpret abstract unity mystically and to forget everything else, to treat it as a principle; to admire and worship it; and thereupon to come to a full stop intellectually.
> 
> 'The world is One!'—the formula may become a sort of number-worship. 'Three' and 'seven' have, it is true, been reckoned sacred numbers; but, abstractly taken, why is 'one' more excellent than 'forty-three,' or than 'two million and ten'? In this first vague conviction of the world's unity, there is so little to take hold of that we hardly know what we mean by it.


Probably why the concepts of Intelligence and Sex are so conveniently absent. Intelligence being the abstraction of others empirically knowing more, and Sex being the abstraction of the relationships having been exposed to. Some kinda non-nuclear family concept? People in general society do exhibit "types" and "TIMs," but they're generally still so close to the median that both concepts are inconsequential.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> There should be a "Dear Jeremy" thread. lol. People write to Jeremy with their problems and he responds with life advice. Then they would complain he isn't listening to them.
> 
> :laughin:


Pretty much LOL


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


>



Don't call it a comeback
I've been here for years
I'm rocking my peers
Puttin' suckers in fear
Makin' the tears rain down like a monsoon
Listen to the bass go boom
Explosions, overpowerin'
Over the competition I'm towerin'
Wrecking shop when I write these lyrics
That'll make you call the cops
Don't you dare stare, you better move
Don't ever compare
Me to the rest that'll all get sliced and diced
Competition's payin' the price

I'm gonna knock you out
Mama said knock you out
I'm gonna knock you out
Mama said knock you out
I'm gonna knock you out
Mama said knock you out
I'm gonna knock you out
Mama said knock you out

Shotgun blasts are heard
When I rip and kill at will
The man of the hour, tower of power
I'll devour
I'm gonna tie you up and let you understand
That I'm not your average man
When I gotta jammy in my hand
Damn!
Oh!
Listen to the way I slay
Your crew
Damage
Damage
Destruction, terror, and mayhem
Pass me a sissy so sucker I'll slay him
Farmers (what)
Farmers (what)
I'm ready (we're ready)
I think I'm gonna bomb a town
Get down
Don't you never, ever
Pull my lever
Cause I explode
And my nine is easy to load


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> Don't call it a comeback
> I've been here for years
> I'm rocking my peers
> Puttin' suckers in fear
> Makin' the tears rain down like a monsoon
> Listen to the bass go boom
> Explosions, overpowerin'
> Over the competition I'm towerin'
> Wrecking shop when I write these lyrics
> That'll make you call the cops
> Don't you dare stare, you better move
> Don't ever compare
> Me to the rest that'll all get sliced and diced
> Competition's payin' the price
> 
> I'm gonna knock you out
> Mama said knock you out
> I'm gonna knock you out
> Mama said knock you out
> I'm gonna knock you out
> Mama said knock you out
> I'm gonna knock you out
> Mama said knock you out
> 
> Shotgun blasts are heard
> When I rip and kill at will
> The man of the hour, tower of power
> I'll devour
> I'm gonna tie you up and let you understand
> That I'm not your average man
> When I gotta jammy in my hand
> Damn!
> Oh!
> Listen to the way I slay
> Your crew
> Damage
> Damage
> Destruction, terror, and mayhem
> Pass me a sissy so sucker I'll slay him
> Farmers (what)
> Farmers (what)
> I'm ready (we're ready)
> I think I'm gonna bomb a town
> Get down
> Don't you never, ever
> Pull my lever
> Cause I explode
> And my nine is easy to load


lewl such aggressive song


----------



## Captain Mclain




----------



## Vermillion

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_Entropic_
> 
> To be fair though, a lot of what people say about type 6 and 8 comes directly from what they've read about in books on Enneagram by various different authors.
> 
> You seem to have your own interpretation that differs from this though; so, the issue is more that mainstream ideas don't match _your _​system.
> 
> Just sayin.


Actually, nearly *all *people would derive their ideas about Enneagram from mainstream sources -- because mainstream sources are popular, and people researching the theory nearly inevitably read some or most of them. 

The issue nearly always lies in how one person interprets these sources vs. how another person does it. In a system as abstract as the Enneagram, especially, interpretation and application of ideas to real experiences is key to understanding, and perspective can change _many _things. (You see this issue less with Socionics, because it is far more clearly defined and individuals put their cognition on display in their communication. With Enneagram, these motivations and ideas are far less on display and can differ from person to person in how they manifest.) Therefore, typing someone via Enneagram is a delicate process

So unless you're saying he created his own system independently of all these theorists and happened to _coincidentally _name it the Enneagram, I don't see your point.

If your issue is that people like him interpret these sources differently from the normative way of interpreting them:

a) Is differing from the norm necessarily _wrong _in every aspect? For example, would you disagree with the claim that 8s can be full of bluster and react emotionally (especially feeler 8s), not just (cp)6s? (It is undeniable that in several Enneagram circles, it is normal to assume and imply that _only _6s are capable of projection, reacting/fighting against people's assumptions openly, and so on.)

b) How would you define a correct, _normal _way of interpreting this topic? Wouldn't it be normal if it is supported by mainstream sources and abnormal only if mainstream sources claim _otherwise_, even AFTER navigating through the inherent subjectivity and difference in experience/perspectives?

I see an issue with assuming there is a widespread consensus on Enneagram that a few outliers somehow do not have access to because they formulate their own mental systems. What is actually _likelier _is that (nearly) everyone reads mainstream sources, interprets them and applies them in their own fashion, and that different people have different variations to their interpretations. Nearly everyone has their own mental models and perspectives. Some are better formed than others, and not all of them agree with each other in every aspect. They converge at some places and diverge at others.

When determining what is "right" in an abstract and motivation-dependent system such as the Enneagram, what everyone agrees on isn't necessarily correct in every way. What matters is the _quality of the reasoning_ behind the interpretation of the source. By examining someone's reasoning and comparing it to the information obtained from the source, you know if they're on the right track, even if they're coming at it from an unconventional angle.

For example, I feel like @Kerik_S describes and labels the Enneagram in a pretty unconventional fashion sometimes (using his own labels such as "guilelessness" and "serenity" and so on) but I still see that interpretation as being largely solid and consistent with the original Enneagram's postulates.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Pretty much LOL


The idea came to because I noticed a hot woman hangs out next door. Not sure her story. Must be friends with the MILF next door. And then I thought WWJD? I am sure Jeremy would give me me some really BAD advice on how to approach her. lol

I love Seinfeld. George realizes he is a failure and everything he does is wrong. So he decides to do the exact opposite of what he would normally do. Takes his first instinct and does the opposite of it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Actually, nearly *all *people would derive their ideas about Enneagram from mainstream sources -- because mainstream sources are popular, and people researching the theory nearly inevitably read some or most of them.
> 
> The issue nearly always lies in how one person interprets these sources vs. how another person does it. In a system as abstract as the Enneagram, especially, interpretation and application of ideas to real experiences is key to understanding, and perspective can change _many _things. (You see this issue less with Socionics, because it is far more clearly defined and individuals put their cognition on display in their communication. With Enneagram, these motivations and ideas are far less on display and can differ from person to person in how they manifest.) Therefore, typing someone via Enneagram is a delicate process
> 
> So unless you're saying he created his own system independently of all these theorists and happened to _coincidentally _name it the Enneagram, I don't see your point.
> 
> If your issue is that people like him interpret these sources differently from the normative way of interpreting them:
> 
> a) Is differing from the norm necessarily _wrong _in every aspect? For example, would you disagree with the claim that 8s can be full of bluster and react emotionally (especially feeler 8s), not just (cp)6s? (It is undeniable that in several Enneagram circles, it is normal to assume and imply that _only _6s are capable of projection, reacting/fighting against people's assumptions openly, and so on.)
> 
> b) How would you define a correct, _normal _way of interpreting this topic? Wouldn't it be normal if it is supported by mainstream sources and abnormal only if mainstream sources claim _otherwise_, even AFTER navigating through the inherent subjectivity and difference in experience/perspectives?
> 
> I see an issue with assuming there is a widespread consensus on Enneagram that a few outliers somehow do not have access to because they formulate their own mental systems. What is actually _likelier _is that (nearly) everyone reads mainstream sources, interprets them and applies them in their own fashion, and that different people have different variations to their interpretations. Nearly everyone has their own mental models and perspectives. Some are better formed than others, and not all of them agree with each other in every aspect. They converge at some places and diverge at others.
> 
> When determining what is "right" in an abstract and motivation-dependent system such as the Enneagram, what everyone agrees on isn't necessarily correct in every way. What matters is the _quality of the reasoning_ behind the interpretation of the source. By examining someone's reasoning and comparing it to the information obtained from the source, you know if they're on the right track, even if they're coming at it from an unconventional angle.
> 
> For example, I feel like @_Kerik_S_ describes and labels the Enneagram in a pretty unconventional fashion sometimes (using his own labels such as "guilelessness" and "serenity" and so on) but I still see that interpretation as being largely solid and consistent with the original Enneagram's postulates.



Nobody pulled the reasoning out of their ass. I think that is what she is trying to say. We have all read descriptions and apply our own logic and experience to them. There is nothing left field about our claims.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


> lewl such aggressive song








All I hear is gun shots
Can I touch something?

I'm giving you injections that be lethal
Weapons, when ****** start to half stepping, then I get evil
But don't let that negative vibe right there mislead you
I'm humble, a fucking Killa Bee, far from bumble
I sting you - bzzz - and I bring you
Thirty-six Chambers of head banger, bitch









I came to bring the pain hardcore from the brain
Let's go inside my astral plane
Find out my mental's based on instrumental
Records hey so I can write monumental

Is it real son, is it really real son
Let me know it's real son, if it's really real
Something I could feel son, load it up and kill one
If's it really real


----------



## Entropic

karmachameleon said:


> Why?


Because motivations and all other reasons I already outlined?


----------



## karmachameleon

Entropic said:


> Because motivations and all other reasons I already outlined?


Okay, havent seen any, sorry for not reading through every single post here in the last 10 pages. I wont go searching through the thread but he is not an 8 from what ive seen from him.


----------



## SheWolf

I think I'll just disappear from this thread for a bit.

Peace.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nobody pulled the reasoning out of their ass. I think that is what she is trying to say. We have all read descriptions and apply our own logic and experience to them. There is nothing left field about our claims.


It is irrelevant that you simply _have_ reasoning (of course, it's better than having no rationale at all and saying "because I said so", but I don't see anyone having done that here ). Many people have some form of reasoning behind their claims, however rudimentary. What matters is that the reasoning is a) valid b) consistent with information from the source c) internally consistent, and d) applicable.

So the fact that you (general you) "apply logic" means nothing to me unless you demonstrate the soundness of your logic. Your applied logic could be completely crappy, for instance, in which case it doesn't demonstrate anything of any value.


----------



## Entropic

The Perfect Storm said:


> @Entropic
> 
> To be fair though, a lot of what people say about type 6 and 8 comes directly from what they've read about in books on Enneagram by various different authors.
> 
> You seem to have your own interpretation that differs from this though; so, the issue is more that mainstream ideas don't match _your _​system.
> 
> Just sayin.


Actually I have a lot of sources to support my reasoning. I've read most sources and a little more than what are propagated around here, and I'd say my opinion of 6 vs 8 is far more consistent with how these two types are depicted in literature than how most people seem to understand them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> The idea came to because I noticed a hot woman hangs out next door. Not sure her story. Must be friends with the MILF next door. And then I thought WWJD? I am sure Jeremy would give me me some really BAD advice on how to approach her. lol
> 
> I love Seinfeld. George realizes he is a failure and everything he does is wrong. So he decides to do the exact opposite of what he would normally do. Takes his first instinct and does the opposite of it.


I'm pretty sure that I'd ignore the request and give you general life advice instead lol. Isn't that where the "not listening" comes in? Never the advice you want, but always the advice you need.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm pretty sure that I'd ignore the request and give you general life advice instead lol. Isn't that where the "not listening" comes in? Never the advice you want, but always the advice you need.


I can see that. "Forget about the girl. You got bigger problems." lol. Which is true.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> It is irrelevant that you simply _have_ reasoning (of course, it's better than having no rationale at all and saying "because I said so", but I don't see anyone having done that here ). Many people have some form of reasoning behind their claims, however rudimentary. What matters is that the reasoning is a) valid b) consistent with information from the source c) internally consistent, and d) applicable.
> 
> So the fact that you (general you) "apply logic" means nothing to me unless you demonstrate the soundness of your logic. Your applied logic could be completely crappy, for instance, in which case it doesn't demonstrate anything of any value.



I said before that it is like we are all in the same class but using different textbooks. Then we compare notes.

The most in depth literature I have read on the subject is Riso-Hudson. I am somewhat from that "school" of Enneagram. I relate to the way he thinks and it makes sense to me. Doesn't mean he is right but that is my bias. That other guy who is banned and ridiculously aggressive seems to be from the same school. He sees typing like I do. His logic makes sense to me. I have heard Entropic specifically say he isn't particularly fond of Riso so he is going to disagree with people who have him as almost a foundational bias.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Hm?


Within the context of Socionics, the most basic descriptors for Te and Ni are Work and Time, respectively. The Super-Id is your Unconscious Motivations, that which you seek from Society. SEE has Te and Ni in their Super-Id, Ni being Suggestive Function and Te being Hidden Agenda. This means you unconsciously want other people to show you that it is Time to Work. What you've been describing is 1/4 of your own Socionics Type.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm?
> 
> 
> 
> Within the context of Socionics, the most basic descriptors for Te and Ni are Work and Time, respectively. The Super-Id is your Unconscious Motivations, that which you seek from Society. SEE has Te and Ni in their Super-Id, Ni being Suggestive Function and Te being Hidden Agenda. This means you unconsciously want other people to show you that it is Time to Work. What you've been describing is 1/4 of your own Socionics Type.
Click to expand...

Ah.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Ah.


Now, also within the context of Socionics, exists the Benefactor and the Supervisor. Your type happens to be my Supervisor. Supervisors aren't big mean evil people, but rather are there to impart information from groups that you aren't likely to be gravitated towards, to assist in what's important to you. Generally speaking, my Supervisors help me balance out material interests. Now, because you won't gravitate towards these other groups naturally, there exists the Benefactor. The Benefactor is someone you admire, but ultimately gives you nothing of value no matter how hard you try. The Benefactor is an unconscious relationship. You won't readily think about admiring them, but somehow you know you do. The Benefactor is the bridge between your Demonstrative Function (for you, Emotions) and your Suggestive Function (again, for you, Time), which is the weakest unconscious link in your psyche, and the source of your issues. Because the information of the Benefactor is Conscious, yet you need it for Unconscious things, you end up with nothing you can consciously process. So, where is the Solution? The Benefactor just so happens to be the Supervisor's dual. Although you reach out to the Benefactor for support, they can not help you, but they are directly linked to the Supervisor. By giving information requests to the Benefactor, in your case the EIE, who tells stories to elicit positive emotions, you eventually receive the correct information from the Supervisor, who gives the correct information in a way that is most "digestible" to yourself. The SEE supervisor is the LSI.

Now, I am not an LSI, despite popular opinion, but I do have enough experience with them to be able to replicate what they would say, which is supposed to be the end solution to your dilemma. "Well, when I had my last surgery, I couldn't use my arm for 3 months right, and I was about going stir-crazy not being able to do anything or get anything done, so when I went to the doctor and he asked how I was doing, I told him, 'Well, I'm going a little stir crazy not being able to do anything or get anything done around the house,' and he told me that the physical therapy helps with that and they teach you how to do the treatments at home and that they'll wear you out more than you think, and boy was he right, they woooorrrreee me ouuuutttt..."


----------



## SheWolf

I see.

Don't know what this means, but my brother is an SLE and we don't get along. At all. I think it's his Fi PoLR that irks me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> I see.
> 
> Don't know what this means, but my brother is an SLE and we don't get along. At all. I think it's his Fi PoLR that irks me.


They're in the same Quadra, but they aren't the same Intertype Relationship. The "good" relationships between Quadra are Supervision and Benefit.

Just go to the doctor and say, "look, I can't do Anything and it's driving me nuts," and then listen and do what he says. He's the doctor, that's what he's there for. If it doesn't work, call the office and ask to see him, then tell him it isn't working and find out what he has to say. That's what he's paid for.


----------



## Kintsugi

Night Huntress said:


> Actually, nearly *all *people would derive their ideas about Enneagram from mainstream sources -- because mainstream sources are popular, and people researching the theory nearly inevitably read some or most of them.
> 
> The issue nearly always lies in how one person interprets these sources vs. how another person does it. In a system as abstract as the Enneagram, especially, interpretation and application of ideas to real experiences is key to understanding, and perspective can change _many _things. (You see this issue less with Socionics, because it is far more clearly defined and individuals put their cognition on display in their communication. With Enneagram, these motivations and ideas are far less on display and can differ from person to person in how they manifest.) Therefore, typing someone via Enneagram is a delicate process
> 
> So unless you're saying he created his own system independently of all these theorists and happened to _coincidentally _name it the Enneagram, I don't see your point.


Yes, he's created his own system (or at least rationalized things in a way so that the data "fits"). He does it all the time, actually. It's why I don't really trust his typings anymore.

If you want to ask me more about my reasons behind this, feel free to PM me (otherwise we might be at risk of breaking forum rules).



> _If your issue is that people like him interpret these sources differently from the normative way of interpreting them:_
> 
> _a) Is differing from the norm necessarily __wrong in every aspect? For example, would you disagree with the claim that 8s can be full of bluster and react emotionally (especially feeler 8s), not just (cp)6s? (It is undeniable that in several Enneagram circles, it is normal to assume and imply thatonly 6s are capable of projection, reacting/fighting against people's assumptions openly, and so on.)_


a) I never said differing from the norm is *always* wrong (nice try at putting words in my mouth there). 

Really, all I did was point out this habit he has of rejecting core ideas about certain types (that most authors agree on), to fix his understanding of how the system works. And yes, from where I'm standing, it does kinda look like he's created his own system for it.

I'll also add that he probably gets a bit of slack from complaining about how nobody "understands" his perspective, when, when given the chance to explain himself, he often resorts to pretty petty and antagonistic behaviour. Now you see, the way I see it is this; when people start throwing tantrums because somebody disagrees with them, it's most likely because they are a little too attached to their ideas and are unable to see any other view but their own. 

Apart from that, I have no desire to discuss Enneagram theory with either of you because, in the past you have both gotten quite rude; and, quite frankly, I ain't got time for that attitude. You have to earn it. :kitteh:

(@_Jeremy8419_ actually summed it up pretty well in his response to you.)



> _b) How would you define a correct, __normal way of interpreting this topic? Wouldn't it be normal if it is supported by mainstream sources and abnormal only if mainstream sources claim otherwise, even AFTER navigating through the inherent subjectivity and difference in experience/perspectives?
> _


You really are quite invested in this, aren't you? 

I believe I've made my point quite clear above.

Next! ^_^




> _I see an issue with assuming there is a widespread consensus on Enneagram that a few outliers somehow do not have access to because they formulate their own mental systems. What is actually __likelier is that (nearly) everyone reads mainstream sources, interprets them and applies them in their own fashion, and that different people have different variations to their interpretations. Nearly everyone has their own mental models and perspectives. Some are better formed than others, and not all of them agree with each other in every aspect. They converge at some places and diverge at others.
> 
> When determining what is "right" in an abstract and motivation-dependent system such as the Enneagram, what everyone agrees on isn't necessarily correct in every way. What matters is the quality of the reasoning behind the interpretation of the source. By examining someone's reasoning and comparing it to the information obtained from the source, you know if they're on the right track, even if they're coming at it from an unconventional angle.
> 
> For example, I feel like @Kerik_S describes and labels the Enneagram in a pretty unconventional fashion sometimes (using his own labels such as "guilelessness" and "serenity" and so on) but I still see that interpretation as being largely solid and consistent with the original Enneagram's postulates._


I'm not interested in arguing theory or logic. Sorry, it's not my strength, and the times when I do invest in it, it's because I feel that I may get something out of the interaction.

This is not one of those times.

********************************************************************************

To the rest of the thread;

sorry about the derail.....may the party continue!


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> I see.
> 
> Don't know what this means, but my brother is an SLE and we don't get along. At all. I think it's his Fi PoLR that irks me.


I don't have a lot of experience with SLEs. I can imagine that the Fi PoLR would get wearing after a while, though.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Actually I have a lot of sources to support my reasoning. I've read most sources and a little more than what are propagated around here, and I'd say my opinion of 6 vs 8 is far more consistent with how these two types are depicted in literature than how most people seem to understand them.


The idea that an intense and assertive type will be some Quasi-Sociopath "cool and collected" is literally the same stereotype that people mistype as ILI/INTJ to prove to themselves. Both are false. ILI/INTJs can be emotional and so can 8s.

I honestly think people want there to be a typological icon upon which they can pin themselves down as Almost A Sociopath, because that's somehow "cool".

I think that's why people have created this divide between CP6 and 8-- to cast any 8 that doesn't fit their Sociopath mold into "must be something else" to believe there's typological validation for the "coolness".

Check these people to see if 8 is anywhere in their _listed_ or self-identified tri-type, and take it with a serious grain of salt.


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> Really, all I did was point out this habit he has of rejecting core ideas about certain types (that most authors agree on), to fix his understanding of how the system works. And yes, from where I'm standing, it does kinda look like he's created his own system for it.


I studied independently of Ent, and I ended up with similar conclusions, so I'm assuming there is simply literature out there that you're not familiar with.

　
EDIT: Most of mine actually comes from no more reading than Timeless's descriptions.


----------



## Vermillion

@_The Perfect Storm_

I will not be PMing you. I asked you, politely and in extensive detail, about the rationale behind your accusation, in the hopes we could correct any misunderstandings and come to a mutual conclusion. If you want to reject that attempt and respond with sly disinterest (re: _"you really are quite invested in this, aren't you?" -- Yes, I tend to like following things through to their conclusion and being thorough in my understanding of something. The "you care too much and it's amusing" trick doesn't really work on me, sorry_.) then I don't really see either your respect or your time as being worth obtaining. 

If you are willing to reconsider offering a thorough response to my questions, and actually be respectful and open-minded this time, feel free to reopen discussion. With regards to your current responses, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree in how we view and experience the situation.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> I studied independently of Ent, and I ended up with similar conclusions, so I'm assuming there is simply literature out there that you're not familiar with.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Most of mine actually comes from no more reading than Timeless's descriptions.


With all due respect, the point I'm making isn't really about 8 vs 6 at this stage; I'm talking about his behaviour and attitude in general (from my observations of him for at least the past 2 years on this forum).

The 6 vs 8 debate isn't really that interesting to me (except when people clearly don't understand the differences between 8ish and CP 6ish behaviour - because that can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding and mistyping).

I believe there are tons of threads dedicated to this topic (it's been done to death). Personally, I don't think there is much more to say that hasn't already been said (those threads are sufficient).


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> @_The Perfect Storm_
> 
> I will not be PMing you. I asked you, politely and in extensive detail, about the rationale behind your accusation, in the hopes we could correct any misunderstandings and come to a mutual conclusion. If you want to reject that attempt and respond with sly disinterest (re: _"you really are quite invested in this, aren't you?" -- Yes, I tend to like following things through to their conclusion and being thorough in my understanding of something. The "you care too much and it's amusing" trick doesn't really work on me, sorry_.) then I don't really see either your respect or your time as being worth obtaining.
> 
> If you are willing to reconsider offering a thorough response to my questions, and actually be respectful and open-minded this time, feel free to reopen discussion. With regards to your current responses, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree in how we view and experience the situation.


6s are often disconnected from their reactivity, but in an overcompensating fashion where they seek to highlight the reactivity of others, even if it means reading "caring too much" into someone else as a negative, simply to highlight their supposed lack of emotionality.

Don't take it personally. It's glorified fight/flight in a 6. Especially a 6w7


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> 6s are often disconnected from their reactivity, but in an overcompensating fashion where they seek to highlight the reactivity of others, even if it means reading "caring too much" into someone else as a negative, simply to highlight their supposed lack of emotionality.
> 
> Don't take it personally. It's glorified fight/flight in a 6. Especially a 6w7


Interesting theory; I didn't think of it that way before. Maybe because personally, I've never felt the need to look down upon someone "caring too much", and I'm a 6 too. I admire commitment and investment ^_^


----------



## Kintsugi

Night Huntress said:


> I will not be PMing you. I asked you, politely and in extensive detail, about the rationale behind your accusation, in the hopes we could correct any misunderstandings and come to a mutual conclusion. If you want to reject that attempt and respond with sly disinterest (re: _"you really are quite invested in this, aren't you?" -- Yes, I tend to like following things through to their conclusion and being thorough in my understanding of something. The "you care too much and it's amusing" trick doesn't really work on me, sorry_.) then I don't really see either your respect or your time as being worth obtaining.
> 
> If you are willing to reconsider offering a thorough response to my questions, and actually be respectful and open-minded this time, feel free to reopen discussion. With regards to your current responses, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree in how we view and experience the situation.


"Correct misunderstandings" - as in you try and force your _opinion _on me again?

Hmm, let me think about that....

Yeah. No thanks.

Bottom line is this: I think you are too invested in this subject to be able to have an objective and insightful discussion about it (it would be a waste of my time).

Like I said, you want to know more - PM me. Otherwise, I'm not really interested.

Case closed.


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> Interesting theory; I didn't think of it that way before. Maybe because personally, I've never felt the need to look down upon someone "caring too much", and I'm a 6 too. I admire commitment and investment ^_^


6w7, probably. Pretend it doesn't exist, distract yourself by projecting.


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> "Correct misunderstandings" - as in you try and force your _opinion _on me again?
> 
> Hmm, let me think about that....
> 
> Yeah. No thanks.
> 
> Bottom line is this: I think you are too invested in this subject to be able to have an objective and insightful discussion about it (it would be a waste of my time).
> 
> Like I said, you want to know more - PM me. Otherwise, I'm not really interested.
> 
> Case closed.


People can have emotional investment and still be objective.

Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> 6s are often disconnected from their reactivity, but in an overcompensating fashion where they seek to highlight the reactivity of others, even if it means reading "caring too much" into someone else as a negative, simply to highlight their supposed lack of emotionality.
> 
> Don't take it personally. It's glorified fight/flight in a 6. Especially a 6w7


Er...that's not really it at all (but thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis xD).

You can view this through the lens of type if you want. I can assure you the issue is more complicated than that. Similarly, you could also look at the lack of commitment to debate categories, methods, logic as Ti PoLR. 

Just sayin. 

Think what you want. ^_^


----------



## Kintsugi

Kerik_S said:


> People can have emotional investment and still be objective.
> 
> Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't.


LOL.

Here we go....


----------



## Vermillion

The Perfect Storm said:


> "Correct misunderstandings" - as in you try and force your _opinion _on me again?
> 
> Hmm, let me think about that....
> 
> Yeah. No thanks.
> 
> Bottom line is this: I think you are too invested in this subject to be able to have an objective and insightful discussion about it (it would be a waste of my time).
> 
> Like I said, you want to know more - PM me. Otherwise, I'm not really interested.
> 
> Case closed.


My first post to you was filled with questions about your opinion, and I offered my own. I was not aware that having an opinion and forcing one down someone's throat were the _same_ in your world, but you do you. 

Once again, there is no value for me in knowing more from someone with such a needlessly disagreeable attitude. I enjoy open-mindedness and people resilient enough to respond objectively to civil, fair criticism. From seeing you around the forum these days, I expected you to be one of them. I realize I was an idealist. 

Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> My first post to you was filled with questions about your opinion, and I offered my own. I was not aware that having an opinion and forcing one down someone's throat were the _same_ in your world, but you do you.
> 
> *Once again, there is no value for me in knowing more from someone with such a needlessly disagreeable attitude. I enjoy open-mindedness and people resilient enough to respond objectively to civil, fair criticism.* From seeing you around the forum these days, I expected you to be one of them. I realize I was an idealist.
> 
> Feel free to have the last word.



pot/kettle

nobody's buying the innocent seeker of truth routine. it is insulting to suggest we are that stupid.


----------



## Kerik_S

The Perfect Storm said:


> LOL.
> 
> Here we go....


No, it ends there.

Whichever it is (Ti PoLR or 6w7), I'm sure your lack of commitment doesn't constitute other people "caring too much" unless you're just looking to see yourself as better than others. It's unnecessary layer added on top of something that's just a personal preference


----------



## Kerik_S




----------



## Kintsugi

Night Huntress said:


> My first post to you was filled with questions about your opinion, and I offered my own. I was not aware that having an opinion and forcing one down someone's throat were the _same_ in your world, but you do you.
> 
> Once again, there is no value for me in knowing more from someone with such a needlessly disagreeable attitude. I enjoy open-mindedness and people resilient enough to respond objectively to civil, fair criticism. From seeing you around the forum these days, I expected you to be one of them. I realize I was an idealist.


I told you - I'm not interested in discussing the theory with you. I gave my reasons (i.e. I laid down a boundary), and you keep coming back for more.

What else is there to say, really?

LOL @ your attempt at character-slander. Puurrrleaaase. I'll actually take you seriously when you start "telling off" people whose attitude sucks on a regular basis. 

I actually think that in general, your attitude isn't that bad (I'll give you that). However, I do think it's a little hypocritical of you to only call BS out on some people and not on others....

I've tried to engage in a discussion with you about Enneagram on a number of different occasions and you either, a) don't reply, or, b) get irritated and snap at me when I disagree with you.

I don't find that "open-minded" or "civil" at all, actually. 



> Feel free to have the last word.


Haha! You play the game well! 

Why, thank you....you're ever so kind. :kitteh:


----------



## Kerik_S

You're gonna get a paper cut with all that recycled edge


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> People can have emotional investment and still be objective.


Emotional Investment is Fe and is the Objective. It is tied to Ti, which is the Subjective.



Night Huntress said:


> I enjoy open-mindedness and people resilient enough to respond objectively to civil, fair criticism.


Criticism isn't Objective. It's subjective, because the core is your own opinion/viewpoint. What she is referring to is that y'all request rationale (Te, the process through which she builds her logical structure), then are disrespectful by responding with your own rationalizations (Ti, the criticisms that deconstruct her logical structure to change it more into your own, thus building your own viewpoint/opinion and saying yours is better).

Being concerned with something physical, concrete, and an object, does not make something Objective. It just makes it based upon reality, same as everything else. "This is the case I have built, and these are the constituent parts," is objective, as it can be witnessed and verified independent of subject. "The case is not correct, and this is the structure of the correct case," is subjective, as it cannot be witnessed nor verified independent of subject; someone simply feels the same towards the case, or they do not. In law, you start with a viewpoint, a premise, and build a case for it. The building of the logical structure is Ti-Se. When in court, you not only continue to build your case, but you also deconstruct the opposition's case for their premise and proceed to rebuild it's constituent parts into a structure to match your own viewpoint/premise. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the logical structure is Ti-Ne. The entire process is hinged around the singular viewpoint/premise, without concern nor consideration for the coexistence of other viewpoints necessary to create a positive relationship between the opposing sides. It is Ne base and Fi PoLR. It is the source of the ILE common stereotype of "lawyer," because utilizing Ne+ is effectively that: Arguing the sovereignty of your opinion while rejecting the potential for relationships.

Although most things on this subject matter are subjective, the objective reality is that the most common fallacy on these forums is due to using the terms, both internally and externally, objective and subjective outside of their definitions. You can't have an objective logical argument. You can, however, objectively have an argument.


----------



## Kintsugi

@_Jeremy8419_

Yes, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. ^_^

I tend to "back-down" with the Ti-heavy debates because it's my blind-spot. My remark was more of a social commentary, really.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_Jeremy8419_
> 
> Yes, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. ^_^
> 
> I tend to "back-down" with the Ti-heavy debates because it's my blind-spot. My remark was more of a social commentary, really.


I just find them to be asinine, selfish, extremely immature, and essentially no different than crying or yelling while trying to use "smarts" to attempt to disguise it as someone else. I'll do it, occasionally, if time permits, but, in reality, in the real world, it comes down to why parents discipline their children instead of endlessly talking to them: There's more to being a parent than just mindless jibber-jabber, and there are real responsibilities that need to be taken care of, so when failure to explain passes the point of interference with other responsibilities of being a parent, you discipline them and put the matter to an end. Being on a forum where people aren't disciplined for basically acting like whiney, self-absorbed brats probably only ends with enabling and reaffirming juvenile, selfish, and, at this point in one's life, likely anti-social tendencies.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> I just find them to be asinine, selfish, extremely immature, and essentially no different than crying or yelling while trying to use "smarts" to attempt to disguise it as someone else. I'll do it, occasionally, if time permits, but, in reality, in the real world, it comes down to why parents discipline their children instead of endlessly talking to them: There's more to being a parent than just mindless jibber-jabber, and there are real responsibilities that need to be taken care of, so when failure to explain passes the point of interference with other responsibilities of being a parent, you discipline them and put the matter to an end. Being on a forum where people aren't disciplined for basically acting like whiney, self-absorbed brats probably only ends with enabling and reaffirming juvenile, selfish, and, at this point in one's life, likely anti-social tendencies.


I assume you are talking about particular kinds of unhealthy behaviour and not actual types here. xD

I am in agreement with you about "undisciplined" behaviour (I actually see it as a form of emotional immaturity more than type related, however, the points you made about the Ti and Te clash were valid, I totally agree).

I'm not in the practice of enabling it either, but, unfortunately, it's easy to break forum rules if you go too far down that "rabbit hole" (especially when people are trying to egg you on ;D). My approach is to keep it as civil as possible, (to nip the BS in the bud as calmly and maturely as possible). The rest, unfortunately, is not a conversation that can be had on the forum unless both parties agree to it (which is fair enough, type bullying is a legitimate issue).

Anyway, I'm going to take the advice of others and spend some time away from this thread for a while (let things cool down).


----------



## Entropic

@The Perfect Storm so ok you won't bother to even try to point out exactly how my understanding errs in comparison to the supposed authors or sources that you claim I'm so in disagreement with to the point that I have "my own system"? Sorry, but color me unconvinced since that's hardly a sound argument to prove as how or why I'm wrong. 

Also, to be quite honest, if I'm going to return in kind by making an observation of you and your behavior over the past years, you have a tendency to avoid anything that you deem too "deep" or complicated and rationalize it away with other means eg what happened in this thread. The more honest approach would be to say that you aren't interested and that you really just wanted to express an opinion without much foundation. NH is as Ti polr but she doesn't avoid complicated subjects because she values commitment. She also prefers to have a solid foundation to stand on because that's really what type 6 is about, wing or no wing. 

Your avoidance is more indicative of a personal preference and shouldn't be justified using typology. The point by knowing our weaknesses is to overcome or grow beyond them, not use them as a way to validate our weaknesses as a way to avoid them. I'd never see NH justify her disinterest in a subject like this because of Ti polr because it's not related to Ti polr. If you're so done and it's a waste of your time then stand by that action and leave. In the very least it showcases personal integrity and ability to stand by our own values and principles, which is something I find is becoming increasingly forgotten in a world that values connection but no commitment to the development of the inner depths of a thing. The end result is of course an inner sense of emptiness but the emptiness itself is feared so thus the cycle continues. 

If you're going to make accusations of someone else's knowledge then you better have some evidence why; otherwise it frankly just comes across as quite petty and seems to suggest you rather try to veil your dislike towards me under the guise of type when it's not even related to it. Would again be more honest if you said that you don't agree with my opinions and leave it there though of course, it doesn't stop people from asking why you do and whether it's sound. Disagreeing with someone on the basis of not liking them is perfectly fine if it's delivered that way. 

Justifying why you're an asshole with type doesn't however make you less of an asshole; it only suggests you're not ready to admit that you are so you can take responsibility for it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I assume you are talking about particular kinds of unhealthy behaviour and not actual types here. xD
> 
> I am in agreement with you about "undisciplined" behaviour (I actually see it as a form of emotional immaturity more than type related, however, the points you made about the Ti and Te clash were valid, I totally agree).
> 
> I'm not in the practice of enabling it either, but, unfortunately, it's easy to break forum rules if you go too far down that "rabbit hole" (especially when people are trying to egg you on ;D). My approach is to keep it as civil as possible, (to nip the BS in the bud as calmly and maturely as possible). The rest, unfortunately, is not a conversation that can be had on the forum unless both parties agree to it (which is fair enough, type bullying is a legitimate issue).
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to take the advice of others and spend some time away from this thread for a while (let things cool down).


Law Enforcement: Ti-Se.
Admired by: Ni-Te.
Passed to: Se-Fi.
Admired by: Te-Si.
Passed to: Fi-Ne.

Hooray! We deeed eet!
*banana dance*


----------



## Kintsugi

@Entropic

*sigh*

Nice try. But no. Just....no.

Just admit this is a losing battle, I'm not going to agree with you (or accept that your perception about _everybody_ else is superior, lol).

I don't need to spell it out for people.

Call it what you want. I'm done. ^_^


----------



## Jeremy8419

@The Perfect Storm

$5 says he thinks you're ESE or ILE lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Emotional Investment is Fe and is the Objective. It is tied to Ti, which is the Subjective.
> 
> 
> Criticism isn't Objective. It's subjective, because the core is your own opinion/viewpoint. What she is referring to is that y'all request rationale (Te, the process through which she builds her logical structure), then are disrespectful by responding with your own rationalizations (Ti, the criticisms that deconstruct her logical structure to change it more into your own, thus building your own viewpoint/opinion and saying yours is better).
> 
> Being concerned with something physical, concrete, and an object, does not make something Objective. It just makes it based upon reality, same as everything else. "This is the case I have built, and these are the constituent parts," is objective, as it can be witnessed and verified independent of subject. "The case is not correct, and this is the structure of the correct case," is subjective, as it cannot be witnessed nor verified independent of subject; someone simply feels the same towards the case, or they do not. In law, you start with a viewpoint, a premise, and build a case for it. The building of the logical structure is Ti-Se. When in court, you not only continue to build your case, but you also deconstruct the opposition's case for their premise and proceed to rebuild it's constituent parts into a structure to match your own viewpoint/premise. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the logical structure is Ti-Ne. The entire process is hinged around the singular viewpoint/premise, without concern nor consideration for the coexistence of other viewpoints necessary to create a positive relationship between the opposing sides. It is Ne base and Fi PoLR. It is the source of the ILE common stereotype of "lawyer," because utilizing Ne+ is effectively that: Arguing the sovereignty of your opinion while rejecting the potential for relationships.
> 
> Although most things on this subject matter are subjective, the objective reality is that the most common fallacy on these forums is due to using the terms, both internally and externally, objective and subjective outside of their definitions. You can't have an objective logical argument. You can, however, objectively have an argument.



See, these are deep posts that people ignore and then call others shallow for ignoring their own shallow posts.


Respond to posts like this. There is actual content here. So where is the rebuttal people? I mean Huntress made these generic posts about critical thinking and sources. Jeremy took it to deeper and more insightful level that refuted her post and made it irrelevant. Yet others are shallow? Where are the rebuttals to these posts? When things get deep, some people disappear.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> @_The Perfect Storm_ so ok you won't bother to even try to point out exactly how my understanding errs in comparison to the supposed authors or sources that you claim I'm so in disagreement with to the point that I have "my own system"? Sorry, but color me unconvinced since that's hardly a sound argument to prove as how or why I'm wrong.
> 
> Also, to be quite honest, if I'm going to return in kind by making an observation of you and your behavior over the past years, you have a tendency to avoid anything that you deem too "deep" or complicated and rationalize it away with other means eg what happened in this thread. The more honest approach would be to say that you aren't interested and that you really just wanted to express an opinion without much foundation. NH is as Ti polr but she doesn't avoid complicated subjects because she values commitment. She also prefers to have a solid foundation to stand on because that's really what type 6 is about, wing or no wing.
> 
> Your avoidance is more indicative of a personal preference and shouldn't be justified using typology. The point by knowing our weaknesses is to overcome or grow beyond them, not use them as a way to validate our weaknesses as a way to avoid them. I'd never see NH justify her disinterest in a subject like this because of Ti polr because it's not related to Ti polr. If you're so done and it's a waste of your time then stand by that action and leave. In the very least it showcases personal integrity and ability to stand by our own values and principles, which is something I find is becoming increasingly forgotten in a world that values connection but no commitment to the development of the inner depths of a thing. The end result is of course an inner sense of emptiness but the emptiness itself is feared so thus the cycle continues.
> 
> If you're going to make accusations of someone else's knowledge then you better have some evidence why; otherwise it frankly just comes across as quite petty and seems to suggest you rather try to veil your dislike towards me under the guise of type when it's not even related to it. Would again be more honest if you said that you don't agree with my opinions and leave it there though of course, it doesn't stop people from asking why you do and whether it's sound. Disagreeing with someone on the basis of not liking them is perfectly fine if it's delivered that way.
> 
> Justifying why you're an asshole with type doesn't however make you less of an asshole; it only suggests you're not ready to admit that you are so you can take responsibility for it.



I have challenged your knowledge on many occasions. Your basic understanding of psychology. Philosophy. Logic. Science. And you usually run. Because you have nothing there. Cognition/behavior. lol. Any time.


----------



## Apple Pine

LIE + INFJ on mbti 

is it realistic in any way?

Btw how about this Jung's functions order of INFJ? Ni-Te-Fe-Se


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> See, these are deep posts that people ignore and then call others shallow for ignoring their own shallow posts.
> 
> Respond to posts like this. There is actual content here. So where is the rebuttal people? I mean Huntress made these generic posts about critical thinking and sources. Jeremy took it to deeper and more insightful level that refuted her post and made it irrelevant. Yet others are shallow? Where are the rebuttals to these posts? When things get deep, some people disappear.


Well, the point was LSI to SEE to EII portion of the Supervision Ring. Wonder where the ILE was in all that? Hmmmmm.... Very eenteresting... But stupid!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Apple Pine said:


> LIE + INFJ on mbti
> 
> is it realistic in any way?
> 
> Btw how about this Jung's functions order of INFJ? Ni-Te-Fe-Se


Depends. What's 16personalities.com type you as?


----------



## Apple Pine

Jeremy8419 said:


> Depends. What's 16personalities.com type you as?


This one? 

https://www.16personalities.com/

Seriously? Lol

I've scored INTJ/ENTJ/INFJ

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/742241-well-then-80-questions.html

I don't know honestly, the idea of being Fe or Te PoLR sounds crazy to me.

I relate to both gamma and beta. Not at all to other 2.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I wonder why there's so much resistance to understanding that Ti PoLR naturally is allergic to logical debates, as that's a XEEs' weakest point and it must be quite taxing for them to deal with convoluted arguments. I'm not SEE but I find many of those debates rather redundant and inefficient as there are sources that aren't that difficult to check (I've lately reread Ichazo's descriptions and they were rather straightforward and had the core information about the types, which was useful as I've been quite busy for reading longer descriptions).


----------



## Max

Apple Pine said:


> LIE + INFJ on mbti
> 
> is it realistic in any way?
> 
> Btw how about this Jung's functions order of INFJ? Ni-Te-Fe-Se


You're overthinking this. Just go with the description that matches you best. That's what I done. You've been overthinking this whole thing for a year and a half, Man


----------



## Kerik_S

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> That's interesting. So in a sense you could say that they are nomad types if they are divorced from the society of their "core negative emotion", so them being divorced from the society, they can do whatever they wanna do out in the "enneagram desert"? I never really thought of it that way to be honest.


Not the Enneagram "desert" but the desert of dealing on a really really fundamental level with the negative emotion of their triad along with the negative fixation of their type. They won't experience any extreme disintegration by either engaging or disengaging their passion, so they are disinclined to "fight for growth" like other types.

I'd say 3,6,9 all struggle with an extra layer of complacency issues, and knowing when to strike.

　


WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Meh. In general, I just don't see the point in overthinking a theory and getting hung up over it to the point that you're not prioritising other important things that need to be dealt with first.


We're all here for leisure and/or growth. You have no idea what other people are doing outside of the confines of this website, so to say things that presume you're using your time more wisely is a bit of a moot point on the internet. You're still here, you're still typing text that is pretty much just as autopilot for you as this "overthinking" is for other people.

It's all proper-use-of-energy inasmuch as it helps meet a goal to engage in growth and/or leisure. Anything else is just unnecessary comparison in my opinion.

Apples and oranges, which is kinda the point of there being 9 different Enneatypes.


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, suit yourself, but most people will probably read it and think of that homeless guy with a sign most people pass, instead of the intelligent guy eating steak and sipping wine on the weekends.


If they can't see that it's a typology word and not a self-diagnosis, when it's one word among a list of other typology jargon, on a typology website, I'm not particularly concerned about whatever negative effects their image of me might have on my experience here.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> If they can't see that it's a typology word and not a self-diagnosis, when it's one word among a list of other typology jargon, on a typology website, I'm not particularly concerned about whatever negative effects their image of me might have on my experience here.


I'd probably choose the steak.


----------



## Max

Kerik_S said:


> Not the Enneagram "desert" but the desert of dealing on a really really fundamental level with the negative emotion of their triad along with the negative fixation of their type. They won't experience any extreme disintegration by either engaging or disengaging their passion, so they are disinclined to "fight for growth" like other types.
> 
> I'd say 3,6,9 all struggle with an extra layer of complacency issues, and knowing when to strike.


The three amigos. They're in it together. Basically, they are the most static types in the enneagram from the point of view that they never "change" much? (If that makes sense? From the point of view that they don't disintegrate into the other six types nor experience anything much in terms of [dis]integration because of their detachments?) 

I'm just trying to understand and personalise this definition/concept for my own future use. 

　



> We're all here for leisure and/or growth. You have no idea what other people are doing outside of the confines of this website, so to say things that presume you're using your time more wisely is a bit of a moot point on the internet. You're still here, you're still typing text that is pretty much just as autopilot for you as this "overthinking" is for other people.
> 
> It's all proper-use-of-energy inasmuch as it helps meet a goal to engage in growth and/or leisure. Anything else is just unnecessary comparison in my opinion.
> 
> Apples and oranges, which is kinda the point of there being 9 different Enneatypes.


Yes, but some people overthink this whole thing and I don't think that is healthy. Of course, coming on here in healthy, balanced doses is great as long as it doesn't take up the whole of your psyche. But my point is that some people on here and other sites take it too far, and overthink things, which I think isn't healthy (same with other addictions of course). 

Sometimes I take a break from Typology and go focus on something else and another area of growth (e.g. novel writing, learning another language, studying something or volunteer work) and it really refreshes your mind. 

Yes, of course Typology is good for growth and development and socialising as long as it's done in a healthy manner (as I mentioned above). I know for a fact that I have developed as a person since I discovered the concept of Typology and have been able to understand myself/others and how we think a lot better, but I'm not getting stressed out over the whole thing like some people do. And I think they genuinely shouldn't. Not knowing your type straight away isn't the end of the world. Sometimes it takes time to understand the system and where you fall within it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> LOL, you crack me up. xD


Must be because I ate my Wheaties this morning lol. /flex


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Are you an egg by any chance?





The Perfect Storm said:


>


Yup, just an egg strolling around town with no pants on. Big grin and all.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yup, just an egg strolling around town with no pants on. Big grin and all.


He's in his birthday suit... Eggselent! He couldn't give two yokes!


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


>





WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> He's in his birthday suit... Eggselent! He couldn't give two yokes!


Good thing, too. Never met an egg with two yolks to share lol


----------



## Kintsugi

I'm getting EGGASPERATED with all the egg jokes! :crazy:


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm getting EGGASPERATED with all the egg jokes! :crazy:


!!! Not that!!! /throws water on you

Oops, grease fire. Smoke everwheres lol


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Good thing, too. Never met an egg with two yolks to share lol


Lol. This is going too far xD


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Lol. This is going too far xD


Oops, sorry. Egg all over yo face. /pats it away with handkerchief. Now, now, that's not very becoming to have egg all over your face in public lol


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oops, sorry. Egg all over yo face. /pats it away with handkerchief. Now, now, that's not very becoming to have egg all over your face in public lol


Aw. I was hoping you'd take it off with a hair dryer and turn it into an omelette.


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Aw. I was hoping you'd take it off with a hair dryer and turn it into an omelette.


Nope. Sometimes raw egg is best to build up your protein metabolism. Gotta have strength for all the eggventures. Yessiree.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nope. Sometimes raw egg is best to build up your protein metabolism. Gotta have strength for all the eggventures. Yessiree.


Eggnog it is then  

*sips lips*


----------



## Kerik_S

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'd probably choose the steak.


I'm just saying that anyone who would assume "homeless" rather than "steak" because of a single word on my signature are not a person whose opinion I'll put much stock into


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Eggnog it is then
> 
> *sips lips*


Awwww... Now you have egg all over your lips. Tell you what, lets go get a ball-pin hammer and bust up all the SEEs eggs to make us feel better lol /Whack!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> I'm just saying that anyone who would assume "homeless" rather than "steak" because of a single word on my signature are not a person whose opinion I'll put much stock into


That's probably why they have the steak.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Awwww... Now you have egg all over your lips. Tell you what, lets go get a ball-pin hammer and bust up all the SEEs eggs to make us feel better lol /Whack!


Yes eggsactly. They can't SEE into the future far enough to know our plans :3


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yes eggsactly. They can't SEE into the future far enough to know our plans :3


I'm pretty sure she already broke all her eggs by the time we got there lol. SEEs be hungry, yo lol


----------



## Graveyard

ShieldMaiden said:


> *cracks knuckles*
> 
> About time!


That's the spirit!

Now, agent. You must conquer Russia - alone. Considering you're an Se dom, that should be no trouble. I expect your success within an hour.


----------



## SheWolf

I have no idea what this chick's type may be, but I love her spunk/sass/quirkiness. I watch a lot of her videos and she manages to be funny and still gets her point across without being horribly annoying. I love watching beauty videos and stuff on YouTube but literally cannot stand most of their personalities.


----------



## cir

Hah, no wonder the enneagram forum is dead. Sorry to crash uninvited.



Kerik_S said:


> They're not static. They're perhaps more "homeostatic" than the other types who have to work in a more targeted manner, but they are still dynamic in the sense that they still grip with their vice and virtue just like any other type.


 I would personally (subjectively) describe it as... think of a sound wave. The hexad types have cleaner signals and higher peaks and troughs (at the cost of less signal stability, which means more signal movement throughout the other hexad types), but the triangle types emit more stable-but-attenuated signals, but enough to "wildcard" pass the lowest threshold of the other types.

I personally notice that hexad types are more likely to notice that the triangle types "are a bit different" from others in terms of _energy_ movement. I can see the difficulties for hexad core types with triangle fixes... oh the differentness is probably what confuses them.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> That's the spirit!
> 
> Now, agent. You must conquer Russia - alone. Considering you're an Se dom, that should be no trouble. I expect your success within an hour.


Yes, ma'am! :exterminate:


----------



## SheWolf

@Graveyard

I just realized you're profile says male oops  Female avatar threw me off.


----------



## Kintsugi

@_ShieldMaiden_

Hard to tell her type (from the video). Seems like she's putting on a "persona" (for the camera). Definitely Se valuing over Si. Not sure about Fe vs Fi (could be either, she is "competent" in both).

@_cir_
You're always welcome. :kitteh:


----------



## karmachameleon

i dont see "definitely Se valuing"


----------



## Kerik_S

cir said:


> Hah, no wonder the enneagram forum is dead. Sorry to crash uninvited.
> 
> I would personally (subjectively) describe it as... think of a sound wave. The hexad types have cleaner signals and higher peaks and troughs (at the cost of less signal stability, which means more signal movement throughout the other hexad types), but the triangle types emit more stable-but-attenuated signals, but enough to "wildcard" pass the lowest threshold of the other types.
> 
> I personally notice that hexad types are more likely to notice that the triangle types "are a bit different" from others in terms of _energy_ movement. I can see the difficulties for hexad core types with triangle fixes... oh the differentness is probably what confuses them.


I find the triangle types a bit "disconnected", especially 9s because they're in the triangle and detached from the same sense of anger I passionately and assertively embrace.

3s and 6s... I don't know, the entire triangle seems kind of emotionally sterile to me. Like truly "Supine" and not even phlegmatic like I am.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_
> 
> Hard to tell her type (from the video). Seems like she's putting on a "persona" (for the camera). Definitely Se valuing over Si. Not sure about Fe vs Fi (could be either, she is "competent" in both).
> 
> @_cir_
> You're always welcome. :kitteh:


See, actually that's one of the reasons why I like her, I don't think she's putting on a persona. I just kind of feel as if her quirkiness is genuine. XD

Why do you say Se valuing over Si, just curious?


----------



## SheWolf

I just hit 700 posts. 

wOO.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> See, actually that's one of the reasons why I like her, I don't think she's putting on a persona. I just kind of feel as if her quirkiness is genuine. XD
> 
> Why do you say Se valuing over Si, just curious?


Se because of her overall energy. She tells it "as it is." I don't see much Ne in her (possibly Ne PoLR). Getting an ESI vibe.

Honestly, I just think most YouTubers have persona's, regardless of their type (I mean they are selling themselves, they are a "product"). 

For contrast, this girl is most likely an ESE. Sure, she can "Se" but the Ne and Si are more present in her overall vibe (fwiw, she kinda irritates the life outta me, but that might be because of the "persona" thing too. xD).


----------



## Max

Kerik_S said:


> I'm going to PUNch all of you


These puns have become egg-ressive now 

Damn, my demonstrative Ne is getting outta hand now.


----------



## Kintsugi

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> These puns have become egg-ressive now
> 
> Damn, my demonstrative Ne is getting outta hand now.


Yeah...

The Ne was off the charts for a little while back there. I could keep up for a little bit but then I was like, "nah, fuck this, I'm off," haha.


----------



## Max

The Perfect Storm said:


> Yeah...
> 
> The Ne was off the charts for a little while back there. I could keep up for a little bit but then I was like, "nah, fuck this, I'm off," haha.


Yeah, it's good for generating some new ideas/alternative paths but it's too 'ADHD' for me sometimes. If you can handle Ne, then good for you. If ya can't then  Too bad! But really, I like to minimize those Ne ideas into one plan/concept I can execute over time, when my mind's not deciding to fluff off somewhere else) Speaking of, I'm reading a book about the wandering mind at the moment. It's a good read, and very informative. It shows us that a lot of people have a problem with this, even in big board meetings and that it can't be helped when it happens, but can be controlled better through focus/discipline.


----------



## Kintsugi

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah, it's good for generating some new ideas/alternative paths but it's too 'ADHD' for me sometimes. If you can handle Ne, then good for you. If ya can't then  Too bad! But really, I like to minimize those Ne ideas into one plan/concept I can execute over time, when my mind's not deciding to fluff off somewhere else) Speaking of, I'm reading a book about the wandering mind at the moment. It's a good read, and very informative. It shows us that a lot of people have a problem with this, even in big board meetings and that it can't be helped when it happens, but can be controlled better through focus/discipline.


I can keep up for a while, but I'm much more interested in actually chucking myself into the real-world and exploring via experience (Se). I've got a handful of Ne-dominant friends and it always amazes me how someone seemingly so scattered can actually keep up with me (albeit in a rather chaotic way), but are also so unaware of things like their physical state at the same time, lol. They literally keep going until they drop. Madness.

Ahh, I have a wandering mind, >_>. I'm not "scattered" in the Ne-sense, but, I gotta admit - my attention span sucks. MY other half (ILI) is the complete opposite of me in this respect. Man, I wish I had his discipline/focus! 

He's slowly "training" me though. :kitteh:


----------



## Max

The Perfect Storm said:


> I can keep up for a while, but I'm much more interested in actually chucking myself into the real-world and exploring via experience (Se). I've got a handful of Ne-dominant friends and it always amazes me how someone seemingly so scattered can actually keep up with me (albeit in a rather chaotic way), but are also so unaware of things like their physical state at the same time, lol. They literally keep going until they drop. Madness.
> 
> Ahh, I have a wandering mind, >_>. I'm not "scattered" in the Ne-sense, but, I gotta admit - my attention span sucks. MY other half (ILI) is the complete opposite of me in this respect. Man, I wish I had his discipline/focus!
> 
> He's slowly "training" me though. :kitteh:


Yes, I like some real-world experiences, but I do enjoy planning stuff in my head and seeing how that goes too lol I like all my plans to be realistic, but I do like a little bit of daydreaming from time to time (that helps me write my novels a lot better than it should lol) but I can stick at one character and their concept for a long time, plan it out and make it have meaning and connect it back to the story's source. It's pretty insane how it all adds up sometimes (lol, especially when you get a connection that makes sense from nowhere). 

And as for my psychical state, well I'm currenrtly on a break from studying and enjoying myself a mid-morning snack. I'm planning to study for the next few hours (and start to put together my powerpoint presentation on The Psychics Of Sound) lol. I have to have something done by Tuesday to show my mentor (yeah, long story) and I also have another assignment due on the same date (29th April), which I have the majoroty of it done. I just need to mix the sound a bit better in it, and it sounds good to go (yeah, the life of a Music Student lol).

My Mom (not figured out if she is IEE or ESE yet, but her Ne is INSANE sometimes!) is an a good idea machine, but she never impliments a lot of her ideas in the ways she should. Her friend helps her a lot (he might be SEE, not sure but he seems to have a good grasp on Se) and they have some good marketing concepts that work. As for my attention span, if it's something that interests me, then I can concentrate on it for hours at a time, but however if it isn't, I can be all over the place in terms of focus. I am also disciplining myself to focus better at menial tasks/mandatory studying etc. It gets easier as time goes on though. A lot easier when you settle into your habits.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> I have no idea what this chick's type may be, but I love her spunk/sass/quirkiness. I watch a lot of her videos and she manages to be funny and still gets her point across without being horribly annoying. I love watching beauty videos and stuff on YouTube but literally cannot stand most of their personalities.


She is hot blooded. A little over the top. She moves to her point quickly and fluidly. Se of some kind. I like her. Bet there aren't many girls like that in cornfields huh? lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> See, actually that's one of the reasons why I like her, I don't think she's putting on a persona. I just kind of feel as if her quirkiness is genuine. XD
> 
> Why do you say Se valuing over Si, just curious?


See how she moves her hands? It fits with everything. As if she is holding the idea concretely and moving it around in front of you. Her hand movements are swift and precise. In sync. Like Se. Ne gums up the works. Se removes the gum.

I've seen this guy typed as LSI which could be correct. A Se using thinker at least


----------



## FearAndTrembling

And that is the perfect video of his to post for the slackers in this thread. Sitting hunched over your computer, phones, desks. Playing video games. Chatting on here. YOUR HEAD IS FUCKING FALLING OFF. lol. 
















"What I'd like to have right now is for all you fat, out of shape, (insert city) sweathogs to keep the noise down while I take my robe off and show all the ladies what a real man is supposed to look like."


----------



## Vermillion

cir said:


> Hah, no wonder the enneagram forum is dead. Sorry to crash uninvited.


Feel free to come and go as you please ^_^



> I would personally (subjectively) describe it as... think of a sound wave. The hexad types have cleaner signals and higher peaks and troughs (at the cost of less signal stability, which means more signal movement throughout the other hexad types), but the triangle types emit more stable-but-attenuated signals, but enough to "wildcard" pass the lowest threshold of the other types.
> 
> I personally notice that hexad types are more likely to notice that the triangle types "are a bit different" from others in terms of _energy_ movement. I can see the difficulties for hexad core types with triangle fixes... oh the differentness is probably what confuses them.


Hah, I'm remembering snatches of what I studied about sound now. Am I... _missing _physics right now? :shocked: Maybe just a little bit...

Anyway, lovely way of putting it. I've always had the thought that hexad types are more "polarized" -- clear dips, clear highs; clear strengths, clear downfalls. The constituents of their identity seem more solid overall -- I would describe them as having the boundary distinguishing the self from the world sketched out clearly in black ink. 

With attachment types it seems like that boundary is rather weak or sometimes absent. Far less polarized -- while 6s sometimes think in very black/white terms, their nature and the internal motivation behind that thinking style is still one of vacillation and confusion -- and more mellowed out. If the hexad types are each unadulterated beams of light from the spectrum of colors (the spectrum has 7 colors and hexad types are just 6. This metaphor bothers me :bored then the attachment types are more like white light. 

Or to put it in a different way, it's like they have a permeable membrane separating them from the rest of the world. There's a lot of diffusion going on. I also think there is a very strong drive towards balance in all aspects, which is probably what you're getting at with them not having clear crests and troughs to their sound waves. 

So while a lot of hexad types often have these clear-cut beliefs and wants and opinions in one direction or the other, and they use these to make a lot of progress in the aspects of life they choose, it feels like attachment types (6s and 9s to a far greater extent than 3s... 3s are super assertive externally) are internally motivated towards balancing all the different aspects possible and only THEN moving forward. 

Personally I experience forward progress very slowly. I take one step forward, one step back, rinse and repeat. When I finally gather enough information (thx 5 wing) to move ahead, I do definitely feel like I've tried to account for every variable possible -- my ambition, my desires for comfort, the feelings of people I care about, what I may feel in the future, what is objectively most beneficial, and so on. Honestly, it takes so fucking long to come to clear decisions, and often when I make them even after all this thinking, it still feels immensely precarious. 

I guess I understand what @_Kerik_S_ is saying about triangle types being "emotionally sterile". The word I frequently use is "mellow". So it's a combination of the 9 evenness, the 6 vacillation/weighing of the scales, and the 3 tendency to mirror the world. (Honestly, even describing either of these tendencies as unique to one of the types feels off to me, because they're all so intimately connected and interdependent.) Where an 8 (for example) would experience fury and motivation, I might experience a sense of melancholy or self-questioning. I rarely last in states of polarized emotions. I simply can't seem to. They always seem to be brought back down by some other variable. A 4 might consistently experience bitter loneliness and rejection, but even if I feel that for a short while, I would likely return to a state of low, soft, grey melancholy. It's definitely no less painful for any of the types. The state is just attained and experienced differently.

I would recommend that anyone who asks themselves if they're an attachment type (because a lot of people seem to mistype as that) see if they feel that sense of mellowness, transparency, of being made out of clear water.

An anecdote that interests me: back when I was in a state of tremendous stress, I'd created a personal mental space to retreat to and "fall asleep" to the world (all that 9 doe!). I called it my "cocoon of silence". It was pure white and devoid of all decoration. But the interesting part is: in the background, there was a soft, unobtrusive, but very *clear *and *distinct *sound. A singular, untainted tone, far away in the distance. I wonder what that means...? :happy:

Damn, these are the sorts of conversations I like to have with people. Thanks for bringing this topic up.


----------



## piano

ShieldMaiden said:


> Not really. The other video, the knitting tutorial, I found her irritating. Could barely get through her video.


fair enough. i just thought it was way too much. her point was kinda lost in the try-hard theatrics. i watched the whole video though so that must mean something.

i like jenna marbles' brand of theatrics a lot.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Exactly. Somebody tells me I need to do something and they're gonna get it



And that kind of rebuttal is exactly how it should be handled imo. No playing the victim. lol. She is not a victim. 

Her logic is simple but impeccable. She isn't even that irritated. What happened is a pretty serious insult for some people. Saying she needs to adjust her looks. lol. She plays it extremely cool. Total takedown on her part. Nice piece of work. She'd be good to have on your side. She's gonna make you work for it.


----------



## piano

FearAndTrembling said:


> And that kind of rebuttal is exactly how it should be handled imo. No playing the victim. lol. She is not a victim.
> 
> Her logic is simple but impeccable. *She isn't even that irritated.* What happened is a pretty serious insult for some people. Saying she needs to adjust her looks. lol. *She plays it extremely cool.* Total takedown on her part. Nice piece of work. She'd be good to have on your side.


did we watch the same video? lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

carpe omnia said:


> did we watch the same video? lol



I think you and I are less measured than her. lol. We show less mercy to our enemies.


----------



## Jeremy8419

I started collecting my thoughts about the underlying behavioral stuff behind "personality types" around a month ago. Then I got bored of it and never finished. Y'all can read it though.

"So, when doing more stuff related to Se, I began noticing shifts related to perception, so I decided to formulate them into classifications based upon objective traits of simplistic animalistic behaviors.

In introspection, my vision is generally non-focused; that is, each eye is at a neutral, non-focused position. When walking or looking, my vision remains primarily unfocused, and head position changes where I am looking more than anything else. Overall, I maintain a "general, non-descript sense of sight." This is in contrast to convergent viewing angle, which focuses the eyes inwards to specific points in space. Tendency for individuals to operate in either primarily divergent (towards neutral-state eye position, including awareness of peripheral vision) or convergent (towards the center eye position, increasing specific point of focus towards the self; like focus on a point in space as it moves towards the self; towards cross-eyed) vision tendencies. I have equated convergent vision with carnivorous/predator vision, which is responsible for being able to visually focus on prey. I have equated divergent vision with herbivore/prey vision, which is responsible for being able to view presence of predators in greater than 180 degrees direction. These descriptions may also be expanded to relate to benefit vision and danger vision, within the same scope of context as predator vision and prey vision. Due to the objectivity of each, I have classified convergent vision as extroverted sensing and divergent vision as extroverted intuition. Although vision is specifically detailed, the same scope of application applies to the remaining senses as well. The determinant between predispositions and tendencies for convergent versus divergent vision would be base aspects of the individual circumstances of the individual as well as the individual's environment, which may be predominated by need for either convergent or divergent vision. The greater the length of time of the presence of these tendencies would relate to the "strength" of one compared to the other. Within the typology communities, a referenced trend is with ST types being more likely to wear eyeglasses. If the hypothesis is true, there would then be a positive correlation between S types and vision impairment, as eyeglasses restrict the capabilities for divergent vision, which will lead to a strengthening of predisposition for convergent vision.""


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> And that kind of rebuttal is exactly how it should be handled imo. No playing the victim. lol. She is not a victim.
> 
> Her logic is simple but impeccable. She isn't even that irritated. What happened is a pretty serious insult for some people. Saying she needs to adjust her looks. lol. She plays it extremely cool. Total takedown on her part. Nice piece of work. She'd be good to have on your side. She's gonna make you work for it.



I love people like that. People who when some shitty things are said to them they still have confidence. Stand up for yourself, say your views, and if the other person doesn't get it, move on with your day.


----------



## SheWolf

carpe omnia said:


> fair enough. i just thought it was way too much. her point was kinda lost in the try-hard theatrics. i watched the whole video though so that must mean something.
> 
> i like jenna marbles' brand of theatrics a lot.


I can't stand Jenna Marbles.  But that's just me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> I love people like that. People who when some shitty things are said to them they still have confidence. Stand up for yourself, say your views, and if the other person doesn't get it, move on with your day.


I was saying how this is an sx song and this one line sums it up:

And I wonder
When I sing along with you
If everything could ever feel this real forever
If anything could ever be this good again
The only thing I'll ever ask of you
You've got to promise not to stop when I say when
She sang

"The only thing I ask of you is to promise not to stop when I say 'when'"

lol. Damn right. Don't stop when I say 'when'. Don't let me confine your actions. Challenge my "when". Don't accept that. How dare you obey me?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> I love people like that. People who when some shitty things are said to them they still have confidence. Stand up for yourself, say your views, and if the other person doesn't get it, move on with your day.


And I love this classic scene. lol. "You need people like me. So you can point your fucking finger and say, 'There is the bad guy'." What does that make you then? Good? Nah. You ain't good. You just know how to hide. I don't have that problem. I always tell the truth even when I lie.

Love that line. The bad guy is a bad guy for a reason. He's saying he will accept those labels and outdo them. It is a lie that becomes the truth.

"Make way for the bad guy. There is a bad guy coming through." 






Orson Welles made a great film on forgery. One of the forgers said a line I'll never forget, "If you hang a fake in the museum long enough it becomes the real thing." I think he has a point. Applied to that scene, what is the difference between a real bad guy and a fake who just thinks he is bad? The fake becomes the real thing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FAT, you capable of following that?


----------



## Kintsugi

cir said:


> So one of my old-and-new-again life-long hobbies is learning foreign languages. I'm going to do that whole "delayed gratification" thing (actually, I just have too many things to do, so that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it) and hold off on socionics so I can milk that "ignorant foreigner" status. In my world, I'm just "special guest star" in the tv show called "Beta Quadrant - Hangout Thread", whatever the fuck that means. (Sssh! Don't spoil me!)


I'm terrible at foreign languages! My partner and I are planning our honeymoon in Japan but he says he won't book anything until I've started making a decent effort to learn the language. He started studying it when he was young, it's not fair! >_>

Must.study.must.study.

Oh to be an "ignorant foreigner" in the land of Socionics! I'm kind of jealous... 

I'll reply to your PM soon (sorry, I've been all kinds of scattered recently and my wedding is in less than a month. UGHHHHHH....I think I'm escaping the stress of it all tbh.). :angry:



> Most people here type others in a vacuum... At some point, arguing what a "type" is is like... a British and a Texan arguing over whose English is the "correct" English...


Lol, so true! ^_^

(or in my case, a British and Australian arguing how to pronounce the word "project" or "data". This is what I have to put up with daily in my life on the other side of the world, engaged to an Australian. )



ShieldMaiden said:


> I can't stand Jenna Marbles.  But that's just me.


I find her irritating, too.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> I find her irritating, too.


On a semi-random note, one of my favorite Youtube makeup artists is KlairedelysArt. Not only is she incredibly talented, she gets straight to the point in her tutorials. There is none of that random intro stuff or useless talking and she's very calm and straight-forward. I don't mind when the artist cracks a joke of something, but most of them do try pretty hard to be entertaining.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> On a semi-random note, one of my favorite Youtube makeup artists is KlairedelysArt. Not only is she incredibly talents, she gets straight to the point in her tutorials. There is none of that random intro stuff or useless talking and she's very calm and straight-forward. I don't mind when the artist cracks a joke of something, but most of them do try pretty hard to be entertaining.


I have no idea who that is, but maybe I should check it out because....wedding....make-up....and.....

I HAVE NO CLUE. :crying:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Is Billy Idol Beta or Gamma? Love this motherfucker.






Hey little sister, what have you done?
Hey little sister, who's the only one?
Hey little sister, who's your superman?
Hey little sister, who's the one you want?
Hey little sister, shotgun

It's a nice day to start again
It's a nice day for a white wedding
It's a nice day to start again

There is nothing fair in this world
There is nothing safe in this world
And there's nothing sure in this world
And there's nothing pure in this world
Look for something left in this world

Start again
It's a nice day for a white wedding
It's a nice day to start again
It's a nice day to start again
It's a nice day to start again


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> I have no idea who that is, but maybe I should check it out because....wedding....make-up....and.....
> 
> I HAVE NO CLUE. :crying:



Here's one of her simple videos. I plan on doing this look myself in the near future when I can get a hold of some rhinestones. She does big ones, too, like SFX type of stuff.


----------



## piano

@FearAndTrembling he seems more gamma. ESI, maybe? (just guessin')


----------



## Graveyard

ShieldMaiden said:


> @Graveyard
> 
> I just realized you're profile says male oops  Female avatar threw me off.


Don't worry, I get that a lot. Your words can't hurt me. >

How's Russia going?


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> How's Russia going?


Would you like some vodka? Also, where do you want these nuclear weapons? They won't fit in the garage.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts




----------



## SheWolf

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Dear Deltas:
> 
> This is a Beta hangout thread. It is about Betas with Ni-Fe-Ti-Se valued functions. The idea of this is to gain insight and knowledge about our own kind. Deltas taking over, goes directly against the original purpose of this thread. _We have no functions in common. Our quadras could not be any more *seperate*_.


To quote the OP....



Abraxas said:


> If you are not a beta you are still welcome to post in this thread,


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Dear Deltas:
> 
> This is a Beta hangout thread. It is about Betas with Ni-Fe-Ti-Se valued functions. The idea of this is to gain insight and knowledge about our own kind. Deltas taking over, goes directly against the original purpose of this thread. _We have no functions in common. Our quadras could not be any more *seperate*_.


Omg shut up


----------



## Jeremy8419

Behold! I am Lord Delta! I bring good tidings of frankincense and donuts!


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Omg shut up


Lol! It's true. I was hoping to gain insight, instead there's such a high presence of Fi. Fi's great and all, it's just not Fe LOL


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

ShieldMaiden said:


> To quote the OP....


Good point  Sorry for my post.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Behold! I am Lord Delta! I bring good tidings of frankincense and donuts!


Frankincense? That sounds like an aroma. Huge amount of Si valuing I detect.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Frankincense? That sounds like an aroma. Huge amount of Si valuing I detect.


Google it lol


----------



## karmachameleon

I wonder what type this guy in this video is




He's fucking hilarious haha, and has good points


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol! It's true. I was hoping to gain insight, instead there's such a high presence of Fi. Fi's great and all, it's just not Fe LOL


Your statement is Fi


----------



## Jeremy8419

karmachameleon said:


> Your statement is Fi


Your mom is Fi.


----------



## karmachameleon

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your mom is Fi.


No, she's Fe af. Actually her expressions are almost exactly like that blonde in my vid that i posted, creepy


----------



## Jeremy8419

karmachameleon said:


> No, she's Fe af. Actually her expressions are almost exactly like that blonde in my vid that i posted, creepy


Your mom's so Fe, Obama called her asking for his Fe back.


----------



## karmachameleon

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your mom's so Fe, Obama called her asking for his Fe back.


doesn't even make sense


----------



## karmachameleon

Is there no type me forum for MBTI anymore?

nvm i had clicked the +/- sign lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

karmachameleon said:


> doesn't even make sense


Neither does Fe, but yet.... Fe.


----------



## karmachameleon

Jeremy8419 said:


> Neither does Fe, but yet.... Fe.


Fe makes sense but my mom doesnt


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Is there no type me forum for MBTI anymore?
> 
> nvm i had clicked the +/- sign lol


Whew I thought I was the only one that noticed and missed the signs too XD


----------



## SheWolf

Christ. What's with all these Fe-cking jokes?


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Christ. What's with all these Fe-cking jokes?


It's a Fe-ture of Beta Hangout now. Eventually, it will drive you into Delta Hangout. :}


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

The Perfect Storm said:


> He's slowly "training" me though. :kitteh:


*munches popcorn* go ooonnn....*creepy stare*

I kid, I kid! Don't hurt me! *shrinks*


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think she is funny and right. Somebody tells her she "needs" to do this and she dramatizes it, puts it under a microscope. Shows what a need actually is and blah blah blah. She ain't gonna let that shit stand. I like it. It is insightful with style but not too serious.


I agree. Plus, her argument makes sense in a way I find appealing. People shouldn't put so much stock in things like that. If a person keeps it real and has something to offer, then who the hell cares if they have an ugly mug? Take people for who they are, and let them fit themselves in where they will fit well.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I agree. Plus, her argument makes sense in a way I find appealing. People shouldn't put so much stock in things like that. If a person keeps it real and has something to offer, then who the hell cares if they have an ugly mug? Take people for who they are, and let them fit themselves in where they will fit well.


I loved how she puts things quite literally and directly. The little part of, "I need to brush my teeth, wash my hair and my body and put on clean clothes. That's called _hygiene_." And the point about how makeup isn't gonna solve any of her life's obstacles. I tell people this kind of stuff all the time and they get pissed.

To be honest, she's doing much better in life than most our age (our age, because I believe she's very close in age to myself) She's going to nursing school, is engaged, has a job, and she's actually doing something with her life. I respect that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> Christ. What's with all these Fe-cking jokes?


Particularly from the Fe-males. 

OK, I'm burnt out on puns for the day, that's my only contribution. I can only take so many :/


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Particularly from the Fe-males.
> 
> OK, I'm burnt out on puns for the day, that's my only contribution. I can only take so many :/


I'm usually _terrible_ at puns. XD I notice Ne-Ti types are usually the best at them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I agree. Plus, her argument makes sense in a way I find appealing. People shouldn't put so much stock in things like that. If a person keeps it real and has something to offer, then who the hell cares if they have an ugly mug? Take people for who they are, and let them fit themselves in where they will fit well.


Some women do derive a lot of value from their looks. I said before that really hot women should have to take like a licensing course. They don't know their power. They are like born royalty. 

But their power is short lived. They are getting weaker every day. Because their power is in their looks. I am getting stronger every day. I am more powerful than I have ever been. lol. I want a woman who is getting stronger every day too.






The line it is drawn
 The curse it is cast
 The slow one now
 Will later be fast
 As the present now
 Will later be past
 The order is rapidly fadin’
 And the first one now will later be last
 For the times they are a-changin’


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> Some women do derive a lot of value from their looks. I said before that really hot women should have to take like a licensing course. They don't know their power. They are like born royalty.
> 
> But their power is short lived. They are getting weaker every day. Because their power is in their looks. I am getting stronger every day. I am more powerful than I have ever been. lol. I want a woman who is getting stronger every day too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line it is drawn
> The curse it is cast
> The slow one now
> Will later be fast
> As the present now
> Will later be past
> The order is rapidly fadin’
> And the first one now will later be last
> For the times they are a-changin’


You keep expanding my personal music collection with your posts. Just....thought you'd like to know. ^^


----------



## Graveyard

ShieldMaiden said:


> Would you like some vodka? Also, where do you want these nuclear weapons? They won't fit in the garage.


Hm, throw 'em at random, dunno. If they fall *accidentally* over Germany, it would be cool too.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Would you like some vodka? Also, where do you want these nuclear weapons? They won't fit in the garage.



I'm drinking this:


----------



## Kerik_S

Decisive and Merry kind of don't cohere very well in starting and forging a deliberate space. You think it would, because it's Decisive, but I've seen that they just end up drifting off to other spaces in the forums.

We can hold a space, but those spaces end up being free-for-alls that we simply allow to happen. Within the space, more Serious types tend to drive the actual content.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You keep expanding my personal music collection with your posts. Just....thought you'd like to know. ^^


I like this Stevie Wonder song too. Which fits with the theme.

I'm so glad that he let me try it again
'Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground






and this is my favorite song by him:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I was just saying how Ni is pictorial thinking. Like an ideogram. That is how Jung described Ni, it turns it into a symbolic image. 

Read something interesting on this before:











Taken together these pictographs make no sense as meaning-symbols but do make sense as sound-symbols: eye can sea ewe. The rebus idea seems obvious to us since we use it in children's games, but it actually constitutes a stupendous invention, an act of intellectual creation of the highest order -- a quantum leap forward beyond the stage of vague and imprecise pictures to a higher stage that leads into the ability to represent all the subtleties and precision expressible in spoken language


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Kerik_S said:


> Decisive and Merry kind of don't cohere very well in starting and forging a deliberate space. You think it would, because it's Decisive, but I've seen that they just end up drifting off to other spaces in the forums.
> 
> We can hold a space, but those spaces end up being free-for-alls that we simply allow to happen. Within the space, more Serious types tend to drive the actual content.


Really? I think Decisive and Merry is very good at forging a deliberate space. I think it is bad at deciding the purpose of said space, and I think it is bad at defending the space. It lacks the defensive prowess of the Gamma style of Se.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> I like this Stevie Wonder song too. Which fits with the theme.
> 
> I'm so glad that he let me try it again
> 'Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
> I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
> Gonna keep on tryin'
> Till I reach my highest ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this is my favorite song by him:


You have no idea what you just done, dude. I come from a sheltered background. Very little music, lotsa beatings and shit if I didn't act just the way I was supposed to, and listening to music instead of "doing all my work" was one of the things I wasn't supposed to do. Music means so much to me now that I am away from all that. So really - THANK you.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You have no idea what you just done, dude. I come from a sheltered background. Very little music, lotsa beatings and shit if I didn't act just the way I was supposed to, and listening to music instead of "doing all my work" was one of the things I wasn't supposed to do. Music means so much to me now that I am away from all that. So really - THANK you.




And yet, you're still a lovely person. 
*hug*


----------



## SheWolf

My music taste is incredibly diverse. I can go from metal (which is my favorite) to some mainstream pop song in a click of a button.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> And yet, you're still a lovely person.
> *hug*


aaaaawww.....*hugs*


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Your statement is Fi


Differentiating Fi from Fe is Fi? LOL


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> aaaaawww.....*hugs*


Mmm'kay that's enough mushy-gushy for me for the rest of year.  Back to being cold as ice. XD


----------



## Kintsugi

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Really? I think Decisive and Merry is very good at forging a deliberate space. I think it is bad at deciding the purpose of said space, and I think it is bad at defending the space. It lacks the defensive prowess of the Gamma style of Se.













I'm intrigued, what is this "defensive prowess" you talk of?



ShieldMaiden said:


> My music taste is incredibly diverse. I can go from metal (which is my favorite) to some mainstream pop song in a click of a button.


Mine is pretty diverse too. I can go from gangster rap to J/K-pop madness in the click of a button.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm intrigued, what is this "defensive prowess" you talk of?


Things like maintaining against intrusions, keeping the same end goal (as opposed to simply adapting to what has changed and thus changing the goal, which changes the space we are talking about). That sot of thing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Differentiating Fi from Fe is Fi? LOL


Yup, but finding the difference in the differentiation funny is Fe, so youuuuu'rrreeee... Safe! /blows whistle and waves arms outwards in front of him


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm intrigued, what is this "defensive prowess" you talk of?


It means you find a big dumb hot-head SLE to follow you around and beat up people you don't like lol. Sick 'em, BROdy!


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> The Perfect Storm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm intrigued, what is this "defensive prowess" you talk of?
> 
> 
> 
> It means you find a big dumb hot-head SLE to follow you around and beat up people you don't like lol. Sick 'em, BROdy!
Click to expand...

Don't know what it is about em, but SLE's usually piss me off.


----------



## SheWolf

@Fenix Wulfheart said I was "Decisive" in a "Gamma way." Whatever the hell that exactly means.  don't know how I demonstrate that. Lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Don't know what it is about em, but SLE's usually piss me off.


Is it the overcompensation of small eggs and bacon?


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what it is about em, but SLE's usually piss me off.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the overcompensation of small eggs and bacon?
Click to expand...

..... What?


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> ..... What?


LOL. You know, where guys feel like they aren't good enough so they overcompensate so much that they come across as meatheads or douches.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... What?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You know, where guys feel like they aren't good enough so they overcompensate so much that they come across as meatheads or douches.
Click to expand...

Ah. Guys do that? Hm. I know I have little tolerance for douchebags and inflated egos.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Ah. Guys do that? Hm. I know I have little tolerance for douchebags and inflated egos.


Preach. ^_^


----------



## Jeremy8419

Well, welcome to guy-world lol. Every guy thinks he has to be the epitome of SLE tough guy whenever a pretty, smart, and interesting girl walks in the room lol. SLE's just never turn it off. Never really been a "gym go-er," but I just assume that they must all have small jibblies to be so concerned with how tough they seem in public lol.


----------



## piano

Jeremy8419 said:


> It means you find a big dumb hot-head SLE to follow you around and beat up people you don't like lol. Sick 'em, BROdy!


duly noted, thx


----------



## Jeremy8419

carpe omnia said:


> duly noted, thx


Did your type change? Lol

Just tell them how sweet their truck is and that you're impressed by the size, then tell them how much you like sports because you like watching hot guys basically wrestle for hours on end lol (I'm assuming you're a girl or like guys for no real reason other than that I already mentioned guys lol)


----------



## piano

Jeremy8419 said:


> Did your type change? Lol
> 
> Just tell them how sweet their truck is and that you're impressed by the size, then tell them how much you like sports because you like watching hot guys basically wrestle for hours on end lol (I'm assuming you're a girl or like guys for no real reason other than that I already mentioned guys lol)


i always find it weird when guys try to impress me with car talk. they're all "look at my sweet and _very expensive_ ride" and i'm like "all i know about your car is that it's black and it probably has an engine"


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, welcome to guy-world lol. Every guy thinks he has to be the epitome of SLE tough guy whenever a pretty, smart, and interesting girl walks in the room lol. SLE's just never turn it off. Never really been a "gym go-er," but I just assume that they must all have small jibblies to be so concerned with how tough they seem in public lol.


Well to all the guys reading this: that's how NOT to get a girl. Seriously.


----------



## SheWolf

carpe omnia said:


> i always find it weird when guys try to impress me with car talk. they're all "look at my sweet and _very expensive_ ride" and i'm like "all i know about your car is that it's black and it probably has an engine"


I have a guy trying to play that with me now. Bragging on how he had a blue mustangs and another one he's fixing up, how he got his third speeding ticket, and now he has to go through some shit in order to be able to drive again. Wow. Such a bad boy. I don't give a shit. In fact, it makes me think you're a damned idiot.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Well to all the guys reading this: that's how NOT to get a girl. Seriously.


Well, I mean, in Socionics there's "Quadra Progression" OooOoOOoOoOoooo.... Which basically says people go through Quadra 1-4. Split it at 50% and you have the immature version of "super manly" in the most aggressive role in Merry.


----------



## Kerik_S

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Really? I think Decisive and Merry is very good at forging a deliberate space. I think it is bad at deciding the purpose of said space, and I think it is bad at defending the space. It lacks the defensive prowess of the Gamma style of Se.


Yes, that's what I meant. The space can be deliberate, but the content usually won't be if the Betas have a smorgasbord of choices for where they plug into elsewhere.


----------



## Kerik_S

When dude's act all Stereotype Se-lead, I'm just sitting there translating it as a lot like the adults in the Peanuts, but rather than "Wuh wah wawh" I just hear "My penis my penis my penis"


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kerik_S said:


> When dude's act all Stereotype Se-lead, I'm just sitting there translating it as a lot like the adults in the Peanuts, but rather than "Wuh wah wawh" I just hear "My penis my penis my penis"


Wtf? You know my pickup lines?!?!

Halp! Halp! Kerik stalkin me!


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ShieldMaiden said:


> I have a guy trying to play that with me now. Bragging on how he had a blue mustangs and another one he's fixing up, how he got his third speeding ticket, and now he has to go through some shit in order to be able to drive again. Wow. Such a bad boy. I don't give a shit. In fact, it makes me think you're a damned idiot.


That kind of stuff is so dudebro like that I just shake my head. Typical macho men are fail.


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a guy trying to play that with me now. Bragging on how he had a blue mustangs and another one he's fixing up, how he got his third speeding ticket, and now he has to go through some shit in order to be able to drive again. Wow. Such a bad boy. I don't give a shit. In fact, it makes me think you're a damned idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of stuff is so dudebro like that I just shake my head. Typical macho men are fail.
Click to expand...

Yup. Most of the guys my female friends were into, the stereotypical jock, I thought were 
obnoxious and I couldn't stand them.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> It's kind of Fi what he wrote. "I hate that person, and this person and those people".
> Any type can say that though.


ESTPs hate a shit ton of people and they're Fi Polr. Explain that Einstein?


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I hate their Se because it has no Ni. Their Ni is negative, something an INTJ can provide. I can only provide positive Ni. I can help an ESFJ in this way. But even ESFJs with their Se demonstrative, can frustrate me, because of a lack of Ni and over reliance on Ne.
> 
> Plus, ESTJs tend to be taskmasters and I just like quiet, calm, and peace lol. They distract me and take me out of my trance, and they're unforgiving and notoriously negative toward other people, and their faults. That whole 'to be perfect' HA really just frustrates the shit out of me.
> 
> Edit* *you edited your post. *
> 
> No, I don't take a disliking to Se agression in general, I just hate Se with no counterbalanced Ni. I've made this very clear.


Where did you get the "need to be perfect" from? I haven't seen this in LSEs.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> ESTPs hate a shit ton of people and they're Fi Polr. Explain that Einstein?


Everyone uses all IEs. Again you're generalizing from a few people you've met that may or may not be SLEs.

Fi : discrete types of interpersonal relationships, such as "friend" or "enemy".


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Where did you get the "need to be perfect" from? I haven't seen this in LSEs.


Type and the hidden agenda

Having to educate gets super old. You should know this shit 'V.I.P member'.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Yeah, I don't think regulating and balancing emotions for relationships works in basically a party-house lol. Think I'd pretty much be like, "y'all good here? Okay, ima go chill on my phone by the pool and play with grass while phone surfing weird stuff." Mayyyyybe if there was like another party next door they were joining up with later I'd steer things one way or another or something or if they had an old couple next door I'd secretly go and turn the music down 1 notch every 30 minutes so the cops don't come lol.

Typing people by how much you like or dislike them isn't normal? /hides "SLE" branding device behind back. Okay folks, nothing to see here! /whistles, turns, slowly walks away, hauls ass after he rounds the corner


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Type and the hidden agenda
> 
> Having to educate gets super old. You should know this shit 'V.I.P member' lecturing me on using non socionics theory terms.


Looks like a shitty website, and that's the only website i've seen this statement on. How does Ne have anything to do with being perfect?

And what? I don't get why you're using mbti terminology in a socionics forum, its very confusing because in socionics ISFJ is ESI. But you use ISFJ as SEI, which doesn't make sense.


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> It's kind of Fi what he wrote. "I hate that person, and this person and those people".
> Any type can say that though.


True, but that wasn't my point.



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> ESTPs hate a shit ton of people and they're Fi Polr. Explain that Einstein?


They don't. SLEs aren't even usually aware if they dislike people or not. That's what Fi PoLR is like.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Looks like a shitty website, and that's the only website i've seen this statement on. How does Ne have anything to do with being perfect?
> 
> And what? I don't get why you're using mbti terminology in a socionics forum, its very confusing because in socionics ISFJ is ESI. But you use ISFJ as SEI, which doesn't make sense.


It's the official Socionics website and it is *not* the only website that has the hidden agenda. Read the theory Einstein. I'm not going to hand it to you, it's right there.


----------



## Jeremy8419

I know I want my LSE to be perfect. Better spend at least 3 hours a day on hygiene, 2 hours in the gym, 2 in the kitchen, and whatever time is left working part-time at WalMart or something lol


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> True, but that wasn't my point.


Yeah i figured that out after while, i initially thought you meant just him saying he hates people and not the reason.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Fried Eggz said:


> True, but that wasn't my point.
> 
> 
> They don't. SLEs aren't even usually aware if they dislike people or not. That's what Fi PoLR is like.


Hey FriedEggz, I responded to your direct question and you've skipped over it. Did you want to find out anything or are you simply ignoring things that don't fit in with your world view.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It's the official Socionics website and it is *not* the only website that has the hidden agenda. Read the theory Einstein. I'm not going to hand it to you, it's right there.


Is it written by the creators of socionics? or what?

I never said it's the only website that describes hidden agenda (aka mobilizing function) lol. Ignoring that would be ignoring the whole theory. I said it's the only one that says "perfection", which has nothing to do with Ne imo. They don't even have an argument for why its perfection.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Also you mofos saying shit about Fi. Yeah, IEIs have 4 D Ni, and Fi. LSEs (god knows) have 4D Se. 4D means it's the strongest function. 

Again socionics theory 101, I'm not gonna educate super members on a socionics forum. Educate yourself before you talk shit


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Is it written by the creators of socionics? or what?
> 
> I never said it's the only website that describes hidden agenda (aka mobilizing function) lol. Ignoring that would be ignoring the whole theory. I said it's the only one that says "perfection", which has nothing to do with Ne imo. They don't even have an argument for why its perfection.


Oh my god dude, stop dismissing new information, you're wrong on this one. Just chill, and accept it.


----------



## Valtire

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Hey FriedEggz, I responded to your direct question and you've skipped over it. Did you want to find out anything or are you simply ignoring things that don't fit in with your world view.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Why would me asking you a question have anything to do with my world view?



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It's the official Socionics website


You speak Russian?


----------



## karmachameleon

So this person is supposed to be Ti mobilizing? xD


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Fried Eggz said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about. Why would me asking you a question have anything to do with my world view?
> 
> 
> You speak Russian?


Because you dismissed it. I answered your question succintly and directly, and you haven't acknowledged it. You not doing that speaks volumes though, so thanks


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> So this person is supposed to be Ti mobilizing? xD


Aww poor baby. The guy labelled Ti Polr by everyone on this forum, is finally able to be a bully. Nice try.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Aww poor baby. The boy who is called by everyone this forum Ti Polr finally gets the chance to transfer that and _become_ the bully. Sorry pal, you'll always have that stigma and nice try trying to get rid of it.


Oooh the stigma of being called "Ti polr" by 2 people who don't know what theyre talking about, what are you even saying? lol.
You're refusing to accept arguments and you have no arguments for the things you are saying + you're logically inconsistent, that is the literal definition of Ti polr.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fried Eggz said:


> True, but that wasn't my point.
> 
> 
> They don't. SLEs aren't even usually aware if they dislike people or not. That's what Fi PoLR is like.


That, verbatim, sounds more like some kind of autism than anything else lol. I'm pretty damn positive they know and just don't pay attention to it because it's the opposite of being a badass. I've had several as friends that eventually face crises, same as everyone else, and start balling their eyes out because they know that no one actually likes them and I'm just like "uhhhhhhh.... /back-pat.... dunno what to tell you because they definitely don't lol


----------



## karmachameleon

If i wasnt shy/insecure i would be such a slut, that would be awesome


----------



## Graveyard

I wouldn't be a slut. In fact, I ain't no slut. I'm flirty, and lead people to believe I'm interested in them. But nah, not hooking up with anyone.


----------



## SheWolf

*wrinkles nose @ thread*


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> *wrinkles nose @ thread*


----------



## Max

Hello

sup guys?

You miss me?!


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> I wanna see dicks


You sound like you could be in a rap group or something. lol. Lil Kim or Foxy Brown. 





You relate to Lil Kim? lol


Wanna bumble wit the Bee hahh?
BZZZZT, throw a hex on a whole family (yeah, yeah yeah)
Dressed in all black like the Oman (say what?)
Have your friends singin 'This is for my homey' (that's right)
And you know me, from makin ****** so sick
Floss in my 6 with the Lex on the wrist
If it's Murder, you know She Wrote it (uh-huh)
German Luger for your ass bitch, deep throated
Know you wanna fill the room cause it's platinum coated
Take your pick, got a firearm you shoulda toted, suck a dick
All that bullshit you kick, playa hatin from the sideline
Get your own shit, why you ridin mine? (uh-huh)
I'm, a Goodfella kinda lady
Stash 380's and Mercedes, Puffy hold me down baby!
Only female in my crew, and I kick shit
like a ***** do, with a trigga too, fuck you​


----------



## karmachameleon

idk wtf that means


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> idk wtf that means



It means you have a filthy mouth for one...lol. Not that I am complaining.

You probably don't know what "shoop" means either. You swedes have no clue about sex. lol






Girls, what's my weakness? (Men!)
Ok then, chillin', chillin', mindin' my business (word)
Yo, Salt, I looked around, and I couldn't believe this
I swear, I stared, my niece my witness
The brother had it goin' on with somethin' kinda...uh
Wicked, wicked (oooo) - had to kick it
I'm not shy so I asked for the digits
A ho? No, that don't make me
See what I want slip slide to it swifty
Felt it in my hips so I dipped back to my bag of tricks
Then I flipped for a tip, make me wanna do tricks for him
Lick him like a lollipop should be licked
Came to my senses and I chilled for a bit
Don't know how you do the voodoo that you do
So well it's a spell, hell, makes me wanna shoop shoop shoop​


----------



## SheWolf

Well, this thread is about worthless now.

Fun while it lasted.


----------



## Kerik_S

I have a feeling that most of the arguments that occur in here are lined with an implicit "_And_ you're _mistyped_, obviously."

Good hangout, lots of fun.


----------



## piano

karmachameleon said:


> I need to have sex with someone hot or im going to die





karmachameleon said:


> If i wasnt shy/insecure i would be such a slut, that would be awesome


aren't you married?


----------



## karmachameleon

carpe omnia said:


> aren't you married?


married? im 18


----------



## piano

karmachameleon said:


> married? im 18


oh i could've sworn you had your relationship status set to married at some point


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> Well, this thread is about worthless now.
> 
> Fun while it lasted.


The substance has returned to glue this thread back together. And save us all from Lil Kim.


----------



## karmachameleon

carpe omnia said:


> oh i could've sworn you had your relationship status set to married at some point


well im not lol


----------



## karmachameleon

This thread is just about me now and i love it <3


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> This thread is just about me now and i love it <3


At least you admit it.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> I have a feeling that most of the arguments that occur in here are lined with an implicit "_And_ you're _mistyped_, obviously."
> 
> Good hangout, lots of fun.


Youre mistyped


----------



## piano

Jeremy8419 said:


> That, verbatim, sounds more like some kind of autism than anything else lol. I'm pretty damn positive they know and just don't pay attention to it because it's the opposite of being a badass. I've had several as friends that eventually face crises, same as everyone else, and start balling their eyes out because they know that no one actually likes them and I'm just like "uhhhhhhh.... /back-pat.... dunno what to tell you because they definitely don't lol


uh oh :| i like SLEs. well, they like me so i like them back.


----------



## Max

Is it bad I am craving a deep conversation right now and someone to connect with? I really am. 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## karmachameleon

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Is it bad I am craving a deep conversation right now and someone to connect with? I really am.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


Yes its very bad and you should go to church bye


----------



## Max

karmachameleon said:


> Yes its very bad and you should go to church bye


But... There's no point in going to Church unless you really wanna be there and listen to what the minister has to say, and want to learn from it and reflect upon his teachings. Apart from that there's no sense pretending I do, thus I don't go. I'll just end up disagreeing with people and fighting. I don't go unless I wanna go. 

Private worship for the win.


----------



## SheWolf

*Internal screaming*


----------



## Schizoid

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Is it bad I am craving a deep conversation right now and someone to connect with? I really am.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


Or how about joining a philosophy club, do you have a meetup group nearby your place?


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> *Internal screaming*


*internal mating call*


----------



## Max

Schizoid said:


> Or how about joining a philosophy club, do you have a meetup group nearby your place?


As far as I know, I don't. I guess he fact that I have been in all weekend studying and doing other various tasks has suppressed my Fe and Ni over the weekend. I haven't got a change to converse with someone deeply or put my intuition to creative use, which I guess frustrates me a lot of the time. 

And a philosophy club sounds nice, as does a book club. If I could find one of those, I would be more than happy to go to it and try it out to see what I can get from it, socially and mentally. Sometimes my brain needs a good workout, like my body does.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> *internal mating call*


----------



## Jeremy8419

carpe omnia said:


> uh oh :| i like SLEs. well, they like me so i like them back.


It's because their "1D Fi" is shorthand for "1 damn FrIend: IEI" LOL


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> But... There's no point in going to Church unless you really wanna be there and listen to what the minister has to say, and want to learn from it and reflect upon his teachings. Apart from that there's no sense pretending I do, thus I don't go. I'll just end up disagreeing with people and fighting. I don't go unless I wanna go.
> 
> Private worship for the win.


Everyone knows Church is for the guys to act all mannerly and for the closet sluts to act like good girls so they can all mingle and make sex plans. That's why the Catholic Schoolgirl outfit is such a top seller at Halloween (and no they don't just wear it on Halloween).


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Everyone knows Church is for the guys to act all mannerly and for the closet sluts to act like good girls so they can all mingle and make sex plans. That's why the Catholic Schoolgirl outfit is such a top seller at Halloween (and no they don't just wear it on Halloween).


They sleep in it


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


>


Well at least Beta now knows how to properly utilize head bobbing lol


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Edit: Oops. Lol.
> 
> Yup. Pretty insightful look into the mind of an emo kid.


I know right, an emo kid who went around mistyping others, and turned out to be MISTYPED himself. It's such a fascinating case study, with a lot of knowledge to be gained from reading.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's because their "1D Fi" is shorthand for "1 damn FrIend: IEI" LOL


Pretty sure ESTPs have a lot more friends than INFPs.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Everyone knows Church is for the guys to act all mannerly and for the closet sluts to act like good girls so they can all mingle and make sex plans. That's why the Catholic Schoolgirl outfit is such a top seller at Halloween (and no they don't just wear it on Halloween).


School girl outfits and church have _nothing to do with each other_. A nun outfit, and church, and a school, and a school girl, do. Sigh


----------



## Jeremy8419

A durka dur...

Gonna go base my entire life around some weird stuff I read on the internet so I can feel important and like I have my big boy smart pants on now....


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> A durka dur...
> 
> Gonna go base my entire life around some weird stuff I read on the internet so I can feel important and like I have my big boy smart pants on now....


Passive agression is rearing its ugly head.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Passive agression is rearing its ugly head.


Better take your big boy pants then, just in case.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

@Jeremy8419 

I have no idea what you're referencing but it's probably some Si-Ni loop bullshit akin to "Everyone knows Church is for the guys to act all mannerly and for the *closet sluts* to act like good girls so they can all mingle and make *sex plans*."

Smh. Do you think before you write?


----------



## Graveyard

Why don't we talk about cookies? Everyone likes cookies. Yeah, let's talk about cookies, shall we?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fiiiiiiinnnneeee.... /Passes out cookies.

Hey, FFT... Hey there, little buddy... Why don't you go sit and play with everyone else over there? Here, take a juice box. And here's another extra one. Why don't you find someone that looks nice and offer the extra juice box to them? I'm sure they'd appreciate it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Graveyard said:


> Okay, fine. I usually don't try to make trouble, but really. Jeremy, you're starting to get tiring. It's pretty evident you only want to disrupt your "oh-so-hated" quadra, and honestly, you're doing fine. You drove the LSIs away, and you're annoying others. You know that, and you're very much proud of it.
> 
> Tell ya what. You stop looking for trouble here (that's what you're doing, accept it), and we will try not to be so mean with you in general. Would that suffice?
> 
> If this doesn't ring a bell, we can still share cookies.
> 
> Now, on the other side:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellllcome! Yes, socionics is far better than MBTI. However, don't mistake _better_ for _perfect_. That's something you need to know beforehand, so you don't become a socionocs blind follower.
> 
> So, with that in mind, welcome once more to the Besta quadra! We have cookies, as you can see.
> 
> If you want help typing yourself, there's a subforum for that. People will come and help eventually - don't give up. And if you have any questions regarding the theory itself, you can ask me! I have a somewhat good understanding of the theory, but definitely not the best. I also can't type. Others may help you on this thread as well, so feel free to use it!


Oooo fiesty.


----------



## SheWolf

I knew this thread was lost when Jeremy came.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Thought we were done with the puns?


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Thought we were done with the puns?


This is no yoke. 
We aren't eggsactly finished yet. 
These puns are gonna get someone beat.


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> This is no yoke.
> We aren't eggsactly finished yet.
> These puns are gonna get someone beat.


Veni, vidi, vici!

To the yolk-mobile! Break us out some beats, beat-master bear.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Veni, vidi, vici!
> 
> To the yolk-mobile! Break us out some beats, beat-master bear.


Yes, we must liquidate the town with our terribly puny yokes. 

*Plays Beat It.*

(No, it seems that this is to be a long term goal of mine. To pollute the thread with rotten eggy puns. My Destiny is calling me. My Ni is opening up my eggy eyes. I'm Mr.FriedSide.) 

(I'm not even sure where I am anymore. I think The Moonbear has drugged me in my sleep. I know my motives and where I am going with this, but... How did I get here?!)

To be continued.


----------



## FearAndTrembling




----------



## Jeremy8419

@FearAndTrembling

You see, you don't want to anger one of the pride or the entire pride will turn on you, but at the same time, you cannot simply be a part of the pride. No acknowledging others potentially as strong. Raising the weak. Tower over the pride, but be not a part of it.


----------



## myst91

FearAndTrembling said:


> I believe, to paraphrase Nietzsche, that science creates a world which we can live in. But that is not proof. Life is not proof. The conditions of life may include error.


If empiricism is not proof, are you a solipsist? I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. Simple as that.

Also, just because there is some error, imperfection, it does not mean everything is invalid. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 




> As truth is only a custom. A convention. Like language. As Nietzsche aptly put it, "Truth is a sum of human relations".


I see truth very differently. It's not simply a convention.




FearAndTrembling said:


> There needs to be some kind of bare knuckle discussion forum. lol. Where people can talk shit and hate on functions all they want. To separate them from more serious and upstanding citizens. Socionics is already the most hostile subforum. The hostility is what keeps it alive.
> 
> My high school gym teacher was hilarious. During basketball in gym we would have the whole court. But he would divide it up. He would say something like, "This side of the gym is for NORMAL people." This is where real basketball is played with rules. And he refs. Then he would point to the other end and say, "That is the end for the WEIRDOS." Basically meaning people who aren't generally athletic and it is a kind of ghetto ball too. Spastic. lol. Nobody is reffing that game or supervising it at all. I liked to play in both. We should have a similar split.


I just wonder why it's the most hostile forum? Any thoughts?

I'm all for your idea on dividing up this socionics forum into two parts :laughing:




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> It is because of posts like this that I disagree with people when they try to say you are "just some troll" and that "I should just ignore you". Well said.


He actually does troll a lot and does say a lot of stupid things. That post of his too, that you liked, where he basically just thinks that reasoning is only used to justify some irrational liking of some viewpoint.




Kerik_S said:


> That was only age 21+22. I also voluntarily placed myself in a psych ward at age 13, and three times at age 16, after dropping out of school for a year. Complete and utter withdrawal, but as soon as I got the information I needed, I bounced right back into the kind of behavior you see more recently with me on here.
> 
> There's always been an edge of analytical mind and wanting to have at least an intellectual _underpinning_ to my understanding of my problems, but it's always been rooted in *"Asserting myself when I have no foundational conviction, has always been disastrous. I'd rather know what I'm talking about if I'm going to talk about it."*
> 
> I've always disintegrated to complete withdrawal, but it's always been rooted during those withdrawal periods as wanting to get some information on myself and establish a baseline of competence-of-understanding, before shifting back to my average M.O. of being rather sanguine and reactive.
> 
> I also see myself taking on 2 characteristics the longer I'm away from withdrawing, and the more I engage in being what I've always considered a decent and balanced level of 'assertive'.


As for the bolded - this is why I'm considering 5 core for you. Sounds like you have to think and prepare a lot before action.




> I just feel like, if I were a 5-core and 8-second-fix, this would not present anywhere _near_ the same way, historically or even on my tenure here in PerC.


How do you think that would be different? (5 core with 8-second-fix)




WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I don't think it's just @Kerik_S who is "overthinking" here.


I specifically meant the 5's brand of thinking and not in the context of thinking too much about type at all. It was more general than that.




Fried Eggz said:


> And yet your reason for hating them was a common Se trait; harshness. LSEs are much more gentle and subtle when trying to control people than SLEs. You seem to take quite a disliking to Se's aggression in general.


I don't see LSE as subtle when telling people how to do things. I know LSE IRL enough to see that. I'm not bothered by it but I can see IEI being bothered by it.
@Freeflowingthoughts meant this post where you didn't see (?) his reasoning or just didn't respond to it - post #2517 - Why wouldn't you acknowledge this if you saw it.




Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I mean the Si lead Fe creative SEI


Please don't mix Socionics with MBTI notation. By the way I looked at that thread you linked about ESTPs etc., let me add to that that MBTI ISTP != LSI. Nor is ISFJ equal to SEI, etc.




Freeflowingthoughts said:


> All is symbols to them, that arises from external dynamics of fields (definition of Si incase you didn't know mofo)


Another little correction. Don't mix Jungian Si with Socionics Si. Not the same thing.




karmachameleon said:


> I never said it's the only website that describes hidden agenda (aka mobilizing function) lol. Ignoring that would be ignoring the whole theory. I said it's the only one that says "perfection", which has nothing to do with Ne imo. They don't even have an argument for why its perfection.


No, actually several general socionics sources link Ne with a certain brand of perfection (perfect world). Check out wikisocion and the16types articles.


----------



## Max

@myst91 - Ah sorry. I misunderstood. 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## myst91

Graveyard said:


> Okay, fine. I usually don't try to make trouble, but really. Jeremy, you're starting to get tiring. It's pretty evident you only want to disrupt your "oh-so-hated" quadra, and honestly, you're doing fine. You drove the LSIs away, and you're annoying others. You know that, and you're very much proud of it.
> 
> Tell ya what. You stop looking for trouble here (that's what you're doing, accept it), and we will try not to be so mean with you in general. Would that suffice?


I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with a troll.

Btw, that reminds me, to that earlier -deleted- post of @Freeflowingthoughts about Deltas mixing into this thread, I agree. 

This isn't about excluding people unfairly, it's about the purpose of the thread if it's meant to be about Betas learning more about each other.

And it's not unfair selectiveness since all people can still talk together in another thread where the purpose is everyone talking together regardless of whether they are in the Beta quadra or not.


PS: I did try to read through quite a few pages -because this is the Beta thread- and I do feel it was a waste of time for the most part so if it stays that way, I'll only check back here for the direct replies to my two posts here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> You have no basis for saying it's shitty, and the last time they posted something was this year. Your single argument out of all of this was "You type SLEs wrong. You type people you hate into LSE". No _basis_, simply ill-informed_ judgements_. I proved you wrong on the first, and the second, is not able to be disproved over the internet. It's also kinda frustrating to to have to explain to someone listed as "VIP member", a central theoretical framework of Socionics, in a _Socionics forum_. I look for answers, and then I end up having to explain basic shit. Story of my life


Hey, I have a question. Why do you care that she is listed as a VIP member? Doesn't that just mean she just paid some money or accepted a posting as site staff? I don't see how a VIP membership to a cosmopolitan typology-in-general forum should indicate a presence of particular skill in one kind of typology. I'm...confused here. :/


----------



## Valtire

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hey, I have a question. Why do you care that she is listed as a VIP member? Doesn't that just mean she just paid some money or accepted a posting as site staff? I don't see how a VIP membership to a cosmopolitan typology-in-general forum should indicate a presence of particular skill in one kind of typology. I'm...confused here. :/


I'm a VIP member. I got it a day or two after hitting 1000 posts. It's basically psychological projection or whatever. They say things like, 'You think you're so great because you have a fancy title under your name' because they themselves think it's important.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> *wrinkles nose @ thread*


Be more Beta?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I know right, an emo kid who went around mistyping others, and turned out to be MISTYPED himself. It's such a fascinating case study, with a lot of knowledge to be gained from reading.


Good gawd the passive aggression. If you be IEI, dude, then buck up and be real. Own who you are and tell people directly what you think of them. *disapproving look*


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Big Daddy Kane said:


> Hello socialists. Your socionics is actually really good, it shits on the crapitalist MBTI. pls teach me your awesome ways!
> 
> I think I'm an IEI, or an EIE, or something.


Welcome to the forums! If you make a "type me" thread, feel free to tag me in it and I will tell you what I think. Otherwise, feel free to ask anything or just hang out! :happy:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Fried Eggz said:


> I'm a VIP member. I got it a day or two after hitting 1000 posts. It's basically psychological projection or whatever. They say things like, 'You think you're so great because you have a fancy title under your name' because they themselves think it's important.


Hm, that makes sense as a general concept that people do, although I am going to let FFT speak for himself as to how own reasoning. Call me cray cray, but I guess I just want to think the best of the people here and try not to assume ill intent. Thank you for your input, though! I have known plenty of people that seem to be that way! 

(although I clearly assumed ill intent anyway after reading pages of the back and forth. Can you say self contradiction? *rolleyes @ self*)


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Good gawd the passive aggression. If you be IEI, dude, then buck up and be real. Own who you are and tell people directly what you think of them. *disapproving look*


Nah. He just has some odd fascination with me. Likes to try and get disciplined so that a 3rd party will counter-discipline. This is regardless of if he was causing trouble for others first. Probably best to just not give into the attention seeking behavior in the first place. Not like I'm the only one on here that he tries to get involved with.


----------



## Graveyard

myst91 said:


> I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with a troll.
> 
> Btw, that reminds me, to that earlier -deleted- post of @Freeflowingthoughts about Deltas mixing into this thread, I agree.
> 
> This isn't about excluding people unfairly, it's about the purpose of the thread if it's meant to be about Betas learning more about each other.
> 
> And it's not unfair selectiveness since all people can still talk together in another thread where the purpose is everyone talking together regardless of whether they are in the Beta quadra or not.
> 
> 
> PS: I did try to read through quite a few pages -because this is the Beta thread- and I do feel it was a waste of time for the most part so if it stays that way, I'll only check back here for the direct replies to my two posts here.


It's just... I can't diss him because that'd be against the rules, as much as I'd love to, so I tried to tell him to stop. But golly. Isn't there something the mods can do about this, or do we have to abandon this thread because a cricket won't listen? 

I mean he's clearly trolling us, so...

EDIT: Nevermind, he got an infraction.


----------



## karmachameleon

Im considering LSI as my type atm
but a really emotional one


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Not only did he admit to being an INFP, he said about "other INFPs" like him, I wonder whether we could help them because the testing which he took failed him. "This all seems to be caused by poor tests. If people type via functions instead of tests like we did, then there wouldn't be so many people running around calling themselves the *wrong MBTI types*." Shortly after this he took down his type as "INFJ".
> 
> Anyway indeed, There is no such thing when it gets to such a level, the guy got banned for an extended period of time. He has made many enemies. Irony enough, that he's telling me to how to 'play' with others.


So what I am hearing is you are holding past events against him as the cause of the argument in this thread (on your end, that is. His arguing is his own thing)


----------



## karmachameleon

myst91 said:


> You're definitely an Ethical ego.


why? Im an asshole


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Exactly, all the people here are SEE, EII (Jeremy), from other quadras. Not trying to exclude, just pointing out, it's disheartening to click on a "Beta thread" and have it run over by FPs, and not only that, a notorious INFP with an attitude.


Stop using mbti terminology in a socionics thread.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> why? Im an asshole


True, but you're an asshole with insanely weak thinking, so that rules out Ti-dominance.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So what I am hearing is you are holding past events against him as the cause of the argument in this thread (on your end, that is. His arguing is his own thing)


The cause of the argument here is his pseudo caregiving patronising "Have a juice box" bullshit.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Freeflowingthoughts

Dude, you need to cut the whole "mommy, step-daddy whipped me" routine. The only reason I don't report you is because it just fuels your self-reaffirmation that you're a victim (not socionics) instead of the one victimizing others. What you fail to realize is that if it wasn't for me dealing with your behaviors myself, the remaining people would have you perma-banned.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> True, but you're an asshole with insanely weak thinking, so that rules out Ti-dominance.


Explain how my thinking is weak. It's insanely strong compared to yours at least.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts
> 
> Dude, you need to cut the whole "mommy, step-daddy whipped me" routine. The only reason I don't report you is because it just fuels your self-reaffirmation that you're a victim (not socionics) instead of the one victimizing others. What you fail to realize is that if it wasn't for me dealing with your behaviors myself, the remaining people would have you perma-banned.


I have no idea what "mommy, step daddy whipped me" is. Instead of saying nonsensical bullshit, and being smug in it, how bout you explain yourself for once. 

There is no basis, or reason to report me. Nothing I have written warrants _any_ sort of infraction. Don't be naive either, the mods are here whether you call them or not.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Explain how my thinking is weak. It's insanely strong compared to yours at least.


:laughing: Nice comeback.

_You_ believe you have Te Polr. _Other_ people believe you have Ti Polr. 

SO

Your thinking is weak.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Haha how about more people of each type in general? We are going to need more people if we want to take over the world :3
> 
> Also, Jeremy, why is it you spend so much time in Beta when you basically tried to kick me out of Delta when I went over there?


There has to be "a world" to take over. That's Delta Quadra thread. When you go into other Quadra, you have to behave in other Quadra. Notice: I am Delta and the SEE's are Gamma, but when we come here, we behave in Beta manner and keep up with all the back-and-forth. Beta likes conflict and aggressive behavior, so when people visit Beta, they do the same. When you go to Delta, not even micro-aggression is acceptable, because it is Delta, and they pick up on it easily and leave. That's why I am the only actual Delta that stays on here. That's why there is no "world." The second you see a calf, you eat it. Because there is no herd, y'all end up going hungry, turning on each other, and getting each other banned. If you can't control your hunger and wait, you'll just end up starving eventually. Have to be more patient in the short term, so you can get what you want in the long run. Think of it like scaring away the messenger before the caravan arrives. Gotta lay low, and wait for the white in their eyes.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I have no idea what "mommy, step daddy whipped me" is. Instead of saying nonsensical bullshit, and being smug in it, how bout you explain yourself for once.
> 
> There is no basis, or reason to report me. Nothing I have written warrants _any_ sort of infraction. Don't be naive either, the mods are here whether you call them or not.


Type bullying. Derp.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Type bullying. Derp.


I have not been type bullying at all. I have quoted exact posts and posted a thread for intellectual purposes. 

You on the other hand, should be banned for your lack of empathy, lack of thought, and general trolling and rudeness. Your quote about church being for secret sluts to hatch their dubious sex plans, is one such example that deserves yet _another_ ban.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I have not been type bullying at all. I have quoted exact posts and posted a thread for intellectual purposes.
> 
> You on the other hand, should be banned for your lack of empathy, lack of thought, and general trolling and rudeness. Your quote about church being for secret sluts to hatch their dubious sex plans, is one such example that deserves _another_ ban.


Yeah, except I am INFJ, so... There ya go. Call me an INFP, and it's type-bullying. Now, watch and wait, and maybe you'll learn why I actually took my tags off.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah, except I am INFJ, so... There ya go. Call me an INFP, and it's type-bullying. Now, watch and wait, and maybe you'll learn why I actually took my tags off.


I didn't say you were an INFP. I quoted 'Jeremy8419' saying that he's INFP. Don't hate me for your words. It wasn't even about you My initial purpose was for fellow quadra members to gain insight from the initial first post, in a thread called 'Beta Quadra Hangout'. Am I wrong in the wrong place? As an Fi lead, Ne creative, EII, which you have _always_ identified with, you were not my intended audience. You may have posted some replies in the thread, but you were _not_ the thread itself. The thread itself was the initial post. It's only narcissism to believe otherwise. I posted it for IEIs, LSI, SLE, and EIE for intellectually stimulation. I mean, the very name of the thread is titled "The truth about ESTPs, ISTPs, INFJs, and ENFJs".


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> :laughing: Nice comeback.
> 
> _You_ believe you have Te Polr. _Other_ people believe you have Ti Polr.
> 
> SO
> 
> Your thinking is weak.


This^is the definition of low thinking. Thanks for demonstrating your low thinking abilities!


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> This^is the definition of low thinking. Thanks for demonstrating your low thinking abilities!


I consider changing ones type from IEI, to LSI, the latter being almost exactly the opposite of of the former, with many crucial reinin dichotomies seperate, for the brilliant, and cereberal reason that you're an "asshole", to be pretty low grade.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I consider changing ones type from IEI, to LSI, the latter being almost exactly the opposite of of the former, with many crucial reinin dichotomies seperate, for the brilliant, and cereberal reason that you're an "asshole", to be pretty low grade.


IEI has Ti mobilizing. IEI and LSI are not opposite at ALL. Many people dismiss reinin dichotomies because they're not accurate. Clearly you don't know anything about socionics yet, so stop talking, you just sound like an idiot.

Also what you wrote just now has nothing to do with your previous post so idk wtf you're saying lol. You're all over the place.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> IEI has Ti mobilizing. IEI and LSI are not opposite at ALL. Many people dismiss reinin dichotomies because they're not accurate. Clearly you don't know anything about socionics yet, so stop talking, you just sound like an idiot.
> 
> Also what you wrote just now has nothing to do with your previous post so idk wtf you're saying lol. You're all over the place.


Te Polr (1D) with Ti mobilising (2D) for IEI vs Ti dominance (4D) and Ti ignoring (3D). You sir, should be educated on the basic tennant of Socionics. The difference between dominant, and mobilising.

I look forward to conversing with you when you've learnt about the Hidden Agenda, Reinin Dichotomies, Basic placements of functions, and the hugely crucial point that the weakest functions of IEI (Se, Te) are powerful strengths, for your new type, LSI. 



Oh, and here's a website for you to reference. www.socionics.com


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ti mobilising (2D) with Te Polr (1D) for IEI vs Ti dominance (4D) and Ti ignoring (3D). You sir, should stop talking.


I don't know why you keep calling me male pronouns when it says I'm a woman under my picture. Some passive-aggressive thing you have going on again? 

And um, yeah, what exactly are you trying to say with this?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> I don't know why you keep calling me male pronouns when it says I'm a woman under my picture. Some passive-aggressive thing you have going on again?
> 
> And um, yeah, what exactly are you trying to say with this?


It doesn't _say_ you are a woman anywhere. I see only a round head, and a cross underneath. In my home country, I have never seen this symbol associated with a female. But in more simple terms: Don't even try that shit.

I'm saying that 1D means it's the absolute weakest, (Another theoretical framework for you to look into) and LSI has that Se as his 3D, second most powerful function. Huge, huge, difference. 'Point of absolute weakness' vs Second most powerful strength.

Btw, another huge difference between the two types, is that every single functions plus and minus sign, is reversed. Si for IEI is positive, and Si, the Demonstrative, 4D function, is negative for LSI. Huge, huge difference.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It does not *say* you are a woman. All I can see, (because I never even realised they had that piece of info) is a round head, with a cross. Forgive me, but to me, this is not a symbol in my home country indicitative of a female. In simpler terms: Don't even try that shit.


Hahaha wtf



> I'm saying that 1D is the absolute weakest, and LSI has that Se as his 3D, second most powerful, intensely controlled function. Btw, another difference between the two types, is that every single functions plus, minus sign is alternated. Si for IEI is positive, and Si, the most powerful function alongside Ti for LSI, is negative. Huge, huge difference. I just hope, that you find your true type, and don't treat it as a "I can be whatever I choose" sort of thing. The fact is, you can't, you can only discover what is innate from your conception.


So? If I knew and understood 100% of socionics and I had learned everything then yeah, it would be way easier. IEI has mobilizing Ti, LSI has Ni mobilizing, and we tend to think we are better at our mobilizing functions than we actually are. Stop trying to lecture me about stuff you have no idea about. Why the fuck would i treat it as "i can be whatever i choose"? I don't know what the hell you are talking about, neither does anyone in this thread. You can't even figure your own type, you use mbti terms and then you try to lecture others about socionics? hahaha


----------



## Kintsugi

OMG.....STAHP.

Just.....


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Hahaha wtf
> 
> 
> 
> So? If I knew and understood 100% of socionics and I had learned everything then yeah, it would be way easier. IEI has mobilizing Ti, LSI has Ni mobilizing, and we tend to think we are better at our mobilizing functions than we actually are. Stop trying to lecture me about stuff you have no idea about. Why the fuck would i treat it as "i can be whatever i choose"? I don't know what the hell you are talking about, neither does anyone in this thread. You can't even figure your own type, you use mbti terms and then you try to lecture others about socionics? hahaha


God, that was attrocious.

I never once changed from INFJ and IEI. The lady who decides she's an LSI over night, coz she's an "asshole", tells me that I can't figure my type out? You're making this too difficult for yourself.

Yes, mobilising Ti, and mobilising Ni. Sigh... Don't you know the gigantic difference Dominance and mobilising? 4D vs 2D. It's the difference between my Ni and my Si. Completely different. Plus, minus signs different. Te Polr vs Ne Polr. 

The girl dismissing any framework of socionics, theory, because "socionics.com" doesn't sound relevant or contexual to the discussion.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I didn't say you were an INFP. I quoted 'Jeremy8419' saying that he's INFP. Don't hate me for your words. It wasn't even about you My initial purpose was for fellow quadra members to gain insight from the initial first post, in a thread called 'Beta Quadra Hangout'. Am I wrong in the wrong place? As an Fi lead, Ne creative, EII, which you have _always_ identified with, you were not my intended audience. You may have posted some replies in the thread, but you were _not_ the thread itself. The thread itself was the initial post. It's only narcissism to believe otherwise. I posted it for IEIs, LSI, SLE, and EIE for intellectually stimulation. I mean, the very name of the thread is titled "The truth about ESTPs, ISTPs, INFJs, and ENFJs".


Look. That thread was locked by Moderation. Stop trying to disregard and ignore moderator decision by quoting from and referencing a locked thread.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Look. That thread was locked by Moderation. Stop trying to disregard and ignore moderator decision by quoting from and referencing a locked thread.


Linking a locked thread is not disregarding a moderators decision, for that decision only meanns that other people cannot comment on it. It wont be deleted, because the original post was a creative contribution relevant to the forum on which it's posted on, and many other people were participating in the discussion. Contexually, in this very thread, it's relevant.


----------



## Jeremy8419

freeflowingthoughts said:


> first of all, linking a locked thread is not disregarding a moderator, it simply means other people cannot comment on it. If it was meant to be deleted, it would be deleted. It wont be, because the original post was pure, and genuine, and many other people were interested, and participating in the discussion. Contexually, in this very thread, it's contents could be very relevant.
> 
> Second, you seem to be holding a grudge against me, and chomping at the bit to attack me in other threads. But jeremy, i promise i will not link it as a means of attacking you, ever, and you, promise we will put the grudge behind us?


lol


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> lol


Alright, you've made your decision.


----------



## beth x

*Reopened*

Stay beautiful.

Don't let this happen to you!


----------



## SheWolf

Thanks @bethdeth


----------



## Sygma

carpe omnia said:


> uh oh :| i like SLEs. well, they like me so i like them back.


Dang carpe, youz a beta now ? to be perfectly honest I think it make more sense than the ISFP thang. Not welcoming you, you're the worse etc etc


----------



## karmachameleon

hi


----------



## Valtire

karmachameleon said:


> hi


Trying out EIE I see. Have you tried out all of beta quadra yet?


----------



## karmachameleon

Fried Eggz said:


> Trying out EIE I see. Have you tried out all of beta quadra yet?


No
I've been going back and forth from IEI and EIE for the most part


----------



## karmachameleon

great this thread is dead now cus of the mod closing it


----------



## Graveyard

Let's try something...

Free cookies! Free cookies for all quadras! And don't forget to pick up your World Domination Program pin at the gift store! Remember: wearing one means we will spare your life.


----------



## karmachameleon

@Freeflowingthoughts


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> Let's try something...
> 
> Free cookies! Free cookies for all quadras! And don't forget to pick up your World Domination Program pin at the gift store! Remember: wearing one means we will spare your life.


I'll take one!

(..... Or all of them)


----------



## Graveyard

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'll take one!
> 
> (..... Or all of them)


It's usually one cookie per person, but I like you. Take as many as you'd like. 

(Also, I've got new information for you regarding your next mission, agent)


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take one!
> 
> (..... Or all of them)
> 
> 
> 
> It's usually one cookie per person, but I like you. Take as many as you'd like.
> 
> (Also, I've got new information for you regarding your next mission, agent)
Click to expand...

*inhales them all*
O O P.

Yes, sir!?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts


Hello Karmachameleon, Fe-dom  Pleased to meet you


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> You know what's odd?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


Hm?


----------



## SheWolf

lets mosey said:


> If you were looking for an active alpha hangout, that's probably the closest you'll find. It moves the way it does because people have established relationships with each other over time, but there are hardly restrictions on participation. I've grown uncomfortable with the size of it lately, people just dropping in or lurking, but you can always break off and pursue your own thing.


Thats what I was going to say. It is very Alpha-like. Big groups talking about nothing important, but it's democratic to the point where people are always welcomed. I just feel a bit out of place there and get bored quickly. It's too big, imo. Once again, can't keep track of it.


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> Hm?


Just the fact that sometimes I seem so oblivious to the world around me and people call me dumb for that but when I do see it they're like "Wow, I didn't know you were that smart." I mean, I "see" the world around me, but not always in an observant way if that makes sense? I know and I breathe. I observe things differently and not always concrete. But some people just take literal things as intelligence but to me, observing the world is so much more than just seeing the obvious.


----------



## Max

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Just the fact that sometimes I seem so oblivious to the world around me and people call me dumb for that but when I do see it they're like "Wow, I didn't know you were that smart." I mean, I "see" the world around me, but not always in an observant way if that makes sense? I know and I breathe. I observe things differently and not always concrete. But some people just take literal things as intelligence but to me, observing the world is so much more than just seeing the obvious.


And also the fact that people don't "get" me. I find that fine, but do they really have to pretend to be nice about it instead of just honest? I like raw honesty as much as I like connecting with people. I actually prefer raw honesty because I see it strengthening relationships and making them less unhealthy in the long run for everyone. There's no sense hiding stuff and not being emotionally open to a partner who gives you their all. It's just not fair! People are better off alone is that's the case. Doing their own thing and being happy as heck. 

Yeah. I wanted to get that off my chest. I think the concept of a relationship doesn't work unless the "relate" part is true and the "ship" part means they're your anchor. They're meant to be stable you know? Not just talking about romantic relationships here, just ones in general. I've walked away from so many toxic ones or ones I haven't seen work for whatever reason and I'm not bitter or cynical at all. Sometimes it lasts. Sometimes it fades.


----------



## myst91

FearAndTrembling said:


> @_myst91_ and others. A way that MBTI and Socionics may be compatible:
> 
> One way I have heard to think of P/J is that it indicates how one interacts with the world. The first extroverted function in your stack is how you operate in the environment. The creative function, in your case Se is what the world sees. So you are a P. Whereas ILI and IEI are "hidden perceivers". What people see from them is Te and Fe. Which are their first extroverted functions and what people "see". Making them J types.


Uhh that's bullshit. That's what fucks up the MBTI system.

I'm not ISTP in MBTI. Simple as that. I'm much more ISTJ there than ISTP in my way of thinking. Disregarding stereotypes of how ISxJ's are always focused on the past, etc. - I've asked actual ISTJ's and they don't really do those things. 

I don't care what the dominant functions are called for each, it's an invalid way of categorizing but the first three "letters"/dichotomies are fine. Then I'm J because I'm both a Rational function dominant and because of preferring Ni. 

So for example. Go and check ISTJ vs LSI/ISTj profiles, and ISTP vs SLI/ISTp profiles. Then come back and tell me what your two eyes showed you. Don't let yourself be blinded by stupid disproven/never-proven theory principles such as that J/P idea in MBTI.




WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah, superficially I see "ENFP" more, due to the fact that I also am developing a strong sense of Se, which can make me seem quite Pe (yeah, I'm starting to develop the tertiary and experiment with it and it's good).


That's fine. I have this EIE friend who's got crazy Se sometimes and types himself as ENFP in MBTI (doesn't know Socionics, doesn't even know MBTI functions) but he doesn't identify with how many other ENFPs are in MBTI. And our circle of people (who do deal with MBTI functions) don't see him as Ne-dom anymore, lol, so no one knows what his real type is currently :laughing: Yeah, MBTI doesn't categorize him that well if trying to match the dichotomies and functions together.




> Yeah, I know it is, but sometimes people overcomplicate it, and you're like "Why? What's the need to? Why do you keep giving me options, instead of helping me to narrow it all down?" It gets a bit frustrating sometimes, but it's taken me one and a half years to get to this point, lol. Patience does seem to pay off. Well, at least when you put the effort in.


Right 




> And also, if you go by Beebe, I have Ne as my "demonstrative function", which makes sense also. I know I use it, but not half as much as I do the ENFJ functions and their stack.


Yeah, another big limitation of basic MBTI is not acknowledging all 8 functions for the function stack of the types.




> Yes, they are, which makes things even more complex if you follow the whole thing. The more and more people slide away from Jung's understanding of the functions and the more they take these systems and incorporate them into something new via their own systems of understanding, instead of keeping with the universal code, the less people understand the whole concept of Typology from the source's POV (Jung) and that frustrates me, and am sure a whole lot of other people to an extent and keeps them questioning their type.


Absolutely, it's a lot of hopeless mess on the MBTI forums.




> Yeah, I guess so. I can relate a lot more to Socionics than just MBTI, and I relate to enneagram more than that too. I think the whole concept of Socionics is better put together in general and makes more sense in terms of Typology than just the 'MBTI' side of things (to me anyway). The more I delve into Socionics, the more it makes sense in terms of typing myself and finding my best fit within the whole realm of Typology.


Right  Well, with Enneagram, I'm skeptical of how it tries to systematize observations.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> He shouldn't change himself for others. He can use that strategy to change his communication when he desires to sound less certain. If he is gonna change, he should do it for himself, as a means of learning more ways to exist and interact and thus grow. If you change for someone else, it simply won't work. Learning more ways to exist and communicate is worthwhile, though, and doesn't require a fundamental change to your being as long as you know what you are doing and why. Conscious vs. unconscious. That's what typology is even for, wouldn't you say? The ability to truly understand one another and our differences, and in that way overcome them.


I will say I don't care to overcome all differences. I have more worthwhile things to do with my time than that perfectionistic goal.

I get your point otherwise and I agree that if there is a goal to change communication for then sure this approach is good.




Kerik_S said:


> After _lots of disaster_, including losing many important friends from being overbearing, and creating a lot of tension between my mom and her second husband.
> 
> I've tried typing as 5, but I don't have an ounce of 7 in me even in the midst of incredible stress and being even patently suicidal.
> 
> Even when I retreated, it was basically to just continue being myself and let other people analyze me. I also manipulated the hospital staff to keep me on longer even after I had reached "Full Hospitalization Benefit", and got them to admit me to a longterm facility that I got myself out of after a week when it wasn't to my liking.
> 
> It took like little "nuggets" of information to steer me back on track. Knowledge isn't a lifestyle for me.
> 
> I would be studying more, instead of just running my mouth, for one. People may think I study and research a lot, but most of it I just glean from interacting and occasionally searching something haphazardly on Google. xD
> 
> I think I just shot myself in the foot....
> 
> I also don't believe that your second/third fixes pick up on growth-stress. I reserve that for the Core only. And I do _not_ have 7, at all, unhealthy or otherwise.


OK, all I can say is how you come off here, I hardly know you. Btw. Enneagram 1 was also suggested for you and the overbearingness and not living for knowledge could be due to that. This could also make sense for you based on what you wrote about the criticism for the Tom and Jerry cartoon  I watched it too as a kid and I never got upset like you over it. Though I'm not an NF type either.

Yeah I wouldn't bother with checking out integration/disintegration lines for the entire tritype. Tritype in the first place is dubious to me.




ShieldMaiden said:


> I relate it to how I see the people at my college hang out a lot. It's probably my Enneagram 4, but I always felt out of place barging in on a conversation and if I do, I always get lost in the chatter somehow. Happens all the time.


Sounds like soc-last


----------



## SheWolf

myst91 said:


> Sounds like soc-last


Yup. Sx/Sp. My Social variant is non-existent.


----------



## Kerik_S

myst91 said:


> OK, all I can say is how you come off here, I hardly know you. Btw. Enneagram 1 was also suggested for you and the overbearingness and not living for knowledge could be due to that. This could also make sense for you based on what you wrote about the criticism for the Tom and Jerry cartoon  I watched it too as a kid and I never got upset like you over it. Though I'm not an NF type either.


Understood. I definitely understand the 1 thing. INFJ 1s and 8s, theoretically and by the dude on here that I trust actually is one almost stereotypically, are similar in assertiveness, but our style and approach is different.

I could definitely be a, but they have a line to 7 that I don't agree with. If I didn't believe in growth-stress, I'd have already typed as 1 since it was actually what I got on a paid Enneagram test. 154 Sx/sp.

It took me a few switcharoos to arrive at 8, and it was actually _because_ of growth and stress mostly that made me abandon 1.

The good thing about x54 as the tritype is that 4 is tied to 1 and 5 is tied to 8, so I don't even have to "believe" in the tritype to explain some of the "pull" to either of those.

　


myst91 said:


> Yeah I wouldn't bother with checking out integration/disintegration lines for the entire tritype. Tritype in the first place is dubious to me.


Word. Tritype is just my way of saying "and I don't have much 7 or 3 for that matter". Core type is where it's at.


----------



## Kerik_S

Yo, I just found out my (first) cousin who I was always fond of as a kid, from a young age-- and have managed to have a tenable connection with despite her being devout/studious Catholic and me being gay and basically a Satanist-- tests as INFJ.

I know this is Socionics, but I always saw her as a kindred spirit growing up, and was amazed at how she actually managed to get me to _agree with Catholicism_ in some aspects.

I'm highly skeptical of anyone who types as INFJ, but like... she's actually more stereotypical INFJ than me, in that bookish and intellectual-but-still-metaphysical way.

She went to one of the top Catholic universities in the world and was part of many of the missionary teams.

I mean, geez. Making me look bad. Her dad described her as "a Saint" growing up.


----------



## Noctis

Kerik_S said:


> Yo, I just found out my (first) cousin who I was always fond of as a kid, from a young age-- and have managed to have a tenable connection with despite her being devout/studious Catholic and me being gay and basically a Satanist-- tests as INFJ.
> 
> I know this is Socionics, but I always saw her as a kindred spirit growing up, and was amazed at how she actually managed to get me to _agree with Catholicism_ in some aspects.
> 
> I'm highly skeptical of anyone who types as INFJ, but like... she's actually more stereotypical INFJ than me, in that bookish and intellectual-but-still-metaphysical way.
> 
> She went to one of the top Catholic universities in the world and was part of many of the missionary teams.
> 
> I mean, geez. Making me look bad. Her dad described her as "a Saint" growing up.


Not all NFs are "saints". I don't see myself as a saint, as I can at times be emotionally detached to people I don't care about, don't feel the need to help everyone or be good to everyone because I encountered some pretty bad apples in my life. People like child abusers, bullies, or thugs don't need to be helped or saved.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

So I heard you talking about Satanism, and though hey that must be Satan worship. Because Satanism. I got confused, and it sparked a conversation with my room mates who assured me that Satanism is actually just a rejection of the mainstream and christian values and not devil worship. I was skeptical and was going to take their word for it (and by that I mean ignore it and move on)...and then I realized I was being Te PoLR again. I was about to totally reject information because it doesn't jive with my worldview. They even urged me to go look up the Satanist commandments, and I was not even going to do that because I don't care about what some other religion's viewpoint is. I already have my faith.

I realized what I was doing, and basically forced myself to be more open minded. I looked it up despite my misgivings. Turns out it is nothing like I thought it was. I still don't care much, but at least I learned something today. This focus I have learned to embrace new information when I normally would not is something I am learning from typology, from my attempt to better understand and to grow as a person.

Huzzah for personal growth! At least, some.


----------



## Noctis

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So I heard you talking about Satanism, and though hey that must be Satan worship. Because Satanism. I got confused, and it sparked a conversation with my room mates who assured me that Satanism is actually just a rejection of the mainstream and christian values and not devil worship. I was skeptical and was going to take their word for it (and by that I mean ignore it and move on)...and then I realized I was being Te PoLR again. I was about to totally reject information because it doesn't jive with my worldview. They even urged me to go look up the Satanist commandments, and I was not even going to do that because I don't care about what some other religion's viewpoint is. I already have my faith.
> 
> I realized what I was doing, and basically forced myself to be more open minded. I looked it up despite my misgivings. Turns out it is nothing like I thought it was. I still don't care much, but at least I learned something today. This focus I have learned to embrace new information when I normally would not is something I am learning from typology, from my attempt to better understand and to grow as a person.
> 
> Huzzah for personal growth! At least, some.


It's LaVeyan Satanism.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So I heard you talking about Satanism, and though hey that must be Satan worship. Because Satanism. I got confused, and it sparked a conversation with my room mates who assured me that Satanism is actually just a rejection of the mainstream and christian values and not devil worship. I was skeptical and was going to take their word for it (and by that I mean ignore it and move on)...and then I realized I was being Te PoLR again. I was about to totally reject information because it doesn't jive with my worldview. They even urged me to go look up the Satanist commandments, and I was not even going to do that because I don't care about what some other religion's viewpoint is. I already have my faith.
> 
> I realized what I was doing, and basically forced myself to be more open minded. I looked it up despite my misgivings. Turns out it is nothing like I thought it was. I still don't care much, but at least I learned something today. This focus I have learned to embrace new information when I normally would not is something I am learning from typology, from my attempt to better understand and to grow as a person.
> 
> Huzzah for personal growth! At least, some.


Just made me think...

To everyone reading this WITCHCRAFT =/= SATAN WORSHIP

GRRRRRR...

Okay I got that out of my system.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> Just made me think...
> 
> To everyone reading this WITCHCRAFT =/= SATAN WORSHIP
> 
> GRRRRRR...
> 
> Okay I got that out of my system.


Heh, right. I'm Wiccan trained myself, although I moved past that in my quest for spirituality. I think the term people use these days for what I am is a "Spiritual Neo-pagan Anarchist" or something like that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

So, I got some people who have mentioned they think I am an EIE. Other think IEI. I'd like to take a poll for those who are interested in helping me or in commenting. What type do you think I am? Do you even think I am Beta? I am curious for your thoughts!

My personal type thread is here, if you want to go by a questionnaire or whatever. 
* *




http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/655634-looking-my-socionics-type.html


----------



## SheWolf

Why does every description I read of my dual (LII) sound irritating as hell to me?


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Why does every description I read of my dual (LII) sound irritating as hell to me?


No comment. 

Hehe.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Duals are irritating. They can do everything you want to be able to do.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Duals are irritating. They can do everything you want to be able to do.


It's not that the description are of things that I want to be able to do myself. Rather, it's what they don't do. Reading through LII descriptions are like, the exact opposite of what I want to do. 



> However, personal ties are by no means a point of precedence for the LII. Rather than side with a friend because of their relationship, an LII will always prioritise detached reasoning and will likely stay impartial in any interpersonal disputes. Loyalty for them will always take second place to the pursuit of truth, and a friend will need to make sure they are in the right for the LII to provide support. Similarly, despite being rather aware of their attitudes or sentiments and whether they like someone or not, the LII will prefer to treat everyone fairly, not varying their treatment of others simply due to having personal favourites in a group.


Just reading this pisses me off.


----------



## Kintsugi

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Duals are irritating. They can do everything you want to be able to do.


Ahh, idk. I find my partner (who is also my dual) more inspiring than irritating (in relation to Socionics/duality).

As a human being he's irritating as hell, haha. Aren't we all.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> No comment.
> 
> Hehe.



* *


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Ahh, idk. I find my partner (who is also my dual) more inspiring than irritating (in relation to Socionics/duality).
> 
> As a human being he's irritating as hell, haha. Aren't we all.


Humans suck.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Humans suck.


Agreed. 

I had such a rant this morning about how much humans suck, lol. Trying to organise a wedding when you have social anxiety is so hard. >_>


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I had such a rant this morning about how much humans suck, lol. Trying to organise a wedding when you have social anxiety is so hard. >_>


I can imagine, I have social anxiety as well.


----------



## SheWolf

I'm kind of struggling to understand exactly what some of the IM elements are. 

I get Fe expressiveness, but I have no idea what "emotional atmosphere" is supposed to mean.

I get Fi is about repulsion/attraction, but not exactly what it means by relationships between people.

Se and Si are pretty clear. I understand Te I think. Ti is a little weird. Ne and Ni are a bit confusing.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> It's not that the description are of things that I want to be able to do myself. Rather, it's what they don't do. Reading through LII descriptions are like, the exact opposite of what I want to do.


That, too. However, when you get to know your dual, it becomes easy to admire them. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work. I don't think I even know any SLEs. Most of my friend group is Gamma/Delta and the Betas are mostly Intuitive. My family is mostly Delta/Alpha.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'm kind of struggling to understand exactly what some of the IM elements are.
> 
> I get Fe expressiveness, but I have no idea what "emotional atmosphere" is supposed to mean.
> 
> I get Fi is about repulsion/attraction, but not exactly what it means by relationships between people.
> 
> Se and Si are pretty clear. I understand Te I think. Ti is a little weird. Ne and Ni are a bit confusing.


I was just thinking of something that may possibly help (no idea), especially if you are Gamma SF.

I've never actually posted on it, but the 16types forum had a member (LIE, I believe) called Expat whose posts always seemed to make sense to me. I don't think he's active any-more, but if you are a member of that forum you could trying looking/stalking some of his posts (if it's possible, I'm not familiar with how the system works there).

I remember he wrote his own descriptions of the functions that I found that really helpful. I have no idea how to find it now though...

*goes searching*

oooh, think I found it! ^_^

Te views of reality as perceived by the types


----------



## Graveyard

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'm kind of struggling to understand exactly what some of the IM elements are.
> 
> I get Fe expressiveness, but I have no idea what "emotional atmosphere" is supposed to mean.
> 
> I get Fi is about repulsion/attraction, but not exactly what it means by relationships between people.
> 
> Se and Si are pretty clear. I understand Te I think. Ti is a little weird. Ne and Ni are a bit confusing.


Well, Fe and Te are fairly similar; they just deal with different kinds of information. You know how Te is all about an object's properties and efficency and all that crap? It "absorbs" (so to say) information from the outside regarding these things, and looks for the best way it can be utilized. Something like that, I can't say for sure. It's kinda messy for me.

Well, Fe does something _similar_ to that. But instead of an object's properties, it's about _energy_, which translates into emotions. It "absorbs" the information from the outside, processing the emotions of others, and looking for a way to influence it according to your intentions. Mostly results in a "happy-go-lucky" attitude. 

Fi is not exactly about repulsion/attraction. Again, Fi and Ti are fairly similar (like Fe and Te). But they don't meddle with outside informations; instead, they're all about _subjective_ data. That's why it's said that extroverted IEs are "objective": they collect information from the outside, while introverted IEs are about the way the user interprets the information.

Whatever. So, Ti and Fi are about _building_ systems of information. Ti, on one side, builds logical structures and organizes information in a way they could understand (that's why they're sometimes too stubborn and won't let an idea go ). Now, Fi does that but with _emotions_. The way the person feels about _something_. A moral code, so to say. Dictates what's right and what's wrong based on the way _they_ see it. The reason Fi is linked to relationships is because F egos are capable of assesting the state of a relationship (of course, one they are involved in) judgin by the way they feel about the other person.

Ne and Ni are pretty different, as well. To make it simple, Ne meddles with _what you could make out of this potentially_, while Ni is about _what you'll make out of this_. 

Ne sees the object and its potential; its essence. And thus, Ne sees the possibilities within the object. No matter how preposterous it is, it's still an idea. For an Ne ego, no idea is too stupid. It seems random to some people because the leaps it makes from point A to point C seem rather illogical, but it has a reason to be. The point B in the middle is implicit for them. 

Ni is about mental constructs, basically. The reason Ni is called "intuition of time" is because time itself it but another mental construct; something we measure, and without us, it wouldn't exist per se (and by "us" I mean humans). I'm sorry, but the Ni mental proccess is way too disorganized, but I'll try to put it into words. 

Whenever I, from my totally subjective and prone to further examination perspective, see a possibility, I don't try to see what I can make out of it; I try too see what it'll become. I analyze possible outcomes in my mind, ruling out everything that could make it go wrong, thus coming up with the "most likely event".

Hope it helps. If anyone has anything to say, any corrections: please do so.


----------



## karmachameleon

Graveyard said:


> Fi is not exactly about repulsion/attraction. Again, Fi and Ti are fairly similar (like Fe and Te). But they don't meddle with outside informations; instead, they're all about _subjective_ data. That's why it's said that extroverted IEs are "objective": they collect information from the outside, while introverted IEs are about the way the user interprets the information.


attraction/repulsion sounds pretty subjective to me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

If it absorbs, wouldn't it be introverted? Towards the subject is introversion. From the subject is extroversion.


----------



## karmachameleon

Gah i can't figure out what type my mom is. She's can be loud and obnoxious(she never swears though) but sometimes unexpectedly she'll just sound rude and uninterested, she's not really interested in others happiness, (sometimes i'll be really happy about something and i'll tell her and she's like "okay", but if i tell her i got in to a certain school or something that SHE likes then she'll be happy and excited. She loves to gossip, find things that arent based in reality kind of ridiculous, she's worked at a bank with finances for like 30 years, shes bad at picking up hints in conversations that are obvious to me, like if the person wants to leave and looks uncomfortable she just keeps talking. 
She can be manipulative but not that great at it. She'll make someone pissed but she doesn't realize why she's so annoying. She renovates the house quite a bit, there's always something to improve. She almost always wear just black. She. never. stops. talking. She has no hobbies except renovating the house, gossip, and like sewing stuff? idk. She always wants the last word when we fight and so do i, so my dad usually has to step in. She talks badly about people with bad manners or people that wears something ugly and always ask other people for reassurance of her opinions like "didnt you think that shirt was ugly? it was ugly right?". 
People usually think she's weird and too much. She's kind of socially awkward but shes not afraid of talking to people at all, and like i said sometimes she like not expressive at all and seem uninterested af but then shes energetic and enthusiastic as fuck. She doesnt realise when shes being embarrassing or odd, she makes people uncomfortable by her fucking over the top energy and talking, she can come off as hysteric(idk if its the right word) and scatterbrained. She laughs at religion and spiritual stuff.
Her views are very set and hard to change, she thinks all drugs including weed is bad, she wont even discuss it (because she has no arguments except "cause its drugs". Even if you give her the best argument ever she wont change her opinion.
She'll say like "i read this is good for you" and i'll be like "um why" and shes like "idk but it is".
I've considered ESE, SEE, LSE and maybe SEI even?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> If it absorbs, wouldn't it be introverted? Towards the subject is introversion. From the subject is extroversion.




Not according to Jung. Introversion is projection. It it pushes out. It takes its own content and pushes it into others. Breaking the object. Extroversion is introjection.


----------



## Word Dispenser

FearAndTrembling said:


> Not according to Jung. Introversion is projection. It it pushes out. It takes its own content and pushes it into others. Breaking the object. Extroversion is introjection.


My own understanding of it was that the individual understands qualities beneath the surface of the object when introverted, and goes more in depth, preferring quality over quantity. The extrovert skims the surface of the object, and is able to cover more ground that way, taking in more surface area, but losing the details and depth.

I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Not according to Jung. Introversion is projection. It it pushes out. It takes its own content and pushes it into others. Breaking the object. Extroversion is introjection.


Didn't he say that extroversion is exerting libido into the world, and introversion is the opposite?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Word Dispenser said:


> My own understanding of it was that the individual understands qualities beneath the surface of the object when introverted, and goes more in depth, preferring quality over quantity. The extrovert skims the surface of the object, and is able to cover more ground that way, taking in more surface area, but losing the details and depth.
> 
> I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.



Yes, those are qualities too. But it is also like a battle between opposing forces. The object and the person. Somebody has to win. The introvert refuses to take in the object, so he kind of pushes out with his own energy and smashes or deforms it. The extrovert lets it overtake him. He gave this example in Fe and Fi particularly. Fe is empathy and Fi is sympathy. Fe sucks the environment into their lungs. How does water know a cup? By BEING a cup. That is extroversion. A cup is useful because it is empty. Introversion is full of its own content to project. It is full.

This is how it looks like. The battle between psychic forces:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Actually I just used this gif yesterday, it comes in handy again. Superman is an example of an introvert here. See how the object's energy tries to impose itself on him? He reflects it back and fries the guy. lol wait. That means Zod is an introvert too. Cuz he is projecting with his heat vision.


----------



## Word Dispenser

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, those are qualities too. But it is also like a battle between opposing forces. The object and the person. Somebody has to win. The introvert refuses to take in the object, so he kind of pushes out with his own energy and smashes or deforms it. The extrovert lets it overtake him. He gave this example in Fe and Fi particularly. Fe is empathy and Fi is sympathy. Fe sucks the environment into their lungs. How does water know a cup? By BEING a cup. That is extroversion. A cup is useful because it is empty. Introversion is full of its own content to project. It is full.
> 
> This is how it looks like. The battle between psychic forces:


Well, that's interesting, and it's more obvious when you compare Fe/Fi. It almost sounds like you're saying that introversion is picky and takes the 'best parts', and extroversion just wants to consume it all. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, actually-- It makes a certain kind of sense.

But, what about Ne/Ni, for example?

When Ne is about potential, ideas, possibilities, _could be_'s. Ni is about symbolic abstraction, and the flow of time. How do you compare this idea of pickiness vs. consumption in such a case?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Yeah, I don't think you can "introvert" at people lol. It's kinda the opposite of the definition. This is why introverted elements are paired with extroverted elements. Regardless of what you're introverting, you rely on an extroverted element to "at people" lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah, I don't think you can "introvert" at people lol. It's kinda the opposite of the definition. This is why introverted elements are paired with extroverted elements. Regardless of what you're introverting, you rely on an extroverted element to "at people" lol.


Not when you view it as projection as Jung did. You trying to tell me Ti doms don't project thought at people? lol. Imagine it like a bubbling spring.

You shoot at something in the backyard and up pops some bubbling Ti. Texas Ti. lol


----------



## Word Dispenser

FearAndTrembling said:


> Not when you view it as projection as Jung did. You trying to tell me Ti doms don't project thought at people? lol. Imagine it like a bubbling spring.
> 
> You shoot at something in the backyard and up pops some bubbling Ti. Texas Ti. lol


Do you mean when Ti-users are speaking/writing to someone, or that they're actually projecting thought? In either case, it's a bit of a stretch. 

Ti isn't equivalent to thought, for one thing... For another, Ti seems to absorb and then rearrange. Any results of those computations aren't generally the 'process' of Ti, since it's already happened, and the result is what's 'projected' in writing/spoken form, I'd think?

This is why it slightly irritates me when people tell me that they can't see my Ti. Of course you can't, it's not something which is visible-- It's a part of my cognition and how I'm seeing the world. The results of my Ti-reasoning are going to come through Ne. It's more complex than being able to 'see' cognition directly like that. You can get an idea of what kind of reasoning people prefer by how they interact, but you won't necessarily 'see' it directly, I'd think.

I compare it to... In school, they ask you to show your math. But, you can still go through a complicated process in your head, while writing out the end result without showing your work. But, the work is still there, even if you can't necessarily see it. Do you know what I mean?


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Not when you view it as projection as Jung did. You trying to tell me Ti doms don't project thought at people? lol. Imagine it like a bubbling spring.
> 
> You shoot at something in the backyard and up pops some bubbling Ti. Texas Ti. lol


Not via Ti, they don't, because of the sheer intro/extro. They would be doing it through Ne or Se, primarily. Jung didn't make even the basic dichotomies discrete; however, he did make the distinction that extroversion is to the world and introversion is to the subject.


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Sometimes I do tend to find that Fe Doms (especially ESFJ) get mistyped as Ne Doms because of how they use their functions around others (depending on the group, and how they work). I see myself altering my perceptions a lot in order to be on the same wavelength as X group in order to understand them better (and their way of processing/thinking about things).


Yes, I see this all the time. I have an ESFJ friend that says he's ENFP. He's not. ENFP's, while they can certainly be excitable, still are more "jaded" than the ESFJ. To me, he's very, very Fe and a lot of the time he drives me nuts. I also believe he's a 4 but he thinks he's a 2. It seems very common for Fe-dom 4's to think they are 2's.


----------



## karmachameleon

Aaand we're back to talking about MBTI.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I feel like if any type is unsure of their type and keeps going back and forth from multiple types, then they're not IEI. In my experience, personally, and seeing a lot of others, IEIs always _know_ when they first read that description, and that's that. It's like a wrap. From then on there's a dynamic unfolding and fascinating period of self discovery. But I truly believe, that the IEI existence, functions, and condition is so distinctive, and unique, that once it is read out to you, all is right understood. Also, we feel isolated, and having someone verbalise what we've been trying to figure out and struggling with for all our lives, and sum us up, telling us there are others out there, is a all encompassing, trauma healing feeling. Every single piece of information fitted. Every single piece. This is why I say that people who say '_some_ of it sounds like me' are not the type, because if you are that type, the pieces of information will resonate so strongly because of its truth, that you will subconsciously know, accept, and begin the healing.
> 
> What you guys think?


I believe it's quite the opposite. Ni doms are notorious for being indecisive. IEIs functions are not more unique than any other type. What planet do you live on?


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yes, I see this all the time. I have an ESFJ friend that says he's ENFP. He's not. ENFP's, while they can certainly be excitable, still are more "jaded" than the ESFJ. To me, he's very, very Fe and a lot of the time he drives me nuts. I also believe he's a 4 but he thinks he's a 2. It seems very common for Fe-dom 4's to think they are 2's.


Yeah and I also guess this is why I get typed 'ESFP' superficially a lot of the time and had even considered it, but now I know it's the Fe Se overdrive working in me xD I really doubt that the average ESFP thinks like I do. 

And yeah. Well, at least he isn't thinking he's an INFJ 4, who's actually ISFP haha.


----------



## SheWolf

Oh no... not someone playing up the IEI "special snowflake" thing again.

I get what he's saying, to some extent. IEI's have been known to feel misunderstood and when they discover typology they finally feel like they've found something to relate to, but, they are by no means more unique. That is why the internet is so full of false IEI's (and I speak from personal experience because I used to be one of those people) is because it exaggerates how "unique" and "special" IEI's are. Everyone feels misunderstood at some point (also an Enneagram 4 mentality too)


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> And yeah. Well, at least he isn't thinking he's an INFJ 4, who's actually ISFP haha.



SSHHHHH.... I used to be one of those people. XD 

It is a huge trend for ISFP 4's to think their INFJ. (I'm speaking kind of from an MBTI standpoint here.)


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> SSHHHHH.... I used to be one of those people. XD
> 
> It is a huge trend for ISFP 4's to think their INFJ. (I'm speaking kind of from an MBTI standpoint here.)


Yeah like for the longest time, I thought I was an ESTP until I looked into a lot of things, and ENFJ started making a lot more sense. Just like magic xD


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah and I also guess this is why I get typed 'ESFP' superficially a lot of the time and had even considered it, but now I know it's the Fe Se overdrive working in me xD I really doubt that the average ESFP thinks like I do.
> 
> And yeah. Well, at least he isn't thinking he's an INFJ 4, who's actually ISFP haha.


Also to kind of elaborate on the friend that thinks he's an ENFP...

He irritates myself and two other girls he speaks to all the time. He prides himself on being "childish" and never wanting to grow up. His 4 disintegration to 2 is absolutely unbearable. Sometimes I find he's just "too much", has no chill whatsoever because he's so excitable and I often feel like he gets in my face too much. He can't take a hint, either. He'll keep talking or let something fly out that he didn't even think about might bother someone else because he's so concerned about expressing himself. Anyone seen "Inside Out?" if he were one of those characters, it would be Joy. He tends to have that "happy-go-lucky" attitude that @_Graveyard_ described Fe having.

I think it comes from the fact people tend to "idealize" their mobilizing functions. He definitely value Ne, and would totally fit in with a room full of Alphas.


----------



## Murkury

ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh no... not someone playing up the IEI "special snowflake" thing again.
> 
> I get what he's saying, to some extent. IEI's have been known to feel misunderstood and when they discover typology they finally feel like they've found something to relate to, but, they are by no means more unique. That is why the internet is so full of false IEI's (and I speak from personal experience because I used to be one of those people) is because it exaggerates how "unique" and "special" IEI's are. Everyone feels misunderstood at some point (also an Enneagram 4 mentality too)


The mistyped IEIs aka MBTI INFJ's, are probably likely due to the fact that NI is considered to be an unconcious function in MBTI; so those people that get 'visions (of events)' popping up out of nowhere, are more likely to be experiencing demonstrative (4D) NI (EII/LII), which actually would be unconcious (in socionics)


----------



## SheWolf

Murkury said:


> The mistyped IEIs aka MBTI INFJ's, are probably likely due to the fact that NI is considered to be an unconcious function in MBTI; so those people that get 'visions (of events)' popping up out of nowhere, are more likely to be experiencing demonstrative (4D) NI (EII/LII), which actually would be unconcious (in socionics)


Yeah, most likely. I often get these random visions, too, and they are usually negative/of impending doom. Dunno what's up with that.


----------



## Max

*Today I like cats. Tomorrow, I like kittens. Keeping with the theme...*



ShieldMaiden said:


> Also to kind of elaborate on the friend that thinks he's an ENFP...
> 
> He irritates myself and two other girls he speaks to all the time. He prides himself on being "childish" and never wanting to grow up. His 4 disintegration to 2 is absolutely unbearable. Sometimes I find he's just "too much", has no chill whatsoever because he's so excitable and I often feel like he gets in my face too much. He can't take a hint, either. He'll keep talking or let something fly out that he didn't even think about might bother someone else because he's so concerned about expressing himself. Anyone seen "Inside Out?" if he were one of those characters, it would be Joy. He tends to have that "happy-go-lucky" attitude that @_Graveyard_ described Fe having.
> 
> I think it comes from the fact people tend to "idealize" their mobilizing functions. He definitely value Ne, and would totally fit in with a room full of Alphas.


That sounds like me sometimes xD Some people describe me as being 'full on' or 'too much', but I attribute that to my sx-dom also. I mean, I do know I have to grow up sometime, but it's not all that bad. You can still be child-like without being a full on manchild if that makes sense? And yeah, that feeling of just talking and letting it all out is good at the time, but then it's like "What? Did I really say that?" when they come back to you like a week later lol. 

Yeah, I can be pretty happy-go-lucky too, but I know when to be serious, and when not to be etc. I'm gaining a much better grasp over myself and others cues/emotional responses. I know how to control them and adapt to suit them/whatever needs to be achieved. 

Yes, that also makes sense. I see myself valuing Ne, but not all the time. I don't know how I'd cope with a constant stream of Ne attacking me all the time from every corner, you know? Same with ExFPs who value Fe (from Beebe's model). I'm sure they don't want Fe flying at them all the time but could fit in a Beta setting too  Sometimes I get typed as 'Alpha' because of that, but I know I'm not one because I clearly value Fe Se Ni and Ti over Ne and Si.


----------



## Murkury

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yeah, most likely. I often get these random visions, too, and they are usually negative/of impending doom. Dunno what's up with that.


That should make it easier to type yourself then ; ) (unconcious NI is likely) how often do you get the visions? Do you often get similar thoughts too (without the vision)?


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> That sounds like me sometimes xD Some people describe me as being 'full on' or 'too much', but I attribute that to my sx-dom also. I mean, I do know I have to grow up sometime, but it's not all that bad. You can still be child-like without being a full on manchild if that makes sense? And yeah, that feeling of just talking and letting it all out is good at the time, but then it's like "What? Did I really say that?" when they come back to you like a week later lol.


Oh, but he is a full on manchild to me. He often patronizes me for being judgmental and "ridiculing his way of life."

By that, he means I tell him he needs to get off his ass, get a job, and start taking stuff seriously. He won't get a job because he thinks it'll make him "uncomfortable" internally. Si. He's only going to college because his family sort of made him and he's not thinking long-term with it in the least. He's hoping he'll get this digital media degree and somehow manage to land a job as an animator. He doesn't think about it/or concerned about it. Me? I've always wanted something secure and realistic for my future. That's partly why I didn't go into something like digital media. It's not secure and is not good for long-run productivity. He spends all his time behind a computer screen or drawing. He doesn't even go out and do things with his friends really. He does that 4 thing of "longing for a better life" and complaining about it, but never doing anything and is so horribly envious of others for supposedly being more blessed than he is. I'm an Enneagram 4, so I'll admit I've done this, too... but, I'm more fueled get up and do things that make me uncomfortable and require work to make it better. He doesn't have the "drive" or vision that I do for my life.



> Yeah, I can be pretty happy-go-lucky too, but I know when to be serious, and when not to be etc. I'm gaining a much better grasp over myself and others cues/emotional responses. I know how to control them and adapt to suit them/whatever needs to be achieved.


I've never been happy-go-lucky. I'm a Negative Nancy.  Are you by chance a Social instinctual variant?


----------



## SheWolf

Murkury said:


> That should make it easier to type yourself then ; ) (unconcious NI is likely) how often do you get the visions? Do you often get similar thoughts too (without the vision)?


Visions are at random, usually. I can't tell you how often I get them. I'm a "worst case scenario" type of person. If I imagine the worst case scenario, then I can be prepared for it.


----------



## karmachameleon

@ShieldMaiden do a reinin dichotomy test/see which ones fit you


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Murkury said:


> The mistyped IEIs aka MBTI INFJ's, are probably likely due to the fact that NI is considered to be an unconcious function in MBTI; so those people that get 'visions (of events)' popping up out of nowhere, are more likely to be experiencing demonstrative (4D) NI (EII/LII), which actually would be unconcious (in socionics)


That was the big thing that irritated the crap out of me when I was in MBTI forum. Everyone kept saying Ni was unconscious, and then I would describe it and the process I was going through and I'd get "nuh-UH! That's Ne if you can see it"! It was pretty anxiety inducing, having to ****ing deal with all that. I was so unsure of my type because all I ever got was "You are so Fi, and you describe Ni as Ne".

To them I say, well yes I am Fi without really thinking about it, and no way in hell am I Ne. Grr


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah and I also guess this is why I get typed 'ESFP' superficially a lot of the time and had even considered it, but now I know it's the Fe Se overdrive working in me xD I really doubt that the average ESFP thinks like I do.
> 
> And yeah. Well, at least he isn't thinking he's an INFJ 4, who's actually ISFP haha.


I might be a 4. Am I actually an ISFP? :3


----------



## Jeremy8419

Murkury said:


> The mistyped IEIs aka MBTI INFJ's, are probably likely due to the fact that NI is considered to be an unconcious function in MBTI; so those people that get 'visions (of events)' popping up out of nowhere, are more likely to be experiencing demonstrative (4D) NI (EII/LII), which actually would be unconcious (in socionics)


It's due to MBTI functional stacking trying to fit 8 elements into 4 functions. Unless people go in and read the descriptions while knowing the Socionics ones, they won't be able to structure things right. Half of Ni in MBTI is more like Ne creative in Socionics than anything else.


----------



## Max

*Still a cat... meow...*



ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh, but he is a full on manchild to me. He often patronizes me for being judgmental and "ridiculing his way of life."
> 
> By that, he means I tell him he needs to get off his ass, get a job, and start taking stuff seriously. He won't get a job because he thinks it'll make him "uncomfortable" internally. Si. He's only going to college because his family sort of made him and he's not thinking long-term with it in the least. He's hoping he'll get this digital media degree and somehow manage to land a job as an animator. He doesn't think about it/or concerned about it. Me? I've always wanted something secure and realistic for my future. That's partly why I didn't go into something like digital media. It's not secure and is not good for long-run productivity. He spends all his time behind a computer screen or drawing. He doesn't even go out and do things with his friends really. He does that 4 thing of "longing for a better life" and complaining about it, but never doing anything and is so horribly envious of others for supposedly being more blessed than he is. I'm an Enneagram 4, so I'll admit I've done this, too... but, I'm more fueled get up and do things that make me uncomfortable and require work to make it better. He doesn't have the "drive" or vision that I do for my life.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been happy-go-lucky. I'm a Negative Nancy.  Are you by chance a Social instinctual variant?


Yeah, well at the moment I'm doing a music course, because I'd like to be a music producer but if that doesn't work out, I can always use the degrees in helping to influence me to get something else within the music business as well as well as whatever experience I have, but I also have a back-up plan too. A back-up plan of getting into stageplays/writing/directing videos, as well as acting. I know I will do well in both those areas because I have the drive for it.

But yeah, I think your friend needs to think a bit more about his future (he sounds like my man child novel character a lot ) but yeah, he needs motivated in some way or another. Even if it takes a while... And the envious thing? I've never really had that at all (I know it's a four trait, but still)... I'm either super competitive or super chilled. My perspective shifts from time to time, depending on the outcome and what it is I'm doing. But I enjoy being chilled more than anything else. It helps me get better results. You know? 

I am sx/so, definitely sp last. I get some people joke that I should be sx/sx, if it was possible lol. 
But yeah, I see that as the perfect description for myself.


----------



## Murkury

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> That was the big thing that irritated the crap out of me when I was in MBTI forum. Everyone kept saying Ni was unconscious, and then I would describe it and the process I was going through and I'd get "nuh-UH! That's Ne if you can see it"! It was pretty anxiety inducing, having to ****ing deal with all that. I was so unsure of my type because all I ever got was "You are so Fi, and you describe Ni as Ne".
> 
> To them I say, well yes I am Fi without really thinking about it, and no way in hell am I Ne. Grr





ShieldMaiden said:


> Visions are at random, usually. I can't tell you how often I get them. I'm a "worst case scenario" type of person. If I imagine the worst case scenario, then I can be prepared for it.



I'd need to read/discover more about the plus and minus signs, to know if they are correct/applicable, but if -NI means that you are more likely to think about the negative aspect of 'events' than it's possible that those with -NI as an unconcious function may be the most likely to experience the random negative visions...

The types with unconcious NI are:

ILE, LII


LSI, SLE


SEE, ESI


EII, IEE

Those with (negative) unconcious NI are:

ESI

SEE

LII

ILE

If this source is correct:

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/opisanie-modelej


----------



## Kintsugi

@Freeflowingthoughts

Bear in mind that although there are statistics that claim certain types are rarer than others, you need to take into account whether or not you can trust the data (i.e. that the people represented in the studies are actually typed correctly).

No one can claim anything as "objective fact" here, we are talking about typology, people. :dry:


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It's an objective fact because it says it in the theory. It either does, or doesn't.


So that Beyonce is involved with the Illuminati is also an "objective fact"?



> If it meant that we were decisive in _all_ things, then no type would be decisive, or judicious.


As i said. The decisive/judicious reinin dichotomies is not literally being decisive or doubting.



> Ni types have a hard time being decisive in the outer world as Se is point of absolute weakness, however, we can be very decisive when the time calls for it.


I have no idea what your point was here.


> 'Door slam' is a very common IEI phenomenon.


? Explain further please.



> You knowing many IEIs and ILIs doesn't change the fact that there are less of them in the general population compared with Si egos.


I trust my experience more than some random facts. And again, MBTI is not socionics, so it's not valid to use MBTI statistics for Socionics, even if the statistics _were_ accurate.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Then you shouldn't have said 'dom'. Socionics uses 'Lead' for the first function.


Why does it matter? It means the exact same thing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> How can you say IEI is 1/8th of the population, if there are no facts to back you up? Did you invent that number? _Why_ did you give that stat.


I didn't. I said IEI and EII together make up 1/8 the population; I.e., each is 1/16th.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The Perfect Storm said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts
> 
> Bear in mind that although there are statistics that claim certain types are rarer than others, you need to take into account whether or not you can trust the data (i.e. that the people represented in the studies are actually typed correctly).
> 
> No one can claim anything as "objective fact" here, we are talking about typology, people. :dry:


True, I'm just asking Jeremy where his basis for throwing out the 1/8th of society number.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> I didn't. I said IEI and EII together make up 1/8 the population; I.e., each is 1/16th.


Again, what is your basis for this?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Why does it matter? It means the exact same thing.


Socionics and MBTI are not the same thing.


----------



## Kintsugi

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I'm just saying, I have some backing, and pretty legit ones at that, taken over many many years, but multiple organisations. Of course there are other factors to take into account. But these are all peripheral. _My point was that I have basis, but Jeremy has none. I was just asking for his stats. You can't go around saying X is 1.23456% in the world, if you have *nothing* to back you up._


I think you need to let go. It's not worth it.

Agree to disagree and move on, you're just going round in circles.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> So that Beyonce is involved with the Illuminati is also an "objective fact"?


Lacking analysis. We're on a Socionics forum, I was discussing Socionics theory. Very relevant. 



karmachameleon said:


> ? Explain further please.


Door slam is when we decide (decisively) to cut someone out of our lives.



karmachameleon said:


> I trust my experience more than some random facts.


You trust your experience. You're one person in a world of 7.125 billion people but _your_ experience determines what the rest of the planet is. Okay, I'll be sure to take your words over a 30 year study compiled from multiple, credible places.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Socionics and MBTI are not the same thing.


Leading and dominant... hahaha what is wrong with you?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The Perfect Storm said:


> I think you need to let go. It's not worth it.
> 
> Agree to disagree and move on, you're just going round in circles.


I edited lol.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Leading and dominant... hahaha what is wrong with you?


Lol, I believe they are, but everybody here scolds you for crossing the two over. Sigh I'm over this. I'm still waiting for Jeremy's basis for his claim.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lacking analysis. We're on a Socionics forum, I was discussing Socionics theory. Very relevant.


Yes. Because your MBTI nonsense is relevant here? :laughing: 




> Door slam is when we decide (decisively) to cut someone out of our lives.


Sounds like a normal human response.




> You trust your experience. You're one person in a world of 7.125 billion people but _your_ experience determines what the rest of the planet is. Okay, I'll be sure to take your words over a 30 year study compiled from multiple, credible places.


Yes, and you trust some limited _MBTI_ research made by ONE guy? Jeez, your logic is terrible.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol, I believe they are, but everybody here scolds you for crossing the two over. Sigh I'm over this. I'm still waiting for Jeremy's basis for his claim.


No, no one scolds you for using synonyms. Just for you mixing MBTI and Socionics together.
There's a difference, _believe it or not_.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Yes. Because your MBTI nonsense is relevant here? :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a normal human response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you trust some limited _MBTI_ research made by ONE guy? Jeez, your logic is terrible.


It's not made by one guy, it's made by several instituitions comprising hundreds of researchers. You frustrate the crap out of me. Are you purposely blind?

It's an IEI response, not a everyone else response. I'm glad you've never picked up on it, at least you can rule out one type, from the Beta quadra. Tick


----------



## karmachameleon

@Freeflowingthoughts
Here are some socionics statistics for you. As you can see IEI is far from being the most rare type.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> No, no one scolds you for using synonyms. Just for you mixing MBTI and Socionics together.
> There's a difference, _believe it or not_.


You're the one who asked me about 'Ni doms'. No such types exist in this thread.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts
> Here are some socionics statistics for you. As you can see IEI is far from being the most rare type.


Nothing comes up. Anybody else?


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It's not made by one guy, it's made by several instituitions comprising hundreds of researchers, including Standford research centre. You frustrate the crap out of me. Are you purposely blind?


Link it then. Still doesn't matter though since theres a thousand ways to interpret MBTI and MBTI does _*not*_ equal socionics, I dont know how many times I have to say it to get it into your head.



> It's an IEI response, not a everyone else response. I'm glad you've never picked up on it, at least you can rule out one type, from the Beta quadra. Tick


Cutting people out from your life is an IEI response? I'm pretty sure I've seen all types do that. What's your argument?


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> You're the one who asked me about 'Ni doms'. No such types exist in this thread.


What. Just what.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Nothing comes up. Anybody else?


Oh yeah, you have to click on the link. Got it? :laughing:


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Link it then. Still doesn't matter though since theres a thousand ways to interpret MBTI and MBTI does _*not*_ equal socionics, I dont know how many times I have to say it to get it into your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting people out from your life is an IEI response? I'm pretty sure I've seen all types do that. What's your argument?


The Myers & Briggs Foundation - How Frequent Is My Type

I'm waiting for Jeremy's basis for saying IEI is 1/8th, or 1/16th. That's the only thing I care about now.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

You need to get a life. Is this all you do?


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - How Frequent Is My Type
> 
> I'm waiting for Jeremy's basis for saying IEI is 1/8th, or 1/16th. That's the only thing I care about now.


I did. Holy shit. Ill link it again then. Socionic Type Distribution Statistics


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> You need to get a life. Is this all you do?


Yep. And you're doing the exact same thing. :laughing:


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> I did. Holy shit. Ill link it again then. Socionic Type Distribution Statistics


Nothing comes up LSI/EIE


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Yep. And you're doing the exact same thing. :laughing:


I definitively answered you, and you keep going. 

I dealt with you pretty handily earlier in the thread. Is this retribution? Literally all I give a shit about is Jeremy and his proof. You can go and get your posts up to 2000, so you can take yourself out to maccas and buy a chocolate milkshake. Shoo now


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Nothing comes up LSI/EIE


I'll have to spell it out for you then.
Alpha Quadra - 61	Beta Quadra - 47
ILE - 15
M - 11
F - 4 
ESE - 13
M - 3
F - 10 
EIE - 14 
M - 5
F - 9	SLE - 12 
M - 9
F - 3
SEI - 22
M - 7
F - 15 
LII - 11 
M - 6
F - 5	LSI - 9 
M - 6
F - 3	IEI - 12 
M - 4
F - 8
Gamma Quadra - 36	Delta Quadra - 56
SEE - 13 
M - 4
F - 9	LIE - 6
M - 4
F - 2 
LSE - 7 
M - 5
F - 2	IEE - 16 
M - 10
F - 6
ILI - 10 
M - 8 
F - 2	ESI - 7 
M - 3
F - 4	EII - 13
M - 3
F - 10 
SLI - 20
M - 12
F - 8

As you can see, Ni doms are far from being rare.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> I'll have to spell it out for you then.
> Alpha Quadra - 61	Beta Quadra - 47
> ILE - 15
> M - 11
> F - 4
> ESE - 13
> M - 3
> F - 10
> EIE - 14
> M - 5
> F - 9	SLE - 12
> M - 9
> F - 3
> SEI - 22
> M - 7
> F - 15
> LII - 11
> M - 6
> F - 5	LSI - 9
> M - 6
> F - 3	IEI - 12
> M - 4
> F - 8
> Gamma Quadra - 36	Delta Quadra - 56
> SEE - 13
> M - 4
> F - 9	LIE - 6
> M - 4
> F - 2
> LSE - 7
> M - 5
> F - 2	IEE - 16
> M - 10
> F - 6
> ILI - 10
> M - 8
> F - 2	ESI - 7
> M - 3
> F - 4	EII - 13
> M - 3
> F - 10
> SLI - 20
> M - 12
> F - 8
> 
> As you can see, Ni doms are far from being rare.


*Snorts IEI and EIE over 12 % for both is ridiculous. Copy and paste the sources for this.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I definitively answered you, and you keep going.
> 
> I dealt with you pretty handily earlier in the thread. Is this retribution? Literally all I give a shit about is Jeremy and his proof. You can go and get your posts up to 2000, so you can take yourself out to maccas and buy a chocolate milkshake. Shoo now


Yes, i do think it's funny to argue against you since you're so clueless. :laughing:

Since you asked about Jeremy, if you know math (which im not entirely sure you do) he said that IEI and EII make up 1/8 of the population. Split this in half and you'll get 1/16 :O wow. His theory is that the types are evenly spread. Which is kind of true.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> *Snorts IEI and EIE over 12 % for both is ridiculous. Copy and paste the sources for this.


I did 2 times. Now go cry that IEI isnt the rarest type. :laughing:


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> I did 2 times. Now go cry that IEI isnt the rarest type. :laughing:


I'll ask again, copy and paste the sources.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Again, what is your basis for this?


Non-bias in arbitrarily decided matrices.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> Yes, i do think it's funny to argue against you since you're so clueless. :laughing:
> 
> Since you asked about Jeremy, if you know math (which im not entirely sure you do) he said that IEI and EII make up 1/8 of the population. Split this in half and you'll get 1/16 :O wow. His theory is that the types are evenly spread. Which is kind of true.


You say types are evenly spread, yet SEI is 22% and LIE is 6%. Sigh...

This isn't even fun anymore. You love the drama, your stats have strangled you around the neck, and contra-fucking-dicted your premise. Shut up now, I don't want this thread locked. I'm waiting on Jeremy, not you.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Non-bias in arbitrarily decided matrices.


Alright you're a troll. You literally wrote nothing. Explain what you just wrote, and _how_ it validates your claim that IEI is 1/16th of the population, that would clear everything up.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Alright you're a troll. You literally just wrote nothing. If you can explain what you just wrote, and how it validates your claim, that would clear everything up. Alternatively, _link your reasoning_. Karmachamelons stats, do _not_ validate what you're saying.


Your personal matrices define your personal views of the population distributions. MBTI's are known. You simply assume that the population distributions are similar between systems. MBTI has the population distributions that it does, due to the creators' matrices being biased towards placing themselves as a small minority group. The Big 5, on the other hand, attempts to maintain normalized population distributions, which is why it is more widely accepted than MBTI. Because there is no aggregate council or organization that maintains the typing matrices of Socionics, the individual is left to determine their own subjective matrices for determining their own placement of others' types. So, you may inject your own subjective biases of population distribution into an already subjectively determined system, or you can mitigate it in the same manner as the Big 5.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your personal matrices define your personal views of the population distributions. MBTI's are known. You simply assume that the population distributions are similar between systems. MBTI has the population distributions that it does, due to the creators' matrices being biased towards placing themselves as a small minority group. The Big 5, on the other hand, attempts to maintain normalized population distributions, which is why it is more widely accepted than MBTI. Because there is no aggregate council or organization that maintains the typing matrices of Socionics, the individual is left to determine their own subjective matrices for determining their own placement of others' types. So, you may inject your own subjective biases of population distribution into an already subjectively determined system, or you can mitigate it in the same manner as the Big 5.


It saddens me so much that you represent the normality of this forum.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your personal matrices define your personal views of the population distributions. MBTI's are known. You simply assume that the population distributions are similar between systems. MBTI has the population distributions that it does, due to the creators' matrices being biased towards placing themselves as a small minority group. The Big 5, on the other hand, attempts to maintain normalized population distributions, which is why it is more widely accepted than MBTI. Because there is no aggregate council or organization that maintains the typing matrices of Socionics, the individual is left to determine their own subjective matrices for determining their own placement of others' types. So, you may inject your own subjective biases of population distribution into an already subjectively determined system, or you can mitigate it in the same manner as the Big 5.


Are you telling me your basis for saying that IEI is 1/16th of the population, is that it's your 'personal view'? I'm speechless.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It saddens me so much that you represent the normality of this forum.


You can't counter it, because you cannot counter objective fact. Jung gave descriptions of cognitive functions in minor detail. Myers-Briggs used her own subjectivity impressions of these to create dichotomous scalar categories upon assessment questionnaires which she created and then grouped them accordingly. The questionnaire created the groups, not the other way around. Due to her ongoing self-esteem issues in her life, she precociously created the questionnaire to place herself and her mother into minority groups. Socionics has no questionnaire nor uniformly adopted and maintained matrices for typing. Due to your own personal life affairs, you're simply transposing one system's minority group onto another system which has no uniformly defined population distributions. Rather than use scientific theory, you instead wish to reject it to maintain the self-image you've heavily invested yourself into. You could simply look at the systems objectively, but refuse to do so.

If you want my advice, you should stop looking at typology for the label which defines your existence, as the more correct label becomes more apparent each day.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Are you telling me your basis for saying that IEI is 1/16th of the population, is that it's your 'personal view'? I'm speechless.


It's the most objective view.


----------



## Arto

The way i see it is that all these psychological models, should not be compared in search for mutual voracity.
But instead as different systems. Our thoughts add more to these models than what we read or study about them, terms clearly understood become images, terms not clearly understood also become images. The models have very different semantics, confusion at some point is inevitable. Therefore complete objectivity, will not transpire.


----------



## Arto

Jeremy8419 said:


> Socionics has logic, ethics, sensing, intuition, extrotrim, introtrim, rationality, and irrationality.


Rationality and irrationality *are* judging and percieving, i've seen in referenced to in some socionic articles


----------



## Jeremy8419

Arto said:


> Rationality and irrationality *are* judging and percieving, i've seen in referenced to in some socionic articles


They aren't. You may want to check your references. Search for threads started by myself. I have a list of references.


----------



## O_o

Jeremy8419 said:


> Trolling implies intent to troll. I'm just sharing knowledge on the multiple systems.


No. You're not large enough to be a troll, such as the one in the piece. His foot would be a good foot larger than you, which wouldn't serve for much of a fun time. But it's good ego-pumping music, living life on the Norwegian mountain edge, never knowing what might pop up out of the infraction mountain cave. There's a very nice crescendo going on throughout that whole piece, keeps you nice and on edge.


----------



## Jeremy8419

O_o said:


> No. You're not large enough to be a troll, such as the one in the piece. His foot would be a good foot larger than you, which wouldn't serve for much of a fun time. But it's good ego-pumping music, living life on the Norwegian mountain edge, never knowing what might pop up out of the infraction mountain cave. There's a very nice crescendo going on throughout that whole piece, keeps you nice and on edge.


I'll pass. Thanks though lol


----------



## Arto

Jeremy8419 said:


> They aren't. You may want to check your references. Search for threads started by myself. I have a list of references.


Just stating that i have seen rationality as first function called Judging e/i and irrationality percieving e/i


----------



## Jeremy8419

Arto said:


> Just stating that i have seen rationality as first function called Judging e/i and irrationality percieving e/i


It wouldn't be from a Socionics reference then, but rather from an MBTI enthusiast giving their thoughts on Socionics.

Here's some resources, if you're looking to learn more about Socionics.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/676674-resource-list-resource-websites-credibility.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ype-descriptions-system-school-socionics.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/602346-socionics-typology-jung-myers-briggs-model-b.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/786738-random-strat-stuff-fractals-reinin.html


----------



## O_o

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'll pass. Thanks though lol


Oh Jeremy, breaking the hearts of young women. 
I am a feisty thing though, like weed grass, and will come back. more persistent.


----------



## karmachameleon

freeflowingthoughts said:


> you say types are evenly spread, yet sei is 22% and lie is 6%. Sigh...
> 
> This isn't even fun anymore. You love the drama, your stats have strangled you around the neck, and contra-fucking-dicted your premise. Shut up now, i don't want this thread locked. I'm waiting on jeremy, not you.





> his theory is that the types are evenly spread. Which is kind of true


read

I didn't contradict myself. I never said anything about the type distribution besides that Ni doms weren't as rare as you think. If anyone is contradicting themselves it's _you_.


----------



## karmachameleon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I'll ask again, copy and paste the sources.


http:/ /www. tryukraine. com/ socionics/philosophy/type_distribution. shtml


----------



## Immolate

O_o said:


> Oh Jeremy, breaking the hearts of young women.
> I am a feisty thing though, like weed grass, and will come back. more persistent.


All that pushing and nibbling. I thought you were someone else for a moment.


----------



## O_o

lets mosey said:


> All that pushing and nibbling. I thought you were someone else for a moment.


Listen, spanish art, I don't need you interrupting my fucking meeting here. Spam world's been feeling cold lately.


----------



## Immolate

O_o said:


> Listen, spanish art, I don't need you interrupting my fucking meeting here. Spam world's been feeling cold lately.


 It's an improvement. Do continue :untroubled:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

lets mosey said:


> All that pushing and nibbling. I thought you were someone else for a moment.



Nibbling on these now:










They are fleshy. Like mashing eyeballs between your teeth. Squirt all over. Or like a head.Like when JFK got his head blown off. Brain matter comes flying out of these things.


----------



## Immolate

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nibbling on these now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are fleshy. *Like mashing eyeballs between your teeth. Squirt all over. Or like when JFK got his head blown off. Brain matter comes flying out of these things.*


I don't know what to tell you, Nibbles. Your bite is quite soft, but you can keep working on it.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> FFT you are not making sense. You are just looking for a fight, aren't you?


He is. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away.


----------



## Vermillion

lets mosey said:


> I don't know what to tell you, Nibbles. Your bite is quite soft, but you can keep working on it.


savagery. Holy shit.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> lets mosey said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that pushing and nibbling. I thought you were someone else for a moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nibbling on these now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are fleshy. Like mashing eyeballs between your teeth. Squirt all over. Or like a head.Like when JFK got his head blown off. Brain matter comes flying out of these things.
Click to expand...

Yuck. My mom eats those like candy.


----------



## Arto

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yuck. My mom eats those like candy.


They even taste like candy!


----------



## Jeremy8419

O_o said:


> Oh Jeremy, breaking the hearts of young women.
> I am a feisty thing though, like weed grass, and will come back. more persistent.


I'm more bothered about people, rather than by people lol.


----------



## Ixim

karmachameleon said:


> How do I show Ni? lol


Don't know. I just see rather uncontrolled Fe. Or, rather, some kind of hyper emotionalism, but that doesn't have to do anything with Fe. It's just that I've this system of hyper / hypo IEs...I could fetch you the thread... http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/609986-dimensionality-functions-ies.html ... there.

Back to important things @Jeremy8419. Want to exchange impressions? Damn I'm selfish :angry:


----------



## karmachameleon

Ixim said:


> Don't know. I just see rather uncontrolled Fe. Or, rather, some kind of hyper emotionalism, but that doesn't have to do anything with Fe. It's just that I've this system of hyper / hypo IEs...I could fetch you the thread... http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/609986-dimensionality-functions-ies.html ... there.
> 
> Back to important things @Jeremy8419. Want to exchange impressions? Damn I'm selfish :angry:


The 4D IEs i dont relate to any of those  
But i can not control my emotions when they are really bad and I'm sensitive. Like if someone breaks up with me I don't know how to handle it and I'll just bawl my eyes out until it stops somehow. I can easily force myself to get sad though. I always have. I have been avoiding crying infront of people I don't know cause it's a sign of weakness/vulnerabulity(is that a word) (E8 fix).




> -> Often late or early to meetings(BOTH applies!)


I feel like i've forced myself to do this (come late). I used to always be in time and people would be like "youre so great cause youre always in time" and I didn't want to be the good proper girl I guess.


----------



## myst91

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Duals are irritating. They can do everything you want to be able to do.


Not really. You don't want to be able to do your SuperID much, except a bit of the Mobilizing. It's more the Superego functions that can be irritating.




Graveyard said:


> Ne sees the object and its potential; its essence. And thus, Ne sees the possibilities within the object. No matter how preposterous it is, it's still an idea. For an Ne ego, no idea is too stupid. It seems random to some people because the leaps it makes from point A to point C seem rather illogical, but it has a reason to be. The point B in the middle is implicit for them.
> 
> Hope it helps. If anyone has anything to say, any corrections: please do so.


That Ne description is only true for Ne base; Ji will filter a lot of the Ne, easily devalues some ideas that are illogical or unethical.




ShieldMaiden said:


> Visions are at random, usually. I can't tell you how often I get them. I'm a "worst case scenario" type of person. If I imagine the worst case scenario, then I can be prepared for it.


Typical ISxJ "Ne inferior" in MBTI =p

(ESI to me is pretty much ISFJ in MBTI, a bit of ISFP perhaps if the Se is strong enough.)




ShieldMaiden said:


> Ugh. Socionics is just bloody frustrating to me. It often makes zero sense. To me, it's like a psychological math equation. Strictly logical, rigid in it's rules, drives me pretty nuts as it's super hard for my head to grasp.


Oh lol your conflictor made Socionics. And my supervisor. -.- Yes, the Ne is very annoying but at least I can deal with the Ti part alright.




ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh lord, now people think I'm hating on IEI 4's. XD
> 
> I'm most certainly not, I'm merely calling out that it's a huge trend for ESI 4's to think they're IEI.
> 
> Really... it seems almost 4's in general think they're INFx.


I totally agree, I've seen such people before and I did help them with typing into Fi/Se before 




karmachameleon said:


> I dont think theres any statistics on that about sociotypes. Don't mix mbti types and socionics types together. -_- GAHH when will people stop


Actually, yeah, I totally don't like it when people try to use MBTI labels for Socionics things but Graveyard was not mixing the two per se, just mentioning both systems.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I would like to see Socionics information on population, myself. Anyone have any?


No, but since the function dichotomies (except for J/P) correlate strongly with MBTI, the MBTI statistics could be used here too. I'm not sure. But according to that, types are not distributed equally.


----------



## Graveyard

myst91 said:


> That Ne description is only true for Ne base; Ji will filter a lot of the Ne, easily devalues some ideas that are illogical or unethical.


Oh. Well I guess I wasn't that far anyway.


----------



## Ixim

karmachameleon said:


> The 4D IEs i dont relate to any of those
> But i can not control my emotions when they are really bad and I'm sensitive. Like if someone breaks up with me I don't know how to handle it and I'll just bawl my eyes out until it stops somehow. I can easily force myself to get sad though. I always have. I have been avoiding crying infront of people I don't know cause it's a sign of weakness/vulnerabulity(is that a word) (E8 fix).
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like i've forced myself to do this (come late). I used to always be in time and people would be like "youre so great cause youre always in time" and I didn't want to be the good proper girl I guess.


Ignoring stupid reinins which are built on quite odd logic(ok, I understand Boole, but I don't think brains function like that...), what you just said made me think of ILI.

How do you relate to Ni and Te anyhow?


----------



## karmachameleon

Ixim said:


> Ignoring stupid reinins which are built on quite odd logic(ok, I understand Boole, but I don't think brains function like that...), what you just said made me think of ILI.
> 
> How do you relate to Ni and Te anyhow?


Don't really understand them. Te the least. So if someone could explain how someone uses Te and Ni on an everyday basis that would be great.


----------



## SheWolf

myst91 said:


> Typical ISxJ "Ne inferior" in MBTI =p


I've also heard this behavior is an E6 thing, too, however. Especially if Phobic.




myst91 said:


> Oh lol your conflictor made Socionics. And my supervisor. -.- Yes, the Ne is very annoying but at least I can deal with the Ti part alright.


I knew it. XD Learning Socionics to me is like someone slamming a textbook in front of me and saying "learn it."
So, I guess in that sense it's pretty Intuition heavy. It's categorization and such is very Ti.




myst91 said:


> No, but since the function dichotomies (except for J/P) correlate strongly with MBTI, the MBTI statistics could be used here too. I'm not sure. But according to that, types are not distributed equally.



Yeah, kind of what I'm thinking as well.


----------



## Jeremy8419

You're considering classifications but forgetting units of measurement. A slight alteration of word choices on an MBTI assessment will drastically change population distributions. Whereas Intuition in MBTI is described as vaguely ethereal, in Socionics the base descriptions are much more practical and realistic.


----------



## Ixim

karmachameleon said:


> Don't really understand them. Te the least. So if someone could explain how someone uses Te and Ni on an everyday basis that would be great.


In this case, either SiFe(SEI) or FiSe(ESI). Which one would you choose and why?

Also, Jeremy, what do you think by that? Examples?


----------



## myst91

ShieldMaiden said:


> I've also heard this behavior is an E6 thing, too, however. Especially if Phobic.


Yeah. Also I think ESI is pretty often E6. Ne PoLR of ESI specifically is like this, Ne PoLR of LSI is less "crazy" by default. 




> I knew it. XD Learning Socionics to me is like someone slamming a textbook in front of me and saying "learn it."
> So, I guess in that sense it's pretty Intuition heavy. It's categorization and such is very Ti.


Heh you really don't like Ti 





> You're considering classifications but forgetting units of measurement. A slight alteration of word choices on an MBTI assessment will drastically change population distributions. Whereas Intuition in MBTI is described as vaguely ethereal, in Socionics the base descriptions are much more practical and realistic.


This factor was not forgotten. On the whole however, it measures alright. A "slight" alteration will definitely not change the distributions "drastically". That's not how it works.

And I do think Intuition is pretty abstract. The part of the official MBTI test that I saw where it asks you to choose the preferred words from word pairs is actually rather good to determine function preferences.


----------



## SheWolf

myst91 said:


> Yeah. Also I think ESI is pretty often E6. Ne PoLR of ESI specifically is like this, Ne PoLR of LSI is less "crazy" by default.


I'm core 4 though. My 6 fix is pretty strong, however.



myst91 said:


> Heh you really don't like Ti


Obviously not. Lol. XD


----------



## Jeremy8419

Ixim said:


> In this case, either SiFe(SEI) or FiSe(ESI). Which one would you choose and why?
> 
> Also, Jeremy, what do you think by that? Examples?


Poor distinction is a primary indicator of Weak. When I read Fi/Fe and Ne/Ni, the clear differences in each set were like night and day. Logic I had to scratch my head on. If I wasn't so anti-Se, I probably would have scratched my head on Sensing as well.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

karmachameleon said:


> read
> 
> I didn't contradict myself. I never said anything about the type distribution besides that Ni doms weren't as rare as you think. If anyone is contradicting themselves it's _you_.


You contradicted yourself because your stats did _*not*_ back up your idea that population types are evenly distributed. SEI was *22%*, and LIE was *6%*. Huge discrepancy. It also contradicted Jeremy's point, because EII, and IEI were each put at 1/8, not 1/16 as he claimed. He also verified that he meant the big fucking 5 personality test which literally has nothing to do with Socionics.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

myst91 said:


> Yeah. Also I think ESI is pretty often E6. Ne PoLR of ESI specifically is like this, Ne PoLR of LSI is less "crazy" by default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh you really don't like Ti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This factor was not forgotten. On the whole however, it measures alright. A "slight" alteration will definitely not change the distributions "drastically". That's not how it works.
> 
> And I do think Intuition is pretty abstract. The part of the official MBTI test that I saw where it asks you to choose the preferred words from word pairs is actually rather good to determine function preferences.


Riso associated Enneagram 6 with Jung's introverted feeling type. I agree with that. It is a Fi type. Particularly with Se. They fit hand to glove.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> Poor distinction is a primary indicator of Weak. When I read Fi/Fe and Ne/Ni, the clear differences in each set were like night and day. Logic I had to scratch my head on. If I wasn't so anti-Se, I probably would have scratched my head on Sensing as well.


Funny, because Ni and Ne were always hard for me to grasp.

But, I've also heard that introverted functions are more difficult to understand, too. Fi and Fe were no problem at all, Se and Si no biggie, Te and Ti some, Ne and Ni were difficult. Ti is still... weird to me. When I hear high Ne talk it kind of drives me nuts.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> You contradicted yourself because your stats did _*not*_ back up your idea that population types are evenly distributed. SEI was *22%*, and LIE was *6%*. Huge discrepancy. It also contradicted Jeremy's point, because EII, and IEI were each put at 1/8, not 1/16 as he claimed. He also verified that he meant the big fucking 5 personality test which literally has nothing to do with Socionics.


SEI isn't 22%? Nor is LIE 6%? Source?


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Funny, because Ni and Ne were always hard for me to grasp.
> 
> But, I've also heard that introverted functions are more difficult to understand, too. Fi and Fe were no problem at all, Se and Si no biggie, Te and Ti some, Ne and Ni were difficult. Ti is still... weird to me. When I hear high Ne talk it kind of drives me nuts.


That would still place you as ESI most likely


----------



## Max

karmachameleon said:


> Just how they wont take charge of things and make the things that they want happen. I'm bad at that too.
> I am really lazy and behind af in school and everywhere. Trying to get a job but i cry everytime i dont get one i applied for.


Oh, I see. I, myself am getting better at both time management and motivation. If I can learn Spanish by myself in good time, I can finish my assignments lol but yeah, motivation is hard to come by sometimes especially when you keep screwing up your sleep pattern like me. 

I think that if you can get some time management and small projects rolling, it'll help you a lot. It doesn't have to be anything major. Just an hour/half an hour a day helps a lot, especially with studies  (Even making use of the classrooms/library suite after school or on breaks helps to get caught up )

And as for the job, it'll come. Don't worry about it. Someone somewhere has faith in you and will take you on part time. If I can get part-time jobs/work experience you have hope xD


----------



## myst91

ShieldMaiden said:


> Funny, because Ni and Ne were always hard for me to grasp.
> 
> But, I've also heard that introverted functions are more difficult to understand, too. Fi and Fe were no problem at all, Se and Si no biggie, Te and Ti some, Ne and Ni were difficult. Ti is still... weird to me. When I hear high Ne talk it kind of drives me nuts.


For me the easiest was Se, I just looked and it was obvious, none of its aspects needed further explaining, also Ti was obvious with a little reflection of mine on some of its aspects, then Ni and Fe were easy enough, in terms of instantly grabbing-grasping significant aspects of them, getting the rest of them was taking a longer time, especially for Fe... then Fi wasn't too hard to make sense of either, faster overall than Fe but initially I understood Fe more instinctively than Fi. Si was a lot of trouble until I could compare it with other things. But I still don't fully get Ne, haha, and Te is also kinda hard to get my head around too. But the difference between Ti and Te was immediately obvious and I recognize Te when I see it, just Te itself as a process is so weird if I try to understand or see the mindset directly. I have a problem with fully conceptualizing Ne but I can see the mindset itself a little bit. 

So idk but that simple pattern that ease of understanding of the IEs depends on type doesn't hold up  Maybe it does depend on type in a certain way but not that simple, apparently.


----------



## SheWolf

myst91 said:


> For me the easiest was Se, I just looked and it was obvious, none of its aspects needed further explaining, also Ti was obvious with a little reflection of mine on some of its aspects, then Ni and Fe were easy enough, in terms of instantly grabbing-grasping significant aspects of them, getting the rest of them was taking a longer time, especially for Fe... then Fi wasn't too hard to make sense of either, faster overall than Fe but initially I understood Fe more instinctively than Fi. Si was a lot of trouble until I could compare it with other things. But I still don't fully get Ne, haha, and Te is also kinda hard to get my head around too. But the difference between Ti and Te was immediately obvious and I recognize Te when I see it, just Te itself as a process is so weird if I try to understand or see the mindset directly. I have a problem with fully conceptualizing Ne but I can see the mindset itself a little bit.
> 
> So idk but that simple pattern that ease of understanding of the IEs depends on type doesn't hold up  Maybe it does depend on type in a certain way but not that simple, apparently.


Se was the easiest for me, too, even when I read Jung's take on it. Fi was easy in Jung, too, because I felt like a lot of what he was saying was me too.

When Ne users talk it sounds like "Why did the cat climb up the waterhole? He can't, it's not possible because alligators don't wear hats on Thursdays. Fish can't eat cake because of what it does to the ozone. Also, moms don't know how to read a seesaw."

Phew... even that spout of nonsense was hard for me to conjure up. >.>

It seems our two strongest functions will be easiest to understand.


----------



## myst91

ShieldMaiden said:


> Se was the easiest for me, too, even when I read Jung's take on it. Fi was easy in Jung, too, because I felt like a lot of what he was saying was me too.


Lol same with Jung's Se and Ti for me.




> When Ne users talk it sounds like "Why did the cat climb up the waterhole? He can't, it's not possible because alligators don't wear hats on Thursdays. Fish can't eat cake because of what it does to the ozone. Also, moms don't know how to read a seesaw."
> 
> Phew... even that spout of nonsense was hard for me to conjure up. >.>


:laughing:




> It seems our two strongest functions will be easiest to understand.


That would hold up so far, yes, but the rest of the pattern seems too complex or non-existent.


----------



## Graveyard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> If I can learn Spanish by myself in good time


Podría ayudarte a practicar, si gustas. Soy de latinoamérica, I know my shit. ;D


----------



## SheWolf

Does anyone else think that Lewis Carroll had to be a high Ne user? Alice in Wonderland has so much Ne. Likely Ne-Fi.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Does anyone else think that Lewis Carroll had to be a high Ne user? Alice in Wonderland has so much Ne. Likely Ne-Fi.


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.


----------



## birdsintrees

*This thread is going to receive a 24hr time out. 

There have been multiple problems in this thread over the past while and those involved should really take a hard look at themselves and consider their contributions to this thread. There are so many borderline rule violations here that it becomes nearly impossible to police the actual violations that take place. 

This thread, just as any other thread on this forum, can be subject to permanent closure if problems continue to exist. You can make sure it doesn't come to that. This is a hangout thread and there should be no need for it to be closed. This is not a threat; It is a reminder of what will happen if people continue to bicker and argue and continue to violate forum rules. 

So to remind you all:
- Discussion is fine. Do so without goading each other, without resorting to personal attacks (the open ones and the passive agressive ones). Do so in good spirit. 
- Think before you post: are you contributing to a discussion? Are you responding to the argument? Or are you trying to get a rise out of someone? Are you setting yourself up for unwanted responses? If the latter; don't post it. 

Be respectful of each other. Be mindful of the rules. 

You're welcome back in 24hrs.*


----------



## birdsintrees

Thread re-opened. 

To sum it up for you all:
- no personal attacks (implicit or explicit)
- be respectful of one another
- be mindful of the forum rules when posting


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

First!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Second!


----------



## SheWolf

Third.


----------



## Graveyard

Delta!

...I mean, fourth.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Graveyard said:


> Delta!
> 
> ...I mean, fourth.


Bloody brilliant, that's what that is.


----------



## Sygma

> - be respectful of one another


in a freaking beta quadra ?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sygma said:


> in a freaking beta quadra ?


[video]http://www.gestpedia.com/videos/98/respect-man/[/video]


----------



## Sygma

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> [video]http://www.gestpedia.com/videos/98/respect-man/[/video]


it still feel odd. if anything that thread should be closed every three days hahaha


----------



## Jeremy8419

Sygma said:


> it still feel odd. if anything that thread should be closed every three days hahaha


Maybe they could do like Sim City and have random earthquakes, tornadoes, and fires strike every so often lol


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Sygma said:


> in a freaking beta quadra ?


It's EIIs and SEEs causing all the trouble.


----------



## Lustghost

Hello. I think I belong here in Beta or if not, then Gamma. Also if anyone's interested and brave enough, I'm open to talking on Skype more in order to analyze my person.


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Bloody brilliant, that's what that is.


Why thank you, mate. 



Ghostbangs said:


> Hello. I think I belong here in Beta or if not, then Gamma. Also if anyone's interested and brave enough, I'm open to talking on Skype more in order to analyze my person.


I present to you the goddess of typing, representing the Besta quadra: @myst91.


----------



## Max

@All Afternoon sup?! 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It's EIIs and SEEs causing all the trouble.


Is it? Which people do you think are EIIs? I see the SEEs, although I don't think they are causing any trouble.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Arguing about some theory that makes no sense when they could be there helping people xD


Well, I was thinking insanely curious that could tear through your assignment


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Well, I was thinking insanely curious that could tear through your assignment


I'm leaving it until Monday, so my tutor can go over this again and also the new one he put up hours ago... -.-


----------



## Max

@All - Does anyone here do music? Or psychics? If you do, could someone please message me? I really need some help here. 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> @All - Does anyone here do music? Or psychics? If you do, could someone please message me? I really need some help here.
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


Physics? Or psychics? Lol


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Physics? Or psychics? Lol


Physics. I always spell it wrong. My bad. Bad Si xD I know you know what I meant because I know that you know how the two of them link because I know that you also have a strong N function


----------



## SheWolf

I wen't to this @All person's profile and they have 6 pages of mentions and have never really been active. XD I don't think that username was well thought out.


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> I wen't to this @All person's profile and they have 6 pages of mentions and have never really been active. XD I don't think that username was well thought out.


I thought there was a way to tag everyone on the thread through mentioning all. XD 

Isn't there a way? I'm too lazy to tag you all.

Also, at a restaurant and not ordering drink. I'm waiting until last for some free stuff ha xD


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I would totally make my username All just so other people do all the work of bringing me to the most interesting and active threads.


----------



## Max

Guys I getting dessert. I'm more excited about it than the actual event I'm going to see haha. Such a foodie!

I also have a stupid song stuck in my head that's annoying me and I'm singing it so much. Might as well learn it on the guitar eh?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Guys I getting dessert. I'm more excited about it than the actual event I'm going to see haha. Such a foodie!
> 
> I also have a stupid song stuck in my head that's annoying me and I'm singing it so much. Might as well learn it on the guitar eh?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


I love food too.


Tell me, what's it like to be naturally happy all the time? It must be terrible. XD


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> I love food too.
> 
> 
> Tell me, what's it like to be naturally happy all the time? It must be terrible. XD


It's awesome. 

Apart from all the times I become jealous and end up as Wontlythecuntbear xD 

Like this one girl is bringing me close to my anger point. Subtly. She knows what she's doing and I'm not stupid...


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love food too.
> 
> 
> Tell me, what's it like to be naturally happy all the time? It must be terrible. XD
> 
> 
> 
> It's awesome.
> 
> Apart from all the times I become jealous and end up as Wontlythecuntbear xD
> 
> Like this one girl is bringing me close to my anger point. Subtly. She knows what she's doing and I'm not stupid...
Click to expand...

O.O


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> O.O


What? You can't be a Beta without being a bit of an ass sometimes lol. You have to be feisty. Someone called me feisty once. Lol.

Stealing the wifi and waiting on a free drink here. I want something to loosen me up even more.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> What? You can't be a Beta without being a bit of an ass sometimes lol. You have to be feisty. Someone called me feisty once. Lol.
> 
> Stealing the wifi and waiting on a free drink here. I want something to loosen me up even more.


your so ILLEGAL ! freaking beta powa' !

now to break some foruum rulez, I think your an ESE or sth else. EIE (ni-ego) is a sad type by default and Beta NF actually is defined by melancholy.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Being a bit of an ass is fun sometimes. It oddly endears people to you when you are a subtly an ass and you point it out yourself. Gets a lot of laughs.


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> WontlyTheMoonBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You can't be a Beta without being a bit of an ass sometimes lol. You have to be feisty. Someone called me feisty once. Lol.
> 
> Stealing the wifi and waiting on a free drink here. I want something to loosen me up even more.
> 
> 
> 
> your so ILLEGAL ! freaking beta powa' !
> 
> now to break some foruum rulez, I think your an ESE or sth else. EIE (ni-ego) is a sad type by default and Beta NF actually is defined by melancholy.
Click to expand...

Actually he told me that he's more prone to melancholy than he lets on XD

I'm always melancholic. Too much "happy happy" gets on my nerves pretty quick.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

ShieldMaiden said:


> Actually he told me that he's more prone to melancholy than he lets on XD
> 
> I'm always melancholic. Too much "happy happy" gets on my nerves pretty quick.


I hate that too. Especially when "happy happy" turns into whining/depression/ex's/tears in a few minutes. I'd call myself neutral rather than melancholic though, I fuccking hate melancholy too. I probably hate the latter more, now that I think about it. :frustrating:



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Being a bit of an ass is fun sometimes. It oddly endears people to you when you are a subtly an ass and you point it out yourself. Gets a lot of laughs.


how do you become" a bit of ass" ?

Btw, after a bit of socializing I've some observations to share about quadras.

Alpha/Delta love bars, cafes where they can sit with their friends and talk and talk and talk some more. They bore me to tears after an hour or so. I dunno how they can find so much to talk.
Clubbing is a Beta sport. Alphas are likelier to dance together with their friends rather than joining in the crowd.
Most people are actually shy.


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> I hate that too. Especially when "happy happy" turns into whining/depression/ex's/tears in a few minutes. I'd call myself neutral rather than melancholic though, I fuccking hate melancholy too. I probably hate the latter more, now that I think about it. :frustrating:


Well, I guess it depends on how you define melancholic then. For me, it more so means I'm a bit of a pessimist. Not necessarily whining though. Jesus, I fucking hate when people whine. And I'm not referring to "Yeah this is what I'm dealing with right now" I'm talking the oh woe is me stuff. Ugh.


----------



## Immolate

crashbandicoot said:


> how do you become" a bit of ass" ?


 @Fenix Wulfheart I was going to ask you the same thing, but I like this particular phrasing.


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> your so ILLEGAL ! freaking beta powa' !
> 
> now to break some foruum rulez, I think your an ESE or sth else. EIE (ni-ego) is a sad type by default and Beta NF actually is defined by melancholy.


Do all Betas have to be emos? Shake it up a bit sometimes! Not everything's by the book. Even Betas aren't completely by the definition. If everything was by the book, everything would be crap. 

And no. Not an Alpha, just me and demonstrative showing through. And I have awful sensing. Believe me. 





Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Being a bit of an ass is fun sometimes. It oddly endears people to you when you are a subtly an ass and you point it out yourself. Gets a lot of laughs.


I know right? It's a part of my persona. 



ShieldMaiden said:


> Actually he told me that he's more prone to melancholy than he lets on XD
> 
> I'm always melancholic. Too much "happy happy" gets on my nerves pretty quick.


Yeah I know right? I like a balance between them all or else I explode.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

ShieldMaiden said:


> Well, I guess it depends on how you define melancholic then. For me, it more so means I'm a bit of a pessimist. Not necessarily whining though. Jesus, I fucking hate when people whine. And I'm not referring to "Yeah this is what I'm dealing with right now" I'm talking the oh woe is me stuff. Ugh.


I find it hard to differantiate between pessimism and realism but I guess if you are not feeling down as a result of your thoughts, its more realism.
I consider it whining when people start talking about negative emotions. lol, I think its Fe PoLR or sth, I dont like (excessive) displays of emotions, negative or positive. Negative one get on my nerves more, though.


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Do all Betas have to be emos?


That's just a consequence of people trying to pawn their problems off on TIM. Most people I encounter aren't even looking for things TIM-related. Having certain NTR "preferences" doesn't make a guy an NF, it just makes him a "preference." Being a teen or young adult with societal or parental angst doesn't make someone "Se valuing," it just makes them have pent up feelings. Etc.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> I find it hard to differantiate between pessimism and realism but I guess if you are not feeling down as a result of your thoughts, its more realism.
> I consider it whining when people start talking about negative emotions. lol, I think its Fe PoLR or sth, I dont like (excessive) displays of emotions, negative or positive. Negative one get on my nerves more, though.


I use "whining" to refer to people expressing negative emotions for things they can change but instead choose to act like it's impossible or ingrained by God that things are as they are.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's just a consequence of people trying to pawn their problems off on TIM. Most people I encounter aren't even looking for things TIM-related. Having certain NTR "preferences" doesn't make a guy an NF, it just makes him a "preference." Being a teen or young adult with societal or parental angst doesn't make someone "Se valuing," it just makes them have pent up feelings. Etc.


Exactly. I'm allowed to be happy and smile. Sometimes. So are you. We're allowed to be ourselves sometimes. It's just how we are. You know? 

If everyone was the same, or as someone described them as being then things would be crap.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

See? Wontly gets it.

You be a bit of an ass by saying something outrageous. By pushing the boundaries of the people around you to the limits without going over the edge into actually offensive. It's...trying to push people as much as possible and get away with it, and learn about the person in so doing. And by smoothing it over and keeping things happy and upbeat, using the outrage as part of the atmosphere. Horrible jokes and stuff.

Cards Against Humanity is a wonderful example.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Heh. Have you all ever seen this?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Exactly. I'm allowed to be happy and smile. Sometimes. So are you. We're allowed to be ourselves sometimes. It's just how we are. You know?
> 
> If everyone was the same, or as someone described them as being then things would be crap.


ahah, am I also allowed to smile and be happy though ? however, this post was in line with eie so, you can also wear your beta badge from now on.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Let the *Age of Unknown Type *begin!


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> ahah, am I also allowed to smile and be happy though ? however, this post was in line with eie so, you can also wear your beta badge from now on.
> View attachment 515330


Why doesn't it light up and flash? XP


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> See? Wontly gets it.
> 
> You be a bit of an ass by saying something outrageous. By pushing the boundaries of the people around you to the limits without going over the edge into actually offensive. It's...trying to push people as much as possible and get away with it, and learn about the person in so doing. And by smoothing it over and keeping things happy and upbeat, using the outrage as part of the atmosphere. Horrible jokes and stuff.
> 
> Cards Against Humanity is a wonderful example.


AHA, thats what I try to do but then suggesting to throw the crying baby into thrash can is going over the edge, I guess ?
Coz u know, it didnt work. :tongue:



WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Why doesn't it light up and flash? XP


I'm actually really sorry about this. Will get you guys better ones, ASAP, skillfully handcrafted by the craftsman - SLI !


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess it depends on how you define melancholic then. For me, it more so means I'm a bit of a pessimist. Not necessarily whining though. Jesus, I fucking hate when people whine. And I'm not referring to "Yeah this is what I'm dealing with right now" I'm talking the oh woe is me stuff. Ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to differantiate between pessimism and realism but I guess if you are not feeling down as a result of your thoughts, its more realism.
> I consider it whining when people start talking about negative emotions. lol, I think its Fe PoLR or sth, I dont like (excessive) displays of emotions, negative or positive. Negative one get on my nerves more, though.
Click to expand...

Really, what my pessimism seems to stem from is my family saying I show a "lack of enthusiasm."

I don't care for overly emotional displays either.


----------



## Max

@Fenix Wulfheart - Cards Against Humanity is the best damn game ever xD Last time my friend brought her cards into school, like ten people came to our table and went to play it with us xD Good fun and a good socialising tool. 

And also, Dr.Franknfurter from Rocky Horror Show is a good example of that xD We typed him as ENFj too.
@crashbandicoot - Well tell him to hurry up xD I got an event next week at school. I gotta sing a Bowie song in front of everyone. We're singing Star Man. It'll be fun. We're making an impact also. And I'm playing the congas in Space Oddity. Bit pissed that I never got to do that one too because it kinda describes me when I'm on a downward spiral and thought it would be nice to inject some of that emotion into it. You know? Instead of it just being one man's vision, it could have been a composition of a vision of melancholy through the musicians on display. Told an amazing story but whatever. You win some and you lose some. 

No point in being bitter over life all the time. Life doesn't work that way. No-one always gets what they want. Even famous people. 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr inappropriate

ShieldMaiden said:


> Really, what my pessimism seems to stem from is my family saying I show a "lack of enthusiasm."
> 
> I don't care for overly emotional displays either.


Nevermind it then. Dont associate yourself with sth like that, i think it has negative meaning. Its up to you of course, but maybe you dont show enthusiasism because you arent enthusiastic about it ?

@Eie
Ok i'll let you be happy and sign while being eie at the same time. Are u satisfied ? Do.you have any other suggestions for life and how it works ? Thank.you


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

What's the new fad diet?
Parting the Red Sea.


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> Nevermind it then. Dont associate yourself with sth like that, i think it has negative meaning. Its up to you of course, but maybe you dont show enthusiasism because you arent enthusiastic about it ?


Depends. I just don't feel the need to be beaming with enthusiasm. Sometimes it kind of hurts or pisses me off, because I AM excited and appreciative, it's just not all in the surface.


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> @Eie
> Ok i'll let you be happy and sign while being eie at the same time. Are u satisfied ? Do.you have any other suggestions for life and how it works ? Thank.you


Listen. This song is pretty much my life right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvuOw8Z0Pwg


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

ShieldMaiden said:


> I love food too.
> 
> 
> Tell me, what's it like to be naturally happy all the time? It must be terrible. XD


ENFj are negativists too


----------



## Sygma

Beta NF hip hop tho


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Listen. This song is pretty much my life right now:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvuOw8Z0Pwg


I feel like you just changed mine. That's going in my favorites, which means I will actually listen to the same song more than around 3 times total.


----------



## Max

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I feel like you just changed mine. That's going in my favorites, which means I will actually listen to the same song more than around 3 times total.


Yeah. I like it a lot lol.
That's gonna be me when I'm like 50 lol.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sygma said:


> Beta NF hip hop tho


...I've given a rant like this to someone...This is amazing and is going in my favorites too


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Sygma said:


> Beta NF hip hop tho


Holy shit! That song is _the_ Beta NF song.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

IEI pretty certain. Specially the last part, and last line.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Sygma need algorithm for beta. Kthx.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Sygma need algorithm for beta. Kthx.


Beta's don't. 

It's pure Ni-Se


----------



## Jeremy8419

Doesn't hurt to Request. Eventually, it all comes back around.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Doesn't hurt to Request. Eventually, it all comes back around.


I just told you. It's pure Ni-Se.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I don't think he was disagreeing.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I don't think he was disagreeing.


Does anybody miss EJArandee? I do


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Does anybody miss EJArandee? I do


No.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> No.


I LOVED that guy. Duality lens is blind, I knew he was crazy, but still thought he was super cool lol.


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I LOVED that guy. Duality lens is blind, I knew he was crazy, but still thought he was super cool lol.


He was entertaining at first but then I got bored of him and kinda wanted him to go and take a chill pill of some sorts lol.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> He was entertaining at first but then I got bored of him and kinda wanted him to go and take a chill pill of some sorts lol.


Lol! He calms me. It's like he's speaking my subconscious. RE chill pill, I feel that way with ESTJs lol


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol! He calms me. It's like he's speaking my subconscious. RE chill pill, I feel that way with ESTJs lol


Apparently I used to be such a good impersonator of him, someone called me "E.J Arendee's dupe account." 

Those were the days ... 

I remember when I went through my Alpha Male ESTp 8 stage lol. That was fun. Seeing how many people took it seriously or not.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Apparently I used to be such a good impersonator of him, someone called me "E.J Arendee's dupe account."
> 
> Those were the days ...
> 
> I remember when I went through my Alpha Male ESTp 8 stage lol. That was fun. Seeing how many people took it seriously or not.


Lol that mobilising Se. I feel like ENFjs can ALMOST get away with it


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol that mobilising Se. I feel like ENFjs can ALMOST get away with it


Yeah lol. It used to be put into much worse things than that. Like breaking shit, lol. I used to have a bad bad temper, until I mellowed out a decent bit. I was a bad, bad moon bear. 

Now I'm trying the "less is more," , "I'm am awesome chill, zen dude," "meh", "relax bro" and "try focus on one or two tasks in a day in order to be productive" life philosophies and it's not that bad xD


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah lol. It used to be put into much worse things than that. Like breaking shit, lol. I used to have a bad bad temper, until I mellowed out a decent bit. I was a bad, bad moon bear.
> 
> Now I'm trying the "less is more," , "I'm am awesome chill, zen dude," "meh", "relax bro" and "try focus on one or two tasks in a day in order to be productive" life philosophies and it's not that bad xD


Lol! Bad bad moon bear ahahaha

I've always wondered about that, because that's still a form of Se, no anger, just grounded, but the two can quickly transition. Where as Ne, demonstrative, which you're supposed to align with, will make you the opposite of Zen.


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol! Bad bad moon bear ahahaha
> 
> I've always wondered about that, because that's still a form of Se, no anger, just grounded, but the two can quickly transition. Where as Ne, demonstrative, which you're supposed to align with, will make you the opposite of Zen.


Yeah I know. I used to be chaotic as hell, especially when I was younger. In class, I decided to go insane for the last three years of primary school (elementary school), and I even got a brain scan done, which was hilarious. 

I can be outrageous at times too and show a good usage of demonstrative Ne, especially with my ESE Mama. But yeah, I wanna try be more relaxed and productive for when the moment calls for it and reflect some more. 

But right now, I'm chilling in my bed. I'm gonna go do something soon but I'm thinking about a few things which is weird to be you know? I only ever really reflect in silence or at night time to gentle music. 

I'm still young anyway. I'm only 20, but I know that the wisdom I'm after will come with patience, deep thought, age and some experience.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah I know. I used to be chaotic as hell, especially when I was younger. In class, I decided to go insane for the last three years of primary school (elementary school), and I even got a brain scan done, which was hilarious.
> 
> I can be outrageous at times too and show a good usage of demonstrative Ne, especially with my ESE Mama. But yeah, I wanna try be more relaxed and productive for when the moment calls for it and reflect some more.
> 
> But right now, I'm chilling in my bed. I'm gonna go do something soon but I'm thinking about a few things which is weird to be you know? I only ever really reflect in silence or at night time to gentle music.
> 
> I'm still young anyway. I'm only 20, but I know that the wisdom I'm after will come with patience, deep thought, age and some experience.


I actually feel like I had a lot more wisdom when I was a kid. I feel like the more experience you have clouds yourself from the truth and derails you from your path. Other people can actually dumb you down, and lower your expectations. That's what I've consistently found throughout my life. If I just stayed the way I was, without seeing people and getting dragged down, I'd be so much better off. But perhaps therein lies the difference between Lead, and creative? 

Sorry, rant over.


----------



## SheWolf

Yup.
Betas are insane :')


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> Always up for a party but I dont see anyone around man. Where are the hot girls? Oooh, is it because... What you smoking, eh ? I need to reach your high as well :laughing:


*Invites some hot girls.*

You wanna smoke coffee? Awesome!


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> *Invites some hot girls.*
> 
> You wanna smoke coffee? Awesome!


Niceeee we are in. *calls to delta squad to bring some life to party* *yeah, you guys hit an all time low*

Ah somking caffeine. Mannnn, its gonna bee WUTT ? LEGENDARYY !!

I want to go to Vegas. Can you help me if your an American ? My goal is to be like dan bilxarian without the 4 heartstrokes he had before he was 32 .


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> Niceeee we are in. *calls to delta squad to bring some life to party*
> 
> Ah somking caffeine. Mannnn, its gonna bee WUTT ? LEGENDARYY !!
> 
> I want to go to Vegas. Can you help me if your an American ? My goal is to be like dan bilxarian without the 4 heartstrokes he had before he was 32 .


No! This is anti- ESTj party xD Okay, we can bring some NFps and thats IT! 

Yeah ikr? I remember the one time I wrote a story called Smoking Coffee. Diquan, one of the main characters was lazy as hell lol.

Meh, I don't actually live in America, but my parents have been to Vegas before, and they say it's awesome and insane xD Sounds like Beta territory.

The place where I live is like Porto or Rio, though. Not weather wise, but culture wise. We have a lot of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants here. Not complaining though, because a lot of them actually come here and work.

Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> No! This is anti- ESTj party xD Okay, we can bring some NFps and thats IT!
> 
> Yeah ikr? I remember the one time I wrote a story called Smoking Coffee. Diquan, one of the main characters was lazy as hell lol.
> 
> Meh, I don't actually live in America, but my parents have been to Vegas before, and they say it's awesome and insane xD Sounds like Beta territory.
> 
> The place where I live is like Porto or Rio, though. Not weather wise, but culture wise. We have a lot of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants here. Not complaining though, because a lot of them actually come here and work.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


Why, ESTj's deserve some love, too ! They are really cool and fun when they drink a couple of drinks... ok maybe not a couple but 5-6... ok ok they are chill after 10+ but still, dont tell me you dont have enough resources.
Btw dont tell others, i secretly like and enjoy Beta extravagance in some parts of life. 

Hmm, i ve no clue bout Latin culture , is that a good match for beta's ?

I think i ll go to sleep now , byee !


----------



## SheWolf

ExTj's are charming as hell to me :heart:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Graveyard said:


> Hush now, he's awesome.


What he said. Silly, but awesome.


----------



## Max

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> What he said. Silly, but awesome.


sawsome then

Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> What he said. Silly, but awesome.


You seem to forget that silly = awesome. ;D


----------



## Max

Graveyard said:


> You seem to forget that silly = awesome. ;D


----------



## SheWolf

Walking into the Beta thread like


----------



## Graveyard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


>


Someone get this guy a* Ti-dom, he forgot how to code!

And one for me too, I forgot how to English. :B


----------



## Vermillion

Graveyard said:


> Someone get this guy a* Ti-dom, he forgot how to code!
> 
> And one for me too, I forgot how to English. :B


I'm not a Ti dom but I sure as hell got the coding down. At your service.


----------



## Graveyard

Night Huntress said:


> I'm not a Ti dom but I sure as hell got the coding down. At your service.


Hello, yes, tech support? This picture didn't load properly. Do I need to buy a new computer?


----------



## SheWolf

Fuck coding. I have dropped every damn coding class I've ever taken. I hate it and have no desire to learn it.


----------



## Max

Graveyard said:


> Someone get this guy a* Ti-dom, he forgot how to code!
> 
> And one for me too, I forgot how to English. :B


I didn't forget to code, Tapatalk forgot to code. Tapatalk needs Ti, not me xD










Is what I was meant to post xD


----------



## SheWolf

Actually, in one computer science class I took, the instructor and I just DID NOT get along. I believe he was an LII. Probably LII-Ne.

He would explain things in a crazy ass manner that I could NOT follow along with. Random, scattered, would go on these tangents that had nothing to do with what we had to learn for the assignment. So much Ne from this guy. He would apologize several times because he claimed to "get excited" about his ideas and go off-topic but would never really get back to the main point. I literally couldn't follow a damn word the guy said. Thank goodness there were to-the-point instructions we could print out on the student website. There were a couple other people that sat beside me in class that would actually ask me for help before him, because I was able to explain it better to them after I finished the assignment than the instructor would.

He really seemed to favor those who had prior experience or just worked on their own. He went so far as to passive-aggressively insult my intelligence and one other woman's simply because we struggled to understand where the hell he was coming from.
@myst91 

Ne PoLR?


----------



## Graveyard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I didn't forget to code, Tapatalk forgot to code. Tapatalk needs Ti, not me xD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is what I was meant to post xD


----------



## Vermillion

Graveyard said:


> Hello, yes, tech support? This picture didn't load properly. Do I need to buy a new computer?


Have you tried kicking it a couple of times? If all fails just run it over with your car and it should be as good as new.


----------



## Graveyard

Night Huntress said:


> Have you tried kicking it a couple of times? If all fails just run it over with your car and it should be as good as new.


Golly, thank you lots! I'll prepare my Mac for the beatup. It totally deserves it.


----------



## Max

Graveyard said:


>


Is it me, or does Mika look a bit like John Mayer?

Or maybe John Mayer looks like Mika xD

Yeah, Mika looks like John Mayer xD

He's six years younger than him, so we'll go by that lol.

They're probably the same personality type too, lol. 



















No idea how that thought came to mind, but I like them both haha. 

Seriously talented musicians.


----------



## SheWolf

The only Mika song I've heard is Lollipop and I really don't think I want to hear any more XD


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The Perfect Storm said:


> Yeah, sounds more Ep (ILE). I had an IEE lecturer like that at University. His seminars were like a crazy conceptual wonderland, you never knew where you'd end up.
> 
> I have noticed I have a tendency to piss of some Ij types who see me as being too scattered, "shallow", and even "intellectual lazy". It's a tell-tale sign of that temperament, imo.


Lol, nothing bothers me more than shallowness. Nothing irritates me more when I'm speaking to my mother about something burning, and she points out I've got fluff on my jacket or something lol.Or worse, when I'm in a trance, and she'll be like "wake up", or something. ISFJs lol. I feel like it's not a temprament thing, it's just a sensing vs intuition thing. Perhaps even Si vs Ni thing.


----------



## myst91

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol, nothing bothers me more than shallowness. Nothing irritates me more when I'm speaking to my mother about something burning, and she points out I've got fluff on my jacket or something lol.Or worse, when I'm in a trance, and she'll be like "wake up", or something. ISFJs lol. I feel like it's not a temprament thing, it's just a sensing vs intuition thing. Perhaps even Si vs Ni thing.


ISFJ? ESI? SEI? Please just use socionics notation for socionics types, it's too fucking confusing.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

myst91 said:


> ISFJ? ESI? SEI? Please just use socionics notation for socionics types, it's too fucking confusing.


Ahahah, habit. SEI


----------



## Jeremy8419

Sounds like Ne+.


----------



## Max

ShieldMaiden said:


> @WontlyTheMoonBear has a short attention span. XD


What is an attention span? 



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> ESIs lol. There's something about them. They're magical


Oh okay. 



Graveyard said:


> Man, been listening to Mika all night and watching his videos. I thank you for this!
> 
> I don't think they look alike that much. They have similar faces, but Mika pulss it off much better. But nah, John Mayer looks shier and a tad bit more introverted. Mika looks like a total EIE though.


Yeah, have you seen him live? He's awesome. Total Fe energy xD 

Maybe John's an IEI?


----------



## Max

cyamitide said:


> I'm not seeing too much similarity besides complexion. There's some, but, Mika is looking out, John is looking in. Extrovert - introvert perhaps.


Possibly. 

EIE vs IEI?


----------



## Max

*Guys?*

*Guys...








*​


----------



## Kintsugi

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol, nothing bothers me more than shallowness. Nothing irritates me more when I'm speaking to my mother about something burning, and she points out I've got fluff on my jacket or something lol.Or worse, when I'm in a trance, and she'll be like "wake up", or something. ISFJs lol. I feel like it's not a temprament thing, it's just a sensing vs intuition thing. Perhaps even Si vs Ni thing.


Actually, it is a thing: Temperments


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The Perfect Storm said:


> Actually, it is a thing: Temperments


Lol, I'm aware. 

I realise it was only the delivery of which she delivers her Se,(ignoring) it's like a whip, and I'm vulnerble recieving that sort of delivery


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol, nothing bothers me more than shallowness. Nothing irritates me more when I'm speaking to my mother about something burning, and she points out I've got fluff on my jacket or something lol.Or worse, when I'm in a trance, and she'll be like "wake up", or something. ISFJs lol. I feel like it's not a temprament thing, it's just a sensing vs intuition thing. Perhaps even Si vs Ni thing.


This annoys THE FUCK out of me. I will punch you. Especially if I haven't had coffee yet! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Like I'm talking and they are like "There is lint on your shirt" "Your lips are chapped" "Your hair is sticking up" - like they can't look past these irrelevant tiny fucking details and actually listen to what I'm saying.


----------



## counterintuitive

ShieldMaiden said:


> The missing the point part pissed me off, too. He would actually end up talking about some new technology or advancing systems that had NOTHING to do with our assignments or anything. Like why the hell are we talking about this?
> 
> He was certainly Alpha. He had this "hippie-ish" side to him as in he was very interested in music and philosophy. Sometimes he'd even start talking about that in class. -_-" The class was about 2 hours long and a lot of the time I walked out of there not knowing what we were supposed to do still. I often had to check out online what our homework was because he would "forget" to mention it in all his useless babbling.


AHHHHHHHH I had professors like this too and it would drive me insane. I'm like, you're supposed to be teaching us and you're failing at it. Now, I'm not going to learn anything and I have no way to finish my homework etc. So annoying. I had to seek out tutoring because of professors like this. They are failures at their profession and probably at life in general too. Fucking waste of space. I think if you can't structure a basic lesson and stay on topic, you shouldn't be teaching college classes. Lol.



The Perfect Storm said:


> Yeah, sounds more Ep (ILE). I had an IEE lecturer like that at University. His seminars were like a crazy conceptual wonderland, you never knew where you'd end up.
> 
> I have noticed I have a tendency to piss of some Ij types who see me as being too scattered, "shallow", and even "intellectual lazy". It's a tell-tale sign of that temperament, imo.


Yeah, even I see Ijs as too uptight and deep Lol. That kind of lecture would drive me nuts. Where is the structure? Where is the point? I need a clear structure. Lol.



Mordred Phantom said:


> I suspect that I may cause that kind of frustration to Ej types, but for different reasons like being too inert and not caring much about doing anything unless it really interests me.


Yes. Yes, it does frustrate Ejs. Lol.



cyamitide said:


> Yep, shared with me by an EIE who thought it was very funny. I hated this vid lol


OMG That vid is awful!


----------



## cyamitide

counterintuitive said:


> OMG That vid is awful!


Some EIEs I've been with have had exceptionally dark senses of humor, sometimes with masochistic self-negating or scarifying associations and other times with sadistic ones. I've also met an (older, 50+) ESE who likes to joke around about how he's not needed and how he will die and nobody will care--which is so strange because he has many friends and a big family of 5 children and many grandchildren. It made me think if this is some kind of expression of 1d-Ti, like "I'm a pawn and this universe or fate will mercilessly deal with me", and whether humor helped them deal with that by conveying it in a socially appropriate manner.


----------



## DOGSOUP

I have to admit, that video made me crack up several times. It was hilarious! (The end was... kinda horrible... you know...)

My ESE friend is like... morbid jokes around the clock. Non-stop. Happy hour of dark humor, on the house. I do think it is a defense mechanism: 



cyamitide said:


> It made me think if this is some kind of expression of 1d-Ti, like "I'm a pawn and this universe or fate will mercilessly deal with me", and whether humor helped them deal with that by conveying it in a socially appropriate manner.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> This annoys THE FUCK out of me. I will punch you. Especially if I haven't had coffee yet! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Like I'm talking and they are like "There is lint on your shirt" "Your lips are chapped" "Your hair is sticking up" - like they can't look past these irrelevant tiny fucking details and actually listen to what I'm saying.


Exactly


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> This annoys THE FUCK out of me. I will punch you. Especially if I haven't had coffee yet! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Like I'm talking and they are like "There is lint on your shirt" "Your lips are chapped" "Your hair is sticking up" - like they can't look past these irrelevant tiny fucking details and actually listen to what I'm saying.


My mom does this shit all the time.

"Yo have part in the back of your hair", "You've got grass on your shoes", "Your top is crooked!"

UGH. I. DON'T. CARE.


----------



## Max

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. Have you all ever seen this?


That's something I would come up with, and actually try and market to a cinema xD But with Hector as the spoon murderer, and some random ass funny comedian as Jack xD


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. Have you all ever seen this?


_What the hell.
_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

QueenOfNight said:


> _What the hell.
> _


Priceless reaction.

@thread
Man, I really love the dedication that this guy has to his murder by spoon. Look how many spoons he has. What would you do if someone was that determined to kill you, and they could not die?


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> What would you do if someone was that determined to kill you, and they could not die?


Everything/one has a weakness. 

I always thought it was stupid in horror movies how they often tried to run away/hide from the killer. That's what gives them the advantage. You think you're safe, but they're waiting for that moment that you are vulnerable. Don't give them that. 

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" has merit, after all.


----------



## Jeremy8419

This makes me think of a Dual couple. Supposed to be one of the Beta ones?


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> Lol. I actually love that song and find it relaxing.  I love dark ambient music. I'm weird. Lol.



Nah, I love dark music disguised as happy pop songs !


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Nah, I love dark music disguised as happy pop songs !


*Did you mean: twenty one pilots*


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> *Did you mean: twenty one pilots*


No. That joke's sad xD 

Mika (I know you don't like him) has some songs like that. I think I just love them for the irony lol.


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> No. That joke's sad xD


twenty one pilots is mah shit though. 

Lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> This makes me think of a Dual couple. Supposed to be one of the Beta ones?



Dual couple:

Spaceless/timeless/formless Ni looking for Se to become mortal. Ni types are like pneumatics. Unearthly. Spiritual beings. Grabbing a Se woman is like a sailor on a never ending journey finally spotting land. A touch of Earth is the cure. Earthly Se. To tame the burning blade. To anchor us to Earth. 



*"Magic, the darkest magic. My soul swims in it. Scattered across time, trapped in the world of formlessness. Until I find her... and marry her... the girl with green eyes, the girl who can tame the burning blade."


*


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> twenty one pilots is mah shit though.
> 
> Lol.


I'm tired of them and their song stressed out. It was nice at the start, but now it's overplayed. I like having a break between songs that have been played more than 3-4 times a week. Usually at least a month or two. That keeps them 'fresh' to me. I even do that with Mika songs x'D.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Notice how he says two girls with green eyes? Green is obviously symbolic of Nature/Earth or Se. And there are two with green eyes. Two Se types. SEE and SLE. One must be sacrificed and one must be made a wife. Depending on your type.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Dual couple:
> 
> Spaceless/timeless/formless Ni looking for Se to become mortal. Ni types are like pneumatics. Unearthly. Spiritual beings. Grabbing a Se woman is like a sailor on a never ending journey finally spotting land. A touch of Earth is the cure. Earthly Se. To tame the burning blade. To anchor us to Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Magic, the darkest magic. My soul swims in it. Scattered across time, trapped in the world of formlessness. Until I find her... and marry her... the girl with green eyes, the girl who can tame the burning blade."
> 
> 
> *


So you thinks girl IEI and male SLE?


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I'm tired of them and their song stressed out. It was nice at the start, but now it's overplayed. I like having a break between songs that have been played more than 3-4 times a week. Usually at least a month or two. That keeps them 'fresh' to me. I even do that with Mika songs x'D.


I loved Stressed Out. Mainly because I relate to the lyrics so much. 

Mika wouldn't be bad, I just can't stand those vocals. A lot of his music to me sounds like it belongs in a kid's show. XD I have an IRL friend who loves him as well.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> So you thinks girl IEI and male SLE?



It is too mechanical in general. It reminds me of the Adjustment Bureau. How two people getting together is against "the plan". The plan in this case could be Socionics. 


But here is some fun for ya. Paula Abdul attracts me I'll tell ya what... lol


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> I loved Stressed Out. Mainly because I relate to the lyrics so much.
> 
> *Mika wouldn't be bad, I just can't stand those vocals. A lot of his music to me sounds like it belongs in a kid's show. XD I have an IRL friend who loves him as well.*


Meh, then it got boring when everyone started relating to it to be cool... xD

You obviously haven't heard this song before:






*DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT BELONGS IN A KIDS' SHOW? LISTEN TO THE LYRICS AND BE HONEST WITH ME! *


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Meh, then it got boring when everyone started relating to it to be cool... xD
> 
> You obviously haven't heard this song before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT BELONGS IN A KIDS' SHOW? LISTEN TO THE LYRICS AND BE HONEST WITH ME! *


I was referring more to musical style more so than lyrics. I don't pay enough attention to the lyrics to care one way or another. XD As I said, I have an IRL friend who loves him. Chances are I'll be hearing more this weekend, as she's coming with some friends and I for my brithday.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is too mechanical in general. It reminds me of the Adjustment Bureau. How two people getting together is against "the plan". The plan in this case could be Socionics.
> 
> 
> But here is some fun for ya. Paula Abdul attracts me I'll tell ya what... lol


Wasn't asking for a realistic answer lol. Just whatever your first impression of their types would be lol


----------



## Max

@THREAD @All PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD @Graveyard
Now I have an ACTUAL EXCUSE TO FAN OVER MIKA FOR ONE MOMENT!:







*IT TOOK ME LONG ENOUGH TO CODE THIS SO THE LEAST YOU CAN DO IS WATCH XD*


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Mordred Phantom said:


> That's the only Ne that a Ne PoLR type should be able to deal with, while Delta or Alpha Ne would be like bathing on acid. At least that's my reaction with EXEs, as their Fe makes me want to hit my head against my desk.


Lol! I've always wondered how you put up with SEE Fe. It is the most powerful, yet superflous demonstration of Fe I've ever seen. I merely ask, because ILIs tend to get so uncomfortable by that, and yet SEE is the most insane version of it (SEE and IEE)

Oh, and my ILI friends appreciate my Fe, I apprecate their Te.


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Meh, then it got boring when everyone started relating to it to be cool... xD
> 
> You obviously haven't heard this song before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT BELONGS IN A KIDS' SHOW? LISTEN TO THE LYRICS AND BE HONEST WITH ME! *


Sounds like someone with clinical depression about to knowingly OD on recreational drugs. Stopped a few. Haunted by the rest.


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol! I've always wondered how you put up with SEE Fe. It is the most powerful, yet superflous demonstration of Fe I've ever seen. I merely ask, because ILIs tend to get so uncomfortable by that, and yet SEE is the most insane version of it (SEE and IEE)
> 
> Oh, and my ILI friends appreciate my Fe, I apprecate their Te.


I guess that makes sense from the point of view that I sometimes come across as ENFp-like. I can demonstrate Ne well, but the concepts I do demonstrate seem to be pretty Ni-like, presented in an Ne manner.

It comes out around Alphas xD

Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> @ everyone. I made this post in the political correctness thread and it's pretty clear I'm not Fi PoLR after that. XD
> 
> Fi and "Political Correctness" - Page 3
> 
> 
> 
> Ego block is the most valued; that's why it's the ego block. Then superid. The subdued stack is not valued.


Lol, I get what you're saying, it's innately valued by us, and that's why we use it. The problem with that, is that it could lend hand to the idea that 'we can be whatever type we choose'. No, it just _is our Ego. We didn't choose it._ 

But, once again, _I'm not talking about that_. I'm talking about the reason why all types seek out their dual partners. I'm talking about our 'point of least resistance', and 'point of absolute weakness' wanting to be overcome, and neutralised. If what you're saying is true, I would be seeking out IEIs and IEIs would be at the top of the 'best relationship list'. We're not.

Do I really need to explain why we all types 'value' their _*dual seeking function*_


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol, I get what you're saying, it's innately valued by us, and that's why we use it. The problem with that, is that it could lend hand to the idea that 'we can be whatever type we choose'. No, it just _is our Ego. We didn't choose it._
> 
> But, once again, _I'm not talking about that_. I'm talking about the reason why all types seek out their dual partners. I'm talking about our 'point of least resistance', and 'point of absolute weakness' wanting to be overcome, and neutralised. If what you're saying is true, I would be seeking out IEIs and IEIs would be at the top of the 'best relationship list'.
> 
> We were just crossing wires on the meaning of value.


I was using the meaning of "value" that is used within Socionics in reference to the valued stack vs. the subdued stack. I don't know what meaning of "value" you're using, and frankly this sounds like more evasive Ni bullshit, no offense, so I'm done here.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Sounds like someone with clinical depression about to knowingly OD on recreational drugs. Stopped a few. Haunted by the rest.


You don't get it. Do you? 

Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> It's just that this world is complex. I don't expect to solve all the Ne mysteries in one go.


I wasn't complaining, FWIW. If the world weren't complex and had no unknowns, it would be too boring.



> I don't know what you call "ideas" that you don't really have, since this whole post is full of examples of thinking up ideas and options. So this statement of yours only works if your definition of "idea" is something very different.


I see Ne egos on this forum talk about fantasy worlds and space exploration. Those are ideas. I don't think about that stuff at all. I don't consider the kind of stuff I wrote there "ideas" in any sense.



> And this, I don't know again what different definition you use. You actually mentioned thinking up 200 answers that are not actually real - since they are not in front of you. And you said: _"I mold everything into absolutely anything else. Absolutely anything other than what it is."_ Again, this is what's meant by imagining stuff that isn't real. That is, imagining stuff that isn't what it is.


I don't deliberately think up alternate possibilities, is what I meant. If you put me on the spot and ask me to tell a story or think of a new idea, I'll come up blank every time. But I think of stuff unintentionally that is not in front of me. Obviously I wouldn't intentionally focus on irrelevant, off-topic information. It just happens. :/


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> You don't get it. Do you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


Well, it's a certain element pair, yes; however, if the person actually OD's, then it's not in the Ego.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> I was using the meaning of "value" that is used within Socionics in reference to the valued stack vs. the subdued stack. I don't know what meaning of "value" you're using.


Fair enough.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Not at Wooly, but...

Some people sound like they don't understand that Demonstrative is the base of who we are as individuals, and Leading is what we consciously process for the benefit of society.


----------



## counterintuitive

Jeremy8419 said:


> This makes me think of a Dual couple. Supposed to be one of the Beta ones?


For some reason the artist girl seems like the ST and the guy she's drawing seems like the NF. Just a vibe tho :crazy: :crazy: :tongue:




Jeremy8419 said:


> Some people sound like they don't understand that Demonstrative is the base of who we are as individuals, and Leading is what we consciously process for the benefit of society.


See, I thought the leading was the base of who we are as individuals (at least who we consciously see ourselves as), and the creative is what we consciously process for the benefit of society. i.e. the Base is for oneself, the Creative is for others.


----------



## Jeremy8419

counterintuitive said:


> For some reason the artist girl seems like the ST and the guy she's drawing seems like the NF. Just a vibe tho :crazy: :crazy: :tongue:
> 
> See, I thought the leading was the base of who we are as individuals (at least who we consciously see ourselves as), and the creative is what we consciously process for the benefit of society. i.e. the Base is for oneself, the Creative is for others.


Perhaps. The picture piqued my curiosity, because both female and male are highly idealized and a very strict minority group in the upper echelon. Near perfect facial symmetry, highly intelligent or educated demeanors, pinnacles of male/female. So, how does one classify such, when unlikely to encounter such experientially? Extrovert? Introvert? Which is which? The female is performing an extroverted task, yet displays perfect calmness. Likewise, the male is in an introverted portrayal, yet displays a somewhat hinged presence. Both appear to have a balance when combined, that puts both in an almost otherworldly level of combined equilibrium. No trace of need from either, because they are provided, and no trace of wasted provisions from either, because they provide efficiently and naturally. Hmmmm....

Yermak places Id as the start of the personality development. All schools place Vital as Individual superblock and Mental as Social superblock. Mental is Conscious Thought and Vital is Preconscious of the Psyche. I suppose an accurate way of thinking about it would be the Mental being the consequence of Vital: The engine of the psyche which underlies and drives the conscious upon society, which also is the consequence of the unconscious mind of the individual. Although the Vital elements corresponding to the Mental element counterparts are easily viewed as the background elements/functions of the conscious thought, such is viewed _through_ the conscious mind, which is already the consequence of the preconscious mind.


----------



## Graveyard

wontlythemoonbear said:


> @thread @all people in this thread @graveyard
> now i have an actual excuse to fan over mika for one moment!:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *it took me long enough to code this so the least you can do is watch xd*


YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD ALL THE REASONS TO FAN OVER MIKA.

ALWAYS.

Trust me, I know my shit.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> The Ti was strong in your example post. Fe was decent. The Fi was not. Sorry to disappoint.


Lol I started smiling maniacally when I read "Fe was decent". Decent!!! Yay!!! _SO_ not disappointing! Thank you! :kitteh:



> I'm thinking I see Fe HA from you, and a misunderstanding of how Fi and Fe work.


Misunderstanding of Fi/Fe - probably. I'm often not sure if it's really Fi I'm seeing, or some kind of Ti/Fe wizardry to produce a similar effect. I often use Ti to analyze/conceptualize Fe norms also, like I wrote elsewhere (quote below). I also think I create my own rules/norms with Ti which suggests Ti is 3D+.

_There are also Fe norms on which Fe norms can be applied to different situations! There are 2nd order Fe norms determining which 1st order Fe norms can be applied to which situations. e.g. A 1st order Fe norm concerning emotional expression is simply "Don't cry at work." But there is situational flexibility in the application of this 1st order norm according to 2nd order norms. If you cry at work because a relative died or you received some other bad news... or on the positive side, if it's a retirement/goodbye party, etc... it's 100% socially acceptable to cry in these situations, yet unacceptable in other (more typical) work situations (e.g. if your computer breaks down, you go to IT, you do not start crying, haha). The 2nd order norm specifies situations where the 1st order norm should or should not be applied. So the 2nd order is variant WRT situations. The 1st order would be normative Fe alone. Clearly, I have the 2nd order as I'm able to apply it as well as describe it here in a conscious way. So my Fe is at least 3D. (ETA: In a real situation, I just apply it immediately and easily; I don't think about it like this.)_



> You seem to have a strong lack of interest in Ni, but less so Ne. Maybe Ignoring Ni, but then you demonstrate a lack of ability to even follow Ni so that doesn't make sense. Possibly Role Ne, something you have trained to do? Se-Ti-Ne-Fi-Fe-Ni-Te-Si, perhaps. That's...SLE? No, that doesn't make sense either. Well, maybe.
> 
> I don't think you are an ethical type, though. Your reasoning for ethical arguments appears to come from a Ti and Fe perspective. Likely a perceiver type with Fe HA, or something to that effect.


Interesting. See, I thought thinking about ethical arguments/issues/concerns at all (political correctness being one such example) was a sign of strong ethics. Logicians pursue more technical concerns, rather than pursuing ethical concerns in a logical manner.

Well, both types with Fe HA are perceivers  (as in irrationals)... I'll admit my original typing of ILE is a lot more likely than SLE, just because I've consistently devalued Se... but not really sold. 



> If you wish, I can talk to you about this more elsewhere. Otherwise, this is my only post on the topic here.


You can, if you want, but I don't have an open type thread and I also don't want to start another one as I've had several type threads that have all basically led to the same conclusion. Lol. I'm hopeless. :crazy: :crazy: :tongue:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol! I've always wondered how you put up with SEE Fe. It is the most powerful, yet superflous demonstration of Fe I've ever seen. I merely ask, because ILIs tend to get so uncomfortable by that, and yet SEE is the most insane version of it (SEE and IEE)
> 
> Oh, and my ILI friends appreciate my Fe, I apprecate their Te.


At first I thought that they could be way too expressive, but later I got used to it as I noticed that it happens in a way that doesn't grate me unlike with base Fe. Creative Fe is easier to deal with as it's subtler than base Fe.


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> At first I thought that they could be way too expressive, but later I got used to it as I noticed that it happens in a way that doesn't grate me unlike with base Fe. Creative Fe is easier to deal with as it's subtler than base Fe.


So, how does Fe base grate you?

I thought it was interesting how everything my ILE instructor said just didn't make any damn sense to me. It's like we were vibrating on different frequencies sometimes. XD


----------



## Dragheart Luard

QueenOfNight said:


> So, how does Fe base grate you?
> 
> I thought it was interesting how everything my ILE instructor said just didn't make any damn sense to me. It's like we were vibrating on different frequencies sometimes. XD


It's like an ESE tries to push me to be part of a group and I feel like I don't belong there. Then the ESE keeps nagging me until I want to just GTFO from the place, but the ESE gets butthurt as hell >_> the other problem is when I ruin the mood and the ESE starts raging


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> It's like an ESE tries to push me to be part of a group and I feel like I don't belong there. Then the ESE keeps nagging me until I want to just GTFO from the place, but the ESE gets butthurt as hell >_> the other problem is when I ruin the mood and the ESE starts raging


Bah, yeah, that would be irritating as hell. I take it you've encountered ESE's IRL then? XD


----------



## Dragheart Luard

QueenOfNight said:


> Bah, yeah, that would be irritating as hell. I take it you've encountered ESE's IRL then? XD


I suspect that one of my aunts is an ESE DX


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> I suspect that one of my aunts is an ESE DX


I believe my mom is, too. -_-" 

The biggest thing for her is that she tries to "push" me to get along super well with my closest (in age) sister and that's... just not going to happen. She's always talking about how she tries to make everyone happy and wants there to be good feelings. Her intentions are pure, but sometimes her methods grate on me.


----------



## Kintsugi

QueenOfNight said:


> I believe my mom is, too. -_-"
> 
> The biggest thing for her is that she tries to "push" me to get along super well with my closest (in age) sister and that's... just not going to happen. She's always talking about how she tries to make everyone happy and wants there to be good feelings. Her intentions are pure, but sometimes her methods grate on me.


Ditto! xD

To top it off she is ESE 2 (which I think matches the ESE stereotypes more than anything). I actually have a few ESE 3 friends and they are NOTHING like my Mum, in this respect. They do push me in other ways though, which does piss me off at times.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Ditto! xD
> 
> To top it off she is ESE 2 (which I think matches the ESE stereotypes more than anything). I actually have a few ESE 3 friends and they are NOTHING like my Mum, in this respect. They do push me in other ways though, which does piss me off at times.


My SEI sister I believe is a 2 as well, but she still approaches things differently than Ma does. She doesn't take care of us so much on a grand scale and wanting us all to be a happy little family, but rather caring for us more personally. Though, where she gets on my nerves more so than Mom is that she is always prodding to know "what's wrong" with me and can be intrusive. I'm quite a private person, I don't discuss my feelings and in general am just broody by default. XD My melancholy drives my SEI sister insane.


----------



## Kintsugi

QueenOfNight said:


> My SEI sister I believe is a 2 as well, but she still approaches things differently than Ma does. She doesn't take care of us so much on a grand scale and wanting us all to be a happy little family, but rather caring for us more personally. Though, where she gets on my nerves more so than Mom is that she is always prodding to know "what's wrong" with me and can be intrusive. I'm quite a private person, I don't discuss my feelings and in general am just broody by default. XD My melancholy drives my SEI sister insane.


Well, I'm the "drama queen" of my family. They all think I'm bat-shit insane and that I need to pull myself together and "get over" my dark moods (which drives me NUTs. How DARE they invalidate me! xD)


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Well, I'm the "drama queen" of my family. They all think I'm bat-shit insane and that I need to pull myself together and "get over" my dark moods (which drives me NUTs. How DARE they invalidate me! xD)


My family doesn't really see me as the drama queen, but definitely think I need to "get over" my dark moods as well. Pisses me off. I'm very withdrawn. Even as a little girl, I kept myself occupied. My Mom even said I was a quiet baby. XD I only cried when I needing changing or was hungry. Otherwise, I didn't make a peep. That's still how I am now. Though, occasionally I'll have a meltdown. Namely if school or something is putting stress on me.


----------



## counterintuitive

My mom's an ESE too, I think (though everyone seems to think their mother is ESE so I doubt that typing sometimes  - she's definitely some kind of Ne-valuing ethician anyway, with 1D Ti most likely, so IEE would be the other alternative). She does the same thing, she'd push me to get along with her friends' kids and things growing up too. She just wants everyone to get along. I didn't necessarily mind (I'm Fe valuing too), but often these were people who would talk shit about her behind her back and other things I won't mention and she'd still be trying to make them like her / endear herself to them. Then when there were people who genuinely got along, she'd separate them if they didn't fit certain criteria, e.g. if a brother and a sister played sports together and she believed the girl shouldn't be playing sports. These days, she's less dependent on others' approval and seems more able to think for herself and make her own decisions. She's more inclusive too and doesn't necessarily subscribe to social norms. Btw, I think she's a 3. That does deviate from the ESE 2 stereotype as well.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I don't give a fuck about you and me. Just shut up


I'm not going to leave a forum just to please you dude. Stop harassing me all the time. Calling me passive-aggressive is an insult and also untrue.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm not going to leave a forum just to please you dude. Stop harassing me all the time. Calling me passive-aggressive is an insult and also untrue.


Jeremy, be quiet.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Jeremy, be quiet.


It's not your forum.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not your forum.


Jeremy, stop talking to me.


----------



## Kintsugi

Heads-up,

you can put each other on IGNORE, guys.

Please don't get the sub-forum closed again. Take it to PM if you must.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The Perfect Storm said:


> Heads-up,
> 
> you can put each other on IGNORE, guys.
> 
> Please don't get the sub-forum closed again. Take it to PM if you must.


Agreed.


----------



## Max

@Graveyard - Of course. One of my fave songs, and one of my fave singers performing it xD

@ PEOPLE HERE- Seriously. Are we gonna start another fight, get the thread closed, get it re-opened and keep arguing over stuff? I know we're fiesty and we're Betas, but come on guys! If you wanna fight, go to the Deltas xD 

And I'm off to do my assignment. I'll be popping in and out throughout the day, when I need a break. I need to concentrate on turning Ti stuff into Fe stuff for everyone to understand xD (Well, my Ti Acoustics teacher has just converted the assignment into Wontly speak for me to translate into Fe speak. This should be fun...)


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> @Graveyard - Of course. One of my fave songs, and one of my fave singers performing it xD
> 
> @ PEOPLE HERE- Seriously. Are we gonna start another fight, get the thread closed, get it re-opened and keep arguing over stuff? I know we're fiesty and we're Betas, but come on guys! If you wanna fight, go to the Deltas xD
> 
> And I'm off to do my assignment. I'll be popping in and out throughout the day, when I need a break. I need to concentrate on turning Ti stuff into Fe stuff for everyone to understand xD (Well, my Ti Acoustics teacher has just converted the assignment into Wontly speak for me to translate into Fe speak. This should be fun...)


Jeremy's a delta. (It's no an insult, he literally said he is)

Good luck


----------



## Max

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Jeremy's a delta. (It's no an insult, he literally said he is)
> 
> Good luck


When did he say this? I'm literally not paying attention, I guess. It's hard to pay attention sometimes, when you're thinking about things and trying to read forum posts at the same time sometimes xD

Thanks. I'm trying my best here. 
I'm understanding it all now. 
This is so exciting.

*
On a side note:* This is what I'm like when I see some of these threads on the forum that are obviously troll/click-bait and they get serious responses: 










It's just so stupid... but it makes my day.. when I read the responses to those threads, Man.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

dup


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> When did he say this? I'm literally not paying attention, I guess. It's hard to pay attention sometimes, when you're thinking about things and trying to read forum posts at the same time sometimes xD
> 
> Thanks. I'm trying my best here.
> I'm understanding it all now.
> This is so exciting.
> 
> *
> On a side note:* This is what I'm like when I see some of these threads on the forum that are obviously troll/click-bait and they get serious responses:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just so stupid... but it makes my day.. when I read the responses to those threads, Man.


Lol! Please *help me* stop being trolled.


----------



## Max

Behold, ye wise signature...


----------



## Jeremy8419

Why Beta insists on making a big deal out of everything is beyond me lol.


----------



## Sygma

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> IEI pretty certain. Specially the last part, and last line.


Sorry for the link, it's not up on youtube yet but 

https://www.facebook.com/TonyHawk/videos/10154159009464695/

Some people versed in typing said he's most likely EIE, kind of agreeing with them. Not that it truly matters tho


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Sygma said:


> Sorry for the link, it's not up on youtube yet but
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/TonyHawk/videos/10154159009464695/
> 
> Some people versed in typing said he's most likely EIE, kind of agreeing with them. Not that it truly matters tho


Hmm yeah I actually come to that conclusion since then lol.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Jeremy8419 said:


> Why Beta insists on making a big deal out of everything is beyond me lol.


Jeremy, for the last time, 

Drop it.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Behold, ye wise signature...


What the hell is your post rank? lol


----------



## Max

@Sygma *Looks at your picture and video.* I think someone here's a little obsessed with Strange Music xD



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> What the hell is your post rank? lol


I dunno, one of the m̶a̶n̶c̶h̶i̶l̶ mods changed it for me, but I like it. It's awesome.


----------



## Sygma

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> @Sygma *Looks at your picture and video.* I think someone here's a little obsessed with Strange Music xD


I'm just listening to Tech n9ne recently and I love his lyrics


----------



## Sygma

Jeremy8419 said:


> Why Beta insists on making a big deal out of everything is beyond me lol.


Its more fun that way mang. Fucking infinite amount of pop corn and shit


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Sygma said:


> Its more fun that way mang. Fucking infinite amount of pop corn and shit


Question @All

SEI is supposedly a yielding type, but I've found they are incredibly resistant to admitting they're wrong, or accepting info outside of their experience. They also tend to be very critical (much like the ESE) of other peoples intellect. 

Contrarily, although ILI and SEE are obstinate, I've found they can be quite open minded. 

What are your experiences and why is this?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Someone in another thread was saying they don't know how to respond to the question about rules. What are rules? 

I would just post this song. Signs. Signs. Everywhere signs. Do this. Don't do that. Can't you read the sign? Put up a sign to keep me out but to keep mother nature in. If God was here he would tell you to your face, "Man, you're some kind of sinner." 

I learned early on that rules were wrong. I have always lived by the maxim that it is more blessed to ask for forgiveness than permission. 







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"​
_[Chorus:]
Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs
Fuckin' up the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign

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

[Chorus]

Oh, say now mister, can't you read
You got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat
You can't watch, no you can't eat, you ain't supposed to be here

And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" - uh!

[Solo]

And the sign says "Everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray"
But then they passed around a plate at the end of it all
And I didn't have a penny to pay
So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own fuckin' sign
I said, "Thank you Lord for thinking 'bout me, I'm alive and doing fine", oh

[Chorus 2x]

Yes! Some old song, called "Signs Signs", I wish we did write that one, but
We didn't - wow!

Alright_


----------



## counterintuitive

I've actually found Alpha SFs to be *too* yielding. Sample conversation:
Me: X
Alpha SF: yes, I totally agree
Me: not X
Alpha SF: yes, I totally agree
Me: I said X and then I said not-X. How can you agree with both?
Alpha SF: Yup, yup, I totally agree! *emphatically nodding*
Alpha SF: How do you reconcile those two positions then?

They also tend to shrug and say "it is what it is" when I press them to disagree with me.

I used to think this was intellectual dishonesty, but now I think it's maybe to avoid conflict or offending people.

In my experience, ESEs are more confident in disagreement than SEIs - perhaps because of Rationality or Se demonstrative. They respond better when pressed to disagree.

I'm yielding in the work sense of, if I cannot do a task I'll just drop it and move on to something I can do more easily. ;P



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some free app, man, I don't even know_


----------



## FearAndTrembling

That man of loneliness and mystery,
Scarce seen to smile, and seldom heard to sigh— (I, VIII)
​and
He knew himself a villain—but he deem'd
The rest no better than the thing he seem'd;
And scorn'd the best as hypocrites who hid
Those deeds the bolder spirit plainly did.
He knew himself detested, but he knew
The hearts that loath'd him, crouch'd and dreaded too.
Lone, wild, and strange, he stood alike exempt
From all affection and from all contempt:

-Lord Byron
​


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Somebody been gangsta leaning too much. He wasn't no gangster. He wasn't even a made man but acted like one and got wacked. 


This song is dedicated to my homies
In that gangsta lean

Why'd you have to go so soon?
It seems like yesterday we were hanging
Round the hood now I'm gonna keep your memory alive
Like a homie should a lifetime of memories

Going down the drain I'd like to keep stepping
But I can't get past the pain, I tip my 40 to your memory
Take a drink and I start to think and I
I know one day soon we'll be we'll be hanging out

This is for my homies
(This is for my homies)
See you when I get there
In that gangsta lean, in that gangsta lean


----------



## Verity

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> SEI is supposedly a yielding type, but I've found they are incredibly resistant to admitting they're wrong, or accepting info outside of their experience. They also tend to be very critical (much like the ESE) of other peoples intellect.
> 
> Contrarily, although ILI and SEE are obstinate, I've found they can be quite open minded.
> 
> What are your experiences and why is this?


Overall, I find Irrationals to be more open minded than Rationals. ESEs tend to have an annoying habit of being very skeptical and demanding empirical evidence of whatever ideas they don't agree with/understand, while at the same time proclaiming how their belief in crystal healing or whatever is fully supported.

It's likely the type differance, but I do find them to be the least open minded(I actually did even when I typed as EII). SEIs tend to be easier to discuss things with, but I've also experienced them to be less accepting of lifestyle choices that doesn't fall in line with their own.

Edit: I actually think LSIs can be just as bad as ESEs when it comes to being open minded, since not only do they disregard objective facts, but they also have a hard time considering alternatives to their own beliefs. Actually had an LSI say he didn't believe in causality once.


----------



## 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

This made my day! Infraction for Jeremy8419: Trolling/derailing and permanent ban.

Guess that means I need better days. Lol.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> This made my day! Infraction for Jeremy8419: Trolling/derailing and permanent ban.
> 
> Guess that means I need better days. Lol.


:/

Jeremy had his moments, but personally I thought he was harmless. He tried to ruffle my feathers a few times but I just rolled my eyes and dismissed him.


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> :/
> 
> Jeremy had his moments, but personally I thought he was harmless. He tried to ruffle my feathers a few times but I just rolled my eyes and dismissed him.


Now it's gonna be boring, 
and probably all polite 
and correct too. 

Without some crappy
fights D:


----------



## counterintuitive

My issue with Jeremy wasn't anything personal either. It was that he would share his...highly unconventional understanding of Socionics (one such example recently posted in this thread) and persistently annoy/troll anyone who responded to him. I've lost 2 type threads to this guy.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> My issue with Jeremy wasn't anything personal either. It was that he would share his...highly unconventional understanding of Socionics (one such example recently posted in this thread) and persistently annoy/troll anyone who responded to him. I've lost 2 type threads to this guy.


I've prevented derailing in mine with him by just ignoring him


----------



## Immolate

Verity said:


> Edit: I actually think LSIs can be just as bad as ESEs when it comes to being open minded, since not only do they disregard objective facts, but they also have a hard time considering alternatives to their own beliefs. Actually had an LSI say he didn't believe in causality once.


Perhaps not related what you're referring to, but it reminds me of someone I knew who argued there was no such thing as influence, as if all thought and action independently sprang from the void. Dismissal of facts, too.


----------



## counterintuitive

QueenOfNight said:


> I've prevented derailing in mine with him by just ignoring him


I did, but then he responded to other people who responded to him, resulting in a derail anyway. But it doesn't matter now I suppose 




lets mosey said:


> Perhaps not related what you're referring to, but it reminds me of someone I knew who argued there was no such thing as influence, as if all thought and action independently sprang from the void. Dismissal of facts, too.


Lol that Te ignoring can get aggravating. Even more so with LIIs sometimes due to their devalued Se. but the Ne leaves them open to alternatives to their beliefs more so than Se. So it cuts both ways.

My pronounced preference for irrationality in others strongly suggests I myself am irrational (and, thus, not ExE. ).


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> Lol that Te ignoring can get aggravating. Even more so with LIIs sometimes due to their devalued Se. but the Ne leaves them open to alternatives to their beliefs more so than Se. So it cuts both ways.


Whatever it was, it drove me batty.



> My pronounced preference for irrationality in others strongly suggests I myself am irrational (and, thus, not ExE. ).


Hm!

(How long will this last, I wonder.)


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> Hm!
> 
> (How long will this last, I wonder.)


Lol. So you have caught on to my inability to stick to one type for more than, say, 24 hours? :tongue: :crazy: :crazy:

I'm very sure I'm a Ti/Fe valuer and probably a Jungian extravert / Socionics extratim. So that leaves ExE and xLE. If we take ExE out, that's only 2 types left, lol. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


----------



## counterintuitive

So, @ everyone, not that anyone cares, but, I answered the philosophical 40Q. Should I post it, make _yet another_ type thread?! :crazy: :crazy:

Why philosophical 40Q, well, I already did the normal 40Q.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> So, @ everyone, not that anyone cares, but, I answered the philosophical 40Q. Should I post it, make _yet another_ type thread?! :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Why philosophical 40Q, well, I already did the normal 40Q.


THERE's A PHILOSOPHICAL 40Q???


----------



## counterintuitive

QueenOfNight said:


> THERE's A PHILOSOPHICAL 40Q???


Yeah, it's here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...we-know-philosophical-type-questionnaire.html

But that's someone's answers to it, with the questions. I can't find it without the answers. But I have a version of it without the answers somewhere. Lol. But it's not like it's an answer key, lol, you can write whatever answer you wish of course.


ETA I posted *just the questions*:

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...questionnaire-please-sticky.html#post27678562


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Verity said:


> Overall, I find Irrationals to be more open minded than Rationals. ESEs tend to have an annoying habit of being very skeptical and demanding empirical evidence of whatever ideas they don't agree with/understand, while at the same time proclaiming how their belief in crystal healing or whatever is fully supported.
> 
> It's likely the type differance, but I do find them to be the least open minded(I actually did even when I typed as EII). SEIs tend to be easier to discuss things with, but I've also experienced them to be less accepting of lifestyle choices that doesn't fall in line with their own.
> 
> Edit: I actually think LSIs can be just as bad as ESEs when it comes to being open minded, since not only do they disregard objective facts, but they also have a hard time considering alternatives to their own beliefs. Actually had an LSI say he didn't believe in causality once.


Hmm, not all irrationals. SLIs are pains in the ass when it comes to being 'right'. It would seem, to be an Si ego pattern. Anytime you bring in info outside of their sight, hear, taste, touch, see, they get angry, and accuse you of 'making shit up.' 

Lol, ESEs contradict themselves like crazy, they also make circular arguments in order to justify their pov. It's that weak Ti, but valued Ti. They want so desperately to master it. I think Se demonstrative also makes them incredibly resistant to 'losing'. 

What do you mean by casualty? LSIs are one of the most frustrating in person, I genuinely believed I didn't use Ne that much, but when I'm talking to LSI, I get so frustrated by Ne Polr lol. The most basic things are sat and processed for ages, and then they dismiss it. They also lack belief, and are so pessimistic about future possibilities, prefering to cling to the negative of the past as their reference (Si-)


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Bahahahaha! That case and point.
> 
> I'm NOT trolling you, I promise.
> 
> To me, my reasoning is simple, Fe has Ti as it's opposing function. You notice SLI and ILI Polr, it is very obvious, that is how it is for me.
> 
> And YES! I should have said meaning instead of sense!!
> 
> -Don't ever call me a troll!! Lol. I make perfect sense to myself ahahah


You still haven't provided that table you were talking about that showed the PoLR as the most valued function or whatever the fuck bullshit you spewed yesterday. Show me that table. Let's start there.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Seriously, lets keep things positive. 

Btw, Graveyard didn't supervise you either. 

Just be happy brother!


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Seriously, lets keep things positive.
> 
> Btw, Graveyard didn't supervise you either.
> 
> Just be happy brother!


This is the equivalent of punching me in the face and then telling me I'm putting a damper on your happy mood. I can't even believe this post is real. It's so insulting.

So, are you doubting @Graveyard's type or mine there?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> This is the equivalent of punching me in the face and then telling me I'm putting a damper on your happy mood. I can't even believe this post is real. It's so insulting.


Okay, you're done.


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Lol dude! I haven't shit on you once. All I said was LSIs have Ne Polr, ESE have Ni Polr, IEI have Te Polr. For christ sake, just chill brother. Eazy breezy  Jeremy's not here, this is a positive thread.


Like I said - it's all unintentional, but yes, you are constantly fucking shitting on me. That's how supervision works. Everything's fucking rosy from the supervisor's POV, but not from mine as the supervisee.


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Okay, done.
> 
> Stay the fuck away from me.


Glad to.


----------



## piano

beta beta beta


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> Glad to.


Nah, honestly brother, all you have to know is IEIs are not deliberately shitting on you. I think you're reading too much into the intertype relation too. Please be happy!


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

:happy::laughing::happy::laughing:


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

carpe omnia said:


> beta beta beta


Sooooooooo Beta


----------



## SheWolf

_I'm just over here awkwardly like_


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Nah, honestly brother, all you have to know is IEIs are not deliberately shitting on you. I think you're reading too much into the intertype relation too. Please be happy!


You said "Stay the fuck away from me." Now you are quoting me and telling me to be happy? How about you take some of your own advice and "Stay the fuck away from me.".


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> You said "Stay the fuck away from me." Now you are quoting me and telling me to be happy? How about you take some of your own advice and "Stay the fuck away from me.".


I love you too!! 

Happiness


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Mrm...k.

So, making sense =/= logic. Making sense is a phrase dating to the 1600s, where sense is taken to mean "what is reasonable". It is reasonable to see that not all people have to use logical analysis to understand something, such as aesthetic understanding. The difficulty here is that you are defining making sense differently than I am. Given my definition, which I googled to check, my previous statements stand just fine. So unless you disagree with me in my saying that not every person on Earth uses logical analysis to make sense of things, then I'm not sure where our disconnect is happening here.

What I do not understand, however, is why you are so offended by this. I disagree with you and explain my reasoning, and that is "shitting on you"? If you feel like you are being literally shat upon, why on earth would you keep hanging around us here? I do not understand.

It seems to me that if you are going to be this upset by these responses, it may be best to just let the subject drop. Let it Go, as it were.






Sorry, @FearAndTrembling, I'ma borrow your thing.


"Let It Go"

The snow glows white on the mountain tonight
Not a footprint to be seen
A kingdom of isolation,
And it looks like I'm the queen.

The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside
Couldn't keep it in, heaven knows I tried!

Don't let them in, don't let them see
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don't feel, don't let them know
Well, now they know!

Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door!

I don't care
What they're going to say
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway!

It's funny how some distance
Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can't get to me at all!

It's time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me I'm free!

Let it go, let it go
I am one with the wind and sky
Let it go, let it go
You'll never see me cry!

Here I stand
And here I'll stay
Let the storm rage on!

My power flurries through the air into the ground
My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
I'm never going back,
The past is in the past!

Let it go, let it go
And I'll rise like the break of dawn
Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone!

Here I stand
In the light of day
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway!


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So, making sense =/= logic. Making sense is a phrase dating to the 1600s, where sense is taken to mean "what is reasonable". It is reasonable to see that not all people have to use logical analysis to understand something, such as aesthetic understanding. The difficulty here is that you are defining making sense differently than I am. Given my definition, which I googled to check, my previous statements stand just fine. So unless you disagree with me in my saying that not every person on Earth uses logical analysis to make sense of things, then I'm not sure where our disconnect is happening here.


And given my definition, my statements also stand just fine. As you note, we are using different definitions. I don't care what the common sense (normative) definition of "making sense" is; people I know think all kinds of things are "reasonable" when they are not.

Like I said earlier: _If for example one could find meaning in artwork or bodily sensations or personal relationships or w/e WITHOUT making sense of those things logically, that would actually *support* my claim that "Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."_

I (sometimes) find meaning in stuff without making sense of it logically; as such, I stand by my statement that _"Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."_

Anyway, you are free to use the normative definition of what makes sense. But I won't be doing the same, because most of what people think "makes sense" or what they think is "reasonable" doesn't make much sense to me at all. I'm not going to buy into that. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.



> What I do not understand, however, is why you are so offended by this. I disagree with you and explain my reasoning, and that is "shitting on you"? If you feel like you are being literally shat upon, why on earth would you keep hanging around us here? I do not understand.
> 
> It seems to me that if you are going to be this upset by these responses, it may be best to just let the subject drop. Let it Go, as it were.


The shitting comment was in the context of Supervision specifically, not disagreement in general. It was also directed at another user and not you. I don't have any issues with you.


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I love you too!!
> 
> Happiness
> Freedom
> Simplicity
> Effortless


You said "Stay the fuck away from me." Now you are quoting me and telling me this bullshit. How about you take some of your own advice and *"Stay the fuck away from me."*





counterintuitive said:


> You still haven't provided that table you were talking about that showed the PoLR as the most valued function or whatever the fuck bullshit you spewed yesterday. Show me that table. Let's start there.


 @Freeflowingthoughts Still waiting on this btw.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

counterintuitive said:


> You said "Stay the fuck away from me." Now you are quoting me and telling me this bullshit. How about you take some of your own advice and *"Stay the fuck away from me."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Freeflowingthoughts Still waiting on this btw.


Counter, I can't find it. I'm sick of this fucking drama. Nobodies bullying. Being Ni, doesn't mean we're insulting you. 

I said that because you swore at me for being Ni and 'unintentionally' insulting you. This entire fucking thing is ridiculous. You don't realise you've lashed out for imaginary offences because of the 'darned supervision'. If you hate IEIs so much, don't talk to us.


----------



## DOGSOUP

QueenOfNight said:


> _I'm just over here awkwardly like_


Can I just...


----------



## counterintuitive

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Counter, I can't find it. I'm sick of this fucking drama. Nobodies bullying. Being Ni, doesn't mean we're insulting you.
> 
> I said that because you swore at me for being Ni and 'unintentionally' insulting you. This entire fucking thing is ridiculous. You don't realise you've lashed out for imaginary offences because of the 'darned supervision'. If you hate IEIs so much, don't talk to us.


I quoted it in an earlier post so it's there.

"I said that because you swore at me for being Ni" - no, the below post where I swore at you has nothing to do with Ni or supervision, it's about your earlier claim that PoLR is most valued.



counterintuitive said:


> You still haven't provided that table you were talking about that showed the PoLR as the most valued function or whatever the fuck bullshit you spewed yesterday. Show me that table. Let's start there.


That's still a bullshit claim that you have not substantiated.

_Sent from my phone doohickey using some free app, man, I don't even know_


----------



## DOGSOUP

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I dunno, one of the m̶a̶n̶c̶h̶i̶l̶ mods changed it for me, but I like it. It's awesome.


That is so cool/hilarious/outstanding. Mods should definately surprise all of us with something like this. I wasn't even welcomed by the horny café bot when I entered this forum


----------



## beth x

DOGSOUP said:


> That is so cool/hilarious/outstanding. Mods should definately surprise all of us with something like this. I wasn't even welcomed by the horny café bot when I entered this forum


It's never too late.

Welcome.


----------



## DOGSOUP

@bethdeth, thank you, this beautiful gesture brought me in tears.



> Bruiser MacBethKnuckles


More awesomeness...!


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Mrm...k.
> 
> So, making sense =/= logic. Making sense is a phrase dating to the 1600s, where sense is taken to mean "what is reasonable". It is reasonable to see that not all people have to use logical analysis to understand something, such as aesthetic understanding. The difficulty here is that you are defining making sense differently than I am. Given my definition, which I googled to check, my previous statements stand just fine. So unless you disagree with me in my saying that not every person on Earth uses logical analysis to make sense of things, then I'm not sure where our disconnect is happening here.
> 
> What I do not understand, however, is why you are so offended by this. I disagree with you and explain my reasoning, and that is "shitting on you"? If you feel like you are being literally shat upon, why on earth would you keep hanging around us here? I do not understand.
> 
> It seems to me that if you are going to be this upset by these responses, it may be best to just let the subject drop. Let it Go, as it were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, @_FearAndTrembling_, I'ma borrow your thing.
> 
> 
> "Let It Go"
> 
> The snow glows white on the mountain tonight
> Not a footprint to be seen
> A kingdom of isolation,
> And it looks like I'm the queen.
> 
> The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside
> Couldn't keep it in, heaven knows I tried!
> 
> Don't let them in, don't let them see
> Be the good girl you always have to be
> Conceal, don't feel, don't let them know
> Well, now they know!
> 
> Let it go, let it go
> Can't hold it back anymore
> Let it go, let it go
> Turn away and slam the door!
> 
> I don't care
> What they're going to say
> Let the storm rage on,
> The cold never bothered me anyway!
> 
> It's funny how some distance
> Makes everything seem small
> And the fears that once controlled me
> Can't get to me at all!
> 
> It's time to see what I can do
> To test the limits and break through
> No right, no wrong, no rules for me I'm free!
> 
> Let it go, let it go
> I am one with the wind and sky
> Let it go, let it go
> You'll never see me cry!
> 
> Here I stand
> And here I'll stay
> Let the storm rage on!
> 
> My power flurries through the air into the ground
> My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around
> And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
> I'm never going back,
> The past is in the past!
> 
> Let it go, let it go
> And I'll rise like the break of dawn
> Let it go, let it go
> That perfect girl is gone!
> 
> Here I stand
> In the light of day
> Let the storm rage on,
> The cold never bothered me anyway!



Is reality rational? Hegel said what is actual is rational and what is rational is actual. Basically meaning everything is rational. Things don't happen because of causes, they happen because of REASONS. Because reality is rational. It is a product of REASONING. It is an IDEA. When one appeals to gravity or natural selection one is appealing to a form of reasoning process. Like Hegel said, physics owes it laws and categories to thought alone. 

We insist things must be rational. That only rational things CAN exist. Anything that is irrational must be converted to the rational. Irrational thoughts. Ghosts. Courtrooms. Dostoevsky covered this brilliantly. About law. Reality has to make sense.


----------



## Max

DOGSOUP said:


> That is so cool/hilarious/outstanding. Mods should definately surprise all of us with something like this. I wasn't even welcomed by the horny café bot when I entered this forum


Yeah, I know right? I enjoy the mods here, and their senses of humor. xD

Really? Now, you were welcomed by me > Haha, same thing.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> Is reality rational? Hegel said what is actual is rational and what is rational is actual. Basically meaning everything is rational. Things don't happen because of causes, they happen because of REASONS. Because reality is rational. It is a product of REASONING. It is an IDEA. When one appeals to gravity or natural selection one is appealing to a form of reasoning process. Like Hegel said, physics owes it laws and categories to thought alone.
> 
> We insist things must be rational. That only rational things CAN exist. Anything that is irrational must be converted to the rational. Irrational thoughts. Ghosts. Courtrooms. Dostoevsky covered this brilliantly. About law. Reality has to make sense.


I agree. I think everything people do, in one way or another, is aimed at trying to make sense of things. Someone you care about is sad, you comfort them...this is the thing that makes sense to do. It follows. I see a ghostly presence, I try and understand why such a thing can exist or I try to rationalize that it does not in fact exist. These are the things we do, as people. We don't need rigorous logic or step by step analysis to make sense of something, but we do need to make the thing make sense. One thing flows from another whether it is understood or not. All things make sense if you look hard enough.


----------



## Max

I'm genuinely not sure if I want to be on here anymore.
I mean, I've been trying hard to avoid the drama, but man, it's getting more ridiculous by the day.
I'm finding it hard to just stay here and talk.
The atmosphere of arguing/fighting is just so strong sometimes.
And so pointless too...
All this damn crap could be solved by PMs, instead of all this stupid baiting through threads. 
All this pointless staring up shit.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I agree. I think everything people do, in one way or another, is aimed at trying to make sense of things. Someone you care about is sad, you comfort them...this is the thing that makes sense to do. It follows. I see a ghostly presence, I try and understand why such a thing can exist or I try to rationalize that it does not in fact exist. These are the things we do, as people. We don't need rigorous logic or step by step analysis to make sense of something, but we do need to make the thing make sense. One thing flows from another whether it is understood or not. All things make sense if you look hard enough.


Jung and Nietzsche both touched on how meaningless is a form of illness. Jesus said men cannot live on bread alone. Meaning they need more than all other animals. Not just food, shelter, etc. They need meaning. Not just something to live ON but live FOR. Nietzsche said that science creates a world we can live in. Where we can get things done. Math. etc. These things create a world we can live in. Religion does the same thing. It gives people a world they can live in. Meaning. Like Marx said, to ask people to give up their illusions is to ask them to live in a world where illusions are not required and that world doesn't exist. We are all trying to create a world we can live in.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I'm genuinely not sure if I want to be on here anymore.
> I mean, I've been trying hard to avoid the drama, but man, it's getting more ridiculous by the day.
> I'm finding it hard to just stay here and talk.
> The atmosphere of arguing/fighting is just so strong sometimes.
> And so pointless too...
> All this damn crap could be solved by PMs, instead of all this stupid baiting through threads.
> All this pointless staring up shit.


Erm...is there more drama that happened here since your last post? I'm the only one that said something between that post and the post I am now quoting... O_O

I'm sorry for anything I may have done that contributed to your feeling this way


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung and Nietzsche both touched on how meaningless is a form of illness. Jesus said men cannot live on bread alone. Meaning they need more than all other animals. Not just food, shelter, etc. They need meaning. Not just something to live ON but live FOR. Nietzsche said that science creates a world we can live in. Where we can get things done. Math. etc. These things create a world we can live in. Religion does the same thing. It gives people a world they can live in. Meaning. Like Marx said, to ask people to give up their illusions is to ask them to live in a world where illusions are not required and that world doesn't exist. We are all trying to create a world we can live in.


And it is because of the necessity of finding meaning that one must fight, for depression and stagnation is the home of meaninglessness, and one does not fight when one collapses alone into the darkness.


----------



## counterintuitive

Look @Fenix Wulfheart , I agree *insofar as* there are non-logical ways of understanding things. I experience this regularly. I come to understand things in ways that are not strictly logical. HOWEVER - and this is where we differ - I do not consider these non-logical understandings to "make sense". I only consider something to "make sense" once I have checked it logically to see if it *logically* makes sense as I defined earlier.

So, yes, I agree that people can have non-logical understandings of things (artwork, bodily sensations, and relationships being good examples). However, I do not agree that these non-logical understandings "make sense" (by my definition of "make sense" that I already posted).

That's the long and short of our disagreement. Not much to it.

Good talk. And thanks btw for your opinion on my type. 



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some free app, man, I don't even know_


----------



## Max

*-_________-*



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm...is there more drama that happened here since your last post? I'm the only one that said something between that post and the post I am now quoting... O_O
> 
> I'm sorry for anything I may have done that contributed to your feeling this way


Oh no, it's not anyone in particular. Just in general.

It starts off like this:










Two people in a thread start fighting...










Then more join in...










... And then it just gets RIDICULOUS!










And then someone gets hurt. 

And the cycle repeats.

Sane people be like: 









I don't mind conflict when it's called for, but all this thread bs is uncalled for. It's stupid. It really is unncessecary. If you have issues with people, just PM them! 

Just resolve it between yourselves like the men/women your're meant to be. If it still ain't resolved, just contact a mod and get it sorted once and for all.

Don't start public drama, and don't drag other people into it. Stop starting shit shows, everyone. Stop it!

Just grow up, all of you. 

Most of us come here to have a good time, and escape for a while. 

The last thing we need is DRAMA, especially when our lives have enough of it at the moment.

Drama:









/Rantover.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I agree with Wontly, drama can be funny but it gets out of hand and then it becomes a shitstorm. I've seen the same crap in Tumblr and it usually ends badly for most people involved in it. It's specially bad when they resort to vague posting and salty comments. So really, if you have more salt than the Dead Sea, then you should step back and take a chill pill.


----------



## Sygma

Funnily enough I have no qualms at all with LIE in general. I mean the good ones are something else and I'd rather have them hit my PolR in constructive ways every damn day than me being clueless and not doing anything about it


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I agree with @Sygma. Dunno if I could have said it better myself.

@counterintuitive
Fair enough. It falls down to a definitional difference, and turns out we weren't really disagreeing much anyway. Happens all the time to all kinds of people XD


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @counterintuitive
> Fair enough. It falls down to a definitional difference, and turns out we weren't really disagreeing much anyway. Happens all the time to all kinds of people XD


Yes sir it does, I've seen this happen a lot and I figured some clarification couldn't hurt ;P I agree that we weren't disagreeing that much.



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some free app, man, I don't even know_


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Heh, could be
> 
> That's the 'official' reasoning, so to speak? I was really just guessing there as to what the reasoning would be, based off my understanding of self-esteem in the psychological sense.


Yes, you ended up at the same conclusion, neat.




> My whole post seemed to reflect an understanding of common decency (by analogy to normative Ti's common sense, this would mean normative Fi), treating other people in a decent way and with basic respect. I'm not saying my Fi is great or anything, but I think I understand what it means to treat people with respect (tho this is not strictly the same as *having* respect for someone). I have a good grasp in general of what is considered decent and socially appropriate behavior. That can be Fe too, I suppose.


You do have an understanding that seems very Ti(Fe). I honestly tried to find Fi language in your post and couldn't.  I instead found easily relatable Ti and some Fe.




> Seemed as though the focus on inclusive language and such was rather indicative of strong ethics.


I see the same language as above. Hmm, null hypothesis, that makes sense.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Maybe Ignoring Ni, but then you demonstrate a lack of ability to even follow Ni so that doesn't make sense. Possibly Role Ne, something you have trained to do? Se-Ti-Ne-Fi-Fe-Ni-Te-Si, perhaps. That's...SLE? No, that doesn't make sense either. Well, maybe.


Uh, it wasn't Ni that he couldn't follow in FFT's reasoning. I couldn't follow it either. The issue with understanding those posts was not related to IEs/types.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Yes, you ended up at the same conclusion, neat.


I am smart! :crazy: :crazy:



> You do have an understanding that seems very Ti(Fe). I honestly tried to find Fi language in your post and couldn't.  I instead found easily relatable Ti and some Fe.
> 
> I see the same language as above. Hmm, null hypothesis, that makes sense.


Oh that's interesting that you couldn't find Fi at all? That's weird. Sounds like Fi ignoring. 

...or Fi PoLR. Obviously it could be that too. :crazy: :crazy:



> Uh, it wasn't Ni that he couldn't follow in FFT's reasoning. I couldn't follow it either. The issue with understanding those posts was not related to IEs/types.


Yes, sometimes when I do not understand a post I wonder if it's actually related to low Ti or low Ni or.. just some NTR factors.


----------



## myst91

Verity said:


> Edit: I actually think LSIs can be just as bad as ESEs when it comes to being open minded, since not only do they disregard objective facts, but they also have a hard time considering alternatives to their own beliefs. Actually had an LSI say he didn't believe in causality once.


There's Ne PoLR, I won't deny that, but I don't think I disregard objective facts, only seems that way when I think they do not add up properly. But I'll either know why they don't (and in this case I'm not disregarding the facts, simply explaining them in a way different from your way) or I will want to figure out how to make it all add up (so again I'm not outright disregarding the facts as I try to integrate them, it just may take time).

So please stop overgeneralizing about types in such a biased way.

I believe open-mindedness is NTR anyway, if I define it in this way, willingness to try and take in more information and update thoughts/views. How that happens is what would be type related. So while I, being LSI, may not seem open at all, I'm actually already processing things in my mind, just may take a while to arrive to a real updated conclusion.




Freeflowingthoughts said:


> What do you mean by casualty? LSIs are one of the most frustrating in person, I genuinely believed I didn't use Ne that much, but when I'm talking to LSI, I get so frustrated by Ne Polr lol. The most basic things are sat and processed for ages, and then they dismiss it. They also lack belief, and are so pessimistic about future possibilities, prefering to cling to the negative of the past as their reference (Si-)


I'm sure your LSIs also see you as taking forever to process the most basic things - basic from their POV and not basic from yours. Pessimistic is not something I see as applying to myself. There is the Positivist side, don't forget that. That combined with the Ne PoLR not thinking of not-yet-experienced possibilities makes me quite daringly optimistic in some things. The negative repeating experiences in the past, if they are not explained yet, they can make me ignore optimistic possibilities, yes. But as soon as I have managed to explain them and thus gain control over relevant variables, it will be a different outlook. It's also Ne PoLR being risk avoidant in a certain sense (when there is ambiguity).


What's typology theory for if it doesn't seem to help you all understand people with types different from yours...


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Oh that's interesting that you couldn't find Fi at all? That's weird. Sounds like Fi ignoring.
> 
> ...or Fi PoLR. Obviously it could be that too. :crazy: :crazy:


Good to remain unbiased. 




> Yes, sometimes when I do not understand a post I wonder if it's actually related to low Ti or low Ni or.. just some NTR factors.


There are lots of NTR factors.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

myst91 said:


> Uh, it wasn't Ni that he couldn't follow in FFT's reasoning. I couldn't follow it either. The issue with understanding those posts was not related to IEs/types.


Oh, I took his word for it, because it wasn't just FFT's posts. So...I don't actually know if Counter struggles with Ni. He just says so.

Now, if I were going to be seriously typing him...then things would be different


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@counterintuitive
Do you know why people say Ti for you (Or at least why I do, anyway)? It's because your logic is very static. You like to know a thing and have it be set in stone. it simply is true. See what I mean? Te is Dynamic, Ti is Static. So when you say stuff like this:

"And given my definition, my statements also stand just fine. As you note, we are using different definitions. I don't care what the common sense (normative) definition of "making sense" is; people I know think all kinds of things are "reasonable" *when they are not.*

Like I said earlier: If for example one could find meaning in artwork or bodily sensations or personal relationships or w/e WITHOUT making sense of those things logically, that would actually *support* my claim that "Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."

I (sometimes) find meaning in stuff without making sense of it logically; as such, I stand by my statement that "Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."

Anyway,* you are free to use the normative definition of what makes sense*. But I won't be doing the same, because most of what people think "makes sense" or what they think is "reasonable" *doesn't make much sense to me at all*. I'm not going to buy into that. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree here."

Where I bolded, you are setting boundaries and goal posts for the interaction. You go self referential about whether something makes sense in a static way. It's really rather admirable. You are quite certain in your information, and you know whether it is true or not based on the various thought processes you have. But the big thing that screams at me is the overall vibe that you believe a thing is TRUE or NOT TRUE, or possibly PARTIALLY TRUE WITH THIS BREAKDOWN AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT AND WHY. This strikes me as conscious use of Ti, because that is a form of logic that seems Static to me.

I don't much care to see things as set in stone like this, but at the same time I envy that certainty. It's like...I see the world as a composite of ongoing change, and I have a hard time finding certainty...and here you have it in abundance. Blargh

OH. And I am not saying you have high dimension Ti from just this. I am saying conscious, functions 1 to 4.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @counterintuitive
> Do you know why people say Ti for you (Or at least why I do, anyway)? It's because your logic is very static. You like to know a thing and have it be set in stone. it simply is true. See what I mean? Te is Dynamic, Ti is Static. So when you say stuff like this:
> 
> "And given my definition, my statements also stand just fine. As you note, we are using different definitions. I don't care what the common sense (normative) definition of "making sense" is; people I know think all kinds of things are "reasonable" *when they are not.*
> 
> Like I said earlier: If for example one could find meaning in artwork or bodily sensations or personal relationships or w/e WITHOUT making sense of those things logically, that would actually *support* my claim that "Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."
> 
> I (sometimes) find meaning in stuff without making sense of it logically; as such, I stand by my statement that "Making sense of stuff is not the same as finding meaning in stuff."
> 
> Anyway,* you are free to use the normative definition of what makes sense*. But I won't be doing the same, because most of what people think "makes sense" or what they think is "reasonable" *doesn't make much sense to me at all*. I'm not going to buy into that. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree here."
> 
> Where I bolded, you are setting boundaries and goal posts for the interaction. You go self referential about whether something makes sense in a static way. It's really rather admirable. You are quite certain in your information, and you know whether it is true or not based on the various thought processes you have. But the big thing that screams at me is the overall vibe that you believe a thing is TRUE or NOT TRUE, or possibly PARTIALLY TRUE WITH THIS BREAKDOWN AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT AND WHY. This strikes me as conscious use of Ti, because that is a form of logic that seems Static to me.
> 
> I don't much care to see things as set in stone like this, but at the same time I envy that certainty. It's like...I see the world as a composite of ongoing change, and I have a hard time finding certainty...and here you have it in abundance. Blargh
> 
> OH. And I am not saying you have high dimension Ti from just this. I am saying conscious, functions 1 to 4.


Oh, tbh I actually didn't realize I had an abundance of certainty. In truth, I have a hard time making decisions and nailing things down as I'd rather prefer options open and things up in the air. However, I do make logical distinctions and definitions and I have no interest in inconsistent, contradictory bullshit. The definitions themselves are open to change if an alternative definition makes more sense, but I'm not going to replace a definition that makes sense with bullshit that doesn't. Yes, I understand why people say Ti for me, people have been saying Ti since my 40Q thread, but it's not for these reasons you state, exactly.


----------



## Verity

myst91 said:


> There's Ne PoLR, I won't deny that, but I don't think I disregard objective facts, only seems that way when I think they do not add up properly. But I'll either know why they don't (and in this case I'm not disregarding the facts, simply explaining them in a way different from your way) or I will want to figure out how to make it all add up (so again I'm not outright disregarding the facts as I try to integrate them, it just may take time).
> 
> So please stop overgeneralizing about types in such a biased way.
> 
> I believe open-mindedness is NTR anyway, if I define it in this way, willingness to try and take in more information and update thoughts/views. How that happens is what would be type related. So while I, being LSI, may not seem open at all, I'm actually already processing things in my mind, just may take a while to arrive to a real updated conclusion.


You're misunderstanding the context. The OP asked about what our experience was concerning types and open-mindedness divorced from what the theory says, so bias will be inherent to the answer. I'm talking about my personal experience with the LSIs I've typed. I could be wrong, it could be misattributed, it could be an NTR thing, sure. And obviously there is another side to the coin.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> Oh, tbh I actually didn't realize I had an abundance of certainty. In truth, I have a hard time making decisions and nailing things down as I'd rather prefer options open and things up in the air. However, I do make logical distinctions and definitions and I have no interest in inconsistent, contradictory bullshit. The definitions themselves are open to change if an alternative definition makes more sense, but I'm not going to replace a definition that makes sense with bullshit that doesn't. Yes, I understand why people say Ti for me, people have been saying Ti since my 40Q thread, but it's not for these reasons you state, exactly.


Oh. Well, that is my reason, at least right now. That is what seems Ti to me about you. I don't remember what other functions I have seen from you, exactly. Eh. Any way. That's my fifty seven and a half cents. :happy:


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Oh. Well, that is my reason, at least right now. That is what seems Ti to me about you. I don't remember what other functions I have seen from you, exactly. Eh. Any way. That's my fifty seven and a half cents. :happy:


I just remember you thought SLE, because Ni was hard for them to follow, leaving ILE a little less likely.

_(Yay for low-key stalking the thread...)_


----------



## counterintuitive

Yeah, I find Ni* really hard to follow tbh. It's fine in ILIs but in IEIs I can't seem to follow their flow of thought at all.

But that also makes it unlikely that my dual is IEI, lol.

*Granted, I'm not totally sure it's Ni. I just find it hard to follow when someone keeps changing the claims they are making, it comes off to me as moving the goalposts in the middle of an argument, and when people respond to things that I did not say. I figured all of that was related to the IEIs here having strong Ni and me having weak Ni.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> Yeah, I find Ni* really hard to follow tbh. It's fine in ILIs but in IEIs I can't seem to follow their flow of thought at all.
> 
> But that also makes it unlikely that my dual is IEI, lol.
> 
> *Granted, I'm not totally sure it's Ni. I just find it hard to follow when someone keeps changing the claims they are making, it comes off to me as moving the goalposts in the middle of an argument, and when people respond to things that I did not say. I figured all of that was related to the IEIs here having strong Ni and me having weak Ni.


Moving the goalposts is Dynamic, I'd say, but not necessarily Ni. It could be Ni, Si, Te, Fe. Te is probably what irritates you, then. In a logical debate, the thing being debated is shifted to fit the ever changing logical environment.

Come to think of it, it is probably LOW Te that bothers you. Ineffective, poorly explained, hard to follow, Dynamic logic. Might be intuition too, but I doubt it.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Moving the goalposts is Dynamic, I'd say, but not necessarily Ni. It could be Ni, Si, Te, Fe. Te is probably what irritates you, then. In a logical debate, the thing being debated is shifted to fit the ever changing logical environment.
> 
> Come to think of it, it is probably LOW Te that bothers you. Ineffective, poorly explained, hard to follow, Dynamic logic. Might be intuition too, but I doubt it.


No, it's not a shifting environment. I'm talking about, I make claim X. Then the person refutes claim Y and claims they refuted claim X. They cannot tell that claim X and claim Y are different.

That's the kind of slippery bullshit I'm talking about.

Sometimes claim X and claim Y are very similar, so it's a fine distinction between them, but they're nevertheless logically distinct. Yet the person thinks they are the same.

Then by changing the claims they are making, I mean when someone is making subtly different claims in each post and yet claiming that they are all the same claim. They seem to think these claims are all logically equivalent, but in reality they are not. The person is not deliberately shifting anything, because they do seem to genuinely think the claims are all logically equivalent. Also, I've had this happen a lot in friendly discussions and not only in debates or arguments.

ETA: My boss does this all the time at work, of course he doesn't post here lol. Er, I hope not.  But he'll ask me to write up an answer to question X, then later ask why I didn't answer question Y. Too bad for him, his request for me to answer X is usually in writing.

ETA2: Anyway, if it's low logic that annoys me, then that means I must be seeking high logic, as my dual could not annoy me. If I'm seeking high logic, then that means I'm high ethics. Plus, if I'm annoyed by Dynamics, then I cannot have a Dynamic dual. Which means I must have a Static dual. Which means I myself must be Dynamic.

ETA3: It's also notable that I've been talking to @myst91 for literally months, and for all of our arguments and stuff, she's never (to my memory) done the type of shifting I'm referring to here.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

myst91 said:


> There's Ne PoLR, I won't deny that, but I don't think I disregard objective facts, only seems that way when I think they do not add up properly. But I'll either know why they don't (and in this case I'm not disregarding the facts, simply explaining them in a way different from your way) or I will want to figure out how to make it all add up (so again I'm not outright disregarding the facts as I try to integrate them, it just may take time).
> 
> So please stop overgeneralizing about types in such a biased way.
> 
> I believe open-mindedness is NTR anyway, if I define it in this way, willingness to try and take in more information and update thoughts/views. How that happens is what would be type related. So while I, being LSI, may not seem open at all, I'm actually already processing things in my mind, just may take a while to arrive to a real updated conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your LSIs also see you as taking forever to process the most basic things - basic from their POV and not basic from yours. Pessimistic is not something I see as applying to myself. There is the Positivist side, don't forget that. That combined with the Ne PoLR not thinking of not-yet-experienced possibilities makes me quite daringly optimistic in some things. The negative repeating experiences in the past, if they are not explained yet, they can make me ignore optimistic possibilities, yes. But as soon as I have managed to explain them and thus gain control over relevant variables, it will be a different outlook. It's also Ne PoLR being risk avoidant in a certain sense (when there is ambiguity).
> 
> 
> What's typology theory for if it doesn't seem to help you all understand people with types different from yours...


110%. He hates my Te Polr, and you're definetly positive.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> No, it's not a shifting environment. I'm talking about, I make claim X. Then the person refutes claim Y and claims they refuted claim X. They cannot tell that claim X and claim Y are different.
> 
> That's the kind of slippery bullshit I'm talking about.
> 
> Sometimes claim X and claim Y are very similar, so it's a fine distinction between them, but they're nevertheless logically distinct. Yet the person thinks they are the same.
> 
> Then by changing the claims they are making, I mean when someone is making subtly different claims in each post and yet claiming that they are all the same claim. They seem to think these claims are all logically equivalent, but in reality they are not. The person is not deliberately shifting anything, because they do seem to genuinely think the claims are all logically equivalent. Also, I've had this happen a lot in friendly discussions and not only in debates or arguments.
> 
> ETA: My boss does this all the time at work, of course he doesn't post here lol. Er, I hope not.  But he'll ask me to write up an answer to question X, then later ask why I didn't answer question Y. Too bad for him, his request for me to answer X is usually in writing.
> 
> ETA2: Anyway, if it's low logic that annoys me, then that means I must be seeking high logic, as my dual could not annoy me. If I'm seeking high logic, then that means I'm high ethics. Plus, if I'm annoyed by Dynamics, then I cannot have a Dynamic dual. Which means I must have a Static dual. Which means I myself must be Dynamic.
> 
> ETA3: It's also notable that I've been talking to @myst91 for literally months, and for all of our arguments and stuff, she's never (to my memory) done the type of shifting I'm referring to here.


But don't you see how the shifting of what is being claimed is a lack of staticness to the logic flow? In other words, that it is dynamic Te that is bothering you? Or at the very least, a lack of logical effectiveness.

Myst91 is fantastic at maintaining dogged goalposts and pursuing the logical point relentlessly. She so Ti XD
So that means you are not irritated by Ti, which means it is not superego for you. That means it could be Ego or superid. You value it, in other words. Assuming I understood all this correctly.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> But don't you see how the shifting of what is being claimed is a lack of staticness to the logic flow? In other words, that it is dynamic Te that is bothering you?


Nope. As I said, I don't have this problem with ILIs. Or with any other Te egos. So Te is not what's bothering me.

And what I'm talking about is not a _"lack of staticness to the logic flow"_ but an inability to tell that X and Y are two different claims and not logically equivalent. The person is not deliberately shifting anything, because they genuinely think the claims are logically equivalent. What bothers me is the lack of logical precision to differentiate claim X from claim Y when they are subtly different. I already said all of this in my last post.

If someone made claim X and then later made claim Y _and stated as they made claim Y that it is different from claim X,_ that wouldn't bother me at all.



> Or at the very least, a lack of logical effectiveness.


Yes, I've already acknowledged that low logic annoys me. To quote myself, _"if it's low logic that annoys me, then that means I must be seeking high logic, as my dual could not annoy me. If I'm seeking high logic, then that means I'm high ethics. Plus, if I'm annoyed by Dynamics, then I cannot have a Dynamic dual. Which means I must have a Static dual. Which means I myself must be Dynamic."_



> Myst91 is fantastic at maintaining dogged goalposts and pursuing the logical point relentlessly. She so Ti XD
> So that means you are not irritated by Ti, which means it is not superego for you. That means it could be Ego or superid. You value it, in other words. Assuming I understood all this correctly.


Yes, I value Ti/Fe and not Fi/Te, I've been saying that for months.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

OK then. :happy:


----------



## Max

Someone name me a good Socionics questionnaire to do, that isn't long, gets to the point but is still pretty detailed enough to determine your type? (No, NOT the 80Q, there's BOUND to be better ones, and more comprehensive ones at that).


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Someone name me a good Socionics questionnaire to do, that isn't long, gets to the point but is still pretty detailed enough to determine your type? (No, NOT the 80Q, there's BOUND to be better ones, and more comprehensive ones at that).


Do the philosophical 40Q XD


----------



## myst91

I (temporarily) skipped some posts, just a couple quick lines, I'll be back later, didn't have time this evening :/




Verity said:


> You're misunderstanding the context. The OP asked about what our experience was concerning types and open-mindedness divorced from what the theory says, so bias will be inherent to the answer. I'm talking about my personal experience with the LSIs I've typed. I could be wrong, it could be misattributed, it could be an NTR thing, sure. And obviously there is another side to the coin.


I did not see the context but it doesn't really change what you actually said. Anyway, ok.




counterintuitive said:


> And what I'm talking about is not a _"lack of staticness to the logic flow"_ but an inability to tell that X and Y are two different claims and not logically equivalent. The person is not deliberately shifting anything, because they genuinely think the claims are logically equivalent. What bothers me is the lack of logical precision to differentiate claim X from claim Y when they are subtly different. I already said all of this in my last post.


If you are able to see the fine logical distinctions while the other person can't, that shows you are stronger in Ti than them... so it's a funny argument to try and use this issue as evidence for Ti dual seeking, lol.





> Yes, I've already acknowledged that low logic annoys me. To quote myself, _"if it's low logic that annoys me, then that means I must be seeking high logic, as my dual could not annoy me. If I'm seeking high logic, then that means I'm high ethics. Plus, if I'm annoyed by Dynamics, then I cannot have a Dynamic dual. Which means I must have a Static dual. Which means I myself must be Dynamic."_


Low logic can annoy me too, this isn't exclusive to Ti seeking. Though sure, I do have more patience than you by default.  What especially annoys me if the person also has this immature attitude starting on ad hominems.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> OK then. :happy:


Did I offend you or something? Sorry, I was just responding to what you said...




myst91 said:


> If you are able to see the fine logical distinctions while the other person can't, that shows you are stronger in Ti than them... so it's a funny argument to try and use this issue as evidence for Ti dual seeking, lol.
> 
> Low logic can annoy me too, this isn't exclusive to Ti seeking. Though sure, I do have more patience than you by default.  What especially annoys me if the person also has this immature attitude starting on ad hominems.


Well, if I have Ti in ego, then my duals have Ti in superid. Yet I am highly annoyed by low Ti. The thought of being in a relationship with someone who cannot see these fine logical distinctions is like a death sentence. :shocked: If I'm indeed Ti ego, I can't fathom how the best match for me is someone who has Ti in the superid block.  I know they are supposed to provide me with Fe in return, but (a) I already have Fe so I don't need their Fe and (b) no amount of Fe is worth having to deal with this low logic goalpost-moving bullshit.

Point being, I just can't accept that my dual is someone with low logic, because low logic annoys me so very much.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> Fenix Wulfheart said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I offend you or something? Sorry, I was just responding to what you said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> myst91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are able to see the fine logical distinctions while the other person can't, that shows you are stronger in Ti than them... so it's a funny argument to try and use this issue as evidence for Ti dual seeking, lol.
> 
> Low logic can annoy me too, this isn't exclusive to Ti seeking. Though sure, I do have more patience than you by default.  What especially annoys me if the person also has this immature attitude starting on ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I have Ti in ego, then my duals have Ti in superid. Yet I am highly annoyed by low Ti. The thought of being in a relationship with someone who cannot see these fine logical distinctions is like a death sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm indeed Ti ego, I can't fathom how the best match for me is someone who has Ti in the superid block.  I know they are supposed to provide me with Fe in return, but (a) I already have Fe so I don't need their Fe and (b) no amount of Fe is worth having to deal with this low logic goalpost-moving bullshit.
> 
> Point being, I just can't accept that my dual is someone with low logic, because low logic annoys me so very much.
Click to expand...

I have low logic...
>_>


----------



## counterintuitive

QueenOfNight said:


> I have low logic...
> >_>


Look, it's nothing personal, I'm only saying that I need someone with high logic in a partner/SO and as such I cannot be a logical ego myself.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> QueenOfNight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have low logic...
> >_>
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it's nothing personal, I'm only saying that I need someone with high logic in a partner/SO and as such I cannot be a logical ego myself.
Click to expand...

XD I was only joking lmao.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

One of my favorite lines from the 2nd season of True Detective. "When the lights go out, that's me."


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> I actually get really annoyed when other people encourage me to broaden my horizons and "think outside the box" and stuff like that. I have coworkers who tell me "If you're bored this weekend, why don't you watch movie/sports game/TV show?" This annoys me because I'm never bored, lol, I'm usually doing like 15 things at the same time and I have 100 things to do on the weekend, I usually have more stuff than hours in the day and I don't sleep enough - so no, I don't have time or inclination to accomodate others' interests also, especially when their interests are boring. IDK what that means in terms of type. I guess I just get annoyed by other people trying to mobilize me with their Ne?


How do you feel when people do this to you? Does it seem like they are patronizing you, like they are saying they feel like you do not know how to keep yourself busy and this irritates you because you know how to do easily?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

myst91 said:


> I'm talking about how it's not vividly real like the tangible surroundings around me. The less tangible and the more far-fetched something is, the more vague it's going to feel to me, hardly something I'd call "real".


Uhm. Huh. But if it has an actual impact on the person who has envisioned it, and leads to a change in the actions and decisions that occur, does that not then it is indirectly tangible? Real in the sense that it can be accounted for?

I mean, I can convince a person that a thing is true when they are in a vulnerable moment, and in so doing they will take an action related to that thing. The construct that I have created is now true within their mind, and they will continue to act upon it. Like, if I tell someone that someone else has been talking about them behind their back (Not saying I would, just an example). That person then talks about the supposed back talker behind the back talkers back. Now the workplace is aware of a rivalry between these two that is an immanently tangible thing to the mind, but has no physical form. More events happen, and passive aggression mounts. Meeting between the two become sickly sweet and caustic as they pretend to be chums, and stab one another in the back at the first opportunity. What happens if I let them duke it out? What if I tell the original person I spoke with it was all a lie? The force of anger may then be directed at me.

These things are real, and they interact and can be changed. Flowed away from or toward different areas, controlled and directed. One merely has to ride the wave. The right time to act will allow for a profound change at a minimum amount of exertion, and the impact of that action ripples outward and creates more and more changes. All it takes is a single symbolic representation, a word here, an image, a simple arching of the brow at a critical moment when one person looks past another to you, asking for your thoughts. There is far more reality in the things that people hold within their minds than in an object I hold within my hand, if you ask me. Even the object just represents the things that can occur that involve that object.

I say the whole world is like this, if you know where to look. It is merely a matter of finding the right point to make your move, and to act with intention. This is how I practice my religious beliefs. This is why I tell a person straight up how I see their behavior, and tell people honestly what action I plan to take (or at least I try to be assertive, anyway). If I don't like something, and I am going to continue meeting with that person, I will tell them. I don't want patterns to set into grooves that I do not care for, so I try to take action to keep things going where I want them.


----------



## Max

Guys, I've been reading about Socionics and I'm confused. I was reading about Quadras and different types, and honestly, it all seems to overcomplicate things, especially when people aren't relating to the text descriptions but people are saying that they are X type. You know what I mean? Its like MBTI. People aren't relating to the texts and the actualities. You rarely get textulaities. When the text matches the actualities.

Someone confer with me =(


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> How do you feel when people do this to you? Does it seem like they are patronizing you, like they are saying they feel like you do not know how to keep yourself busy and this irritates you because you know how to do easily?


Yeah, it's basically that - it's irritating because they are saying they think I can't keep myself busy but in reality I can *easily* do it.  It must be an area of insecurity or it would not irritate me.

It's especially annoying because often these are the same people saying they are bored and do not know what to do. I even had a coworker say she did work on the weekend, not because of the workload, but because she was "bored". :S

ETA Oh, here's a funny one. I once had a coworker offer to meet me for lunch on the weekend (we work M-F only) "if you are bored and need something to do" - like she was taking pity on me / felt sorry for me. I just about laughed in her face. This coworker is very nice/friendly overall so I'm sure she was operating in good faith; it's just hilarious. ;D


ETA Also this is slightly OT but I relate to the Causal-Determinist, and only one of the types under consideration is C-D.... :crazy:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Being irritated by being lectured on one of your strengths isn't an indication of insecurity, its an indication of confidence. That's why it feels patronizing - because who are they to be telling you how to do what comes naturally to you? ^^


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Being irritated by being lectured on one of your strengths isn't an indication of insecurity, its an indication of confidence. That's why it feels patronizing - because who are they to be telling you how to do what comes naturally to you? ^^


Well, that can be... But when people give me advice on Fe for instance, I react in much the same way - it's irritating because they are saying they think I can't handle Fe on my own but I believe that I can. Often these are people who for example behave in an exclusionary manner (rather than inclusively) towards people who are not in their favored groups, yet they dare to give me advice on Fe stuff. They seem not to know the first thing about behaving fairly or impartially and yet they give me unwanted advice on dealing with others in a socially acceptable manner.

So I don't really get how that's supposed to work tbh.


ETA Thinking about this more, I think I'm objecting to their Fe advice with Ti, lol, not Fe. So it might be a different scenario in that case


----------



## Graveyard

Hey guys, uhm. Anyone up for a group sport? Group chat? Group game? A party? World domination?

I'm all ears.


----------



## myst91

Sorry, I again didn't yet have time to read/reply to many of the other posts. I'll get to those later.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Uhm. Huh. But if it has an actual impact on the person who has envisioned it, and leads to a change in the actions and decisions that occur, does that not then it is indirectly tangible? Real in the sense that it can be accounted for?


IF. Big if. 

To me it only becomes real when I'm executing the envisioned thing. Until then no. And it has to be consistently being executed for it to stay real. 

Though, to refine this statement, even before execution, if I see the thing is concretely executable, it does feel real enough. It feels sorta, visceral and concrete enough. My mind/brain does not have trouble dealing with it, it does not seem vague or far-fetched. But if it's not then put into action, not manifesting the vision in tangible reality but instead I'm to focus on the envisioning longer than the short time I need to spend for it, it does get too mentally detached again and too vague and all that. The same is true of my simply trying to think of Ni-symbolic things, etc., except those never feel strongly real to begin with. Contemplating those things may still feel pretty good for a short time but they do look a bit more mentally detached than what I prefer by default, they are not very vivid unlike the concrete things.




> I mean, I can convince a person that a thing is true when they are in a vulnerable moment, and in so doing they will take an action related to that thing. The construct that I have created is now true within their mind, and they will continue to act upon it.


I now feel like @counterintuitive feels about people trying to give Fe advice to him unnecessarily lol (minus the issue with unfairness)

This is the pretty obvious kind of Ni you are telling me here and what I said above was not really in contradiction with this.




> Like, if I tell someone that someone else has been talking about them behind their back (Not saying I would, just an example). That person then talks about the supposed back talker behind the back talkers back. Now the workplace is aware of a rivalry between these two that is an immanently tangible thing to the mind, but has no physical form.


It does have a physical form at this point. Action(s) has(/have) been taken. Hence it's vividly real to me.




> All it takes is a single symbolic representation, a word here, an image, a simple arching of the brow at a critical moment when one person looks past another to you, asking for your thoughts.


I like this way of putting it 




> There is far more reality in the things that people hold within their minds than in an object I hold within my hand, if you ask me.


To you maybe, not to me. Again see above.




> Even the object just represents the things that can occur that involve that object.


Alriiiight, this is where it's getting too far-fetched for me. I can get into Ni but I do not want to see Se objects from this perspective all the time.




> I say the whole world is like this, if you know where to look. It is merely a matter of finding the right point to make your move, and to act with intention. This is how I practice my religious beliefs. This is why I tell a person straight up how I see their behavior, and tell people honestly what action I plan to take (or at least I try to be assertive, anyway). If I don't like something, and I am going to continue meeting with that person, I will tell them. I don't want patterns to set into grooves that I do not care for, so I try to take action to keep things going where I want them.


Haha well I see this wish to influence the environment from the other side of the Ni/Se coin  The Se side of it  (If you want I can elaborate on this)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hrm. I dunno, it seems to me like the physical representation is almost superfluous to the reality of it. Heh, I'm aware I am Ni biased though 

I've noticed I do another thing where I see the event as less real once I have already completely dealt with it, and am no longer working with it at all. It becomes real only in so far as it has an impact on the things that are currently being dealt with. Like, a past event may affect my emotions because of something that once happened, but that is the only reality I need to deal with for that event any more so i mostly ignore it. The lessons of the past are real, but the events of the past are less real than the meaning of them and the ways in which those events have shaped current events. There is no sense of concreteness any more, with the things that have already occurred, and that is what is real if you ask me. That sense of being able to affect it, to change it. The sense of being part of what is ongoing, if you will.

Eh, it's all good. It all depends on where we perceive the line between real and not real to actually be. ^^


----------



## To_august

counterintuitive said:


> Yeah, true, that was the original point of contention (the existence of Intuition) - sorry, I had forgot about that. So yes, I agree now that Intuition exists
> 
> Well that would take me quite a bit of effort too tbh. I don't easily generate possibilities.
> 
> All of this makes sense, thank you.
> 
> I actually get really annoyed when other people encourage me to broaden my horizons and "think outside the box" and stuff like that. I have coworkers who tell me "If you're bored this weekend, why don't you watch movie/sports game/TV show?" This annoys me because I'm never bored, lol, I'm usually doing like 15 things at the same time and I have 100 things to do on the weekend, I usually have more stuff than hours in the day and I don't sleep enough - so no, I don't have time or inclination to accomodate others' interests also, especially when their interests are boring. IDK what that means in terms of type. I guess I just get annoyed by other people trying to mobilize me with their Ne?
> 
> Do you have examples of Ne information that the Ne ego would provide to the Si ego?
> Lol alright :tongue: Thanks


Hm. Do they make those comments out of the blue? I mean, these are not their replies to you commenting on being bored? If not, then it's weird why would someone tell something like that without being warranted... Oh wait, maybe you look bored to them so they tell those things? It can feel similar when people tell me something like 'what did happen and why are you so sad?',' cheer up!' and I'm like wtf they are talking about, I'm not sad at all, just busy with whatever I'm doing and thinking my thoughts. 

On the other hand, I'm in general irritated by people assuming stuff about me, when I have to defend myself against something that isn't true in the first place and which is just someone's imaginary agenda that they treat as if it were a given thing. Maybe that's common for most people too and not type related.

It depends on quadra, but in general Ne seeking types subconsciously expect motivation towards something new and original. They would appreciate someone who can provide unconventional ideas and help incorporate those ideas in their worldview, help them with finding new hobbies and activities, offer new angles on viewing things and show that right in front of them there are multiple possibilities and options to discover and pursue, and motivate them to seize the opportunities, someone who would show reassurance of their talents, skills and qualities, believe in their potential and help with its fulfillment


----------



## counterintuitive

To_august said:


> Hm. Do they make those comments out of the blue? I mean, these are not their replies to you commenting on being bored? If not, then it's weird why would someone tell something like that without being warranted... Oh wait, maybe you look bored to them so they tell those things? It can feel similar when people tell me something like 'what did happen and why are you so sad?',' cheer up!' and I'm like wtf they are talking about, I'm not sad at all, just busy with whatever I'm doing and thinking my thoughts.


No, definitely not - I don't comment on being bored as I'm never bored. They offer these comments totally unsolicited.

These are usually coworkers though, who know nothing of what I do outside of work. I don't talk about non-work stuff at work. So I guess they assume that I do nothing outside of work. Lol.

I had a coworker tell me to dye my hair purple because according to her I'm "too boring" - while this coworker herself has nothing interesting to say and thinks of boringness vs. interestingness so superficially that a hair color makes a person boring or interesting.



> On the other hand, I'm in general irritated by people assuming stuff about me, when I have to defend myself against something that isn't true in the first place and which is just someone's imaginary agenda that they treat as if it were a given thing. Maybe that's common for most people too and not type related.


I'm exactly the same with this! Seems NTR tho, yeah.



> It depends on quadra, but in general Ne seeking types subconsciously expect motivation towards something new and original. They would appreciate someone who can provide unconventional ideas and help incorporate those ideas in their worldview, help them with finding new hobbies and activities, offer new angles on viewing things and show that right in front of them there are multiple possibilities and options to discover and pursue, and motivate them to seize the opportunities, someone who would show reassurance of their talents, skills and qualities, believe in their potential and help with its fulfillment


Thanks, that makes sense as Ne seeking. I appreciate the explanation.

Tbh though, I don't think I'm in a position to help other people with this stuff. I don't really see the point in discussing ideas, nor do I even have ideas, never mind original or unconventional ones. I don't have a good grasp on what is new and original (e.g. I don't keep up with TV, movies, sports, etc), and I have no interest in helping someone with their worldview regardless - they need to determine that for themselves - it's not my business. I also don't see possibilities and opportunities and potential myself so I'm definitely not in a position to provide them to other people or help them with it. If anything, I need help with this stuff you listed. Though tbh I don't care much for this stuff either way, to be helped with it or to help others with it.



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some application thing_


----------



## myst91

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hrm. I dunno, it seems to me like the physical representation is almost superfluous to the reality of it. Heh, I'm aware I am Ni biased though


Yep, Ni bias 




> I've noticed I do another thing where I see the event as less real once I have already completely dealt with it, and am no longer working with it at all. It becomes real only in so far as it has an impact on the things that are currently being dealt with. Like, a past event may affect my emotions because of something that once happened, but that is the only reality I need to deal with for that event any more so i mostly ignore it. The lessons of the past are real, but the events of the past are less real than the meaning of them and the ways in which those events have shaped current events. There is no sense of concreteness any more, with the things that have already occurred, and that is what is real if you ask me. That sense of being able to affect it, to change it. The sense of being part of what is ongoing, if you will.
> 
> Eh, it's all good. It all depends on where we perceive the line between real and not real to actually be. ^^


Yah, this would be a weird mode to me 

Funny how it's so dependent on type as to where that line is.


----------



## Max

Graveyard said:


> Hey guys, uhm. Anyone up for a group sport? Group chat? Group game? A party? World domination?
> 
> I'm all ears.


I'm really considering retiring from the Beta Quadra, especially during the week, seeing how inactive this thread can get (yeah, I know, we're all busy and we have work/classes, but the weekends aren't any better at all) and just coming on occassionally. Not blaming anyone, but I just don't see the point in hanging about a dead thread. I'm not much of a thread necrophiliac xD 

And anyway, I have 'assignments' to do also. 

I say 'assignments' because honestly, I think they assign them for badness, just to piss us off sometimes when they know well that we know what we're doing/talking about. Surely, there are better ways for us to get UCAS points, instead of doing assignments all the time? (UCAS points is the points system we use to determine our overall grades, and how close we are to getting our qualification). 

I was speaking to some guy who was an art student once, and his assignments and criteria are completely different, but he was doing a similar type of qualification to mine. He had longer assignments, but a hell of a lot less of them, and his were a lot more practical and creative and suited their expectations a lot better than ours did. It's not really fair sometimes, but meh. I hope there's a lot less assignments next year, and a lot more relevant stuff. I was doing 6 assignments at one time at one point, and they were all given to me the week or so I went back after Easter. Wow.

I shoulda done Les Mis and tried to push for a Drama Level 3 entrance audition xD Or something along those lines. Oh well, I hope this qualification works in my favour for next year, if it's the same level as the one I'm currently doing. I'll go talk to the careers advisor and see what he can do for me. He seems nice enough, and patient enough to wanna advise me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

*Stalker*: Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves. Let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible. When he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win.

The whole be like water thing. Hard things break.


----------



## Graveyard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I'm really considering retiring from the Beta Quadra, especially during the week, seeing how inactive this thread can get (yeah, I know, we're all busy and we have work/classes, but the weekends aren't any better at all) and just coming on occassionally. Not blaming anyone, but I just don't see the point in hanging about a dead thread. I'm not much of a thread necrophiliac xD
> 
> And anyway, I have 'assignments' to do also.
> 
> I say 'assignments' because honestly, I think they assign them for badness, just to piss us off sometimes when they know well that we know what we're doing/talking about. Surely, there are better ways for us to get UCAS points, instead of doing assignments all the time? (UCAS points is the points system we use to determine our overall grades, and how close we are to getting our qualification).
> 
> I was speaking to some guy who was an art student once, and his assignments and criteria are completely different, but he was doing a similar type of qualification to mine. He had longer assignments, but a hell of a lot less of them, and his were a lot more practical and creative and suited their expectations a lot better than ours did. It's not really fair sometimes, but meh. I hope there's a lot less assignments next year, and a lot more relevant stuff. I was doing 6 assignments at one time at one point, and they were all given to me the week or so I went back after Easter. Wow.
> 
> I shoulda done Les Mis and tried to push for a Drama Level 3 entrance audition xD Or something along those lines. Oh well, I hope this qualification works in my favour for next year, if it's the same level as the one I'm currently doing. I'll go talk to the careers advisor and see what he can do for me. He seems nice enough, and patient enough to wanna advise me.




Well this place (the Socionics subforum) is pretty dead all day, all night. It has had its recent peaks of activity but it's really, really rare. I try to cheer things up here but no one seems to follow up. It's pretty sad. 

Uhm, it's been said a lot lately that the school system is pretty faulty and doesn't do much for student's motivations. The constant assignment looks like an endurance test rather than a way to evaluate your proggress, and I definitely see how that'd affect people. 

Perhaps that's why most people go for arts: they're a bit less, hmm, heavy? I mean, of course the field is not easy per se, but it's much more free and creative so I guess it'd only be natural for the assignments to feel less burdening. You won't get less assignments less year, most likely. They only get worse most of the time. As I said, it looks like an endurance test. 

If you're this burdened and troubled by yout current career, you should reconsider a little.


----------



## To_august

counterintuitive said:


> No, definitely not - I don't comment on being bored as I'm never bored. They offer these comments totally unsolicited.
> 
> These are usually coworkers though, who know nothing of what I do outside of work. I don't talk about non-work stuff at work. So I guess they assume that I do nothing outside of work. Lol.
> 
> I had a coworker tell me to dye my hair purple because according to her I'm "too boring" - while this coworker herself has nothing interesting to say and thinks of boringness vs. interestingness so superficially that a hair color makes a person boring or interesting.
> 
> I'm exactly the same with this! Seems NTR tho, yeah.


Yeah, I totally understand, it's annoying when people act like that. Some strangers telling me what I should do or what color should I dye my hair is absolutely unwelcomed. I'm too unyielding when it comes to my personal space and interests.



> Thanks, that makes sense as Ne seeking. I appreciate the explanation.
> 
> Tbh though, I don't think I'm in a position to help other people with this stuff. I don't really see the point in discussing ideas, nor do I even have ideas, never mind original or unconventional ones. I don't have a good grasp on what is new and original (e.g. I don't keep up with TV, movies, sports, etc), and I have no interest in helping someone with their worldview regardless - they need to determine that for themselves - it's not my business. I also don't see possibilities and opportunities and potential myself so I'm definitely not in a position to provide them to other people or help them with it. If anything, I need help with this stuff you listed. Though tbh I don't care much for this stuff either way, to be helped with it or to help others with it.


How about this then - http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/802569-equations-intertype-relations-fun-thread.html ? Isn't it an idea you came up with and shared with people so everybody can discuss it?  
I'd agree though that idea is primarily a Ti one, but still it seems like you can quite underestimate your abilities. And if you don't like to discuss Ne ideas, what would you like to discuss/do instead, what do you usually focus on?


----------



## Max

*Moonbears are chipmunks too. (In their own way) *



Graveyard said:


> Well this place (the Socionics subforum) is pretty dead all day, all night. It has had its recent peaks of activity but it's really, really rare. I try to cheer things up here but no one seems to follow up. It's pretty sad.
> 
> Uhm, it's been said a lot lately that the school system is pretty faulty and doesn't do much for student's motivations. The constant assignment looks like an endurance test rather than a way to evaluate your proggress, and I definitely see how that'd affect people.
> 
> Perhaps that's why most people go for arts: they're a bit less, hmm, heavy? I mean, of course the field is not easy per se, but it's much more free and creative so I guess it'd only be natural for the assignments to feel less burdening. You won't get less assignments less year, most likely. They only get worse most of the time. As I said, it looks like an endurance test.
> 
> If you're this burdened and troubled by yout current career, you should reconsider a little.


Yeah, I guess so. I only really see a few posts within the forum each day (and night night night night!), which is kinda sad. I also try and cheer things up, because I think that if things get too serious when they shouldn't then things go downhill fast.

Yeah, that's true. It should be about learning, and achieving goals, not constantly being bogged down by assignment after assignment and having no life. you know? Kids these days don't wanna just exist. They wanna engage, and be engaged within the world of learning. Now, I do think my tutors try to engage us, and this is not their fault, but the system does demotivate us, and make us feel trapped. The whole idea of 'UCAS points' in itself is pretty daunting. Why don't they just stick to grades earned and quality of work? If you can pass on good enough terms, why should it matter how many points you have and why should you be at a disadvantage to anyone else if you know what you're doing? Ugh.

Yeah, true. I am a naturally creative person, and I enjoy unleashing that creativity through different means (music, novels, acting etc). I think the whole concept of Music Technology is good, but I also think they weigh you down with unnessecary/repeated stuff too. Sometimes, you feel like being a smartass, though:

'What's the speed of sound Wontly?'
'A Coldplay song, Sir.'





Yeah, I know right? I have always wanted to write novels/screenplays and/or act/be a musician. Heck, I even like the concept of Musical Theatre and having Mika in my musical as Hector haha. (Or something like that). I already have a cast list somewhere of who I want. And yes, you can guess who else is there lol. :crazy:


----------



## SheWolf

I'm not dead!


----------



## counterintuitive

To_august said:


> Yeah, I totally understand, it's annoying when people act like that. Some strangers telling me what I should do or what color should I dye my hair is absolutely unwelcomed. I'm too unyielding when it comes to my personal space and interests.


Cool. Yeah, I'm similar in being unyielding with personal space and interests. That's a great way to put it 



> How about this then - http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/802569-equations-intertype-relations-fun-thread.html ? Isn't it an idea you came up with and shared with people so everybody can discuss it?
> I'd agree though that idea is primarily a Ti one, but still it seems like you can quite underestimate your abilities.


Fair enough, that's an idea. Though it's not what I would call an original idea since it's just an extension on existing ideas. I have ideas like that about twice a year, so it's a rare occurrence. Also, I wouldn't discuss an idea like that IRL because I CBA to explain to people. Even in that thread, I only got useful feedback from one user who offered logical feedback.



> And if you don't like to discuss Ne ideas, what would you like to discuss/do instead, what do you usually focus on?


I don't seem to really focus on anything at all... I can if I need/want to, like I'm focused on writing this right now, on the ITR equations when I wrote that thread, etc. But, most of the time, my brain is doing "whatever". Sometimes I have conscious thoughts, but they disappear really fast like sand through fingers.

Hm, maybe this will help. I wrote this elsewhere:

_"My overall brainstuff, I don't know what it is, is like bubbles or clouds or cotton candy. Vague and gaseous. But there is also some liquidy stuff in there. But like still liquid. Not frozen, because that would be a solid. Still liquid, just still. Or maybe it only looks still from a distance, idk. It's like a liquid planet? I don't really know how I think tbh, it's too vague and sparse and light as air... it's like it's not there at all and I'm not thinking at all. Like I said, I don't really consciously think."_

I wrote some more here about how I "see" my thoughts, with pictures.

Thanks btw. If you don't want to keep helping, that's ok


----------



## Max

Guys is anyone still around?


----------



## counterintuitive

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Guys is anyone still around?


No, I'm not around. I'm definitely not around. At all. I'm asleep right now actually.


----------



## Max

counterintuitive said:


> No, I'm not around. I'm definitely not around. At all. I'm asleep right now actually.


Sleep-posting? Interesting!


----------



## DOGSOUP

_Je suis ici_! But I don't understand anything anyone speaks of anymore  I have been whisked away into Plath's Sargasso Sea, and can no longer speak human language.


----------



## myst91

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I'm really considering retiring from the Beta Quadra, especially during the week, seeing how inactive this thread can get (yeah, I know, we're all busy and we have work/classes, but the weekends aren't any better at all) and just coming on occassionally. Not blaming anyone, but I just don't see the point in hanging about a dead thread. I'm not much of a thread necrophiliac xD


huh, you are the EIE, why aren't you pairing up with our other new EIE @DOGSOUP to shake up things? 




> And anyway, I have 'assignments' to do also.


What does an assignment look like? I can't really follow the rest of your rant because I'm not sure what it is (I'm in a very different country).




counterintuitive said:


> Fair enough, that's an idea. Though it's not what I would call an original idea since it's just an extension on existing ideas. I have ideas like that about twice a year, so it's a rare occurrence. Also, I wouldn't discuss an idea like that IRL because I CBA to explain to people. Even in that thread, I only got useful feedback from one user who offered logical feedback.


Who said all the millions of IxE's are all crazy original like Einstein or something?

This typology theory is to be applied on normal people for the most part. 

Anyway, Ne often just takes already existing ideas, yes.




> Hm, maybe this will help. I wrote this elsewhere:
> 
> _"My overall brainstuff, I don't know what it is, is like bubbles or clouds or cotton candy. Vague and gaseous. But there is also some liquidy stuff in there. But like still liquid. Not frozen, because that would be a solid. Still liquid, just still. Or maybe it only looks still from a distance, idk. It's like a liquid planet? I don't really know how I think tbh, it's too vague and sparse and light as air... it's like it's not there at all and I'm not thinking at all. Like I said, I don't really consciously think."_


That reminds me of how you strongly related to this earlier:

_"Blob article - "With that said, do I really need to get into why Ne types use phrases such as maybe, might, could, etc? It's because they are trying to describe a blob. They can't show it to you, you can't touch it, see it, hear it, etc. You can't even be sure that it even exists, and usually...it doesn't!!""_

Does this relate to what you describe above?

Btw this is that same "Ne blobs" article I linked to you later again (I forgot I already showed it to you before when you still had an account at the16types). 




> I wrote some more here about how I "see" my thoughts, with pictures.


One more thing I'm curious about, how did you relate that pyramid pic to Si?


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Who said all the millions of IxE's are all crazy original like Einstein or something?
> 
> This typology theory is to be applied on normal people for the most part.
> 
> Anyway, Ne often just takes already existing ideas, yes.


As I said, I have ideas like that about twice a year. So I guess I use my base function of Ne about twice a year.



> That reminds me of how you strongly related to this earlier:
> 
> _"Blob article - "With that said, do I really need to get into why Ne types use phrases such as maybe, might, could, etc? It's because they are trying to describe a blob. They can't show it to you, you can't touch it, see it, hear it, etc. You can't even be sure that it even exists, and usually...it doesn't!!""_
> 
> Does this relate to what you describe above?


No. My thoughts exist, just like this post exists - while apparently these bullshit blobs do not exist. Plus the author is describing something that doesn't exist, which is contradictory. Also, the author seems to be consciously thinking while as I said, I don't really consciously think.

I do remember relating to it though I don't know why now.

Also, I should add that for medical reasons most of my consciousness is just "blank" or foggy due to perpetual brainfog - which makes it very difficult for me to consistently relate to anything.

Eta: I've thought before that I'm undifferentiated. My thoughts are extremely vague and foggy and almost not even there, so it's really difficult to determine which IEs they are most like. I am very consciously aware of internally structuring information though, especially if it's a lot of new information, I become conscious of actually structuring/sorting/categorizing/filtering this information. This is an active process that I do regularly, but not constantly. This is almost certainly Ti. And I am also consciously aware of Fe, so at least that goes with Ti, though apparently both cannot be mental track... But the rest is just the vague fog almost like my brain is asleep - I can't even get a handle on my own thoughts, because they are too vague.



> One more thing I'm curious about, how did you relate that pyramid pic to Si?


Idr and tbh I'm not sure what I was thinking, as there is no pyramid in my mind at all now. =S



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some application thing_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> No. My thoughts exist, just like this post exists - while apparently these bullshit blobs do not exist. Plus the author is describing something that doesn't exist, which is contradictory. Also, the author seems to be consciously thinking while as I said, I don't really consciously think.


The attitude the blob article guy has is Ne because he sees the blobs as static, and he is just trying to find the words to describe the phenomenon whether it is real or not. Much like you say your thoughts exist like that post exists, it is describing a thing which is seen as real and relevant because it exists, at the very least in his mind.

So if you have incoherent non-logical intuition that you see and seek to understand the individual bits of information as they are, then you'd be Ne. Your liquid planets certainly seem that way to me.

Fe, on the other hand, pays attention to the dynamic ethical atmosphere. It is utterly opposed to that way of seeing reality as static. How do you see Fe when it manifests within yourself? What do you pay attention to, and what do you think about it?


----------



## Max

*We can dance if we want to!*



myst91 said:


> huh, you are the EIE, why aren't you pairing up with our other new EIE @DOGSOUP to shake up things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does an assignment look like? I can't really follow the rest of your rant because I'm not sure what it is (I'm in a very different country).


1) We're already partners in crime 

2) Too much T, and not enough F N or even S involved. Too much technicality and research, which drives me mental if I do it for too long. Not enough creativity, tbh. Not enough stimulation. Leaves me zapped after I finish it, you know? Ugh. Not good for ExE types at all xD

On a side note: Someone keeps insisting I am Gamma, lol. How? I don't see it.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> On a side note: Someone keeps insisting I am Gamma, lol. How? I don't see it.


I also fail to see it, as I saw Fe over 9000 in your questionnaire.


----------



## Max

Mordred Phantom said:


> I also fail to see it, as I saw Fe over 9000 in your questionnaire.


Yeah, and Gamma are meant to be a 'serious' Quadra, right? I have also been told by others that I am pretty much 'not very serious at all' (not that it's always a bad/good thing), and like to joke around. And the fact that I use Ne demonstrative, a crap-ton of Fe, a lot of Ni and Si is the bane of my existence only really leaves EIE-Fe, right? (I don't see myself as EIE-Ni, tbh xD). 

And as for enneagram, not sure tbh. Some say 3, some say 4, some say 7 and some say 8 as my core, but it's all agreed that I am sx-dom. I am researching enneagram at the moment. It's interesting what you can uncover about yourself and others, huh?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah, and Gamma are meant to be a 'serious' Quadra, right? I have also been told by others that I am pretty much 'not very serious at all' (not that it's always a bad/good thing), and like to joke around. And the fact that I use Ne demonstrative, a crap-ton of Fe, a lot of Ni and Si is the bane of my existence only really leaves EIE-Fe, right? (I don't see myself as EIE-Ni, tbh xD).
> 
> And as for enneagram, not sure tbh. Some say 3, some say 4, some say 7 and some say 8 as my core, but it's all agreed that I am sx-dom. I am researching enneagram at the moment. It's interesting what you can uncover about yourself and others, huh?


The serious/merry part though is only meant to show if someone values Te-Fi or Fe-Ti. But the rest makes sense so I really can't see a better option for you (I agree with EIE-Fe, it's like the most evident part of your posts XD)

For enneagram I guess that a frustration type works, and at face value 7 could be legit lol


----------



## Max

*cfghjklconga!*



Mordred Phantom said:


> The serious/merry part though is only meant to show if someone values Te-Fi or Fe-Ti. But the rest makes sense so I really can't see a better option for you (I agree with EIE-Fe, it's like the most evident part of your posts XD)
> 
> For enneagram I guess that a frustration type works, and at face value 7 could be legit lol


Ah, I never actually knew that (I never really looked into the actual analysis behind Merry/Serious Dichotomies, I guess that's my homework then? xD)I thought it was more to do with how each quadra 'acted' (not under the influence of functions, but in general). That makes a lot of sense actually, considering that Te is generally categorized as being a lot more 'serious' than Fe, and vice versa with Fi/Ti (even in MBTI). 

Hm, a 7? Superficially, I can see a 7, but underneath it all, not really. I don't really deal with issues as a 7 does (Positivist), I don't see myself as relating to 7s fears as 'core fears', and I don't really lean towards the 7 as a core. Now, this has nothing to do with 7 being criticized as 'shallow' (I know they're not shallow at all, especially after integration), but in general from what I have read. I do relate to 7 (in tritype terms), but not really as a core type, if you get my drift?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Ah, I never actually knew that (I never really looked into the actual analysis behind Merry/Serious Dichotomies, I guess that's my homework then? xD)I thought it was more to do with how each quadra 'acted' (not under the influence of functions, but in general). That makes a lot of sense actually, considering that Te is generally categorized as being a lot more 'serious' than Fe, and vice versa with Fi/Ti (even in MBTI).
> 
> Hm, a 7? Superficially, I can see a 7, but underneath it all, not really. I don't really deal with issues as a 7 does (Positivist), I don't see myself as relating to 7s fears as 'core fears', and I don't really lean towards the 7 as a core. Now, this has nothing to do with 7 being criticized as 'shallow' (I know they're not shallow at all, especially after integration), but in general from what I have read. I do relate to 7 (in tritype terms), but not really as a core type, if you get my drift?


Yep, it's only a function dichotomy, like judicious/decisive. Well, I've noticed that Ti bases are serious personality wise, while XEEs can be quite funny despite being labeled as serious types. So taking the names at face value leads to many misleading conclusions.

That's a good starting point, as you've discarded an option that seemed likely without digging deeper. In a sense this is similar to typing XEEs as 7s without bothering to check if they really show the defense mechanism of that type. This is only anecdotal info, but I've seen twice that people that are apparently SEE 7 are deep down type 4. So I wouldn't be that surprised if that happens to you too.


----------



## Max

Mordred Phantom said:


> Yep, it's only a function dichotomy, like judicious/decisive. Well, I've noticed that Ti bases are serious personality wise, while XEEs can be quite funny despite being labeled as serious types. So taking the names at face value leads to many misleading conclusions.
> 
> That's a good starting point, as you've discarded an option that seemed likely without digging deeper. In a sense this is similar to typing XEEs as 7s without bothering to check if they really show the defense mechanism of that type. This is only anecdotal info, but I've seen twice that people that are apparently SEE 7 are deep down type 4. So I wouldn't be that surprised if that happens to you too.


True xD. 

Yeah. As far as I can recall, 7s tend to want to avoid displeasurable things, like pain. Genuinely, I don't mind pain, disappointment, gross things and being uncomfortable. I don't mind being pushed out of my comfort zone, and I don't mind finding out things about myself/others that may be unpleasant, especially if it's honest and brings us closer together. I don't actively avoid things like that, because I don't see the point. I am a strong believer of 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger', and I enjoy meaning over pleasure seeking, tbh. 

I've tried to merge with 7 before, and 'conquer' them and understand them, but it's hard, especially with them being so sporadic sometimes (aboslutely NOT a bad thing, and 7s are great, inventive, fun people who freshen things up and aren't afraid of confrontation) but I'm beginning to conclude that I'm nothing like them part the superficial. Many people have tried to type me as a 7, but something's just... off. 

I don't relate to the 7 type, in the same way that an actual 7 seems to.

And yes, xEEs are commonly lumped with 7 because many of them exhibit personality traits associated with people of the 7 enneagram type, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are 7s past the surface like you said. You really need to think past the surface/persona and into the person themselves. You know?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> True xD.
> 
> Yeah. As far as I can recall, 7s tend to want to avoid displeasurable things, like pain. Genuinely, I don't mind pain, disappointment, gross things and being uncomfortable. I don't mind being pushed out of my comfort zone, and I don't mind finding out things about myself/others that may be unpleasant, especially if it's honest and brings us closer together. I don't actively avoid things like that, because I don't see the point. I am a strong believer of 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger', and I enjoy meaning over pleasure seeking, tbh.
> 
> I've tried to merge with 7 before, and 'conquer' them and understand them, but it's hard, especially with them being so sporadic sometimes (aboslutely NOT a bad thing, and 7s are great, inventive, fun people who freshen things up and aren't afraid of confrontation) but I'm beginning to conclude that I'm nothing like them part the superficial. Many people have tried to type me as a 7, but something's just... off.
> 
> I don't relate to the 7 type, in the same way that an actual 7 seems to.
> 
> And yes, xEEs are commonly lumped with 7 because many of them exhibit personality traits associated with people of the 7 enneagram type, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are 7s past the surface like you said. You really need to think past the surface/persona and into the person themselves. You know?


The other problem is rationalizing shitty circumstances for not falling apart. I did that as I had zero leverage for complaining to my prof about stuff that I didn't like, so I tried to cope with it until I reached my breaking point. Though, stepping out of the thesis helped me to detect all the BS and cut the crap, otherwise I wouldn't be able to finish it soon. So that was a good example that I have to be aware of any red flag that I detect later.

I wonder if you mostly found Pe types though, as they tend to be more flighty in general. Sometimes people think that I'm a 5 and I think nope, I don't withdraw like them nor I relate to the rejection triad as a main issue.

Yep, as digging more I found that they had image issues and other problems typical of type 4.


----------



## counterintuitive

Lol yes I've seen lots of Ep type as e7 when they are actually 4, 5, 6, etc. and they eventually retype as their correct type.

I mistyped _myself_ as a 5 initially because I have more of the behaviors of a 5, well more so back then and less so now. But yeah, I don't relate to the core motivations or core fears of the 5. I do have some 5 'in me' but that can just be the integration point of the 7.





Fenix Wulfheart said:


> The attitude the blob article guy has is Ne because he sees the blobs as static, and he is just trying to find the words to describe the phenomenon whether it is real or not. Much like you say your thoughts exist like that post exists, it is describing a thing which is seen as real and relevant because it exists, at the very least in his mind.


I don't find words to describe "blobs" in my mind. Right now for instance, I'm thinking coherent, clear, precise thoughts and stating them.



> So if you have incoherent non-logical intuition that you see and seek to understand the individual bits of information as they are,


I don't have this. At least I don't think so.



> then you'd be Ne. Your liquid planets certainly seem that way to me.


It's possible and I agree at least on the Staticness of the liquid planets btw. The problem is that I cannot distinguish the liquid planets from my ever-present brainfog, incoherence, vagueness, confusion, and general daze. These are symptoms of a medical condition I've had for the last ~5 years. My thoughts were nothing like liquid planets before this. As the condition improves via treatment, I have fewer liquid planets; when I get more sleep, I have fewer liquid planets; etc.



> Fe, on the other hand, pays attention to the dynamic ethical atmosphere. It is utterly opposed to that way of seeing reality as static. How do you see Fe when it manifests within yourself? What do you pay attention to, and what do you think about it?


Well, to be clear, I'm not saying the liquid planets have anything to do with Fe - I don't think they do - they are indeed Static and not Dynamic like Fe. TBH my Fe is even less conscious than the half-conscious liquid planets, so I doubt it could be an ego block function. Basically, I do have some grasp of how to affect emotional atmospheres, and I can kinda do it. But it's not a primary focus for me, and as such my Fe is not in ego. I can handle Fe stuff OK though. I wrote more about it here

ETA: Btw, if it's not clear from the above - I actually agree on Ti creative and Fe HA, ILE>SLE based on other stuff, lots of signs of 1D Si and no signs of 1D Ni for instance lol, also Ne base still seems more likely than Se base even with the above. Just saying that I cannot definitively say "ILE" yet. :crazy: :crazy:


----------



## Max

Mordred Phantom said:


> The other problem is rationalizing shitty circumstances for not falling apart. I did that as I had zero leverage for complaining to my prof about stuff that I didn't like, so I tried to cope with it until I reached my breaking point. Though, stepping out of the thesis helped me to detect all the BS and cut the crap, otherwise I wouldn't be able to finish it soon. So that was a good example that I have to be aware of any red flag that I detect later.
> 
> I wonder if you mostly found Pe types though, as they tend to be more flighty in general. Sometimes people think that I'm a 5 and I think nope, I don't withdraw like them nor I relate to the rejection triad as a main issue.
> 
> Yep, as digging more I found that they had image issues and other problems typical of type 4.


I think in general, I tend to struggle more with Math/Science than English/Languages/The Arts is because they limit my creativity in general. And also, I tend to just do things I don't like to get them done, and never see them again (unless I have to) in terms of class work. I do show a 'deeper' understanding of what I am researching, but everything is translated into 'Fe-Speak' (simplified terms for everyone to understand). And as for a breaking point, I generally don't have one, unless I have to work with someone I have tried to like/mesh with, but genuinely can't. Then, I become envious and competitive (subtly first), then to the point where I just end up being 'honest' with them. I just say what the other people are thinking, tbh. I end up as the voice for them, and myself. Generally, I tend to mesh well with people and get on with them diplomatically (except, when they are genuinely being dicks, and disruptive). Or if I'm having a bad day, and am trying to get on with things. Then I tend to want to withdraw for a while (this happened today, and I had a crappy morning, but the afternoon was fine when I began socializing and getting back into 'the zone and flow of things').

Yes, they do, but also Je types with developed Pe (esecially Fe-Se loops) can some off flighty in their own way. I know you're probably gonna 'kill' me for using this example, but have you ever seen Rocky Horror Picture Show before? Me and another member here concluded that Dr.FrankNFurter was an ENFJ, who came across as Pe-like because of how he presented himself, and how the enneagram also influenced him, but he was a clear(ly insane) ENFJ. 

Yes, I get a lot of people thinking that I am either 'Pe-like' or a '7', when I am really none of those two after some research. I think some people get lazy, and assume they are X type, but when they ask questions, it starts fights (usualy unintentionally) because other 'super verified' members of X type can't relate to the OP, and they start arguments about how 'well versed' they are in X system, and sometimes people end up getting banned from it. 

Ah, the circle of [forum] life. :shocked:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I think in general, I tend to struggle more with Math/Science than English/Languages/The Arts is because they limit my creativity in general. And also, I tend to just do things I don't like to get them done, and never see them again (unless I have to) in terms of class work. I do show a 'deeper' understanding of what I am researching, but everything is translated into 'Fe-Speak' (simplified terms for everyone to understand).
> 
> Yes, they do, but also Je types with developed Pe (esecially Fe-Se loops) can some off flighty in their own way. I know you're probably gonna 'kill' me for using this example, but have you ever seen Rocky Horror Picture Show before? Me and another member here concluded that Dr.FrankNFurter was an ENFJ, who came across as Pe-like because of how he presented himself, and how the enneagram also influenced him, but he was a clear(ly insane) ENFJ.
> 
> Yes, I get a lot of people thinking that I am either 'Pe-like' or a '7', when I am really none of those two after some research. I think some people get lazy, and assume they are X type, but when they ask questions, it starts fights (usualy unintentionally) because other 'super verified' members of X type can't relate to the OP, and they start arguments about how 'well versed' they are in X system, and sometimes people end up getting banned from it.
> 
> Ah, the circle of [forum] life. :shocked:


Lol yeah, I also work harder for getting rid of annoying classes, as it would be way worse to do them again. Organic chemistry was the one that I wanted to kill with fire. I also try to Te the ideas that I have, otherwise it would be a Ni vomit that barely anyone would understand.

I haven't watched it, but I know about BlazBlue and one of the characters (Kagura Mutsuki, who's a flirty drunk General) looks like a Se base but he's most likely a LIE 7. I think that this character is Te sub, so he can work as a comparison xD

Oh yeah, I've seen that crap so many times that I label those annoying people as roaches. Like they dislike someone and label them as their conflictor.


----------



## Max

Mordred Phantom said:


> Lol yeah, I also work harder for getting rid of annoying classes, as it would be way worse to do them again. Organic chemistry was the one that I wanted to kill with fire. I also try to Te the ideas that I have, otherwise it would be a Ni vomit that barely anyone would understand.
> 
> I haven't watched it, but I know about BlazBlue and one of the characters (Kagura Mutsuki, who's a flirty drunk General) looks like a Se base but he's most likely a LIE 7. I think that this character is Te sub, so he can work as a comparison xD
> 
> Oh yeah, I've seen that crap so many times that I label those annoying people as roaches. Like they dislike someone and label them as their conflictor.


I had to do three classes for an extra 2 years, when I didn't care about school, but now I care because I only have one shot at what I'm doing, which makes it worth fighting for. Normal schooling became irrelevant for me like ten years ago, when I knew what I knew I had to know xD Now, this is specialist qualifications, and I have to take things seriously, or there's no use in doing it. It's actually relevant now, you know? 

And yeah, if I didn't Fe everythong, it would be like 'The Babylonian Archives' xD It would get so damn lost in translation that no-one would understand the concepts I was trying to explain. 

Oh, this is the original musical movie version xD I didn't even know there was an anime version of it. None of these characters are in the original, but thanks for the pointers and the contrasts. 

Yeah, true. Sometimes the fights are funny, other times they're just idiotic. But above all, they're entertaining as long as they don't escalate. I've seen some ridiculous threads that deserve their own photo frames in the past lol. :tongue:


----------



## Graveyard

*Toc toc toc*

Do you wanna overthrow a government?
Come on let's go and play!
I never see you post anymore
Come out the thread
It's like you've gone away!

We used to conquer kingdoms
And now we're not
I wish you would tell me why!

Do you wanna overthrow a government?
It doesn't have to be Russia~

---

That is to say, anyone here?


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Hey guys, uhm. Anyone up for a group sport? Group chat? Group game? A party? World domination?
> 
> I'm all ears.


I am up for a group chat or game. But I am not an Beta :crazy: :crazy: :tongue: Well probably not, if anyone still thinks I might be an SLE or even EIE then this is almost your last call.


OMG I PUT ILE IN MY TYPE FIELD. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. HERE'S A GAME IDEA, LET'S TAKE BETS ON HOW LONG BEFORE COUNTERINTUITIVE CHANGES OR REMOVES TYPE FROM THE TYPE FIELD :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Betting table:

It's currently 2316 UTC

1 hour? 2 hours? 4 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?! 96 hours?!

Current record is at 96 hours btw.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> I am up for a group chat or game. But I am not an Beta :crazy: :crazy: :tongue: Well probably not, if anyone still thinks I might be an SLE or even EIE then this is almost your last call.
> 
> OMG I PUT ILE IN MY TYPE FIELD. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. HERE'S A GAME IDEA, LET'S TAKE BETS ON HOW LONG BEFORE COUNTERINTUITIVE CHANGES OR REMOVES TYPE FROM THE TYPE FIELD :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


Uhm... how about Cards Against Humanity instead?


----------



## Max

Graveyard said:


> Uhm... how about Cards Against Humanity instead?


Invite @WontlyTheMoonBear too before I go to sleep. 

Wait, is there an app for it?


----------



## counterintuitive

Graveyard said:


> Uhm... how about Cards Against Humanity instead?


Lol that sounds a lot better. Good job Fe. 

Wait so we can Cards Against Humanity online?


----------



## counterintuitive

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> (...) *a lot of Ni and Si is the bane of my existence* only really leaves EIE-Fe, right? (I don't see myself as EIE-Ni, tbh xD). (...)


Huh, this is interesting. You think of your creative Ni as the bane of your existence...? Certainly points to Fe subtype as you note. 

I'm a Ti creative (I think :crazy: :crazy and I _definitely_ don't see Ti as the bane of my existence. It's quite the opposite, I see it almost like a second base function. It's an integral part of my life, in coming to conclusions and forming viewpoints, etc. I need Ti to navigate the world tbh. I did mistype as Ti base before, though, and I'm probably a Ti subtype as well. So that can explain it.


----------



## Graveyard

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Invite @WontlyTheMoonBear too before I go to sleep.
> 
> Wait, is there an app for it?


There's a website for it. But if you're about to sleep, better do it tomorrow. What'd be the point of an event with no Fe dom? 

Besides, we could kinda organize it and shit.



counterintuitive said:


> Lol that sounds a lot better. Good job Fe.
> 
> Wait so we can Cards Against Humanity online?


Why indeed.

I don't have the link at the moment but I'll ask around.


----------



## Max

counterintuitive said:


> Huh, this is interesting. You think of your creative Ni as the bane of your existence...? Certainly points to Fe subtype as you note.
> 
> I'm a Ti creative (I think :crazy: :crazy and I _definitely_ don't see Ti as the bane of my existence. It's quite the opposite, I see it almost like a second base function. It's an integral part of my life, in coming to conclusions and forming viewpoints, etc. I need Ti to navigate the world tbh. I did mistype as Ti base before, though, and I'm probably a Ti subtype as well. So that can explain it.


No, SI is the bane of my existence xD Anything Si related, and I die. Anything at all. 

But yes, Fe subtype. Ni works well with it. Tag team.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Graveyard said:


> Uhm... how about Cards Against Humanity instead?


I'm so down for that. How else can I airdrop windmills full of corpses on starving afghanistani children?


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm so down for that. How else can I airdrop windmills full of corpses on starving afghanistani children?


You are one fine sir. However, CAH is not avaible online for mobiles, so we kinda need a new game. :c


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Graveyard said:


> You are one fine sir. However, CAH is not avaible online for mobiles, so we kinda need a new game. :c


Damn. I don't know what to play then... :c


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Damn. I don't know what to play then... :c


Oh, oh! We could play Mafia! ...though we'd need shittons of people and it's for PC only. It has super-low requirements (because you don't even have to install it, it's a browser game), however.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hm. Maybe. What kind of game is it? Like on of those facebook games? Or something more involved?


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> As I said, I have ideas like that about twice a year. So I guess I use my base function of Ne about twice a year.


Err you misread I guess, I was actually saying that Ne often uses already existing ideas. Truly original ideas are hard to come by in general, even for Ne bases.




> No. My thoughts exist, just like this post exists - while apparently these bullshit blobs do not exist. Plus the author is describing something that doesn't exist, which is contradictory. Also, the author seems to be consciously thinking while as I said, I don't really consciously think.


Guess the word usage "exist" is where this got "hung up".




> Eta: I've thought before that I'm undifferentiated. My thoughts are extremely vague and foggy and almost not even there, so it's really difficult to determine which IEs they are most like. I am very consciously aware of internally structuring information though, especially if it's a lot of new information, I become conscious of actually structuring/sorting/categorizing/filtering this information. This is an active process that I do regularly, but not constantly. This is almost certainly Ti. And I am also consciously aware of Fe, so at least that goes with Ti, though apparently both cannot be mental track... But the rest is just the vague fog almost like my brain is asleep - I can't even get a handle on my own thoughts, because they are too vague.


I don't think that's you being undifferentiated, the vague fog sounds like being tired or from that illness you have. Or idk if it's Ne, since I don't know what *exactly* you mean by "vague fog". Ne is certainly vague and for you it would not be very conscious if you are a contact subtype of ILE. But again, it could just be that illness.




> Idr and tbh I'm not sure what I was thinking, as there is no pyramid in my mind at all now. =S


Ah, ok.




WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> 1) We're already partners in crime


So keep going, no excuse to give up 




> 2) Too much T, and not enough F N or even S involved. Too much technicality and research, which drives me mental if I do it for too long. Not enough creativity, tbh. Not enough stimulation. Leaves me zapped after I finish it, you know? Ugh. Not good for ExE types at all xD
> 
> On a side note: Someone keeps insisting I am Gamma, lol. How? I don't see it.


Hell, then involve more F and N. This is your job here haha.

I do actually find the convos here too technical for a hangout, if we want to talk socionics, why not do it in other threads... (giving a link here to them is fine)




counterintuitive said:


> OMG I PUT ILE IN MY TYPE FIELD. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. HERE'S A GAME IDEA, LET'S TAKE BETS ON HOW LONG BEFORE COUNTERINTUITIVE CHANGES OR REMOVES TYPE FROM THE TYPE FIELD :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Betting table:
> 
> It's currently 2316 UTC
> 
> 1 hour? 2 hours? 4 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?! 96 hours?!
> 
> Current record is at 96 hours btw.


I want to bet on Forever. :/ lol


----------



## DOGSOUP

myst91 said:


> I do actually find the convos here too technical for a hangout, if we want to talk socionics, why not do it in other threads... (giving a link here to them is fine)


Right, this meant to be classical chill-out, aye? Let's talk about music... and games and bets! 

Can I just complain about Eurovision semifinales, because it seriously pissed me off that all the songs were the same (young hot person sings a ballad with a beat, seeks to inspire the masses while everything comes off as repetitive and boooring). I pretty much only liked San Marino and Greece and they didn't even go through. Even my own country was kinda... meh? And the lyrics! seriously! go ahead and gather all the cliches in the world of music, please! 

Is it so hard to write a song that actually tells a story?

# rant

Okay I'm back to normal again. Let's bet about stuff. Life is a gamble.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Err you misread I guess, I was actually saying that Ne often uses already existing ideas. Truly original ideas are hard to come by in general, even for Ne bases.


I was saying that I have ideas like that - ideas that use existing ideas - about twice a year.



> Guess the word usage "exist" is where this got "hung up".


How so? :happy:



> I don't think that's you being undifferentiated, the vague fog sounds like being tired or from that illness you have. Or idk if it's Ne, since I don't know what *exactly* you mean by "vague fog". Ne is certainly vague and for you it would not be very conscious if you are a contact subtype of ILE. But again, it could just be that illness.


Yes, I think it's mostly brainfog, which is a well-documented symptom (of other conditions as well). The problem is that I cannot distinguish the liquid planets from my ever-present brainfog, incoherence, vagueness, confusion, and general daze. These are all symptoms of a medical condition I've had for the last ~5 years. My thoughts were nothing like liquid planets before this. As the condition improves via treatment, I have fewer liquid planets; when I get more sleep, I have fewer liquid planets; etc.

Contact subtype - I think Ti is waaaaaaaay more conscious for me than Ne, FWIW. To the point where I'm basically not conscious of Ne at all, while Ti is quite conscious. I think I said before that I can't be ILE-Ne simply because my Ne is not even conscious enough for that :laughing:



> I want to bet on Forever. :/ lol


If you want me to keep my type listed forever, you should bet on a shorter time frame so it encourages me to outlast that time frame to make you lose your bet. See?  :crazy: :tongue:




myst91 said:


> I do actually find the convos here too technical for a hangout, if we want to talk socionics, why not do it in other threads... (giving a link here to them is fine)


Lol did a Ti base just use the phrase "too technical"? :tongue: :laughing:

The irony is that I'm not a Ti base (though maybe I could pass for one? :crazy and I find the convos just fine. Lol.


----------



## DOGSOUP

counterintuitive said:


> Lol did a Ti base just use the phrase "too technical"? :tongue: :laughing:
> 
> The irony is that I'm not a Ti base (though maybe I could pass for one? :crazy and I find the convos just fine. Lol.


You are just too wild with it... all your technical stuff, it is overwhelming for us mere mortals.

Though I have to say I do try. And do my best. And understand some. I am really curious about the how T base people work. But most of the time... I am left hanging in bewilderment.


----------



## Max

myst91 said:


> Hell, then involve more F and N. This is your job here haha.
> 
> I do actually find the convos here too technical for a hangout, if we want to talk socionics, why not do it in other threads... (giving a link here to them is fine)


I'm trying to xD But there's not a lot of FeNi here to begin with xD

And yeah, this is meant for casual conversation, not technicalities and tribulations (wow, new novel name there xD). I think of this place (the hangouts) as more of a social experiment, and a place to get to know people better. Like the actual google hangouts. It's kind of a buzzkill when people take the hangouts too seriously, imo. It's like chill time isn't it?  :tongue:


----------



## SheWolf




----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I was saying that I have ideas like that - ideas that use existing ideas - about twice a year.


Umm... so all your other ideas are original 

Or, you used up one of those two ideas per year in that thread you opened about ITR.




> How so? :happy:


To_august already explained actually (about how the blob ideas do exist in a sense... in the mind and in a rather indirect way, "out there" too).




> Yes, I think it's mostly brainfog, which is a well-documented symptom (of other conditions as well). The problem is that I cannot distinguish the liquid planets from my ever-present brainfog, incoherence, vagueness, confusion, and general daze. These are all symptoms of a medical condition I've had for the last ~5 years. My thoughts were nothing like liquid planets before this. As the condition improves via treatment, I have fewer liquid planets; when I get more sleep, I have fewer liquid planets; etc.


Yeah, gotcha.




> Contact subtype - I think Ti is waaaaaaaay more conscious for me than Ne, FWIW. To the point where I'm basically not conscious of Ne at all, while Ti is quite conscious. I think I said before that I can't be ILE-Ne simply because my Ne is not even conscious enough for that :laughing:


Yeah um, I'm quite like this with Ti vs Se too.




> If you want me to keep my type listed forever, you should bet on a shorter time frame so it encourages me to outlast that time frame to make you lose your bet. See?  :crazy: :tongue:







> Lol did a Ti base just use the phrase "too technical"? :tongue: :laughing:


Yep. 

Thing is, I do like socializing/just having fun without technical talk too. 

Though I don't object too much if there's someone asking me about technical topics too. But in this thread, I really think it should be avoided as much as possible.




> The irony is that I'm not a Ti base (though maybe I could pass for one? :crazy and I find the convos just fine. Lol.


Ehh creative Ti likes to play in a way I don't really see the point of  Though a lot of time it's serious enough Ti from Ti creatives so I'm fine with it overall.




DOGSOUP said:


> You are just too wild with it... all your technical stuff, it is overwhelming for us mere mortals.
> 
> Though I have to say I do try. And do my best. And understand some. I am really curious about the how T base people work. But most of the time... I am left hanging in bewilderment.


Haha feel free to ask me questions about it =P


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@myst91
Hellooooo !!


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Dunno if anyone here plays Pokemon, as I saw yesterday that the new starters were revealed (and I already want the fire cat XD)


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> Dunno if anyone here plays Pokemon, as I saw yesterday that the new starters were revealed (and I already want the fire cat XD)


----------



## Dragheart Luard

QueenOfNight said:


>


I found some info about that owl being a lil shit:
_Rowlet can attack without making a sound! It flies silently through the skies, drawing near to its opponent without being noticed, and then lashing out with powerful kicks._


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> I found some info about that owl being a lil shit:
> _Rowlet can attack without making a sound! It flies silently through the skies, drawing near to its opponent without being noticed, and then lashing out with powerful kicks._


I've seen so many Rowlet memes already. XD

And then there's this


----------



## Dragheart Luard

QueenOfNight said:


> I've seen so many Rowlet memes already. XD
> 
> And then there's this


I found a pun made with Litten's name and it's ability:


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> I found a pun made with Litten's name and it's ability:



OMG I'M GLAD I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.

MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

There needs to be a sneak attack mechanic in Pokemon. Like, stealth into the tall grass and then BAM. Auto crit or something. Or a speed check to see if undetected.


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hm. Maybe. What kind of game is it? Like on of those facebook games? Or something more involved?


It's a game that started as an experiment from a pretty clever psychology teacher, and became popular in parties. There are lots of rules, and each set of friends has their own, but here are the basics:


* *




In its simplest form, Mafia is played by two teams: the mafia and the innocents. At the start of the game, every mafioso is given the identities of their teammates, whereas the innocents only receive the number of mafiosi in the game. Live games require a moderator who does not participate as a player.

There are two phases: night and day. At night, certain players secretly perform special actions; during day, players discuss and vote to "lynch," or eliminate, one player. These phases alternate with each other until all mafiosi have been eliminated or until the mafia outnumbers the innocents.

Some players may be given roles with special abilities. Common special roles include:

detective — an innocent who may learn the team of one player every night;
doctor — an innocent who may protect a player from being killed every night;
barman — a mafioso who may cancel the effect of another role's ability every night;
vigilante — an innocent who may kill a player every night.
Andrew Plotkin recommends having exactly two mafiosi, whereas the original Davidoff rules suggest a third of the players (rounding to the nearest whole number) be mafiosi. Davidoff's original game does not include roles with special abilities. In his rules for "Werewolf," Andrew Plotkin recommends that the first phase be day and that there be an odd number of players. These specifications prevent players from being killed before the first day and in most scenarios ensure that the game will end dramatically on a lynching rather than with an anticlimactic murder.

*Night*
All players close their eyes. The moderator then instructs all members of the mafia to open their eyes and acknowledge their accomplices. The mafia members pick a "victim" by silently gesturing to indicate their target and to show unanimity then close their eyes again.

A similar process occurs for other roles with nightly actions. In the case of the detective, the moderator may indicate the target's innocence or guilt by using gestures such as nodding or head shaking.

Night may be accompanied by players tapping gently to mask sounds made by gesturing.

*Day*

Looking for criminals and suspecting each other during the day time in Mafia party game
The moderator instructs players to open their eyes and announces who "died" the previous night. According to some rules, the role of the murdered player is revealed; according to others, it is not. Dead players may not attempt to influence the game.

Discussion ensues. At any point, a player may accuse someone of being a mafioso and prompt others to vote to lynch them. If over half of the players do so, the accused person is eliminated, their role is revealed, and night begins. Otherwise, the phase continues until a lynching occurs.

Because players have more freedom to deliberate, days tend to be longer than nights.
_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)_






Fenix Wulfheart said:


> There needs to be a sneak attack mechanic in Pokemon. Like, stealth into the tall grass and then BAM. Auto crit or something. Or a speed check to see if undetected.


That'd work if Pokemon was a real-time RPG, but since it's a turn-based game, I think it just wouldn't work.


----------



## SheWolf

Is anyone here into Marvel and by chance seen Civil War yet?

I saw it for my 20th birthday Saturday. It was pretty amazing.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

It would work like Dig. Disappear for a round, then attack from shadows.

That Mafia game sounds like a hoot. Could we actually play that on the forum, though?


----------



## Graveyard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> That Mafia game sounds like a hoot. Could we actually play that on the forum, though?


No, but that's why this website exists!

https://epicmafia.com/home

It allows you to customize roles, amount of players and has a built-in chat. The whole game is text based (so anyone can play it), and people don't get to use their usernames; instead, they get preset nicknames and avatars.

EDIT: Just so we're clear, I'm in no way associated with the website and I'm just looking for a game to play with people here.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Mafia sounds like loads of fun. We used to play similar party game, but the dead ones always started telling tales when detectives were trying to sort out motives and alibis... so it turned out to be more like Night of the Living Dead than anything else...

How many players do we need?


----------



## counterintuitive

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> And yeah, this is meant for casual conversation, not technicalities and tribulations (wow, new novel name there xD). I think of this place (the hangouts) as more of a social experiment, and a place to get to know people better. Like the actual google hangouts. It's kind of a buzzkill when people take the hangouts too seriously, imo. It's like chill time isn't it?  :tongue:


See, to me as a Ti ego, technical discussion _is_ chill time, casual time, fun time, etc. So I'm not taking this thread "too seriously" at all - this is just how I have fun! After a day at work being friendly to coworkers and doing Te-oriented corporate crap :tongue:, I just want to come home and relax with a nice glass of wine (metaphorically - I don't drink) and some technical discussions. Lol. :laughing:

(Well, at least this confirms again that I'm not an Fe ego! Lol.)

Anyway, I understand now that technical discussion is outside of the scope of this thread, so I have moved it into another thread. For anyone interested in continuing the technical discussion, please go here. P.S. I didn't even consider that discussion technical


----------



## Max

counterintuitive said:


> See, to me as a Ti ego, technical discussion _is_ chill time, casual time, fun time, etc. So I'm not taking this thread "too seriously" at all - this is just how I have fun! After a day at work being friendly to coworkers and doing Te-oriented corporate crap :tongue:, I just want to come home and relax with a nice glass of wine (metaphorically - I don't drink) and some technical discussions. Lol. :laughing:
> 
> (Well, at least this confirms again that I'm not an Fe ego! Lol.)
> 
> Anyway, I understand now that technical discussion is outside of the scope of this thread, so I have moved it into another thread. For anyone interested in continuing the technical discussion, please go here. P.S. I didn't even consider that discussion technical


Years ago, when I was in a loop and was pretty aggressive and going through some crap, I used to take part in Ti discussions because I thought that was the 'normal' thing for a forum-goer (and person in my department/age group) to do. I used to get really frustrated when I didn't understand the things first time and thought of myself as a dumbass. I didn't wanna be seen as a 'Feeler' because I thought it would undermine what (little) stablity and 'masculinity' I had (yes, a post for another day), but now I realise that the T/F masc/feminine thing is pretty much a load of crap. And that everyone has different ways of learning, and are intelligent in their own way (though, sometimes you don't see it outright which is fine).

I realised that I learn better within a group of people who support each other, as well as through Google/other self help websites at home. No, I'm not totally dependent of them, but they have taught me a lot of coping nechanisms/problem solving skills and helped me become a more diverse person, who understands the world around them better in terms of how things work, rather than just in terms of people and ideals/visions. 

When I get home from classes/errands/socialising/whatever, I like to chill and just talk to people, which is fine. In the same manner which you like to discuss technicalities, but sometimes I do find it hard to find a general connection point/intense sense of being within a group and that kinda isolates me from time to time. I relate to a lot of people and groups, but never can find a real connection that lasts and has meaning with the majority of them, which I guess hurts sometimes.


----------



## Graveyard

DOGSOUP said:


> Mafia sounds like loads of fun. We used to play similar party game, but the dead ones always started telling tales when detectives were trying to sort out motives and alibis... so it turned out to be more like Night of the Living Dead than anything else...
> 
> How many players do we need?


Hm, we'd be good to go with at least seven people to make it interesting. More people are always welcome. If you know anyone up to play, please tell them!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

This subforum is my go to place for technical discussions though. 

Ah well. Plenty of threads in the forum ^^


----------



## SheWolf

Technical discussions?

*HISS*


----------



## DOGSOUP

Oh dear I now feel terrible amount of guilt for evicting technical discussion :crazy: (sorry not sorry)

Techno-talk really divides people 

Maybe we should host a Tuesday of Technicalities to keep everyone happy?


----------



## counterintuitive

DOGSOUP said:


> Oh dear I now feel terrible amount of guilt for evicting technical discussion :crazy: (sorry not sorry)
> 
> Techno-talk really divides people
> 
> Maybe we should host a Tuesday of Technicalities to keep everyone happy?


In this case, it was the *anti*-technical viewpoint that was divisive, not the technical talk.

But no need for the olive branch, I'm done posting in here.

@ everyone, please leave me out of whatever the fuck games and don't quote me or mention me here. Thxbye



_Posted from my phone doohickey using some application thing_


----------



## DOGSOUP

Fine...

:crying:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> See, to me as a Ti ego, technical discussion _is_ chill time, casual time, fun time, etc. So I'm not taking this thread "too seriously" at all - this is just how I have fun!


Change "Ti ego" to "Ti creative" really, I can't relate. 

And I'm done with adding any more technical stuff here =)

EDIT: sry, I didn't see the above post.

EDIT2: I actually only take issue here in this thread with the Socionics technical discussions.


----------



## DOGSOUP

myst91 said:


> Heh I don't know, I think that only happens in duality if the partners are consciously working for that. And I don't think the suggestive gets developed much beyond a point, only if there is a regular supply of it, or all that improvement gets forgotten over time. At least that's my experience and it makes sense why it would be so.


Oh, but I share that experience too :smile: Can't keep up Ti on my own. With others it is easier. Sharper. So much so I actually like engaging it on occasion and get critical. It happens. Anyway. How would you describe this manifesting with suffestive Fe?



Verity said:


> It depends on how much you attribute to them. Personally, the only noticeable Reinin trait that seems to have a negative effect in my life is asking/declaring; I've butted horns at times with other declarers who are close friends of mine since neither of us likes shutting up until we've reached our points, which leads to the other feeling as if he/she's not being listened to. I've not noticed this problem with supposed asking types.


I originally thought these would happen more between dichtomies, but especially with this particular dichtomy it actually makes more sense for declarers to clash with declarers. Perhaps dichtomies (again, depending on how valid we consider them) can work as more of a balancing factor.


----------



## Verity

DOGSOUP said:


> I originally thought these would happen more between dichtomies, but especially with this particular dichtomy it actually makes more sense for declarers to clash with declarers. Perhaps dichtomies (again, depending on how valid we consider them) can work as more of a balancing factor.


I noticed there's actually a pattern to it. Your Conflictor and Superego is always of the same dichotomy, while your Dual and Semi-dual is of the other. So I definitely think there's some merit to that idea.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Sygma said:


> One word : convictions. When thoughts feed beliefs and then they become convictions it's when shit begin to be "locked", thus you have to take radical decisions. So the whole point is to avoid letting that happen at all. Tunnel vision minded people are truly the most dangerous to themselves, let alone to others.


Nietzsche said convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies. 

_To fit in with an opponent one needs direct perception. There is no direct perception where there is resistance, a “this is the only way” attitude._
_Having totality means being capable of following “what is,” because “what is” is constantly moving and changing. If one is anchored to a particular view, one will not be able to follow the swift movements of “what is.”Bruce Lee_

And he said something similar to Einstein. How people orbit an idea as a reaction. Like atheists who are still chained to religion. 

'I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds'

Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> So, thinking prevents us from living, from breathing -- but what do you say to the people who cannot _not _think?
> 
> I mean, I can see it this way. Thinking hardly ever makes me feel good; mechanic, hostile over thinking every last bit of anything. But like said, I have always had difficulties to grasp how it feels (see, I am already biased) to be a Thinker.
> 
> *
> 
> Lewis had a bizarre relationship with his God. This is obvious from _The Screwtape Letters_, a change of view and each just as eagerly serving their own causes... the fact that he understood to study the situation not from a guardian angel's perspective, but rather that of _guardian _demon's, makes it very clear he had spent hours pondering and struggling with this dilemma.
> 
> How about what Thomas Harris wrote in _Red Dragon_: "Shiloh isn’t haunted – men are haunted. Shiloh doesn’t care." Metaphysical consepts of evil and good play no part. Not even the laws of nature. Just us, and it is our responsibility (or curse) to deal with it.



If you liked The Screwtape Letters maybe you would like The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. James says up front what religion is, is hard to define. So he defines it as a person's acceptance of the universe. It doesn't have to do with God or even spirituality, but usually does. And he documented some of the best cases. Tolstoy for example. Too long to post here. His religious experience. That is what it is about. Experience as you said. That is fuckin James. lol. He invented radical empiricism. 

Experience is authority. If you want to learn about religion, you document the experiences of religious people. The key is the person must have the experience themselves. Like with Lewis. James criticized Hegel because Hegel was a mystic. James experimented with many drugs. And he said only under nitrous did Hegel make sense to him. Again, the experience. A person's own experience cannot be pushed on another. They must experience it themselves. 

But I like this short bit on Voltaire:

*"It would strain the ordinary use of language too much to call such attitudes religious, even though, from the point of view of an unbiased critical philosophy, they might conceivably be perfectly reasonable ways of looking upon life. 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."


*

And he documents the experiences of many people on drugs like nitrous. Like this one:

" A great Being or Power was traveling through the sky, his foot was on a kind of lightning as a wheel is on a rail, it was his pathway. The lightning was made entirely of the spirits of innumerable people close to one another, and I was one of them. He moved in a straight line, and each part of the streak or flash came into its short conscious existence only that he might travel. I seemed to be directly under the foot of God, and I thought he was grinding his own life up out of my pain. Then I saw that what he had been trying with all his might to do was to change his course, to bend the line of lightning to which he was tied, in the direction in which he wanted to go. I felt my flexibility and helplessness, and knew that he would succeed. He bended me, turning his corner by means of my hurt, hurting me more than I had ever been hurt in my life, and at the acutest point of this, as he passed, I saio. I understood for a moment things that I have now forgotten, things that no one could remember while retaining sanity. The angle was an obtuse angle, and I remember thinking as I woke that had he made it a right or acute angle, I should have both suffered and ' seen ' still more, and should probably have died.

" He went on and I came to. In that moment the whole of my life passed before me, including each little meaningless piece of distress, and \ I understood them. This was what it had all meant, this was the piece of work it had all been contributing to do. I did not see God's purpose, I only saw his intentness and his entire relentlessness towards his means. He thought no more of me than a man thinks of hurting a cork when he is ripening wine, or hurting a cartridge when he is firing.


----------



## Sygma

DOGSOUP said:


> So you suggest that at early state thoughts and beliefs are flexible and fluid? But as they loose that flexibility they turn into convictions which are more difficult to get rid of?
> 
> The reason this interests me is because I currently see lots of people loose themselves to dangerous ideologies and convictions that desolate them from the good of humanity. That's how I see it, anyway. It saddens me, and I hope to figure out a way to prevent it from happening, other than each consciously working on it... for instance, it would probably be beneficial to interact with lots of different people so beliefs would be in constant push and pull. No one would have time to let them become dogmatic.


You just described how wars are being formed since the beginning of times. All kind of wars, that is. So, yup


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> Horses have amazing healing effect... even watching them can feel therapeutic. I know some people are afraid of them, but when one feels connection to them the feeling is difficult to describe. Never have I felt so alive as I did when galloping full speed, and my horse and I shared such a strong bond.
> 
> I hope you will ride again within those two months.


Oh yes. There is literally no feeling equivalent to riding a horse.


----------



## SheWolf

(I accidentally posted this is in Gamma Quadra oops)

I asked my sister, for fun mostly, to name at least 5 of my good and bad personality traits. This is what she said. 
Good: Personally caring (as in I'm very caring to those in close to like family and best friends), mentally strong, determined, funny, loyal, very moral 

Bad: A bit callous/insentive to other's emotions, sometimes a little bit lazy (lol), unforgiving, blunt, at times have low self esteem. 

Interesting.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Sygma said:


> You just described how wars are being formed since the beginning of times. All kind of wars, that is. So, yup


I suppose so, especially when the ensemble includes not only the conviction aspect, but also conflicts over land areas (so called "living space) and other natural resources.


----------



## myst91

DOGSOUP said:


> Oh, but I share that experience too :smile: Can't keep up Ti on my own. With others it is easier. Sharper. So much so I actually like engaging it on occasion and get critical. It happens. Anyway. How would you describe this manifesting with suffestive Fe?


I get to see and experience the humane side of things but specifically in this excited/higher-energy way. Uhh, does that make sense?


----------



## DOGSOUP

myst91 said:


> I get to see and experience the humane side of things but specifically in this excited/higher-energy way. Uhh, does that make sense?


Sure it does! 



FearAndTrembling said:


> If you liked The Screwtape Letters maybe you would like The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. James says up front what religion is, is hard to define. So he defines it as a person's acceptance of the universe. It doesn't have to do with God or even spirituality, but usually does. And he documented some of the best cases. Tolstoy for example. Too long to post here. His religious experience. That is what it is about. Experience as you said. That is fuckin James. lol. He invented radical empiricism.


Cool, I'll look into it! But it sounds like I'd have to agree with what James has to say. Surprise...!



> Experience is authority. If you want to learn about religion, you document the experiences of religious people. The key is the person must have the experience themselves. Like with Lewis. James criticized Hegel because Hegel was a mystic. James experimented with many drugs. And he said only under nitrous did Hegel make sense to him. Again, the experience. A person's own experience cannot be pushed on another. They must experience it themselves.


Wouldn't this mean it is pointless to even try to teach religion (or indoctrinate people to that matter) because a truly moving experience ought to originate from within.

I find that tribalism is mostly people coming together for reasons of practicality, and most of the traditions and customs base from lessons of the past and actually are helpful in maintaining a style of life (example: respecting the prey animals to prevent the ecological system from being overloaded). At the same time the actual spiritual content comes from totems, legends, dreams, and shamanism. Now, shamanism requires indoctrination, yes? For a select view. But dreamtime belongs to everyone. By sharing dreams people participate in the social and political activities of the group as well as create more religious content.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> Sure it does!
> 
> 
> Cool, I'll look into it! But it sounds like I'd have to agree with what James has to say. Surprise...!
> 
> 
> Wouldn't this mean it is pointless to even try to teach religion (or indoctrinate people to that matter) because a truly moving experience ought to originate from within.
> 
> I find that tribalism is mostly people coming together for reasons of practicality, and most of the traditions and customs base from lessons of the past and actually are helpful in maintaining a style of life (example: respecting the prey animals to prevent the ecological system from being overloaded). At the same time the actual spiritual content comes from totems, legends, dreams, and shamanism. Now, shamanism requires indoctrination, yes? For a select view. But dreamtime belongs to everyone. By sharing dreams people participate in the social and political activities of the group as well as create more religious content.


Yes, James pointed that out too. People are different, and church is a form of therapy but patients are different. They have the same solution for everybody.




But this question suggests another one which I will answer immediately and get it out of the way, for it has more than once already vexed us. Ought it to be assumed that in all men the mixture of religion with other elements should be identical? Ought it, indeed, to be assumed that the lives of all men should show identical religious elements? In other words, is the existence of so many religious types and sects and creeds regrettable?

To these questions I answer 'No' emphatically. And my reason is that I do not see how it is possible that creatures in such different positions and with such different powers as human individuals are, should have exactly the same functions and the same duties. No two of us have identical difficulties, nor should we be expected to work out identical solutions. Each, from his peculiar angle of observation, takes in a certain sphere of fact and trouble, which each must deal with in a unique manner. One of us must soften himself, another must harden himself; one must yield a point, another must stand firm,- in order the better to defend the position assigned him. If an Emerson were forced to be a Wesley, or a Moody forced to be a Whitman, the total human consciousness of the divine would suffer. The divine can mean no single quality, it must mean a group of qualities, by being champions of which in alternation, different men may all find worthy missions. Each attitude being a syllable in human nature's total message, it takes the whole of us to spell the meaning out completely. So a 'god of battles' must be allowed to be the god for one kind of person, a god of peace and heaven and home, the god for another. We must frankly recognize the fact that we live in partial systems, and that parts are not interchangeable in the spiritual life. If we are peevish and jealous, destruction of the self must be an element of our religion; why need it be one if we are good and sympathetic from the outset? If we are sick souls, we require a religion of deliverance; but why think so much of deliverance, if we are healthy-minded? *1* Unquestionably, some men have the completer experience and the higher vocation, here just as in the social world; but for each man to stay in his own experience, whate'er it be, and for others to tolerate him there, is surely best.

And I love this quote by Whitehead:​


*Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness.* It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion.
*Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious.* Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, churches, rituals, bibles, codes of behaviour, are the trappings of religion, its passing forms.
They may be useful, or harmful; they may be authoritatively ordained, or merely temporary expedients. But the end of religion is beyond all this.​


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

weeeeeeeee! I am soooooo fucking drunk right now. Never been quite this drunk before! Wish y'all were here drinking with me tonite!!! Hahaha :3


----------



## DOGSOUP

All of a sudden I am having flashbacks of Richard E. Byrd. Apparently he intended to stay in isolation for a half a year in Antarctica hoping to experience the goodness of solitude. After 24 days the confusion hit. He sought comfort from religious consepts, "man is not alone" etc. After three months total, he was severely depressed and experiencing _hallucinations._ Or that urban legend about the person who spend a summer in a haunted lighthouse. At the end of the season he was found talking with the ghosts. Mind is a powerful thing. Frightening even.

This one is good:


FearAndTrembling said:


> It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion.


because we can place every person ever somewhere in these stages. 



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> weeeeeeeee! I am soooooo fucking drunk right now. Never been quite this drunk before! Wish y'all were here drinking with me tonite!!! Hahaha :3


I can't even get drunk. I only have hangovers :/


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I still say the Bee Gees are the most underrated band ever. I mean, yeah they were huge, but so was Abba. Don't think they get the respect they deserve. Truly a great group.

My friend's parents had this as their wedding song. God could have written it. "I started a joke." Somebody started this joke. lol. This world. Something similar was said in a Dostoevsky novel. The characters discussing God. One guy phrases the question, "Who is laughing at man? Somebody must be laughing at man."






I started a joke, which started the whole world crying
But I didn't see that the joke was on me, oh no

I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing
Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me

I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes
And I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I'd said

Til I finally died, which started the whole world living
Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me​


----------



## DOGSOUP

There is no word in human language that would satisfactorily describe what it is like to read classics of Russian literature tbh.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> There is no word in human language that would satisfactorily describe what it is like to read classics of Russian literature tbh.



Their stories and style are fuckin weird. lol. Movies too. Solaris. Which was a book first. STALKER. The most recent one I watched was Hard to be a God. These movies are somewhat hard to follow but have brilliant insights in them. 

I like Werner Herzog too. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is similar to those stories in examining humanity. Many of his movies are. 

The subtitle of Kaspar is "every man for himself and God against all." lol. love that. There is a reason God is against us.


----------



## DOGSOUP

FearAndTrembling said:


> Their stories and style are fuckin weird. lol. Movies too. Solaris. Which was a book first. STALKER. The most recent one I watched was Hard to be a God. These movies are somewhat hard to follow but have brilliant insights in them.
> 
> I like Werner Herzog too. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is similar to those stories in examining humanity. Many of his movies are.
> 
> The subtitle of Kaspar is "every man for himself and God against all." lol. love that. There is a reason God is against us.


But the western version of Solaris completely failed because they mistook it for a lovestory. Lem didn't fully enjoy the Tarkovsky version either because it focused too much on internal psyche of humans while to him the most important thing was that desperate attempt of communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence. Or limits of human comprehension. 

The psychological elements make it credible, the philosophy makes it interesting. 

Hard to be a God was difficult as a book. Left me outside, maybe intentionally. They also had another book that left me completely in the dark. About alien invasion almost going to happen?????


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> But the western version of Solaris completely failed because they mistook it for a lovestory. Lem didn't fully enjoy the Tarkovsky version either because it focused too much on internal psyche of humans while to him the most important thing was that desperate attempt of communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence. Or limits of human comprehension.
> 
> The psychological elements make it credible, the philosophy makes it interesting.
> 
> Hard to be a God was difficult as a book. Left me outside, maybe intentionally. They also had another book that left me completely in the dark. About alien invasion almost going to happen?????



I watched the Tarkovsky movie first and then read the book. After reading the book I was like, "So THAT's what it was about." lol. 

The book had some great themes. How the two intelligences tried to reach other but were unintelligible to each other. Like us and our pets. lol. 

I like this point by William James:

"Take our dogs and ourselves, connected as we are by a tie more intimate than most ties in this world; and yet, outside of that tie of friendly fondness, how insensible, each of us, to all that makes life significant for the other!—we to the rapture of bones under hedges, or smells of trees and lamp-posts, they to the delights of literature and art. As you sit reading the most moving romance you ever fell upon, what sort of a judge is your fox-terrier of your behavior? With all his good will toward you, the nature of your conduct is absolutely excluded from his comprehension. To sit there like a senseless statue, when you might be taking him to walk and throwing sticks for him to catch! What queer disease is this that comes over you every day, of holding things and staring at them like that for hours together, paralyzed of motion and vacant of all conscious life?"


----------



## DOGSOUP

FearAndTrembling said:


> I watched the Tarkovsky movie first and then read the book. After reading the book I was like, "So THAT's what it was about." lol.
> 
> The book had some great themes. How the two intelligences tried to reach other but were unintelligible to each other. Like us and our pets. lol.


Don't you just love how cleverly dolphins are portrayed in science fiction? There was one example in _Hyperion_ by Dan Simmons, interspecies communication between humans and dolphins, it's crazy:


> "What do you miss most of Old Earth's oceans?" -- "miss Shark/miss Shark/miss Shark/miss Shark/Shark/Shark/Shark"


It's like... all animals having their nature, and two that differ from one another never meet. But once again, it applies to people. Each person has their nature. Sometimes very difficult to comprehend.

Dogs have always struck me as sad beings for one reason or another. So loyal. Even (especially?) a dog that gets beaten. Is it in its nature to suffer the pain and humiliation when it comes from the pack leader? Are people the same at the end of the day?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I really think so, yeah. The dog instinctively obeys the leader of its pack, despite any species boundaries. The punishment for disobeying gets meted out in more natural packs as much as in our own packs of our design. It is a struggle for dominance that is reflected across all the lines of nature, a simple and basic and all encompassing desire to live by our own instincts.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> I've never actually had sushi.  I can't now, though, since I'm converting to vegetarianism.


Ah, if you're not into strong flavours don't do it. Japanese people are weird and so is their food. Beware of the nipon!


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> Ah, if you're not into strong flavours don't do it. Japanese people are weird and so is their food. Beware of the nipon!


I don't mind strong flavors as long as they are good flavors.

I have been watching this girl, emmymadeinjapan and sometimes she doesn't even like the some of the weird Japanese foods that she's tried. Lol. 

I actually wouldn't mind trying a century egg if it was put in jok like she did.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> I don't mind strong flavors as long as they are good flavors.
> 
> I have been watching this girl, emmymadeinjapan and sometimes she doesn't even like the some of the weird Japanese foods that she's tried. Lol.
> 
> I actually wouldn't mind trying a century egg if it was put in jok like she did.


I don't mind any kind of flavour, really, I just want something that fills my mouth. I can't stand slightly flavoured food.

Not even her? Dayum, I guess their cuisine really IS that bad. Though their candy looks pretty good...

But century eggs, goodness no. Not even kidding.


----------



## Captain Mclain

I love ginger and wasabi.


----------



## Graveyard

Captain Mclain said:


> I love ginger and wasabi.


Ginger is godlike. <3


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> But century eggs, goodness no. Not even kidding.


Have you had one? Lol.

I wouldn't mind trying it. Yolo, right? Haha.


----------



## Captain Mclain

QueenOfNight said:


> Have you had one? Lol.
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying it. Yolo, right? Haha.


what kind of tastes you expect getting out of that one?


----------



## SheWolf

Ehh.... Ginger. I hate that stuff.


----------



## SheWolf

Captain Mclain said:


> what kind of tastes you expect getting out of that one?


A strong one. Lol. But this looks good.

No way in hell would I bite into it straight though.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> Have you had one? Lol.
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying it. Yolo, right? Haha.


My, no! I know it's not dangerous (...not entirely), but I would like to avoid anything green and ugly.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> My, no! I know it's not dangerous (...not entirely), but I would like to avoid anything green and ugly.


It's funny, I would try a century egg but yet, keep green beans and brussel sprouts the hell away from me. Lol.

I would also like to try dried squid/surume. Darn vegetarianism.


----------



## DOGSOUP

I suddenly have a craving for green beans and brussel sprouts


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> It's funny, I would try a century egg but yet, keep green beans and brussel sprouts the hell away from me. Lol.
> 
> I would also like to try dried squid/surume. Darn vegetarianism.


Oh, but I love all kind of beans! Maybe because I eat them a lot but still! Brussel sprouts, on the other hand...

You're not a vegetarian yet, are you? Give it a try while you can!


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> Oh, but I love all kind of beans! Maybe because I eat them a lot but still! Brussel sprouts, on the other hand...
> 
> You're not a vegetarian yet, are you? Give it a try while you can!


Currently flexitarian. I've omitted chicken from my diet and am working on beef next.

It will be very hard for me to give up seafood. I adore it.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> Currently flexitarian. I've omitted chicken from my diet and am working on beef next.
> 
> It will be very hard for me to give up seafood. I adore it.


Uh, that doesn't include squid next. So give it a go, no one's looking. ;P

I'm not very fond of it. I love fish, but that's it.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> Uh, that doesn't include squid next. So give it a go, no one's looking. ;P
> 
> I'm not very fond of it. I love fish, but that's it.


I love fish. My favorite though is crab/lobster. Mmmmm...

I actually hate shrimp though. It's like fish rubber or some shit.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> I love fish. My favorite though is crab/lobster. Mmmmm...
> 
> I actually hate shrimp though. It's like fish rubber or some shit.


I've never had crab or lobster. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it, however. 

And yes, I hate shrimp too! But because it's too sweet. Disgustin'.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> I've never had crab or lobster. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it, however.


If you don't like the sweetness of shrimp, you probably wouldn't go for crab or lobster lol.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> I suddenly have a craving for green beans and brussel sprouts


Green beans and brussel sprouts can die a fiery death.


----------



## DOGSOUP

QueenOfNight said:


> Green beans and brussel sprouts can die a fiery death.


:laughing: 

I was more horrified by squid. Squid and mushrooms are the absolute _worst._ As if they were still alive when you eat them. Vegetables pretty much die once they have been picked up. Mushrooms are ambiguous. You never know.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> :laughing:
> 
> I was more horrified by squid. Squid and mushrooms are the absolute _worst._ As if they were still alive when you eat them. Vegetables pretty much die once they have been picked up. Mushrooms are ambiguous. You never know.


I love mushrooms. When my mom sautés them I always steal a couple from the pan  lol


----------



## Max

I love squid, mushrooms, oysters and watermelons. Ate a lot of them when I was away on holidays. Must be why my sex drive is through the roof now. Not complaining, I like it.


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I love squid, mushrooms, oysters and watermelons. Ate a lot of them when I was away on holidays. Must be why my sex drive is through the roof now. Not complaining, I like it.


Erm.... Okay then. Lol. That's never happened to me when I've eaten them.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Hm, oysters are supposed to be a know aphrodisiac.

I would like to clarify my earlier statement on mushrooms. The taste they bring into a soup is delicious. That umami thing. Chewing them is the frightening part.

There was this one cook in Masterchef and she would use squid ink to color food. She also made these freaky combinations of fruit and seafood. What an insane taste palette she had to possess, to be so sure that these combinations would work. Basically you could have anyone choose random ingredients, but the skill lies in actually making people enjoy it.

My kitchen experiments ended tragically after I mixed dried dill into an omelette. Highly would not recommend.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> Hm, oysters are supposed to be a know aphrodisiac.
> 
> I would like to clarify my earlier statement on mushrooms. The taste they bring into a soup is delicious. That umami thing. Chewing them is the frightening part.
> 
> There was this one cook in Masterchef and she would use squid ink to color food. She also made these freaky combinations of fruit and seafood. What an insane taste palette she had to possess, to be so sure that these combinations would work. Basically you could have anyone choose random ingredients, but the skill lies in actually making people enjoy it.
> 
> My kitchen experiments ended tragically after I mixed dried dill into an omelette. Highly would not recommend.


Chefs amaze me, honestly. I watch shows like Chopped and how they know how to prepare random foods and pair then together I'll never know. Certainly not where my talents are.


----------



## Max

DOGSOUP said:


> Hm, oysters are supposed to be a know aphrodisiac.
> 
> I would like to clarify my earlier statement on mushrooms. The taste they bring into a soup is delicious. That umami thing. Chewing them is the frightening part.
> 
> There was this one cook in Masterchef and she would use squid ink to color food. She also made these freaky combinations of fruit and seafood. What an insane taste palette she had to possess, to be so sure that these combinations would work. Basically you could have anyone choose random ingredients, but the skill lies in actually making people enjoy it.
> 
> My kitchen experiments ended tragically after I mixed dried dill into an omelette. Highly would not recommend.


You know what I don't understand? How coffee effects me. It makes me aroused when I drink it as coffee, but in a cake, it's fine. I never get aroused. Oh, and I love coffee cake, lol. I also don't understand how people make stuff like boar and pineapple go together lol. They must be EIEs, these chefs and have unique tastes lol. Okay, I admit that I also have unique tastes. I've tried stuff like coffee, fries, burgers and ice cream together before. It's amazingly tasty! Like a Willy Wonka dessert haha.


----------



## SheWolf

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> You know what I don't understand? How coffee effects me. It makes me aroused when I drink it as coffee, but in a cake, it's fine. I never get aroused. Oh, and I love coffee cake, lol. I also don't understand how people make stuff like boar and pineapple go together lol. They must be EIEs, these chefs and have unique tastes lol. Okay, I admit that I also have unique tastes. I've tried stuff like coffee, fries, burgers and ice cream together before. It's amazingly tasty! Like a Willy Wonka dessert haha.


I couldn't dip my fries in ice cream. Just because I hate my fries cold at all. I love(d) dipping bacon in maple syrup, something that makes my mom and sister cringe.


But if I see someone put ketchup in their Mac and cheese, I'm calling the police. Lmao. :bored:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sometimes I wonder if I am typed wrong just because i cook well and so easily. Maybe it's just Role Si, but I can pretty easily figure out how to make a dish better by smell alone. I'm good at spicing by instinct. There again, I really don't like cooking either. I'm just good at it when I try. Hrm.

Also, WONTLY! Your back!


----------



## DOGSOUP

QueenOfNight said:


> Chefs amaze me, honestly. I watch shows like Chopped and how they know how to prepare random foods and pair then together I'll never know. Certainly not where my talents are.


Maybe they are born with it? Who knows. We can find consolation from the idea that every great gift is also a curse.



WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> You know what I don't understand? How coffee effects me. It makes me aroused when I drink it as coffee, but in a cake, it's fine. I never get aroused. Oh, and I love coffee cake, lol. I also don't understand how people make stuff like boar and pineapple go together lol. They must be EIEs, these chefs and have unique tastes lol. Okay, I admit that I also have unique tastes. I've tried stuff like coffee, fries, burgers and ice cream together before. It's amazingly tasty! Like a Willy Wonka dessert haha.


You what with coffee? xD I am too sober for this rn but thanks anyway and I love you for this. 

Actually I was thinking this capability to find their way in something so sensory as taste, flavor and mastering all kinds of kitchen knives and appliances implies they have absolutely finetuned their every sensory ability. 



QueenOfNight said:


> But if I see someone put ketchup in their Mac and cheese, I'm calling the police. Lmao. :bored:


Damnit, I thought this was the right way of doing things? :bored:


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I am typed wrong just because i cook well and so easily. Maybe it's just Role Si, but I can pretty easily figure out how to make a dish better by smell alone. I'm good at spicing by instinct. There again, I really don't like cooking either. I'm just good at it when I try. Hrm.


I think certain talents are NTR.

My sister is SEI. But she's quite picky. Lol. I think she would be a good chef if it weren't for that.

Her Si amazes me. We were just talking the other day about how she notices slight changes in temperature and is always aware of how her internal bodily state is affected. She notices the smallest tastes, textures, and smells in food. She's also super sensitive to the fabric of her clothing. She has the classic IP Si temperament of being very internally "zen" in her default state.

But this has a drawback. She hates condiments, for example. She cannot even stand the smell. She had to quit working fast food because even being close to mayonnaise made her physically sick.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> Maybe they are born with it? Who knows. We can find consolation from the idea that every great gift is also a curse.


Yeah, like what I said above about my sister.



> Damnit, I thought this was the right way of doing things? :bored:


*Suspicious glare*

Lol.


----------



## DOGSOUP

QueenOfNight said:


> *Suspicious glare*
> 
> Lol.


I honestly thought that was the behavioral norm.

But what else could you put in to mac'n'cheese? Oregano!


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> You what with coffee? xD I am too sober for this rn but thanks anyway and I love you for this.


You have to be drunk or high as fuck to fathom wtf Wontly is saying 90% of the time.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> I honestly thought that was the behavioral norm.
> 
> But what else could you put in to mac'n'cheese? Oregano!


Or you could just, ya know, eat it like it is? Lol. That's how I am unless maybe lobster or bacon is added to it. My brother liked adding ham to his.

But ketchup? Bugger off with that. Haha.


----------



## Max

QueenOfNight said:


> I couldn't dip my fries in ice cream. Just because I hate my fries cold at all. I love(d) dipping bacon in maple syrup, something that makes my mom and sister cringe.
> 
> 
> But if I see someone put ketchup in their Mac and cheese, I'm calling the police. Lmao. :bored:


NO! JUST NO! Mac and cheese and ketchup. Call the cops! :shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked:



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, WONTLY! Your back!


Yeah, kinda back. Depends, well I have a day off and am back from Spain and now, I dunno which language to speak. Spanish, French, Russian, Dutch, German, Portuguese or English. It's like the Tower of Babel there xD 



DOGSOUP said:


> Maybe they are born with it? Who knows. We can find consolation from the idea that every great gift is also a curse.


Yes, it is both a great gift and a curse. Getting off on coffee xD 



QueenOfNight said:


> You have to be drunk or high as fuck to fathom wtf Wontly is saying 90% of the time.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I like ketchup but I can't deal with spicy dishes as I end burning with them. Too much chili and ginger is deadly for me xD mustard too isn't one of my favorite options.

I also don't like seafood that much if it's not fish, and I 'vomit' when I get fish soup. For some reason the mix of it with tomato makes me want to run away.


----------



## Graveyard

Oh I absolutely ADORE spicy food. Strong, spicy and if possible, sour. I don't know, I can't help it. Ginger candy is the best kind of gift anyone could make me, also. It's just so... <3333

And any soup is better with pepper!

Perhap's that's a stereotype? Don't know, don't care.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

QueenOfNight said:


> You have to be drunk or high as fuck to fathom wtf Wontly is saying 90% of the time.


So...average Saturday night?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I invented a dish involving macaroni noodles, cheese, red and yellow peppers, very finely sliced pepperoni, a little bit of pepper and other basic pasta spices. I call it Pepper-Roni.

It actually turned out fantastic. You wouldn't think it would, but ermagerd. I'd make it again.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Accidental extra post


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

You two exhaust me. *mutters grumpily: extroverts. Sheesh*

Nah, more seriously though, I don't know how you do it. I only have the energy for quick bursts of activity like that. Blargh.


----------



## DOGSOUP

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Wishful thinking is just as bad as pessimism sometimes. Just live and let live. Nothing here is gonna get better until the end of time. Just enjoy the fun until the world ends.
> 
> This right here sums it up well:
> 
> https://youtu.be/vvuOw8Z0Pwg


No one has ever accused me of wishful thinking before  ok maybe one SEE once but he thought I was grazy anyway. So, what, more realism? I am unable to deal with it :d

Then you must be my daily dose of "live and let live" Wontly.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You two exhaust me. *mutters grumpily: extroverts. Sheesh*
> 
> Nah, more seriously though, I don't know how you do it. I only have the energy for quick bursts of activity like that. Blargh.


Haha sorry it is unintentional. For the most part anyway... but imagine all that restless energy channeled in all the wrong ways it becomes really a curse and really painful to watch. Seen that happen to extroverts, not a pretty sight.

I can recall a time when I considered myself more introverted. Before I learned me some cognition and typology and realized I really had very little internal focus. Um, in a mature, productive or structured way. Much to my surprise that was, if you can imagine xD I certainly can't figure what I was thinking back then. Probably nothing xd


----------



## Max

DOGSOUP said:


> No one has ever accused me of wishful thinking before  ok maybe one SEE once but he thought I was grazy anyway. So, what, more realism? I am unable to deal with it :d
> 
> Then you must be my daily dose of "live and let live" Wontly.
> 
> 
> Haha sorry it is unintentional. For the most part anyway... but imagine all that restless energy channeled in all the wrong ways it becomes really a curse and really painful to watch. Seen that happen to extroverts, not a pretty sight.
> 
> I can recall a time when I considered myself more introverted. Before I learned me some cognition and typology and realized I really had very little internal focus. Um, in a mature, productive or structured way. Much to my surprise that was, if you can imagine xD I certainly can't figure what I was thinking back then. Probably nothing xd


Yeah, lol. Personally, I have become a bit more realistic over the years but not enough to consider myself overly realistic lol. I'm not on the realism level of an SLE or anything like that xD 

Yeah, I guess I am, SOUP DAWGGY DOG! Lol. Now I have an awesome song idea. Well, I think this will be awesome.


----------



## DOGSOUP

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Yeah, lol. Personally, I have become a bit more realistic over the years but not enough to consider myself overly realistic lol. I'm not on the realism level of an SLE or anything like that xD
> 
> Yeah, I guess I am, SOUP DAWGGY DOG! Lol. Now I have an awesome song idea. Well, I think this will be awesome.


Tell us more about it!


----------



## Max

DOGSOUP said:


> Tell us more about it!


The world's cleanest Reggaeton song. Coming soon, after I finish Hey! (Yes, the song is called Hey! because it sounds like they are saying Hey at the start and it's an awesomely catchy name so why not?)


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I see Reggaeton and I cringe, I would kill that stuff with fire >_> it was such a pest here that I wanted to run away the two times that I went to a college party.


----------



## Max

Mordred Phantom said:


> I see Reggaeton and I cringe, I would kill that stuff with fire >_> it was such a pest here that I wanted to run away the two times that I went to a college party.


I know but this is the real stuff. Not the party shit. Not stuff about sex all the time. Not stuff like Gasolina. There is a sub-genre called 'Romantic reggaeton', which is a big influence for me. In my experience, it's 95% less vulgar than the 'other' stuff and a lot more meaningful and sensitive but yeah. A lot of reggaeton is crap, but easy to make and market to a bunch of horny young adults. Like mainstream rap music. Y'know? 

The amount of times I hear 'sexo con ropa' and 'bailando' and 'ma' lento' though, I could make a parody from it all. Same with rap music. And the n-word and 'drugs' and 'gangs' and being a 'ballah/player' and 'drinks'. 

Also, I have a list of awesome songs that I can share with you that aren't overly bad but have a good beat. I'm a collector of those sorts of things.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I took participation in an experiment and some MBTI test (in my own language, as a part of someone's thesis) gave me a result of ESFJ now. :laughing:

just wanted to share it with beta's. because it seems to be the most active spot. 



:do_not_feed_the_tro


oh yeah point is --> persoanltiy analysis stuff is shit. so is socionics.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

crashbandicoot said:


> I took participation in an experiment and some MBTI test (in my own language, as a part of someone's thesis) gave me a result of ESFJ now. :laughing:
> 
> just wanted to share it with beta's. because it seems to be the most active spot.
> 
> 
> 
> :do_not_feed_the_tro
> 
> 
> oh yeah point is --> persoanltiy analysis stuff is shit. so is socionics.


Clearly it is full of shit, as you are certainly an ENFP. Or insert some other equally unlikely bullshit. =P


----------



## Max

*Can i 'ave ya attenchun?!*

*Good Evening everyone, hope you're all havin' bomb vacation and' havin' sum happy days! Lemme tell ya a lil' secret: I am too! Today was great an' I got a free iced coffee from it all! :tongue:

Lemme leave ya wiv' da best tune fo' your Summer! 'Tis is an exclusive from Wontly's playlist! 

TURN IT UP N' PLAY IT LOUD N' PROUD:






*

:wink:


----------



## Captain Mclain

crashbandicoot said:


> I took participation in an experiment and some MBTI test (in my own language, as a part of someone's thesis) gave me a result of ESFJ now. :laughing:
> 
> just wanted to share it with beta's. because it seems to be the most active spot.
> 
> 
> 
> :do_not_feed_the_tro
> 
> 
> oh yeah point is --> persoanltiy analysis stuff is shit. so is socionics.


You are obviously SEI. Maybe because you think Socionics is shit is because you never been able to gain the benefits of it, since you are still struggling with your type. Something that is introduction stuff.


----------



## Arto

crashbandicoot said:


> I took participation in an experiment and some MBTI test (in my own language, as a part of someone's thesis) gave me a result of ESFJ now. :laughing:
> 
> just wanted to share it with beta's. because it seems to be the most active spot.
> 
> 
> 
> :do_not_feed_the_tro
> 
> 
> oh yeah point is --> persoanltiy analysis stuff is shit. so is socionics.


Taking tests and individual experiments thinking it's personality analysis at it's core is where you take the crumbled road.


----------



## myst91

DOGSOUP said:


> EVERYONE: I wanna know how do you react to authority figures, experts and so on. I find this relationship immensively difficult in my current situation-- most people seem to have no idea what they are talking about, but I dare not confront them because they supposedly have authority on the matter.


What situation is this exactly?

In many cases I'd call them out.




> Like this physics student who tried to convince me that outer space is a hot oven. Or a humanist major who refused to believe there are tribal cultures in India. There I sit dumb and silent and wonder if I am the one who got the facts all wrong after all. So surreal.


:laughing:

You can link the student to some site about India etc.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

jesus fuck I found sth I like doing, related to business, haha ! no more dying on street from poverty ! :crazy:


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> jesus fuck I found sth I like doing, related to business, haha ! no more dying on street from poverty ! :crazy:


Find me a job Br0

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Find me a job Br0
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


Send me your CV and i ll see what i can do... for a feasible cut. 

Can you run an ice-cream truck ?


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> Send me your CV and i ll see what i can do... for a feasible cut.
> 
> Can you run an ice-cream truck ?


1. Sure. As long as there is an unlimited supply of chocolate ice cream and my assistant is an attractive Latino. 

2. My dog ate my CV. Can you get it off him for me? Printer's outta gas.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> 1. Sure. As long as there is an unlimited supply of chocolate ice cream and my assistant is an attractive Latino.
> 
> 2. My dog ate my CV. Can you get it off him for me? Printer's outta gas.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


1. Nah, you gonna be working alone. You do have your free ice cream even though its limited. 100 gr per a week 
2. You gonna have to wait till poo time. Dont forget to put your CV in washing machine before sending.


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> 1. Nah, you gonna be working alone. You do have your free ice cream even though its limited. 100 gr per a week
> 2. You gonna have to wait till poo time. Dont forget to put your CV in washing machine before sending.


1. Can I exchange the free ice cream for Hector? :/ Please. I need a helping hand. Not more fat xD

2. Charlie (the dog) said he will wash it clean for me when he poops it out.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## SheWolf

What the hell is going on in this thread-


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> 1. Can I exchange the free ice cream for Hector? :/ Please. I need a helping hand. Not more fat xD
> 
> 2. Charlie (the dog) said he will wash it clean for me when he poops it out.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


1)Dafuq ? My name is actually hector :shocked:
Are you hitting on me?

2) nicee, good doggie  say hi to him from me :kitteh:


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> 1)Dafuq ? My name is actually hector :shocked:
> Are you hitting on me?
> 
> 2) nicee, good doggie  say hi to him from me :kitteh:


1. Proof? Show me your birth certificate. Or else I won't drive the van 

2. He said "sup?" back. He was happy to see you. Very happy. Wagged his tail thrice and jumped up once.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Nothing1

Really? 195 pages of derailed ice cream truck yapper. On to getting this post back on track (i.e. talking about myself because not only am I a beta, enneagram 4 but a leo rising). 

Years ago, I came across a site rating the types according to overall stress. All I remember is it stated ENTPs are the least stressed type with INFJs (IEI) being the most stressed. Has anyone come across this information or any observations about stress levels and type/quadra?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> 1. Proof? Show me your birth certificate. Or else I won't drive the van
> 
> 2. He said "sup?" back. He was happy to see you. Very happy. Wagged his tail thrice and jumped up once.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


Now, you are just trying to get my ID information for illegal purposes. Nicely played EIE. But NO. :suspicion:

*gives Charlie chocalate*


----------



## Max

crashbandicoot said:


> Now, you are just trying to get my ID information for illegal purposes. Nicely played EIE. But NO. :suspicion:


I am sad. 

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Max

Wait

...

HOW COME THE BETA THREAD IS NOW THE DEAD ONE?! :O

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Nothing1 said:


> Really? 195 pages of derailed ice cream truck yapper. On to getting this post back on track (i.e. talking about myself because not only am I a beta, enneagram 4 but a leo rising).
> 
> Years ago, I came across a site rating the types according to overall stress. All I remember is it stated ENTPs are the least stressed type with INFJs (IEI) being the most stressed. Has anyone come across this information or any observations about stress levels and type/quadra?


I don't have any such source, but I'd be inclined to believe it just by how stressed I am right now. :/


----------



## DOGSOUP

myst91 said:


> What situation is this exactly?
> 
> In many cases I'd call them out.


The situation is that I have no formal degree on any special area and also feel the general education I've received so far has lead me absolutely nowhere. One part of the problem is, that I realized most introverts like to talk about their favorite subjects (of which they have tremendous amounts of knowledge btw) - but I sometimes find it difficult to keep up because they speak of it in such high level... another thing is obviously my other realization that a degree on a particular field might not guarantee expertise.

The thing is, I can call people out for their unpolished opinions and can be very relentless in doing so. If I am uncertain about the facts, I'd feel too insecure to do this lol :bored:



> :laughing:
> 
> You can link the student to some site about India etc.


Maybe I should honestly... then again, they seemed the kind of fella who refuses to accept new information just because (not a very good attitude for a student I might add )



Nothing1 said:


> Years ago, I came across a site rating the types according to overall stress. All I remember is it stated ENTPs are the least stressed type with INFJs (IEI) being the most stressed. Has anyone come across this information or any observations about stress levels and type/quadra?


I have seen that idea and found it questionable (mostly because I suspect it stems from a highly unrealistic expectations of Ne-doms... namely that they are utterly untouchable and can bs their way out of _anything_ o.o). 

Though Fe-users might be more open about their stress? 

Each type has stressors (cognitively). And then there is also life... which is a major stressor for most people at some point


----------



## Mr inappropriate

DOGSOUP said:


> The situation is that I have no formal degree on any special area and also feel the general education I've received so far has lead me absolutely nowhere. One part of the problem is, that I realized most introverts like to talk about their favorite subjects (of which they have tremendous amounts of knowledge btw) - but I sometimes find it difficult to keep up because they speak of it such level...


Ah interesting... i blame extraverts for this actually, only difference is that they have high number of interests. Especially, Fe ego types are guilty, they are really interested in self expression and dont shy away from boring people to near death.


----------



## DOGSOUP

crashbandicoot said:


> Ah interesting... i blame extraverts for this actually, only difference is that they have high number of interests. Especially, Fe ego types are guilty, they are really interested in self expression and dont shy away from boring people to near death.


Touché... :tongue:

I don't really blame introverts for diving too deep - they are really interesting to talk to due to their dedication and immersion on the subject. 

Granted, I can talk about anything as long as I get to talk (!!!) but it remains less than professional and it bothers me not to know any better. So despite being very proud of being interested in many different things it annoys me that I have no area of expertise what so ever. Something I found useful about this however is that I am able to combine the output of several introverts in a clever manner. Get them to share and lay it out there so it benefits everyone.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

DOGSOUP said:


> Touché... :tongue:
> 
> I don't really blame introverts for diving too deep - they are really interesting to talk to due to their dedication and immersion on the subject.
> 
> Granted, I can talk about anything as long as I get to talk (!!!) but it remains less than professional and it bothers me not to know any better. So despite being very proud of being interested in many different things it annoys me that I have no area of expertise what so ever. Something I found useful about this however is that I am able to combine the output of several introverts in a clever manner. Get them to share and lay it out there so it benefits everyone.


Why do you feel a need to have a deep immersion in some subject to.talk about though ? Is that Ti-seeking ?

Or is this stuff work related so you need show some special competence ? :confused-new:


----------



## DOGSOUP

crashbandicoot said:


> Why do you feel a need to have a deep immersion in some subject to.talk about though ? Is that Ti-seeking ?
> 
> Or is this stuff work related so you need show some special competence ? :confused-new:


It certainly could be Ti-seeking IMO.

Mostly this happens when I meet people at uni or some other educational environment. It could be described as a desperate attempt of assimilation :d Not so much at work, because there things revolve around pleasant interaction and, uh, results.


----------



## Captain Mclain

do you guys tend to like people of the same type as you?


----------



## DOGSOUP

Captain Mclain said:


> do you guys tend to like people of the same type as you?


Um I do end up in platonic love affairs with other ExEs so...
but those things do not last for long because one does not share the limelight longer than the time between sunset and sunrise. So we often have an on-off friendship.

I guess it can be very deep connection. Or just awful. Depends. If both are willing to play the game, then sure. Nobody understands me better than another ExE (theoretically speaking). That can be a good thing. The flip-side is the possibility of being stuck with a person who understands you utterly, but does so without compassion.

obviously that can happen with people who do not share a type too, so


----------



## Max

@eveRYONE Hello, I apologize for not being around here as often as I should have been. I've been away volunteering, sleeping, eating, watching the Euro 2016 games and also been developing a server on a new revolutionary concept for socializing that honestly surpasses even Skype. The server I am working on includes a socionics, enneagram and MBTI room and is in the development stages. It also has voice chat rooms. I think it's a worthwhile investment for anyone to engage in. I've been putting a lot of effort into it, so yeah, if anyone is interested in more information, you can always holla at me xD

How have you all been? I've been good, but can't help but notice that this thread is so.. bare and empty! Does it need some Moon Bear Swag? D: Or just some general subject re-starters? Or has the Euros driven everyone away?  Okay, I admit that it's a good tournament and has had some interesting upsets in it. Anyone else watching it?


----------



## Sygma

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Wait
> 
> ...
> 
> HOW COME THE BETA THREAD IS NOW THE DEAD ONE?! :O
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


Because you re in it. </3


----------



## DOGSOUP




----------



## Max

Sygma said:


> Because you re in it. </3


Ew, you became EIE </3


----------



## myst91

Captain Mclain said:


> do you guys tend to like people of the same type as you?


No, I never have attraction for guys who are my Identicals. I did have my Identicals have attraction for me though. So this is just me for some reason


----------



## FearAndTrembling

myst91 said:


> No, I never have attraction for guys who are my Identicals. I did have my Identicals have attraction for me though. So this is just me for some reason


On a Seinfeld episode, Jerry finally met somebody he related to on every level. All the same interests. Same hangups. Agreed on everything. It was great. Then he realized he hated himself and doesn't want to date himself. lol.


----------



## jetta

I'm an alpha. I will take charge over your puny beta thread!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Graveyard said:


> SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOO
> 
> How's it been here?


About as lively as this response time XD


----------



## Sygma

Graveyard said:


> SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOO
> 
> How's it been here?


Just like Elvis. ded.


----------



## Lunatics

Boom Shakalaka....


----------



## DOGSOUP

jetta said:


> I'm an alpha. I will take charge over your puny beta thread!


I'd like to see you try, alpha. In fact I dare you. I double dare you.



Sygma said:


> Just like Elvis. ded.


The king is dead. Long live the king. Yadda yadda.


----------



## karmachameleon

All the cool people have left since I got banned.


----------



## vandieu

https://www.pinterest.com/edgarallen1816/eie/

Some people I think are EIE.


----------



## leftover crack

what does it mean to be a beta


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sky Blue said:


> what does it mean to be a beta


Beta, Province of Kings
By Fenix Wulfheart

What does it mean to be a Beta?
Beta, Province of Kings.
To be a Beta is to
Push, and feel alive as you never did before.
Understand, and to see all through our understanding.
Question, and look for a deeper truth.
Dream, and grasp the infinite and unreachable.
Be, and in so being let things be how they shall be.

What does it mean to be a Beta?
Beta, Castle of Pretenders.
We of Beta are always trying to be
Proud, confident in our right to strive.
Restless, impatiently pushing for more than we have.
Together, forming our own groups to work as all people are one.
Elegant, revealing our inner selves through refined expression
Happy, as we learn to accept what we have as good in itself..

What does it mean to be a Beta?
Beta, Home of Fools.
To live the life of Beta, we must
Prove Ourselves, and show what we can truly do with the strength we gain.
Overcome Obstacles, asserting that we live still and will not go quietly into the night.
Praise Life, certain of a deeper meaning we can only hope to grasp for ourselves.
Change Things, and make a mark on our world that will outlast our going.
Let Go, eventually, and sink into our graves, knowing we did all we could and much we couldn't.

What does it mean to be a Beta?
To Live. To Strive. To Thrive. To Survive.
And, as do all things, to end.


----------



## leftover crack

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Beta, Province of Kings
> By Fenix Wulfheart
> 
> What does it mean to be a Beta?
> Beta, Province of Kings.
> To be a Beta is to
> Push, and feel alive as you never did before.
> Understand, and to see all through our understanding.
> Question, and look for a deeper truth.
> Dream, and grasp the infinite and unreachable.
> Be, and in so being let things be how they shall be.
> 
> What does it mean to be a Beta?
> Beta, Castle of Pretenders.
> We of Beta are always trying to be
> Proud, confident in our right to strive.
> Restless, impatiently pushing for more than we have.
> Together, forming our own groups to work as all people are one.
> Elegant, revealing our inner selves through refined expression
> Happy, as we learn to accept what we have as good in itself..
> 
> What does it mean to be a Beta?
> Beta, Home of Fools.
> To live the life of Beta, we must
> Prove Ourselves, and show what we can truly do with the strength we gain.
> Overcome Obstacles, asserting that we live still and will not go quietly into the night.
> Praise Life, certain of a deeper meaning we can only hope to grasp for ourselves.
> Change Things, and make a mark on our world that will outlast our going.
> Let Go, eventually, and sink into our graves, knowing we did all we could and much we couldn't.
> 
> What does it mean to be a Beta?
> To Live. To Strive. To Thrive. To Survive.
> And, as do all things, to end.


Really? I thought that was the job of the alpha quadra to do all these things while the beta quadra provides for the alpha's quadra's every single need

I thought the betas were there to follow the alpha and try to grow in and develop to be in the alpha quadra as part of the development process.

clarify y/n?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sky Blue said:


> Really? I thought that was the job of the alpha quadra to do all these things while the beta quadra provides for the alpha's quadra's every single need
> 
> I thought the betas were there to follow the alpha and try to grow in and develop to be in the alpha quadra as part of the development process.
> 
> clarify y/n?


O_O

I thought it went Alpha becoming Beta becoming Gamma becoming Delta (then either ending or becoming Alpha). 

Also, isn't it Delta that provides for needs? Focus on Si and caretaking plus Fi values and Te efficiency tends towards finding the path to get everyone what they need.

Either way, this wasn't based on what Beta is from my view. It was based on _what it means_ to be Beta from my view. That's why it is all about goals and perceptions and desires and not about what is. Its about life lessons and desires. Castle of Pretenders, Home of Fools. The Beta strives and strives, but they are still Subjectivist by nature. It is like the young adult, striving to reach their future, and less so the old ones that are wise and cautious.


----------



## Sygma

Sky Blue said:


> what does it mean to be a beta


That your intuition is never wrong, that power fights are always up, that lovely drama is around every corner, and that you'll never be bored. Beta is love, Beta is life


----------



## myst91

Lol all this weird bs. Castle of Pretenders, Home of Fools, intuition never being wrong and never being bored...

No, there is no need to overly idealize what Beta quadra is about, it's pretty much just the shared IEs as compatible ways of thinking.


----------



## Max

myst91 said:


> Lol all this weird bs. Castle of Pretenders, Home of Fools, intuition never being wrong and never being bored...
> 
> No, there is no need to overly idealize what Beta quadra is about, it's pretty much just the shared IEs as compatible ways of thinking.


I thought I was the only sane person here. 
Some people are just spacepuppies.


----------



## Mr Oops

Sky Blue said:


> Really? I thought that was the job of the alpha quadra to do all these things while the beta quadra provides for the alpha's quadra's every single need
> 
> I thought the betas were there to follow the alpha and try to grow in and develop to be in the alpha quadra as part of the development process.
> 
> clarify y/n?


No. Alpha is all about relaxing, talking shit and occasionally doing math/science or cook. It is like most Jewish quadra – lame and witty.


----------



## O_o

Idk what Quadra that TV series "Lucifer" might fall under (if any) but it is so fucking tacky and awkward to watch. Apparently it has great ratings so there's something about that approach that works for people (maybe I haven't watched enough episodes to get it yet). "ho ho! Lucifer and he is attractive, and 'shockingly' open about how he is Lucifer and stuff. And then there is this female that is special and is immune to his charms (Twilight) and they totally aren't going to fall in love or anything within the next few episodes. Definitely not." That combo of comedy but also 'edge' that's not really edge and 95% intended-for-eye-feast. 

In the beginning, I was really kind of hoping "let that old cop be Lucifer rather than the white asshole in the car. That would add a nice twist, " but nobody ever listens to me because I'm nobody in Hollywood and should just shut up and watch other shows. 
Yup. Nightctopus:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

You know, I'm looking through my old posts...and dayum, I sure do a lot of two things. I mention time a lot, and i give caveats to avert arguments a lot. I'm very proactive about my communication, and it is the reason my posts wind up so long. 



> Anyway, it *may not be type related, but I think it is* even if I cannot express it effectively at the moment.





> If someone can drop a line that makes me actually have to run it through my head again, *or have a longer than 2 second delay before I "get it",* then I will be very impressed with it.


Also, Se DS???? I don't remember my mood back then.


> *Man, I missed whatever even happened to make them get banned!*
> 
> Shoot. I get along well with Kerik, too. Good guy. Gonna miss him. Never really talked to Karma, though. Guess it's too late now....


Anyway, how y'all bitches doin'? Let's see some life fill it up in heah!


----------



## Sygma

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You know, I'm looking through my old posts...and dayum, I sure do a lot of two things. I mention time a lot, and i give caveats to avert arguments a lot. I'm very proactive about my communication, and it is the reason my posts wind up so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, how y'all bitches doin'? Let's see some life fill it up in heah!


Sup hoe, doing good ! Planned trips and stuff, in the middle of an NLP course which so far is pretty great, tons of interesting stuff especially in the hypnosis of the mind section


----------



## Max

I think I'm still a Beta, no idea lol


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Sygma said:


> Sup hoe, doing good ! Planned trips and stuff, in the middle of an NLP course which so far is pretty great, tons of interesting stuff especially in the hypnosis of the mind section


Glad to hear it. NLP - isn't that the eye reading shit? Telling what someone is doing mentally based on where they eyes looking at?


----------



## myst91

Thorn said:


> @myst91
> 
> given my need to generate excitement... I can see Fi anymore.


You used to say you don't want to generate that - I can look up the posts but this is what I remember (unless I misinterpreted something).

Sorry I'm not trying to pick at you, just would like to make sense of this. 




Thorn said:


> @myst91
> 
> How do I seem grounded? I've been told all my life that im anything but.


You seem to have a no-nonsense approach to quite a few things. It's refreshing after Ne ego stuff lol sorry to Ne egos

What do people in your life point out as not grounded about you?

Btw the Ni... I can get pulled into that too, I have had a couple longer periods of that.


----------



## SheWolf

@myst91

No you're fine! Yes I did say that. But, I was thinking that generating excitement/doing something Se. So it was a misunderstanding. 
But after digging further into my thought process it's also that's I want to arouse emotions in myself as well as others. I have actually been observing my thoughts closely over the last couple days and I do notice I generate atmosphere. I'll copy what I was told after I said I get bored if people aren't doing anything.

Me: For example my friends. I dislike just sitting in their room doing nothing. I'd rather go for a walk or something. Doing nothing is boring and awkward

"even your complaint about doing nothing is Fe-focused. it feels awkward, it doesn't excite."
[/QUOTE]

And I think being "no-nonsense" is probably just Se/Ni valuing. 

But basically I believe there's is more to life than meets the eye. I've always been a dreamer. Not really interested in things that are too "real."


----------



## SheWolf

@myst91

I can PM you the whole conversation. But I'm busy at the moment.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Thorn said:


> They are more Alpha "happy happy."
> They bitch at me for my "negative" forms of expression. I express turmoil, negativity, pessism, open conflict. They don't like that. They want "happy happy" Jacksepticeye-style expression from me. Childlike expressions. Not happening. Lol.


That sounds like they are Merry. Expressing negativity and open conflict could be anything, but would be more Decisive, sure. But bear in mind that Beta seeks to maximize positive emotion. Alpha minimizes negative. Express turmoil and pessimism is not necessarily Beta. It depends on why you are doing it. 

That said, I don't particularly think EIE is a bad fit. I just haven't seen the Ni done creatively. *nods*


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> That sounds like they are Merry. Expressing negativity and open conflict could be anything, but would be more Decisive, sure. But bear in mind that Beta seeks to maximize positive emotion. Alpha minimizes negative. Express turmoil and pessimism is not necessarily Beta. It depends on why you are doing it.
> 
> That said, I don't particularly think EIE is a bad fit. I just haven't seen the Ni done creatively. *nods*


I sorta think that Beta values a more broader range of emotions as well though, too. That's why it's the most "dramatic" of all the quadras as it's about emotional intensity rather than "pleasant/comforting emotions." A negative IM is limiting, whereas a positive one is expanding sorta.

I do maximize positive emotional intensity in that I love a "hearty/jovial" environment.

Like... the first thing that comes to mine in terms of that expression is Thor from Marvel. Lol



















I like atmospheres where my friends and I are just running around, being loud, a bit competitive, jokes, etc.
Like... stereotypical teenage behavior.  Like rock concerts would be a good example of the type of fun I enjoy. Or my 16th birthday party where we were all being loud, a bit (*Cough*) ruckus, while competing against each other at bowling. Even had a cake fight.  So many examples, that was just the most "organized" example I could think of. 

I think of Alpha Merriment as being a little more quiet and pleasurable. In the example of me friend's Si mother, she loves to throw house parties for all those she's close to. She always made delicious food and drink. Their merriment was a bit more about enjoying the food, gossiping, being warm in each other's company. There was still plenty of hearty laughter, just not nearly as rough an at times they were a bit silly. This was fairly enjoyable, but I was kinda bored with it. Needs more action. I like environments with a lot going on. 

As for not seeing the Ni... That depends on what Ni "looks like" I suppose?

I think though, and this goes for most people, that the Creative element can be harder to spot sometimes. Since it switches on and off and is used to "connect" with other people and the world. It's not as vital to worldview as the 1st. 
Like ESE's using Si to connect by cooking for others, caring for their well-being, creating a harmonious atmosphere of aesthetics for them, and appealing to their finer tastes. Also taking care of people's practical things too as a way to "bond."

I think in an online interaction, too, it might be hard to spot since I think the Creative is more aroused by the outside world. I could be wrong, though.

But yeah, I get what you're saying.  I've been actively trying to ask myself "How do I connect with other people and the world when I feel the need to? What do I want to give to others?" and I'm still coming up with an answer. I'll need to stop and observe myself further.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Thorn said:


> *I sorta think that Beta values a more broader range of emotions as well though, too. That's why it's the most "dramatic" of all the quadras as it's about emotional intensity rather than "pleasant/comforting emotions." A negative IM is limiting, whereas a positive one is expanding sorta.
> *
> I do maximize positive emotional intensity in that I love a "hearty/jovial" environment.
> 
> *Like... the first thing that comes to mine in terms of that expression is Thor from Marvel. Lol
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like atmospheres where my friends and I are just running around, being loud, a bit competitive, jokes, etc.
> Like... stereotypical teenage behavior.  Like rock concerts would be a good example of the type of fun I enjoy. Or my 16th birthday party where we were all being loud, a bit (*Cough*) ruckus, while competing against each other at bowling. Even had a cake fight.  So many examples, that was just the most "organized" example I could think of.
> 
> *I think of Alpha Merriment as being a little more quiet and pleasurable. In the example of me friend's Si mother, she loves to throw house parties for all those she's close to. She always made delicious food and drink. Their merriment was a bit more about enjoying the food, gossiping, being warm in each other's company. There was still plenty of hearty laughter, just not nearly as rough an at times they were a bit silly. This was fairly enjoyable, but I was kinda bored with it. Needs more action. I like environments with a lot going on.
> *
> As for not seeing the Ni... That depends on what Ni "looks like" I suppose?
> 
> *I think though, and this goes for most people, that the Creative element can be harder to spot sometimes. Since it switches on and off and is used to "connect" with other people and the world. It's not as vital to worldview as the 1st.
> Like ESE's using Si to connect by cooking for others, caring for their well-being, creating a harmonious atmosphere of aesthetics for them, and appealing to their finer tastes. Also taking care of people's practical things too as a way to "bond."
> *
> *I think in an online interaction, too, it might be hard to spot since I think the Creative is more aroused by the outside world. I could be wrong, though.*


Agree on all the bolded. Unsure/ambivalent/not disagreeing to the rest 



Thorn said:


> But yeah, I get what you're saying.  I've been actively trying to ask myself "How do I connect with other people and the world when I feel the need to? What do I want to give to others?" and I'm still coming up with an answer. I'll need to stop and observe myself further.


I ask myself the same question. Honestly, I am not so sure what my Creative is sometimes. I only see Fe at times. Which is funny, because certain people I know insist my Fe is overwhelming, and others insist it is barely there. Go figure.

I think Base and HA are most visible, with Role and Demonstrative also quite visible.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I ask myself the same question. Honestly, I am not so sure what my Creative is sometimes. I only see Fe at times. Which is funny, because certain people I know insist my Fe is overwhelming, and others insist it is barely there. Go figure.
> 
> I think Base and HA are most visible, with Role and Demonstrative also quite visible.


Same.

And yeah. The problem is also that people always over-emphasize their HA's too. They can make it look strong for certain periods of time, but it's actually done pretty poorly. Lol.


----------



## myst91

Thorn said:


> @myst91
> 
> No you're fine! Yes I did say that. But, I was thinking that generating excitement/doing something Se. So it was a misunderstanding.


OK cool. I'm not following you on the excitement thing - do you mean it's the Se version of it that you don't relate to?



> I do maximize positive emotional intensity in that I love a "hearty/jovial" environment.


I recall you de-emphasizing such things too before. Uhm, is it due to self-discovery in progress?




> But after digging further into my thought process it's also that's I want to arouse emotions in myself as well as others. I have actually been observing my thoughts closely over the last couple days and I do notice I generate atmosphere. I'll copy what I was told after I said I get bored if people aren't doing anything.
> 
> Me: For example my friends. I dislike just sitting in their room doing nothing. I'd rather go for a walk or something. Doing nothing is boring and awkward
> 
> "even your complaint about doing nothing is Fe-focused. it feels awkward, it doesn't excite."


I dunno, I'd find it boring and awkward too and I'm far from being Fe ego. Going for a walk does not seem particularly Fe either. 

I'd be curious of an example where you actively generate atmosphere, not simply feeling like stuff is boring.




> And I think being "no-nonsense" is probably just Se/Ni valuing.
> 
> But basically I believe there's is more to life than meets the eye. I've always been a dreamer. Not really interested in things that are too "real."


I believe the same from my Ni HA about life.

I'm not really a daydreamer though. I prefer to achieve the dreams instead or they will not feel real enough, if I don't keep working towards them. So I'm interested in real things no problem.


Btw one thing. Of all the Se egos it's ESI males (particularly ESI-Fi) that can be attractive to me in the way NFs can be. That's because they are strong Feelers _and _they are a bit more submissive compared to any other Se ego. I don't know how much you relate to that. (The ESI-Fi I went out with was also an E4 on top of all that...)

The main way I differentiate between these more N-ish seeming (not really N compared to Ni egos though) and submissive ESIs and EIEs is basically by observing/experiencing where their Feeling is primarily directed (on subjective Ethics based relationships and self-directed judgments, or on external atmosphere and more objective, outwardly directed judgments). For you so far I haven't seen much Fe but it's also that I don't know you all that well. 

Oh and your videos, they were surprising to me at first sight with the presentation you had (including your looks etc). I expected something less NF-ish (or E4, not sure) after your questionnaires. I then decided it was Fi>Fe so ESI over any beta NF (and no, not SEE, not enough Se base), but I don't know if these videos were a good representation of you. 




Thorn said:


> @myst91
> 
> I can PM you the whole conversation. But I'm busy at the moment.


OK, please do, you can also do it on Skype. 


One more suggestion: compare ESI E4 to EIE E2 (I see you switched to E2 in enneagram from the E6?). The former will look quite Ni/Fi-ish, the latter will look pretty extraverted and with a less clear Ni possibly.

Last question: do say more on how you relate to Ne demonstrative, especially about how easily you generate crazy alternatives for fun and how much you are scattered by default...? - _"EIEs can generate random ideas or come up with lots of crazy alternatives for fun, but they prefer to focus on understanding the development of a particular situation and not be distracted with possibilities that are outside that situation. Too much idea generation and focus on all the possibilities open to them actually disorients them, as they are already plenty scattered enough."_


----------



## SheWolf

Sorry. I've been very busy lately. I have started a new job and my Biology class has been hammering down on me pretty intensely this last week.



myst91 said:


> OK cool. I'm not following you on the excitement thing - do you mean it's the Se version of it that you don't relate to?


Se version of it?
I was assuming that it had a lot to do with not wanting to sit around or whatever. It could be just Decisive > Judicious. But, nonetheless, f something doesn't "excite" I'm rather restless.




> I recall you de-emphasizing such things too before. Uhm, is it due to self-discovery in progress?


Yes. Now, I'm certainly not overtly expressive as in... I don't usually break out into loud songs or anything. It's actually rather annoying to me when people are very loud. But I really don't think that behavior should be correlated with anything. I still see myself as a "social introvert" regardless.




> I dunno, I'd find it boring and awkward too and I'm far from being Fe ego. Going for a walk does not seem particularly Fe either.


Mmm... That was merely an example of what I'm getting at. 

How do you see Fe generating an atmosphere? Perhaps it will help if I get some opinions from you as well.



> I'd be curious of an example where you actively generate atmosphere, not simply feeling like stuff is boring.


I did it much more when I was younger. I've become more subdued currently due to personal things.

I was always actively trying to create fun and engaging other children to do so. And I was good at it. I never noticed it and the memories are pretty distant, but I do remember always somehow landing in a leadership position of others, with them following me simply for the enthusiasm I created. These days, I notice it in myself still just differently. It's like... 1 AM and I've been doing math homework. I'll type out more of what I mean later.



> I'm not really a daydreamer though. I prefer to achieve the dreams instead or they will not feel real enough, if I don't keep working towards them. So I'm interested in real things no problem.


I am very much a daydreamer and a fantasist. Though, I do strive to achieve my dreams too. It is not enough for what I want to stay in my head.




> Btw one thing. Of all the Se egos it's ESI males (particularly ESI-Fi) that can be attractive to me in the way NFs can be. That's because they are strong Feelers _and _they are a bit more submissive compared to any other Se ego. I don't know how much you relate to that. (The ESI-Fi I went out with was also an E4 on top of all that...)


Hm. Well I am certainly a strong Feeler. As for submissiveness... it just depends.




> Oh and your videos, they were surprising to me at first sight with the presentation you had (including your looks etc). I expected something less NF-ish (or E4, not sure) after your questionnaires. I then decided it was Fi>Fe so ESI over any beta NF (and no, not SEE, not enough Se base), but I don't know if these videos were a good representation of you.


I've been told on several occasions that my "presence" is very "Ni."
Whatever the hell that means. Lol.

Which brings me to my next point...

It seems that it is ambiguous as to what Ni actually "looks like" in someone. I'm getting a lot of "where's the Ni?" 
Well... I wouldn't be able to tell you. I really can't tell you "where" _any_ of my functions are really. Personally, I've never seen anyone on the forum that makes me scream "LOL NI USER" either. 

It's like trying to describe my forehead without a mirror almost. Lol.




> OK, please do, you can also do it on Skype.


If I can get it working. It keeps freezing on me and I have to force shut the app down. I'll fiddle with it, but if I can't I'll PM you here.



> One more suggestion: compare ESI E4 to EIE E2 (I see you switched to E2 in enneagram from the E6?). The former will look quite Ni/Fi-ish, the latter will look pretty extraverted and with a less clear Ni possibly.


Perhaps. I'm leaving my Enneagram open at the moment. I'm having a professional reading done, so we'll see what becomes of that. I've vacillated between 2 and 4. I've done some juggling as I've learned more both about typology and myself in general. That's just... how it works. Lol. 



> Last question: do say more on how you relate to Ne demonstrative, especially about how easily you generate crazy alternatives for fun and how much you are scattered by default...? - _"EIEs can generate random ideas or come up with lots of crazy alternatives for fun, but they prefer to focus on understanding the development of a particular situation and not be distracted with possibilities that are outside that situation. Too much idea generation and focus on all the possibilities open to them actually disorients them, as they are already plenty scattered enough."_


Yes. I very much relate to this actually. I'm a very scattered person. 
Idea generation... it must be there more than I realize. I'm often told by family members that I go "off on tangents."

I have really, really related to the Ti -seeking section of the EIE description. Especially the bold.



> *EIEs admire people whose thinking is clear-cut, unambiguous, and stalwart, who reduce the myriad of possibilities down to one single option. This is something they are almost completely unable to do on their own (they easily doubt their ability to choose right), but have a deep need for in other people.*In conversation EIEs tend to go off on tangents when something is mentioned that triggers an emotional response, and they often need to be reminded of the subject matter or purpose of the discussion.*EIEs love to hear about information that their friends know. Talking about academic subjects, music, and movies expands the horizons of the EIE and gives them direction.* The EIE is happy to simply be a part of the discussion of various subjects, while providing emotional input himself. The information just gives them a new reason to see their friends, and more things to talk about with them.EIEs are happy to let someone else organize their schedule and keep track of their engagements and things to do.


As for the Ne Demonstrative section.... I also very much relate to this part



> When experiencing deep stress resulting from a conflict, however, *they become very doubtful about forecasting the likely unfolding of the conflict and start to use this function to imagine how events could happen.* If resolution to the problem seems unlikely, or if nothing is being done to turn things around, EIEs turn to dark thoughts about what is likely to happen and become absorbed by the conflict (even if these negative thoughts are not very rational).


I never looked at the description before since I kinda dismissed Ni/Fe for myself since I've gotten into Socionics.

Also, I guess I'll talk about what I think may or may not be my relation to Se.
( @Fenix Wulfheart , you might be interested in this.)

It's been a pretty prevalent theme in my life that I don't necessarily "force" people to do things they don't necessarily want to do. 
It's more...

I do what I want to do and don't try to stop me from doing it. I'm usually like "I'm gonna do this" which is cue for someone to follow me or not. If they don't, eh, whatever. I'm still going. I won't wait around for anyone. If someone doesn't want to I'm just like uh, okay, whatever and go on. You either go with me or you don't. 

I have been notorious for kinda leaving people in the dust. It's my blindspot, really, to stop and consider the needs of others in that sense.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

For whatever its worth, I find it invigorating when people are loud. It draws me out of my shell. I love watching someone rant about something that really pisses them off. I HATE it when people tell me "You are too loud, STFU". Let me be my fucking self, please. I'm not loud often, not like my [either EIE or IEE?] friend. When I am being expressive and open, it means I trust you to uphold your end of the interaction, or at the least let it pass. Why the fuck people gotta call you out on it, man? All that does is create dissent, push people away. Its actively counterproductive to the goal of hanging around people. If you are just going to reject them, why are you spending time with them? :/
@Thorn Ni and Fe do lead to abstracting away from Se and going your own way. That's why Ni types are stubborn. And hate chores, and go running off to our own little hidey holes to dream a little dream. Its about having the freedom to do what you want, and to seek to understand in your own way. People can never make your choices for you. They can only show you the way.


----------



## SheWolf

@*Fenix Wulfheart*

I never tell anyone they are being too loud in most cases. I'm just bitter from having dealt with obnoxious guys in highschool who were "loud" and did nothing but make fun of others/pick on them to gain their merriment. They were gross. But when things are truly jovial and people are just fucking around... nah. That's good stuff, actually.

I get upset/depressed and hurt when people tell me I was loud. I got "you're weird" and "you're like, really loud" in a sneering tone a lot when I was kid. So I forced myself to Be quiet. I think we had a discussion on this a long time ago. About how people in my town are very strange in that they could be loud if it was their sort of loud, but outsiders trying to join in on their merriment were weird and given sides-glances or even rude comments. I was actually mute when in the presence of my peers most of the time in highschool. I never had many friends there. Didn't want 'em anyway. 

Which leads me to stubbornness. I don't know about the "Ni and stubborn" stiff you said. But I have never conformed to anyone or anything. I never tried to changed myself to "fit in" or whatever. I didn't make myself like something just because it was an "it" thing. Sometimes I even revolted against it. Yay rebellions lol

I was friends with people because I liked Them. I saw something interesting in them. I never forget a face either. 

Daydreaming... oh yes. As a child, and even still now, I literally kept myself entertained with my imagination. I was a babysitter's dream. I needed nothing but to be left alone and occasionally fed  I was so quiet that my parents freaked out one day thinking I had gone missing only to find me in my playroom where I had been all day. I don't like to be forced out of my daydreams  fuck chores lol. Even as a BABY my family said I was a very quiet, kind of distant child. 

I've always had a talent for storytelling. Especially fantasy stories. I don't mean to toot my own horn but even my college instructors love my narrative writing ability. I was even strongly encouraged to compete in writing contests. It's so easy for me.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I feel bad but I don't really have any more to say. My mind is blank at the moment. I'm just gonna retreat back into my den nao. cya


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I feel bad but I don't really have any more to say. My mind is blank at the moment. I'm just gonna retreat back into my den nao. cya


Erm. Okay. Lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> @*Fenix Wulfheart*
> 
> I never tell anyone they are being too loud in most cases. I'm just bitter from having dealt with obnoxious guys in highschool who were "loud" and did nothing but make fun of others/pick on them to gain their merriment. They were gross. But when things are truly jovial and people are just fucking around... nah. That's good stuff, actually.
> 
> I get upset/depressed and hurt when people tell me I was loud. I got "you're weird" and "you're like, really loud" in a sneering tone a lot when I was kid. So I forced myself to Be quiet. I think we had a discussion on this a long time ago. About how people in my town are very strange in that they could be loud if it was their sort of loud, but outsiders trying to join in on their merriment were weird and given sides-glances or even rude comments. I was actually mute when in the presence of my peers most of the time in highschool. I never had many friends there. Didn't want 'em anyway.
> 
> Which leads me to stubbornness. I don't know about the "Ni and stubborn" stiff you said. But I have never conformed to anyone or anything. I never tried to changed myself to "fit in" or whatever. I didn't make myself like something just because it was an "it" thing. Sometimes I even revolted against it. Yay rebellions lol
> 
> I was friends with people because I liked Them. I saw something interesting in them. I never forget a face either.
> 
> Daydreaming... oh yes. As a child, and even still now, I literally kept myself entertained with my imagination. I was a babysitter's dream. I needed nothing but to be left alone and occasionally fed  I was so quiet that my parents freaked out one day thinking I had gone missing only to find me in my playroom where I had been all day. I don't like to be forced out of my daydreams  fuck chores lol. Even as a BABY my family said I was a very quiet, kind of distant child.
> 
> I've always had a talent for storytelling. Especially fantasy stories. I don't mean to toot my own horn but even my college instructors love my narrative writing ability. I was even strongly encouraged to compete in writing contests. It's so easy for me.


I'm a good storyteller too. I won a couple story telling contests as a kid. I am also good at telling stories about real events. Like my friends will make me tell this one particularly all the time. About the time these two guys got in a fight in English class. I wasn't even there. But I just built on it and made it absurd. lol.

I just love stories/anecdotes. Everything begins with a story.


*BILL MOYERS:* Joseph Campbell believed that everything begins with a story, so we begin this series with Joseph Campbell with one of his favorites. He was in Japan for a conference on religion, and he overheard another American delegate, a social philosopher from New York, say to a Shinto priest, “We’ve been now to a good many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don’t get your ideology, I don’t get your theology.” The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. ìI think we don’t have ideology,” he said, “we don’t have theology. We dance.”

Campbell could have said it of his own life. When he died in 1987 at the age of 83, he was considered one of the world’s foremost authorities on mythology, the Stories and legends told by human beings through the ages to explain the universe and their place in it. The 20 books he wrote or edited have influenced artists and performers, as well as scholars and students. When he died, he was working on a monumental Historical Atlas of World Mythology, his effort to bring under one roof the spiritual and intellectual wisdom of a lifetime.

Some of his books are classics: The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which established his fame 40 years ago; and his four-volume study of mythology, The Masks of God.* Joseph Campbell was one of the most spiritual men I ever met, but he didn’t have an ideology or a theology. Mythology was to him the song of the universe, music so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious that we dance to it, even when we can’t name the tune.*


----------



## SheWolf

@*FearAndTrembling*

I second that! Lol. Even with the real-life stuff, being able to take something simple and create a story from it. I do it all the time.

I have bizarre dreams. Some terrifying... to the point I didn't even realize I could concoct such things. But I can build on them and create a whole new world from it.

I have so many ideas for a fantasy novel I could pull out of my ass right now.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> @*FearAndTrembling*
> 
> I second that! Lol. Even with the real-life stuff, being able to take something simple and create a story from it. I do it all the time.
> 
> I have bizarre dreams. Some terrifying... to the point I didn't even realize I could concoct such things. But I can build on them and create a whole new world from it.
> 
> I have so many ideas for a fantasy novel I could pull out of my ass right now.



You're Shield Maiden. lol. I suspected that for some reason but you act much differently from what I remember.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Thorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*FearAndTrembling*
> 
> I second that! Lol. Even with the real-life stuff, being able to take something simple and create a story from it. I do it all the time.
> 
> I have bizarre dreams. Some terrifying... to the point I didn't even realize I could concoct such things. But I can build on them and create a whole new world from it.
> 
> I have so many ideas for a fantasy novel I could pull out of my ass right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're Shield Maiden. lol. I suspected that for some reason but you act much differently from what I remember.
Click to expand...

Huh? Yes I am ShieldMaiden. After that I wasn't SheWolf. Now I'm Thorn lol.
Act differently? Hrm. Ive always been the same. Perhaps I'm more "EIE Actress" than I realize. Lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Huh? Yes I am ShieldMaiden. After that I wasn't SheWolf. Now I'm Thorn lol.
> Act differently? Hrm. Ive always been the same. Perhaps I'm more "EIE Actress" than I realize. Lol.


Didn't you type Gamma before? I thought that made sense. You seemed like a hardass and serious with a thirst for vengeance.. You seem more open and merry now.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I agree with the overall confusion, as I can't avoid to scratch my head at this change of attitude overall. Dunno if it's the result of accepting repressed things or not.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Didn't you type Gamma before? I thought that made sense. You seemed like a hardass and serious with a thirst for vengeance.. You seem more open and merry now.


"Thirst for vengeance " I actually think is more Beta TBH. I definitely do tend to thirst for vengence ;P 
As for being a hardass. Trust me. I'm no where near a true hardass like my LSI brother. 

"seem Merry?" Idk. I think I suppose I'm just in a better mood since things make sense now. And just life in general. I've been under a lot of stress. I still am but it's the better kind of stress. Lol


----------



## SheWolf

@*FearAndTrembling*

Eh. I would rather not correlate type to intelligence or potential. I have always thought Gulenko does a lot of unnecessary rambling.

I never brag about my intelligence. It could just be me being modest. The only thing I can say, as others have told me, is despite often having my logical inconsistencies pointed out to me; I can learn things quickly. It's my third day at my new job and I've already mastered the register and figured out how they organize their stock and shipments which I was told most people usually take a week for the register at least. Or I managed to figure out how Socionics works through my own doggedness even though Most times I need others to make sense of it for me. I basically taught myself how to do the coursework required for a computer class and ended up helping others too since the instructor was shitty. And there have been times I've made unusual connections between things. 

But ive had many "blonde moments" too by missing things that were right in front of my face.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Thorn said:


> @*FearAndTrembling*
> 
> Eh. I would rather not correlate type to intelligence or potential. I have always thought Gulenko does a lot of unnecessary rambling.
> 
> I never brag about my intelligence. It could just be me being modest. The only thing I can say, as others have told me, is despite often having my logical inconsistencies pointed out to me; I can learn things quickly. It's my third day at my new job and I've already mastered the register and figured out how they organize their stock and shipments which I was told most people usually take a week for the register at least. Or I managed to figure out how Socionics works through my own doggedness even though Most times I need others to make sense of it for me. I basically taught myself how to do the coursework required for a computer class and ended up helping others too since the instructor was shitty. And there have been times I've made unusual connections between things.
> 
> But ive had many "blonde moments" too by missing things that were right in front of my face.


Do you relate? From Dmitry Golihov's description on Wikisocion:



> Ti as suggestive function EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) ESE (ESFj; Hugo)
> 
> Deliberately searches for a place where everything is clear and avoids those places where something remains unclear, primarily from the point of view of common sense. Needs people who know how to make complicated things more understandable and becomes attached to such people. If you tell him that something is going to be difficult to understand, then he won't even make attempts. If you tell him that it will be easy to understand, he will become inspired by this. Very suggestible by understanding of other people and, in general, by any logic, thus can easily believe in the most bizarre and unrealistic things, very easy to convince. Loves to learn, but to those courses where everything is explained in meticulous detail. Lectures where instructor simply gives terms and facts repel him, as each term must be explained to him in detail. Can easily get tricked because of this suggestibility through logic. Wherever someone gives them explanations so that everything is simple and clear, they will favor such place. In situations where he doesn't understand something, may pretend to be stupid, uninterested, or bored. Becomes angry with those who know but refuse to explain what it is not clear to him; believes that they are mocking him. The best environment for him is where everything is 100% understandable.


----------



## SheWolf

mistakenforstranger said:


> Do you relate? From Dmitry Golihov's description on Wikisocion:


It's like someone took my brain and splattered it onto paper. Lol.

I wrote this rant somewhere else. Please be forgiving, I made it when I typed at SEE. But I believe it describes exactly what that description is talking about.



> But I had an ILE computer instructor a year ago. Him and I did _not see eye to eye. My issue was that he wouldn't ever stick to the lecture with what we needed to know. There was zero structure or organization in his class. He even claimed himself that he "tends to get excited" about his ideas and gets majorly off-track. He'd start talking about current trends in technology or even just stuff that had nothing to do with the project at hand. His instructions on how to do things sucked ass. Whenever I would ask him for help, I wouldn't get the straight answer I wanted and was only left more confused. Honestly it was like this guy was speaking Greek to me. Thank the gods that written instructions for projects were online so I was able to go home, print them out, and follow things in the clear step-by-step way I wanted. You should have seen the notes I took for this class. I tried to copy one day exactly what/how he wrote on the board just so I could show my sister (I usually try to organize my notes in my book) and I literally had writing/scribbles all over the place that didn't connect together at all. He just wrote wherever and whatever his Ne took him which was just basically word vomit.
> 
> There were a couple other people who really struggled with him too and actually ended up coming to me to help them with our projects/homework because after class I would always go home and get it done via the instructions. I even showed up quite early to the computer lab to help them out who responded better to my Te way of explaining things. I can say to this day I didn't learn a damn thing from that instructor. Everything I learned I learned from the online tutorial site he provided, the virtual textbook required from the class, and good 'ol Google.
> 
> I shouldn't totally trash him though. There were definitely some other Ne/Ti valuers in the class who loved the free, laid-backed, emotionally positive atmosphere he created (He had a decent handle on his Fe HA. Though it was hit and miss) He did provide an atmosphere that was very free-for-all and allowed for creative freedom. He was certainly not the type of teacher to get pissed if a student deviated from the project and created something new. In fact he encouraged it and would get irritated with me for wanting to stick to what was written. I am 90% sure he saw me as a stiff with zero creativity. He liked for people to work out their own problems or whatever, but I wanted to shit the right way._


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Thorn said:


> It's like someone took my brain and splattered it onto paper. Lol.
> 
> I wrote this rant somewhere else. Please be forgiving, I made it when I typed at SEE. But I believe it describes exactly what that description is talking about.


That's okay. I'm still very much acquainting myself with Socionics, so I'm not even sure if that description I shared is accurate, but reading your post made me think of that particular one for EIE I had read recently. Interesting that you relate, and thought maybe you'd appreciate a little corroboration of your newly declared type. Here's all the other descriptions too: Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov



> Se as activating function of EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London) - for these people the most important thing in life is to be rich, powerful, beautiful, successful, skillful. Perceives this as a challenge and ties his self-esteem to such things, so worries a lot about them. If something does not come together, it becomes almost as if a catastrophe. Often likes to dress to catch an eye, brightly, defiantly, as a way to challenge others and prove their own beauty and success. Ruin, old age, lack of social success, ugliness in terms of social standards for such a person can even become a motive for suicide. In passive self-defense they may, on the contrary, cease to monitor the appearance and go unkempt. In general, they tend to believe that a profession one must leave on time, so as not to disgrace themselves. Afraid to look weak and like to present themselves as bold, strong. For this reason they may, for example, engage in martial arts, for "the show", to learn some tricks and dangerous maneuvers and show them off wherever possible, as well as sports. Such a man needs to be constantly taking to new heights and this, strangely enough, is also his weak point. Sometimes, if everything is going smoothly in his life, at some point he can drop everything and go to another town to "start over", thus increasing self-esteem. Very strongly socially conditioned. If someone needs something - then automatically it becomes necessary for him, and he will start trying to get it, too, using any method. What is intended for him and lies within his reach bores him, if he doesn't need to win it over, to conquer it. Hence there may be similar problems in personal relationships, that become a constant race for the unattainable. And as soon as it becomes reachable, then all interest is lost - this is the paradox.To be able to overcome everything and win is the main motive of their activity. The worst thing for them - to lose, this means disgrace. Because of this, do not like to get involved in those businesses where it is too difficult to win. On this function there cannot be any large risks, thus he typically comes up with difficult, even very complex tasks, but that are solvable and achievable. These tasks are most often associated with existing skills, rather than requiring the development of new ones. They need social success, a universal recognition of their victory. Can come up with an unusual way to improve his self-esteem: suddenly fall ill, then go in for heavy treatment, recover, and take this as his own achievement and victory.


This really sounds like something you and @*FearAndTrembling* were discussing in both the PoLR thread, like in overcoming illness (I can't quite remember if that's how you both phrased it), which you related to Si PoLR, and recently in the Gamma thread with the talk of victory. And the thing about martial arts, I remember you saying you were a part of, but not sure if you view it in those terms of the description.

The description also sounds a lot like Blanche Dubois if you've ever read Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. She was very obsessed with her physical appearance, aging, beauty fading away, and also moved in with her sister in New Orleans at the beginning to start anew. I typed her as ENFJ in MBTI a while ago, so EIE makes a lot of sense for her too.


----------



## SheWolf

mistakenforstranger said:


> That's okay. I'm still very much acquainting myself with Socionics, so I'm not even sure if that description I shared is accurate, but reading your post made me think of that particular one for EIE I had read recently. Interesting that you relate, and thought maybe you'd appreciate a little corroboration of your newly declared type. Here's all the other descriptions too: Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov


That description is sorta like me. Except, I am rather critical of big business and find it disgusting. Being rich and successful has it's own meaning to me. I have always had goals and knew what I wanted from life at a very early age. While other kids had no idea, or said something kinda absurd, I had already planned how I wanted things to go.

Being beautiful and standing out.... yeah. It's why I'm into the fashion that I am. I'm a bit of a show off in that sense honestly. Old age doesn't scare me. Namely because I plan on keeping my own style and having it be part of my own identity. Lol. It's a personal virtue. I won't do things like botox not necessarily because of the harm it comes to my body, but because it goes against my morality I suppose.

I'm very competitive. I have a bad habit of comparing myself to others and wanting to outdo them. There's not much "You have your space and I have mine so we're all good" with me.

I really fucking hate being late. I don't have the structure not to be rushing around sometimes but I'm rarely late for anything.





> This really sounds like something you and @*FearAndTrembling* were discussing in both the PoLR thread, like in overcoming illness (I can't quite remember if that's how you both phrased it), which you related to Si PoLR, and recently in the Gamma thread with the talk of victory. And the thing about martial arts, I remember you saying you were a part of, but not sure if you view it in those terms of the description.



Yeah. Despite having different Enneagrams @FearAndTrembling and I actually agree on a lot of things.



> The description also sounds a lot like Blanche Dubois if you've ever read Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. She was very obsessed with her physical appearance, aging, beauty fading away, and also moved in with her sister in New Orleans at the beginning to start anew. I typed her as ENFJ in MBTI a while ago, so EIE makes a lot of sense for her too.


I have never seen that. But I have been vain and obsessed with my appearance since I was little. Now, when I was young I didn't care about my hair or clothes as much but I was very self-conscious about my appearance. Vanity, I think, should be a deadly sin. I would absolutely die if I became truly, and I mean truly ugly. 

There's a song lyric that sticks with me, "Beauty always comes with dark thoughts."

It's very true.

I also thought of this song.






Losing... yeah. I often will just avoid stuff if I think I'll lose. I am a sore loser. But I refuse to make a fuss and be undignified in the midst of others.

_I'll just burn with seething hatred for a few years...._


----------



## FearAndTrembling

mistakenforstranger said:


> That's okay. I'm still very much acquainting myself with Socionics, so I'm not even sure if that description I shared is accurate, but reading your post made me think of that particular one for EIE I had read recently. Interesting that you relate, and thought maybe you'd appreciate a little corroboration of your newly declared type. Here's all the other descriptions too: Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov
> 
> 
> 
> This really sounds like something you and @*FearAndTrembling* were discussing in both the PoLR thread, like in overcoming illness (I can't quite remember if that's how you both phrased it), which you related to Si PoLR, and recently in the Gamma thread with the talk of victory. And the thing about martial arts, I remember you saying you were a part of, but not sure if you view it in those terms of the description.
> 
> The description also sounds a lot like Blanche Dubois if you've ever read Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. She was very obsessed with her physical appearance, aging, beauty fading away, and also moved in with her sister in New Orleans at the beginning to start anew. I typed her as ENFJ in MBTI a while ago, so EIE makes a lot of sense for her too.



LOL. 

I don't know if people on this forum get what a pretty boy I am. I went tanning in high school. Was voted best dressed. I have 5 different flavors of facial masks. 

I think the martial arts thing made me laugh most. Though I don't have any formal training I bought a heavy bag with the goal of being able to do a high kick. And that's all I used it for. In my imagination I would use it to someday to knock somebody out on the street. lol. That would be so fuckin cool. When's the last time you saw a guy get knocked out by head kick in public? lol. How cool would I be? They are also the most devastating knockouts.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> That description is sorta like me. Except, I am rather critical of big business and find it disgusting. Being rich and successful has it's own meaning to me. I have always had goals and knew what I wanted from life at a very early age. While other kids had no idea, or said something kinda absurd, I had already planned how I wanted things to go.
> 
> Being beautiful and standing out.... yeah. It's why I'm into the fashion that I am. I'm a bit of a show off in that sense honestly. Old age doesn't scare me. Namely because I plan on keeping my own style and having it be part of my own identity. Lol. It's a personal virtue. I won't do things like botox not necessarily because of the harm it comes to my body, but because it goes against my morality I suppose.
> 
> I'm very competitive. I have a bad habit of comparing myself to others and wanting to outdo them. There's not much "You have your space and I have mine so we're all good" with me.
> 
> I really fucking hate being late. I don't have the structure not to be rushing around sometimes but I'm rarely late for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Despite having different Enneagrams @*FearAndTrembling* and I actually agree on a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen that. But I have been vain and obsessed with my appearance since I was little. Now, when I was young I didn't care about my hair or clothes as much but I was very self-conscious about my appearance. Vanity, I think, should be a deadly sin. I would absolutely die if I became truly, and I mean truly ugly.
> 
> There's a song lyric that sticks with me, "Beauty always comes with dark thoughts."
> 
> It's very true.
> 
> I also thought of this song.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losing... yeah. I often will just avoid stuff if I think I'll lose. I am a sore loser. But I refuse to make a fuss and be undignified in the midst of others.
> 
> _I'll just burn with seething hatred for a few years...._



Feel like posting this for some reason. You gotta lose to know how to win. Just like you have to be cruel to be kind. 








“I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.” 
― Michael Jordan


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Just because you lose a battle doesn't mean you've lost the war.
> 
> Even when you've lost the war...
> 
> All it takes is a spark of rebellion. Humans do that. Build things, then destroy it. You must be aware of these cycles. Think about how you can come back. You can always come back.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm. I was never diagnosed with it. But for awhile, when I was about 13-14, I would have acid reflux a lot. Like I would get the sensation that I was going to vomit and such. I took I think it was Prilosec for a little bit and it went away. I forgot about that. Lol. But no doctor ever told me "you have GERD."




I have good insurance so anything I need I have done just about. This is the surgery done for GERD and hiatal hernias. This is how my stomach looks now.











People always think it affects weight or whatever like a bypass. No. It doesn't change anything. If anything, it allows me to eat more. 


Imagine your esophagus, or its sphincter particularly, is a sock. You know how or cheap socks lose their elasticity and don't hug your foot or leg anymore. Same thing with sphincter. The surgeon simply wraps the lower part of the stomach around to tighten it. 

Anyway, right after the surgery cannot eat anything. Your esophagus is really tight. Trying to get any solid food down there is extremely painful. You also cannot vomit for a while which scared me. But now everything is normal.

If Prilosec made you feel better you have some kind of GERD. 

You may eventually want to get an endoscopy done too. GERD can cause cancer.


----------



## SheWolf

@FearAndTrembling

Haha. Yeah I can be vain. I'm not really one to follow this super strict beauty regime because ugh. It's a pain. 
But yet I do things like not go out into the sun because I want my skin to stay very pale and I will lather on sunscreen I feel I have to. I don't care how comfortable something I see either I want wear it if it's ugly. I'm much more flashy than minimalist but I don't really follow what's trendy in fashion most of the time.


----------



## SheWolf

@FearAndTrembling

Meh. Actually I just thought of something else. I had very severe overbite and basically my jaw had to Be repositioned and my mouth re shaped. I think my orthodontist actually asked me if I had I issues with my tongue. My tongue sat farther back and could cause gagging. I actually never had stomach acid come up. I would just get anxious from the gagging and that would heat my stomach up. I literally have no issues with it anymore.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

FearAndTrembling said:


> LOL.
> 
> I don't know if people on this forum get what a pretty boy I am. I went tanning in high school. Was voted best dressed. I have 5 different flavors of facial masks.
> 
> I think the martial arts thing made me laugh most. Though I don't have any formal training I bought a heavy bag with the goal of being able to do a high kick. And that's all I used it for. In my imagination I would use it to someday to knock somebody out on the street. lol. That would be so fuckin cool. When's the last time you saw a guy get knocked out by head kick in public? lol. How cool would I be? They are also the most devastating knockouts.


Lol, you reminded me of this video. Morrissey's such a pretty boy, but thinks he's some kind of tough guy. He's badass in his own way, I guess.






Dear hero imprisoned 
With all the new crimes that you are perfecting 
Oh, I can't help quoting you 
Because everything that you said rings true 
And now in my cell 
(well, I followed you) 
And here's a list of who I slew 

Reggie Kray - do you know my name? 
Oh, don't say you don't 
Please say you do, (oh) I am :

The last of the famous 
International playboys 
The last of the famous 
International playboys 

And in my cell 
(well, I loved you) 
And every man with a job to do 
Ronnie Kray - do you know my face?
Oh, don't say you don't 
Please say you do, (oh) I am : 

The last of the famous 
International playboys 
The last of the famous 
International playboys 

In our lifetime those who kill 
The news world hands them stardom 
And these are the ways 
On which I was raised 
These are the ways 
On which I was raised 

I never wanted to kill 
I am not naturally evil 
Such things I do 
Just to make myself 
More attractive to you 
Have I failed? 



FearAndTrembling said:


> “I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”
> ― Michael Jordan


----------



## Sygma

why is it that most people who can't find themselves all go for Hamlet ? *scratching head

edit : Hamlet as, EIE


----------



## DOGSOUP

Sygma said:


> why is it that most people who can't find themselves all go for Hamlet ? *scratching head
> 
> edit : Hamlet as, EIE


What other options are there.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

They can't find themselves. So they ask, to be x or to be y? This is the question. Then they take a meta level look at their questioning and notice it is Hamlet in a nutshell. So they go EIE.


----------



## DOGSOUP

@FearAndTrembling, you had seen Solaris and Stalker, right? How about the other Tarkovsky films?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> @*FearAndTrembling*, you had seen Solaris and Stalker, right? How about the other Tarkovsky films?



Just those two. What's it to ya?


----------



## DOGSOUP

FearAndTrembling said:


> Just those two. What's it to ya?


I ran into his films again and wondered if you had seen more of them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> I ran into his films again and wondered if you had seen more of them.


Sorry, dawg. Two shows I am watching that I would recommend are Westworld and Black Mirror. Westworld is based on a Michael Crichton story.

I also liked his 'odd man hypothesis' from The Andromeda Strain. I am that odd man.

Michael Crichton called it the “Odd Man Hypothesis.” A fictional theory that played a big role in his novel_The Andromeda Strain_, the hypothesis was that only an unmarried man, a man with nobody else to think of and thus nothing to lose, could be trusted to have clear decision-making capacity in a time of nuclear or biological crisis.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> I ran into his films again and wondered if you had seen more of them.



Another weird one I watched lately, based on a society where everybody must die at 30. lol. Older sci fi movie. Reminded me a little of In Time with Justin Timberlake. I actually liked In Time. I didn't expect to. It was done by the guy who did Gattaca which is one of my favorite science fiction movies. Have you seen it?

I also love the original Planet of the Apes movies.


----------



## DOGSOUP

FearAndTrembling said:


> Sorry, dawg. Two shows I am watching that I would recommend are Westworld and Black Mirror. Westworld is based on a Michael Crichton story.


Everyone is saying such lovely things about Westworld. Dunno. Crichton has proven out so far to be unrealiable. He has great ideas when it comes to dinosaurs, but I already tried to suffer through Timeline and am not even sure what made it so irritating.



> I also liked his 'odd man hypothesis' from The Andromeda Strain. I am that odd man.
> 
> Michael Crichton called it the “Odd Man Hypothesis.” A fictional theory that played a big role in his novel_The Andromeda Strain_, the hypothesis was that only an unmarried man, a man with nobody else to think of and thus nothing to lose, could be trusted to have clear decision-making capacity in a time of nuclear or biological crisis.


This one on the other hand I would love to read but haven't managed to find a translation of it. Why do publishers let books disappear or even worse, never exist, that I will never understand.

I'm not sure I agree with this hypothesis however. Who would find this man/you? Would you simply announce yourself and your existence and say you are capable of getting the job done? How could you possibly prove you have nothing to lose, who would believe it?


----------



## Jakuri

So THAT was why the name change took place...so aristocratic and Beta. Hahahaha.


----------



## bremen

So apparently, I'm Beta (LSI-Ti).

Hello everyone.

I noticed the name aristocracy was associated with Beta, seems to fit with my username.

@Jakuri What name change?


----------



## Jakuri

ColdNobility said:


> @Jakuri What name change?


Was talking about the Fenix Wulfheart -> Lord Fenix Wulfheart one.


----------



## bremen

Haha, indeed.


----------



## SheWolf

This was posted in a Socionics group on Facebook as the most Beta song. No wonder its one of my favorites.






Looking through my iPod, I have very "Beta" taste in music myself.


----------



## SheWolf

This too.


----------



## orbit

@Lord Fenix Wulfheart, such a quick revolution. Just don't be too harsh on us poor peasants. People like @Jakuri deserve all the kindness in the world


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

orbit said:


> @Lord Fenix Wulfheart, such a quick revolution. Just don't be too harsh on us poor peasants. People like @Jakuri deserve all the kindness in the world


Ah, @Jakuri is one of the finest denizens of these fine forums. I shall show plenty of mercy on my peasants and on Jakuri especially. Except when I am in a foul mood. Then you shall all be my punching bag. Except Jakuri, because you asked so nicely.

Mwahaha.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Thorn said:


> This was posted in a Socionics group on Facebook as the most Beta song. No wonder its one of my favorites
> --
> Looking through my iPod, I have very "Beta" taste in music myself.


How do they type songs as Beta? What are the Beta-ish elements? Lyrics, genre...?


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> How do they type songs as Beta? What are the Beta-ish elements? Lyrics, genre...?


Attacking of a system (in this case, the government, American culture) with ideals presented forcibly. All with this certain sort of "Merriment" to it underneath the harshness. Genre may have something to to do with it, rock/punk concerts are stereotypical Beta environments.

System of a Down is a pretty Beta band.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Thorn said:


> Attacking of a system (in this case, the government, American culture) with ideals presented forcibly. All with this certain sort of "Merriment" to it underneath the harshness. Genre may have something to to do with it, rock/punk concerts are stereotypical Beta environments.
> 
> System of a Down is a pretty Beta band.


Oh that's cool, and interesting. I was scrolling through the enneagrams thread the other day - they were typing songs, and similar qualities were used to describe enneagram six -songs. I find the coincidence pretty striking.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> Oh that's cool, and interesting. I was scrolling through the enneagrams thread the other day - they were typing songs, and similar qualities were used to describe enneagram six -songs. I find the coincidence pretty striking.


Yeah, may have some to do with Social instinct too.

I'm back to typing at 6w7 Sx/So after briefly talking to someone who's studied Enneagram for 50 years, but I'm still awaiting a fleshed out analysis from them


----------



## DOGSOUP

Thorn said:


> Yeah, may have some to do with Social instinct too.
> 
> I'm back to typing at 6w7 Sx/So after briefly talking to someone who's studied Enneagram for 50 years, but I'm still awaiting a fleshed out analysis from them


Sounds like an awesome chance to hear some profound insight there!

I'm not sure, I probably don't even know enough of enneagram to type myself. I did some research, tried to be honest with it and eventually ended up with six (aftering getting pass the trigger words of security and duty etc. looking deeper into 6's themes, fears and desires and focus... and it does make the most sense). Still can't fully relate to descriptions of social six, I can just... apply the basic themes into my life and personality.


----------



## SheWolf

DOGSOUP said:


> Sounds like an awesome chance to hear some profound insight there!
> 
> I'm not sure, I probably don't even know enough of enneagram to type myself. I did some research, tried to be honest with it and eventually ended up with six (aftering getting pass the trigger words of security and duty etc. looking deeper into 6's themes, fears and desires and focus... and it does make the most sense). Still can't fully relate to descriptions of social six, I can just... apply the basic themes into my life and personality.


Enneagram is so much more than just reading descriptions and attempting to apply yourself to what fits really.

It's deep within our motivations and core. Every Socionics "expert" I've talked to says it takes years to really get down the basics.

Personally I think if finding your type is easy for you, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Enneagram is so much more than just reading descriptions and attempting to apply yourself to what fits really.
> 
> It's deep within our motivations and core. Every Socionics "expert" I've talked to says it takes years to really get down the basics.
> 
> Personally I think if finding your type is easy for you, you're doing it wrong.


Exactly. I said before that if you could make a machine that could actually spit your type accurately, I would not be surprised at anything they give. ESFJ? I can see that. ESI. I can see that. I can see anything. lol. I said it is like guessing somebody weight except nobody has a fuckin scale and even knows their own weight, much less that of others. And for all all their reading on this theory it all comes down to, "Well my ESI brother does this..." lol

I said punk is 6 music. It is a culture. I have never been interested into belonging to any group like that. I know an IEI 6 who was a goth. Also 6ish.

You do seem more 6 than 2 btw. You are kinda reactive. So am I tho. lol


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly. I said before that if you could make a machine that could actually spit your type accurately, I would not be surprised at anything they give. ESFJ? I can see that. ESI. I can see that. I can see anything. lol. I said it is like guessing somebody weight except nobody has a fuckin scale and even knows their own weight, much less that of others. And for all all their reading on this theory it all comes down to, "Well my ESI brother does this..." lol


That, my friend, is called _benchmarking,_ and it is frowned upon in respecting typing communities. 

I understand people using others of a type as an example, that's fine if you're pretty confident (one can never be certain imo) of their type. But using them in relation to yourself or getting too specific is a no-no. 



> I said punk is 6 music. It is a culture. I have never been interested into belonging to any group like that. I know an IEI 6 who was a goth. Also 6ish.


I have no problems belonging to a group.



> You do seem more 6 than 2 btw. You are kinda reactive. So am I tho. lol


Reactivity isn't what people think it is. Reactivity is more... pushing against or slamming up walls in some form or another.

Not everyone who throws a hissy fit is reactive. I think our "reactivity" is kinda related to poor use of Se perhaps, if we're going to go so far as to point it to anything typology related.

Like this guy is an EIE. Poorly asserting himself, overreacting, some say what he did here was just downright embarrassing.






This is proper use of force. He's probably LSI. (The guy who started the fight is likely a Se HA type. Lol.)


----------



## SheWolf

@FearAndTrembling

Oh, and the first impression of my full tritype from them was 6w7-9-2 Sx/So

I agree with that


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I agree that Se is often thought of as aggressive but it is people who don't know how to handle Se that use it ungracefully. Never thought of Tarantino as EIE but he is a quintessential 7. lol

I mean like imagine a heavy object. Like a rock. A stronger man can move that rock around more gracefully than a weaker man. Who is just trying to go as fast as they can before they drop it. Lower Se doesn't know how to use its strength so it can come out in ridiculous bursts. I have seen Tarantino be a mad dog before. That is why I consider LSI like a gunslinger type. Good under pressure. I throw tantrums myself. lol. Embarrass myself.

But I am like Tarantino. You aren't talking shit or dressing me down in front of people. lol.

It is about power. "I am shutting you down." Like that Jim Brown quote, make sure everyone who tackles you remembers how much it hurts.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

You can see his vengeance his movies obviously. He loves it. I love that scene from Pulp Fiction where Travolta got his car keyed. He said it would be worth somebody doing it just to catch them in the act. We want people to cross us. lol. And Marcellus Wallace. "I have not even gotten started on you guys yet." It's like, the vengeance cannot even be fathomed at the time to explain or plan it. We will just try things until I am satisfied. It is too big for words. lol. And he is the same irl. Like some reporter said something about his father. Next time Tarantino saw him, spit at him tons of times. Going crazy.


----------



## DOGSOUP

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said punk is 6 music. It is a culture. I have never been interested into belonging to any group like that.





Thorn said:


> I have no problems belonging to a group.


And I'd prefer to belong to _several _groups. We certainly have different approaches here.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> For what it means, and what that says about the person and what is going on, fakeness or lack thereof is sort of unimportant. It isn't about "being true to some idea of the self", its about actually being yourself. If you think yourself is in group A on Tuesday, then act like it! If you change your mind that Friday, then be like what you wanted to be on Friday! Why should we have to be permanently locked in to one idea of the self?


Yeah, I don't really think if someone's being fake or not, and it doesn't really bother me all that much. Everyone's been fake at one point or another. It seems like a lot of people who cry "FAKE!" are just projecting their own insecurities on others. You need the fakers to make yourself seem more real. Who are you without them? 

Do you think all these personality theories are limiting in a sense, and in how it relates to what you say about locking oneself to a fixed idea of self, though? I mean, I do see truth in them, but by saying I'm this type, aren't we locking ourselves into an idea of self, and doesn't that limit our range of experience in a way, or is it already limited by virtue of being our type?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I enjoy that song, although I think it has to do with how she makes life seem simple...and I admire that, even if I don't agree with her on some things. Although, she isn't talking about the same fakeness if you really think about it. She is talking about the person not being true to their comfort levels; the person is "faking" in the sense that the choices they are making are actively stressful to them. So it isn't really faking even if she says it is. There is posturing. I don't really see posturing as a problem per se, and I don't think that someone's choice to present themselves or behave as a certain group means that they are necessarily faking. The question becomes why they made that choice. What does this choice actually mean?


Well, I don't quite see how that's different from the type of thing you were ranting about earlier. I mean, it started with Marilyn Manson and how his shtick isn't necessarily any less "fake" or put on than the masks other people wear, from what I understand. In a way the song is fitting because she's also putting on her own act while telling him to stop acting (though that isn't why it annoys me really... just making an observation).

(But yeah, I'm not too interested in making things less complicated, so there's that. =P)



mistakenforstranger said:


> Yeah, I don't really think if someone's being fake or not, and it doesn't really bother me all that much. Everyone's been fake at one point or another. It seems like a lot of people who cry "FAKE!" are just projecting their own insecurities on others. You need the fakers to make yourself seem more real. Who are you without them?


I was thinking, it comes down a bit to what *type* of fakeness someone is bothered by as well. At least I find that I've often seen a lot of complains about such things which I didn't think seemed so bad (or bad at all), but like I said, I've found that some things can still bother me even if I'm not against it on principle.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yeah, I don't really think if someone's being fake or not, and it doesn't really bother me all that much. Everyone's been fake at one point or another. It seems like a lot of people who cry "FAKE!" are just projecting their own insecurities on others. You need the fakers to make yourself seem more real. Who are you without them?
> 
> Do you think all these personality theories are limiting in a sense, and in how it relates to what you say about locking oneself to a fixed idea of self, though? I mean, I do see truth in them, but by saying I'm this type, aren't we locking ourselves into an idea of self, and doesn't that limit our range of experience in a way, or is it already limited by virtue of being our type?


There is some truth, sure. I see it as truth in an aggregate sense. Logically speaking your mind works in ways similar to what it has learned to do, and that tends to lead to certain behaviors being more common/more frequent. I just don't see "more common" as equating to "that's who you really are inside". Because for that to be who you really are, you would have to be defined by something aside from your experience of yourself. So that would mean the world defines you. I think that's back-asswards. You define the world, the world does not define you.

So sure, there is truth in these models. Lots of it, even. But the moment you decide that the model holds more truth about who you are than you do, you are losing yourself. And losing yourself is the opposite of the intent of a journey to discover the self. These models are a tool, not a dictum. They are valuable because they explain patterns that arise, patterns that show some small inkling of what human nature is. It shows the ties that bind. It reveals what it is to Human. Thus, being fake isn't really possible because to be human IS to be adaptable. To be human is to change.

Its my view that we shouldn't worry about whether we are being true to the self, but rather we should worry about whether we are being true to our goals, our aims. Do I want to be this person I am becoming?

The point is to be the captain of your own soul. The point is to take control of your own destiny. The world will gladly do it for you, but why should you let it? Know who you are in an aggregate sense solely because this shows you where you are going, and you can use that knowledge. Aim yourself where you want to go, if you will.

I feel like I am already captain of my own soul, but I don't always know where I am trying to go. So I let the world show me paths, and I pick the ones that make the most sense at the time. I look at where they go, and shift direction if needed. It works. But how well does it work in the long term? That, I don't know. And I want to find out. So I learn.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Distortions said:


> Well, I don't quite see how that's different from the type of thing you were ranting about earlier. I mean, it started with Marilyn Manson and how his shtick isn't necessarily any less "fake" or put on than the masks other people wear, from what I understand. In a way the song is fitting because she's also putting on her own act while telling him to stop acting (though that isn't why it annoys me really... just making an observation).
> 
> (But yeah, I'm not too interested in making things less complicated, so there's that. =P)
> 
> 
> I was thinking, it comes down a bit to what *type* of fakeness someone is bothered by as well. At least I find that I've often seen a lot of complains about such things which I didn't think seemed so bad (or bad at all), but like I said, I've found that some things can still bother me even if I'm not against it on principle.


I think it comes down to

"You aren't being true to who you really are so you are a bad person"

versus

"You are actively hurting yourself doing this so it must be fake why don't you stop making things complicated"

I feel like the second is more what Avril is saying, even if some of the words sound at first like they are saying the first. I believe this because of the emotions she appears to be feeling in the song, and what bothers her most, going by what she said.

Saying someone is being so fake is bothersome either way. But feeling like the faking is wrong because of how it impacts them? Eh, while still irritating that is also kind. There are shades and shades.

This is also why I don't rant very often. Sometimes I am not very clear, or even contradict myself (horror of horrors! ).


----------



## mistakenforstranger

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts

-William Shakespeare, As You Like It


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I disavow the endless, mindless masses of fucking stupid that are my countrymen. Our destruction comes, spearheaded by the king of incompetence. And when that happens, something new must rise.

Unrelated, just don't want to do another post in a row. I am rewatching Danny Phantom. I want to say Danny is an ESI. He seems vaguely Te valuing and he seems to use Fi and Se. Sam is an NF introvert, probably. I suspect she is IEI. Whichever she is, though, I adore her. This show is pretty good. Especially when you are drinking to dull the rage, and the drink makes thing more awesome! 

Sam is so cute in her dress at the dance. I wish I could tell her that. Even though she isn't for realzies.


----------



## SheWolf

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I disavow the endless, mindless masses of fucking stupid that are my countrymen. Our destruction comes, spearheaded by the king of incompetence. And when that happens, something new must rise.
> 
> Unrelated, just don't want to do another post in a row. I am rewatching Danny Phantom. I want to say Danny is an ESI. He seems vaguely Te valuing and he seems to use Fi and Se. Sam is an NF introvert, probably. I suspect she is IEI. Whichever she is, though, I adore her. This show is pretty good. Especially when you are drinking to dull the rage, and the drink makes thing more awesome!
> 
> Sam is so cute in her dress at the dance. I wish I could tell her that. Even though she isn't for realzies.


Agree with Sam being a Beta NF. She was my favorite. I related to her a lot. My sister used to tease me and say we were just alike. Which I took as a compliment.

Danny doesn't strike me as an ESI. Doesn't seem Fe ignoring. But I'd be curious to know exactly why you see Fi/Te valuing in him.

I haven't watched the show in a long time though. Tucker seems like an Alpha NT.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Thorn said:


> Agree with Sam being a Beta NF. She was my favorite. I related to her a lot. My sister used to tease me and say we were just alike. Which I toolbar as a compliment.
> 
> Danny doesn't strike me as an ESI. Doesn't seem Fe ignoring. But I'd be curious to know exactly why you see Fi/Te valuing in him.
> 
> I haven't watched the show in a long time though. Tucker seems like an Alpha NT.


Honestly, I identify a lot with the way Sam acts. Like when she took that photo of Danny and Tucker hugging so she could keep it as a "just-in-case" card for the future. Shes always planning ahead even though she doesn't have a specific goal. Its fairly IEI (and fairly 5w4 or 4w5; both of which I identify with a lot myself). And she keeps it to herself when she doesn't need it, so the Ni doesn't seem Creative per se.

I mean, honestly, the way she delivers warning to people all the time seems Ni- as well, and she isn't afraid of hardship at all. I bet in her circumstances I would be just like her. 

Danny seems ESI because of a lot of little things. He doesn't seem to see emotions as something to be changed at all. He sticks to his judgments of people even to his own detriment. He doesn't shift Dynamically to what is going on unless it is something he has been wanting, like popularity, and when he gets those things its like he thinks his entire being has been changed somehow. He seems pretty Static to me. His Se seems creative. Basically I'd have to cite all the little moments. Anyway. I also considered LSI, and I could see Danny and Sam being great together, so that could be it too. Whatever the case, I think he is 3w2.

Tucker seems pretty Alpha, yeh.

Getting things edited right is a bitch when you are drinking. -_-

EDIT: Oh, Danny does pranks. Why didn't I remember that? I don't think ESI would find those sorts of pranks funny.


----------



## SheWolf

@Lord Fenix Wulfheart 

Yeah IEI is a good bet for her.

But Danny being ESI and best friend with an Alpha NT? Hrmmmm. Dunno about that. I'll have to watch again.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Danny is not an IEI. Do people know what Te polr is? lol. We are not leaders of battle. She is using Te and Fi. 

Dany is exactly what I imagine an ESI woman to be. They are like brawler princesses. Hardasses but cuddly. Basically, an IEI does not know what they want like Dany. Dany knows exactly what she wants. I made better arguments in the GOT thread. lol.

Wait, you guys arent even talking about GOT. I just saw Sam and Dany.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yeah, I don't really think if someone's being fake or not, and it doesn't really bother me all that much. Everyone's been fake at one point or another. It seems like a lot of people who cry "FAKE!" are just projecting their own insecurities on others. You need the fakers to make yourself seem more real. Who are you without them?
> 
> Do you think all these personality theories are limiting in a sense, and in how it relates to what you say about locking oneself to a fixed idea of self, though? I mean, I do see truth in them, but by saying I'm this type, aren't we locking ourselves into an idea of self, and doesn't that limit our range of experience in a way, or is it already limited by virtue of being our type?


Fakeness is camouflage. Special forces guys creeping up on you and blending in with the surroundings are being "fake" too. lol. 

'Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.'

-Sun Tzu

And another example of Special Forces, that fits with Jung's definition of Fe. When in Rome, do what the Romans do. Special forces go over to Afghanistan to help rebel forces and abide by their customs, eat their food, etc. to build a trust and mutual respect between the people.

Like Lee said. Be like water. Be able to turn into any shape but don't be contained by any. When one has no form one can be all forms. When one has no style, one can adjust to any style.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

FearAndTrembling said:


> Danny is not an IEI. Do people know what Te polr is? lol. We are not leaders of battle. She is using Te and Fi.
> 
> Dany is exactly what I imagine an ESI woman to be. They are like brawler princesses. Hardasses but cuddly. Basically, an IEI does not know what they want like Dany. Dany knows exactly what she wants. I made better arguments in the GOT thread. lol.
> 
> Wait, you guys arent even talking about GOT. I just saw Sam and Dany.


Erm...what? We were talking about Danny Phantom. Danny Fenton and Sam and Tucker.

I certainly don't think Daenerys Targaryen is IEI lol


----------



## SheWolf

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm...what? We were talking about Danny Phantom. Danny Fenton and Sam and Tucker.
> 
> I certainly don't think Daenerys Targaryen is IEI lol


Aside from the point, but if someone were to ask me to sing the Danny Phantom theme I could throw it down like fire lol.

It's extremely catchy.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I watched some more Danny Phantom sober. I now think Danny might be an SEI. He's fairly reluctant about fighting most of the time, not eager. Partly, this is due to character development - the series developer seem to have changed their idea of how he should be after the first couple episodes.


----------



## SheWolf

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I watched some more Danny Phantom sober. I now think Danny might be an SEI. He's fairly reluctant about fighting most of the time, not eager. Partly, this is due to character development - the series developer seem to have changed their idea of how he should be after the first couple episodes.


Danny Phantom kinda reminds me of Spider-Man/Peter Parker who's usually typed as an Alpha NT. I'm not certain of that myself but the two are kinda similar.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I love Kant. His philosophy is very life affirming."

"Firstly, under the head of necessary duty to oneself: He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself."


The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.
If a person is an end-in-themself it means their inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying their life, or making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.

Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it so formally. We say that we don't think that we should use other people, which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.

This idea applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends; instead we should respect our inherent worth. This can be used as an argument against euthanasia, suicide and other behaviours that damage ourselves.

The idea also shows up in discussions of animal rights, with the idea that if they have rights, animals must be treated as ends in themselves.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Danny Phantom kinda reminds me of Spider-Man/Peter Parker who's usually typed as an Alpha NT. I'm not certain of that myself but the two are kinda similar.



Did you watch True Blood? I think that is just about the easiest show to type characters:

Sookie -ESE
Jason -SEE
Bill- SLI
Eric- LSI


Eric is a good example of higher Se being calm and cool. Gunslinger type I was talking about.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Okay what was that one night/day of extremely active discussion and now all that is left is silence.

It occured to me how forum-posting can be so unusual like this. In the right time with the right people it us everything from heated debates to actual, mutually beneficial conversation, whereas in some places it is more about people... posting their opinions... comments... moving on... nobody responds. Imagine that happening in any situation outside the forum setting, or even the internet. Someone just left hanging in thin air, or people saying things to which no one responds or reacts to. It wouldn't seem human-like at all.


----------



## sonderopia

Hey guys,

I'm new here. (first post actually)

I made a video if you guys want to type me (I'm fairly sure of Beta and somewhat sure of my type but I'd like to see it confirmed by other people. I'm not sure if you want me ot post it here or elsewhere.

I thought I'd say hi though.

So... hey!


----------



## Max

This place has taken a dark turn since I left, lol.
*Disappears.*


----------



## DOGSOUP

sonderopia said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm new here. (first post actually)
> 
> I made a video if you guys want to type me (I'm fairly sure of Beta and somewhat sure of my type but I'd like to see it confirmed by other people. I'm not sure if you want me ot post it here or elsewhere.
> 
> I thought I'd say hi though.
> 
> So... hey!


'ello there. This is the place where you can get help. Have you answered a questionnaire in your video or ?


* *





Noticed you consider EIE for yourself. Welcome aboard! You are not alone. It took me some time to figure out I am Fe ego, especially by mbti's definitions. But now we're here and all is good, type-wise.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

One of my favorite Buddhist stories, The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow:


*It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.*


----------



## SheWolf

sonderopia said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm new here. (first post actually)
> 
> I made a video if you guys want to type me (I'm fairly sure of Beta and somewhat sure of my type but I'd like to see it confirmed by other people. I'm not sure if you want me ot post it here or elsewhere.
> 
> I thought I'd say hi though.
> 
> So... hey!


Ohhhh shit lol.

Look out everyone, this one is trouble!  Lol.


----------



## sonderopia

Thorn said:


> Ohhhh shit lol.
> 
> Look out everyone, this one is trouble!  Lol.


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Love me pls


----------



## SheWolf

sonderopia said:


> Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> Love me pls


its ok bby i got u.

Lol. :crazy:


----------



## Massage

@FearAndTrembling did you consider LSI?


----------



## myst91

Massage said:


> @FearAndTrembling did you consider LSI?


He's IEI.

Used to type as that. But he must've realized EIE is a cooler type than IEI =)


----------



## DOGSOUP

_"One can only see what one observes, and one observes only things which are in the mind"_
- Alphonse Bertillon

My professor of statistics said something similar today. How we are what we do, we become our actions, we see what our minds are already occupied with. He said a carpenter will not see a tree but what he can make of it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> _"One can only see what one observes, and one observes only things which are in the mind"_
> - Alphonse Bertillon
> 
> My professor of statistics said something similar today. How we are what we do, we become our actions, we see what our minds are already occupied with. He said a carpenter will not see a tree but what he can make of it.


There is a quote that statistics are like bikinis, what they they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. 

We don't believe in anything we can't use. Can't break. Can't manipulate. We continually break things until they cannot be broken anymore. Like atoms. Particles. 

"To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect."

-Hegel

The world is our reflection. 






Don't believe in fear
Don't believe in faith
Don't believe in anything
That you can't break

Don't believe in love
Don't believe in hate
Don't believe in anything
That you can't waste

Don't believe in fear
Don't believe in pain
Don't believe in anyone
That you can't tame



Be useless, then nobody can use you. Speaking of useful trees:

_A wandering carpenter, called Stone, saw on his travels a gigantic old oak tree standing in a field near an earth-altar. The carpenter said to his apprentice, who was admiring the oak: “This is a useless tree! If you wanted to make a ship, it would soon rot; if you wanted to make tools, they would break. You can’t do anything useful with this tree, and that’s why it has become so old.”_
_
But in an inn, that same evening, when the carpenter went to sleep, the old oak tree appeared to him in his dream and said: “Why do you compare me to your cultivated trees such as whitethorn, pear, orange, and apple trees, and all the others that bear fruit? Even before they can ripen their fruit, people attack and violate them. Their branches are broken, their twigs are torn. Their own gifts bring harm to them, and they cannot live out their natural span. That is what happens everywhere, and that is why I have long since tried to become completely useless. You poor mortal! Imagine if I had been useful in any way, would I have reached this size? Furthermore, you and I are both creatures, and how can one creature set itself so high as to judge another creature? You useless mortal man, what do you know about useless trees?”_


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

The old crew's here, Glad to know ya'll are still conversating.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> The old crew's here, Glad to know ya'll are still conversating.


It has been a bit quiet lately...

I was about to complain about art, and the use of body horror and weird dreams in it, and how I should have quoted FAT to pass my statistics test, but got distracted from all of that.


----------



## Max

Can someone please explain to me how an SLE can be a type 2 enneagram, when Ti and 2 are near paradoxes?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## To_august

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Can someone please explain to me how an SLE can be a type 2 enneagram, when Ti and 2 are near paradoxes?


Why they are paradoxes? One is about information absorbed and produced, the other one is about motivations, desires and fears.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Can someone please explain to me how an SLE can be a type 2 enneagram, when Ti and 2 are near paradoxes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


They aren't? A person who is Ti and 2 would be inclined to offer help through the lens of absorbing and producing information in a Ti way. And twos can be domineering about helping others too, so I don't see how it is a paradox. -_-


----------



## Max

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> They aren't? A person who is Ti and 2 would be inclined to offer help through the lens of absorbing and producing information in a Ti way. And twos can be domineering about helping others too, so I don't see how it is a paradox. -_-


Why would you wanna get domineering over helping someone out though? I get the point of helping people out, but I wouldn't see it as something worth busting a gut over. 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Why would you wanna get domineering over helping someone out though? I get the point of helping people out, but I wouldn't see it as something worth busting a gut over.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


When your self esteem comes from "I have done this thing for others, and thus I have value" it can be really hard to let go and STOP giving help. It becomes easy to steamroll people and then say you heard no objections so it must be OK. An unhealthy 2 can become convinced that they are the bee's knees because "look at what all I have done!" What they are saying when they do this, usually without realizing it, is a plea. "Love me! I have value to you because I am helpful!" But by steamrolling like this, they can lose their relationships over time, and so the two clings harder to the idea of "proving their worth" by doing things. The louder their inner voice shouts at them to earn their place, the more deaf they become to being told that they don't need to do things to be worth something. And the harder it is for them to simply stop and listen to their own self. Not their harsh inner voice, but their real self. Integration for a Two comes from realizing that they have value without having done everything for the other people around.

When using Ti, this is pretty straightforward. You just tell people how to do things, and often with Te Demonstrative go on to show how it is done or just do it for others. The helpful Dad that just wants people to have working home appliances so fixes all his neighbors home doodads (free of charge) and loves tinkering in his garage so that he can invent nifty new tools or appliances for his family and neighbors would be an example of a 2 that processes in a Ti way.

Let's take LII. LII has TiNe, but their super-ego is FiSe. So an LII 2 would have a harsh inner voice screaming at them to help others and it takes the form of FiSe. "You should be out building and working on your relationships, even if you think you are not that skilled at it, and you should help others with all your energy and drive!" That Se in there tells them to do the thing they fell most incompetent at, and so they work extremely hard at doing the things despite lacking energy. Which is also fairly IJ temperament, so there ya go. Anyway, they then go about doing this in a TiNe way. They offer ideas and ways of working on things, and seek to be objective and find the best solution. They devalue time, so they will keep working tirelessly at things, although they still manage their time quite well so it won't necessarily take forever. They just seek new angles and find the objectively best way to do the thing and help you out. All while seeking praise for their helpfulness. It's like their Fe is seeking to be stimulated, and as a 2 they are seeking to have value for what they do. So the two actually go fairly hand in hand. I wouldnt be surprised to learn a lot of LII's are 2s.

I have the opposite problem. I get so lost in my own self and what I am doing that I don't realize that I am not reaching out to people, that I lose track of what is going on in their lives. I'm too busy trying to reach a point where money is not an issue because I am so sick of not having the things I need. How can I come to understand the world if I lack the daily necessities of life? *sigh*

I hate money.


----------



## Valtire

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> When your self esteem comes from "I have done this thing for others, and thus I have value" it can be really hard to let go and STOP giving help. It becomes easy to steamroll people and then say you heard no objections so it must be OK. An unhealthy 2 can become convinced that they are the bee's knees because "look at what all I have done!" What they are saying when they do this, usually without realizing it, is a plea. "Love me! I have value to you because I am helpful!" But by steamrolling like this, they can lose their relationships over time, and so the two clings harder to the idea of "proving their worth" by doing things. The louder their inner voice shouts at them to earn their place, the more deaf they become to being told that they don't need to do things to be worth something. And the harder it is for them to simply stop and listen to their own self. Not their harsh inner voice, but their real self. Integration for a Two comes from realizing that they have value without having done everything for the other people around.


Enneagram will forever confuse the heck out of me. I can see myself in all of them.


----------



## SheWolf

Enneagram is much easier for me than Socionics tbh.

While I don't think it's necessarily impossible for "odd" Enneagram/Socionics to happen, some things are conflicting with such things like quadra values and therefore I think can make certain pairings much more unlikely.


----------



## DOGSOUP

When it comes to enneagram, tritype can be very descriptive when it is applied vaguely... disintegration/integration are useful ideas for observations... what I don't understand is that how you are supposed to include the wings in your tritype, doesn't the whole model get too crowded and detailed?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

DOGSOUP said:


> It has been a bit quiet lately...
> 
> I was about to complain about art, and the use of body horror and weird dreams in it, and how I should have quoted FAT to pass my statistics test, but got distracted from all of that.


Go on.

I would hang out in here more but nothing is going on. Back in the Karma Chameleon days this place was rocking. I actually ran into her recently on a chat outside this forum. Somebody made her a fuckin mod. Imagine that. She was deleting my posts and muting me. Riling me up. I didn't even know it was her at first.


----------



## FoggyEyes

I don't give a f**** about politics and all this shit weirds me out.


----------



## DOGSOUP

FoggyEyes said:


> I don't give a f**** about politics and all this shit weirds me out.


What do you care about?


----------



## Stellafera

I'm resurrecting this thread with some high quality Beta advertising


----------



## Terry_McMillan

@Stellafera Was the whole video shot in Detroit? It looks fascinating to me. I heard that the city is in a bad shape, but I liked the views presented in this clip.


----------



## Stellafera

Terry_McMillan said:


> @Stellafera Was the whole video shot in Detroit? It looks fascinating to me. I heard that the city is in a bad shape, but I liked the views presented in this clip.


Yeah. It was part of a hugely successful advertising program for Chrysler. Using the American nostalgia for the era of manufacturing business in Detroit and sympathy for the Rust Belt, and coupling that with a defiant mood during the shiny-happy glam show that is the Superbowl? Genius.


----------



## Bastard

@Stellafera Shit, I think Eminem is a bit of a muppet. But that advertisement did get me a little hard.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Where my betas at?


----------



## VagrantFarce

Aluminum Frost said:


> Where my betas at?


----------



## Max

Here. 

There.

Everywhere.

(Oh yeah, I'm an LSI/SLE now. You Beta believe it!)

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


----------



## Stellafera

_Been waiting and waiting for you to make a move
Before I make a move_

pure Beta NF


----------



## DOGSOUP

Stellafera said:


> _Been waiting and waiting for you to make a move
> Before I make a move_


Too bad that doesn't lead anywhere with someone who isn't Se ego :dry:


----------



## Stellafera

For anyone interested in more stories of successful advertising campaigns, this is another interesting one.


----------



## Terry_McMillan

Stellafera said:


> _Been waiting and waiting for you to make a move
> Before I make a move_


It doesn't work well when you're a guy. Even Beta NFs have to make a first move


----------



## Terry_McMillan

DOGSOUP said:


> Too bad that doesn't lead anywhere with someone who isn't Se ego :dry:


Give them time. If they like you, they will make a move. After a couple of months of overanalysis, probably.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Terry_McMillan said:


> It doesn't work well when you're a guy. Even Beta NFs have to make a first move


I f-ing hate that.


----------



## VagrantFarce

Stellafera said:


> I'm resurrecting this thread with some high quality Beta advertising


----------



## Schizoid

If Fe is sensitive to emotional atmosphere, then how do Fe-valuing types view funeral? My entire family is filled with Fi-valuing types and they would always attend every funeral. 

And I would skip every funerals because those kind of places tend to depress me (maybe the only exception is if they are immediate family members or someone whom I see often, but I'd skip everyone else's funerals.) It makes me uncomfortable to be in a place where there are so many people grieving and wailing loudly, I don't like dealing with so much heavy emotions from people? The same thing goes with hospitals. Those places just reeks of death, and I find myself avoiding it as much as I can.

Do the Fe types on here have similar views as me when it comes to funerals? What do you guys think of funerals? Do you guys find yourself avoiding those places, or do you just attend it?


----------



## Westy365

My wife is an INFJ and she hates funerals. She also isn't a huge fan of intense emotions. I only go to funerals if it's for a relative or someone I deeply cared about. I don't enjoy them either, but does anyone? Wouldn't that make one a bit depraved if one "enjoyed" a funeral? I don't think I'd enjoy a funeral even if it was for someone I despised.


----------



## Schizoid

Westy365 said:


> My wife is an INFJ and she hates funerals. She also isn't a huge fan of intense emotions. I only go to funerals if it's for a relative or someone I deeply cared about. I don't enjoy them either, but does anyone? Wouldn't that make one a bit depraved if one "enjoyed" a funeral? I don't think I'd enjoy a funeral even if it was for someone I despised.


Of course nobody would ever enjoy a funeral, but I'm just wondering if Fe-valuers tend to be more allergic to attending funerals, since funerals often have a heavy atmosphere to it.

I noticed that my Fi-valuing family and I have a different approach to funerals, they don't seem as allergic to attending funerals as compared to myself, so I was wondering if our different approach to funerals might have something to do with the differences between Fe and Fi. I think valuing Fi would make a person less sensitive to the atmosphere around them and they will be able to remain emotionally detached if they saw people around them grieving and wailing loudly, hence they won't have difficulty attending funerals. 

But yeah, I do find myself avoiding intense emotions. Seeing people grieve in front of me would cause intense emotions in me and cause me to become depressed myself, and this makes me want to avoid those situations.


----------



## Bastard

Schizoid said:


> Of course nobody would ever enjoy a funeral, but I'm just wondering if Fe-valuers tend to be more allergic to attending funerals, since funerals often have a heavy atmosphere to it.


No. The heavy atmosphere and the emotions are true.


----------



## Darkbloom

Can't really relate, obviously I don't like funerals, but can only think of one that affected me and that was because I was at one point close to the person and the whole situation was really heavy and idk, it wasn't the funeral itself for the most part.

But generally when I'm sad I tend to automatically go towards sinking into that feeling and making myself more sad and it kinda becomes...its own atmosphere, rather than trying to get away from the emotion, not really scared of intense atmosphere or emotions, I usually associate _that_ with Fe? 
Or like I'd rather be sad with people than have people be sad around me.

But really I think it's mostly a personal thing and level of sensitivity, I'm hypersensitive in some ways but can also be detached in other ways, if I think of a specific thing about the person or death in general during a funeral I might tear up, like if I think about "This really means I'm never gonna see John again", that kind of thing makes me so sad, like right now just thinking that sentence made my eyes water a bit even though I don't even know a John, but just seeing someone cry doesn't do it for me, I tend to think more about how to act towards them and such if they are close to me rather than how the situation is affecting me.
I think that's partly why I'd rather be sad with them, because then I'm on the same page with them, don't have to think about how to talk to them and be sensitive and such while I'm actually detached from what happened and only sad about their sadness.

(does anyone think this could be a sign of Fi?  )


----------



## Schizoid

Vixey said:


> Can't really relate, obviously I don't like funerals, but can only think of one that affected me and that was because I was at one point close to the person and the whole situation was really heavy and idk, it wasn't the funeral itself for the most part.
> 
> But generally when I'm sad I tend to automatically go towards sinking into that feeling and making myself more sad and it kinda becomes...its own atmosphere, rather than trying to get away from the emotion, not really scared of intense atmosphere or emotions, I usually associate _that_ with Fe?
> Or like I'd rather be sad with people than have people be sad around me.
> 
> But really I think it's mostly a personal thing and level of sensitivity, I'm hypersensitive in some ways but can also be detached in other ways, if I think of a specific thing about the person or death in general during a funeral I might tear up, like if I think about "This really means I'm never gonna see John again", that kind of thing makes me so sad, like right now just thinking that sentence made my eyes water a bit even though I don't even know a John, but just seeing someone cry doesn't do it for me, I tend to think more about how to act towards them and such if they are close to me rather than how the situation is affecting me.
> I think that's partly why I'd rather be sad with them, because then I'm on the same page with them, don't have to think about how to talk to them and be sensitive and such while I'm actually detached from what happened and only sad about their sadness.
> 
> (does anyone think this could be a sign of Fi?  )


Maybe this is Fi. As an Fe-valuing type, I can't relate much to what you just wrote. I don't really immerse myself in sad emotions, in fact, I don't like negative emotions much.

I prefer to help people find solutions to their problems and help them view their problems from a different perspective, rather than immersing in their sadness together with them.
For this reason, I find myself being impatient with people who wallowed in self-pity, people who are always sad and are not doing anything to improve their situation.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> Maybe this is Fi. As an Fe-valuing type, I can't relate much to what you just wrote. I don't really immerse myself in sad emotions, in fact, I don't like negative emotions much.


One of the signs system looks at Fe that way;



> Next, V.V. Gulenko writes:
> Basing on the proposed placement of signs of functions, we can decipher the meaning of each of combination. Socionic functions ... carry, in our view, the following semantic content:
> _+ Fe - positive emotions, joy, merriment, emotional elation, excitement, a smile, laughter, enthusiasm, optimism, good mood, the experience of happiness;
> − Fe - negative emotions, grief, sorrow, sadness, emotional recession, depression, crying, tears, frustration, pessimism, poor mood, the experience of unhappiness;_


I don't know how accurate this is, personally think this depends on the person and not personality type. I know that SEI has Fe+ and IEI has Fe-. ESE and EIE are the opposite I think. 



Schizoid said:


> I prefer to help people find solutions to their problems and help them view their problems from a different perspective, rather than immersing in their sadness together with them.
> For this reason, I find myself being impatient with people who wallowed in self-pity, people who are always sad and are not doing anything to improve their situation.


If someone is wallowing and not finding solutions to their problems then they're probably in a tough situation and need help. Negative feelings is not something you can simply control, it's sometimes just the way a person is. Self pity isn't good for obvious reasons, but neither is ignoring it. Trying to escape or rid yourself negative emotions is what makes you become an alcoholic. 

I'm not offended by your comment or anything, but there is lack of empathy there. It might seem constructive to help someone find a solution, but sometimes they need someone to listen and talk to them rather than saying they need to get up and do something about it.


----------



## DavidH

Vixey is describing being an emotivist and schizoid is describing being a constructivist.


----------



## Schizoid

Wisteria said:


> If someone is wallowing and not finding solutions to their problems then they're probably in a tough situation and need help. Negative feelings is not something you can simply control, it's sometimes just the way a person is. Self pity isn't good for obvious reasons, but neither is ignoring it. Trying to escape or rid yourself negative emotions is what makes you become an alcoholic.
> 
> I'm not offended by your comment or anything, but there is lack of empathy there. It might seem constructive to help someone find a solution, but sometimes they need someone to listen and talk to them rather than saying they need to get up and do something about it.


I think I can see where you're coming from. But my main issue isn't about them whining about their problems, my main issue with them is their "learned helplessness". I know of some people who are depressed and they would often tell me about their suicidal feelings but they aren't visiting a therapist and aren't taking medications or anything, so my suggestion to them is to visit a professional therapist and start going on medication, but they refused to listen to any of my suggestions. And so I continued to watch them sink deeper and deeper, now I have tried all sorts of methods with them, I tried being a friend to them and spent hours listening to them talk, and when being a friend to them doesn't work, I start switching my methods and tried suggesting all the different steps they could take in battling depression, such as reading a bunch of self-help books about how people managed to overcome depression, as well as keeping a journal and writing about their feelings in that journal every day, and also visiting a professional therapist and going on medication, as I'd mentioned earlier, but they still refused to do anything. They are drowning in the sea and I tried throwing them a buoyant to keep them afloat but they refused to hold onto it. That feeling of watching someone you care about spiralling deeper and deeper downward and them not doing anything to help themselves really frustrates me and it actually causes me to become depressed myself.

Now I've been depressed before, I'd experienced suicidal feelings before, so I understand how depression works. But at least I'd taken steps to change my situation, I change my habits, changed my lifestyle, changed my mindset about things, and also visited a therapist for it. But they did nothing about their situation, they totally did nothing to help themselves, and it gets really frustrating to see them self-destructing themselves.

Negative feelings is something that everybody will experience at some point of time in their life, and being humans they can't help how they feel, so I won't fault someone for that, but learned helplessness is something I can never forgive, because although emotions is something that is beyond one's control, but actions is definitely within one's control. Two people can be experiencing negative emotions of the same intensity, lets call them Person A and Person B, but both can choose to take different actions, 
Person A can choose the easy way out in life, while Person B can choose to struggle against all odds. I find myself having lots of sympathy toward Person B, but for Person A, I find myself having a difficult time sympathizing with them. 

By the way, if you haven't watched the movie "One litre of tears", I recommend you to watch that movie on youtube, I find myself having lots of sympathy for the lead character in that movie. That movie is based on a real-life story, the lead character in that movie has an incurable disease that eventually caused her to become bedridden but she continued to fight for her life till the very last minute, I find myself having lots of empathy for people such as her, people who never give up despite encountering lots of obstacles in life.


----------



## Schizoid

DavidH said:


> Vixey is describing being an emotivist and schizoid is describing being a constructivist.


Which constructivist type do you think I might be?


----------



## DavidH

Schizoid said:


> Which constructivist type do you think I might be?


I don’t, but that is what you described.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> I think I can see where you're coming from. But my main issue isn't about them whining about their problems, my main issue with them is their "learned helplessness". I know of some people who are depressed and they would often tell me about their suicidal feelings but they aren't visiting a therapist and aren't taking medications or anything, so my suggestion to them is to visit a professional therapist and start going on medication, but they refused to listen to any of my suggestions. And so I continued to watch them sink deeper and deeper, now I have tried all sorts of methods with them, I tried being a friend to them and spent hours listening to them talk, and when being a friend to them doesn't work, I start switching my methods and tried suggesting all the different steps they could take in battling depression, such as reading a bunch of self-help books about how people managed to overcome depression, as well as keeping a journal and writing about their feelings in that journal every day, and also visiting a professional therapist and going on medication, as I'd mentioned earlier, but they still refused to do anything. They are drowning in the sea and I tried throwing them a buoyant to keep them afloat but they refused to hold onto it. That feeling of watching someone you care about spiralling deeper and deeper downward and them not doing anything to help themselves really frustrates me and it actually causes me to become depressed myself.
> Now I've been depressed before, I'd experienced suicidal feelings before, so I understand how depression works. But at least I'd taken steps to change my situation, I change my habits, changed my lifestyle, changed my mindset about things, and also visited a therapist for it. But they did nothing about their situation, they totally did nothing to help themselves, and it gets really frustrating to see them self-destructing themselves.


That's strange, especially if it went on for a long time and there wasn't any clear reason why didn't want to try any of those treatments. Most people do wait for a long time until doing something, but eventually they do. And I know what that is like, seeing someone slowly get worse, not letting people help, etc. 



> Negative feelings is something that everybody will experience at some point of time in their life, and being humans they can't help how they feel, so I won't fault someone for that, but learned helplessness is something I can never forgive, because although emotions is something that is beyond one's control, but actions is definitely within one's control. Two people can be experiencing negative emotions of the same intensity, lets call them Person A and Person B, but both can choose to take different actions,
> Person A can choose the easy way out in life, while Person B can choose to struggle against all odds. I find myself having lots of sympathy toward Person B, but for Person A, I find myself having a difficult time sympathizing with them.
> 
> By the way, if you haven't watched the movie "One litre of tears", I recommend you to watch that movie on youtube, I find myself having lots of sympathy for the lead character in that movie. That movie is based on a real-life story, the lead character in that movie has an incurable disease that eventually caused her to become bedridden but she continued to fight for her life till the very last minute, I find myself having lots of empathy for people such as her, people who never give up despite encountering lots of obstacles in life.


I don't believe in the idea of someone having more strength/willpower than another. Or don't see the point in looking at people that way. If person A and B experienced the same situation with the same intensity, I imagine there wouldn't be much of a difference. But there's no way of knowing because for most people it's impossible to experience the same thing. Most people are probably in between person A and B.

That film sounds really depressing, I usually avoid those types of films/programs. Is fighting an incurable disease actually more courageous than accepting your own fate and making the most of things? Anyway it sounds like one of those really sad films, like My Sister's Keeper (that film has some interesting ethics though).


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> Vixey is describing being an emotivist and schizoid is describing being a constructivist.


They are leaning heavily towards each of those dichotomies, but I think Schizoid's post was also coming from personal experience.


----------



## Schizoid

Wisteria said:


> That's strange, especially if it went on for a long time and there wasn't any clear reason why didn't want to try any of those treatments. Most people do wait for a long time until doing something, but eventually they do. And I know what that is like, seeing someone slowly get worse, not letting people help, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the idea of someone having more strength/willpower than another. Or don't see the point in looking at people that way. If person A and B experienced the same situation with the same intensity, I imagine there wouldn't be much of a difference. But there's no way of knowing because for most people it's impossible to experience the same thing. Most people are probably in between person A and B.
> 
> That film sounds really depressing, I usually avoid those types of films/programs. Is fighting an incurable disease actually more courageous than accepting your own fate and making the most of things? Anyway it sounds like one of those really sad films, like My Sister's Keeper (that film has some interesting ethics though).


I do believe that some people have more strength/willpower than others, in fact, people tend to have varying levels of strength/willpower. Some people have really low levels of strength/willpower, like maybe only about 20% willpower, so they often struggle a lot when they encounter any obstacles in life and they will frequently think about giving up.
. And then there are others who are about 50/50 on the scale, they can be resilient in some situations, but weak-willed in other situations. Then there are those who ranked really high on the scale, like maybe about 80%, so you will often see them
tackling every life issue with lots of resilience, they rarely back down and rarely give up. And I know this sounds unbelievable, but there are actually some people in this world who are resilient to the extent that they literally never get depressed in their own life:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16749565

Also, despite how Person A and B experience the same situation with same intensity, there's still a difference between both of them. 
Both of them could view the same situation differently. Let's say both Person A and Person B lose their loved ones to a car accident, 
both of them would start to experience grief, but Person A dealt with their emotions by vowing to seek vengeance on the person who caused that accident and they would try to hunt down that runaway driver and bring that driver to justice, while Person B might deal with this situation by attempting to kill themselves since they figured out that all their loved ones have left this world so life isn't worth living anymore. So yeah, this is what I meant by both of them would experience the same situation and same intensity of emotions yet they have different ways of looking at that situation and different ways of dealing with those emotions. 

Lol and I haven't noticed about that film being depressing,, but I mainly watched that film as I find it inspirational. I like reading books and watching films that gives me some new insights about life. xD

But isn't fighting an incurable diseases vs accepting one's one fate and making the most of things considered the same thing? Since neither of them consist of giving up.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> They are leaning heavily towards each of those dichotomies, but I think Schizoid's post was also coming from personal experience.


It’s Fi+, but weak.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> I do believe that some people have more strength/willpower than others, in fact, people tend to have varying levels of strength/willpower. Some people have really low levels of strength/willpower, like maybe only about 20% willpower, so they often struggle a lot when they encounter any obstacles in life and they will frequently think about giving up.
> . And then there are others who are about 50/50 on the scale, they can be resilient in some situations, but weak-willed in other situations. Then there are those who ranked really high on the scale, like maybe about 80%, so you will often see them
> tackling every life issue with lots of resilience, they rarely back down and rarely give up. And I know this sounds unbelievable, but there are actually some people in this world who are resilient to the extent that they literally never get depressed in their own life:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16749565


This is only looking at the immediate situation though. If the person has gone through negative experiences already, then wouldn't that make less resilient when facing the current situation? If a person has never been depressed in their life, maybe that's because generally bad things haven't happened to them. It's not necessarily because they're naturally more resilient. It could be, but it depends on the situation and past experiences. 



> Also, despite how Person A and B experience the same situation with same intensity, there's still a difference between both of them.
> Both of them could view the same situation differently. Let's say both Person A and Person B lose their loved ones to a car accident,
> both of them would start to experience grief, but Person A dealt with their emotions by vowing to seek vengeance on the person who caused that accident and they would try to hunt down that runaway driver and bring that driver to justice, while Person B might deal with this situation by attempting to kill themselves since they figured out that all their loved ones have left this world so life isn't worth living anymore. So yeah, this is what I meant by both of them would experience the same situation and same intensity of emotions yet they have different ways of looking at that situation and different ways of dealing with those emotions.


I would say the same here actually, but most people wouldn't even do what person A or B does. People probably deal with things differently though yeah, based not just on personally but upbringing as well. 



> Lol and I haven't noticed about that film being depressing,, but I mainly watched that film as I find it inspirational. I like reading books and watching films that gives me some new insights about life. xD
> But isn't fighting an incurable diseases vs accepting one's one fate and making the most of things considered the same thing? Since neither of them consist of giving up.


Yeah, I like films/novels that give you some more perspective. Maybe it's inspirational, but whats the point of watching if you know how it's going to end?
Accepting your own fate is basically giving up. The way I see it, it could be facing the reality of the situation rather than fighting it out of denial.


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> It’s Fi+, but weak.


I think I remember you describing Fi+ but I don't see what you're referencing here. Is it because it's the opposite of Fe+? I would expect a different type of answer from someone focusing on Fe+, or Fe in general.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> I think I remember you describing Fi+ but I don't see what you're referencing here. Is it because it's the opposite of Fe+? I would expect a different type of answer from someone focusing on Fe+, or Fe in general.


Fi+ is EII. Schizoid described the social contact functions, creative and role, for EII. That means schizoid is operating in Fi+. However, the Fi+ is low dimensionality.


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> Fi+ is EII. Schizoid described the social contact functions, creative and role, for EII. That means schizoid is operating in Fi+. However, the Fi+ is low dimensionality.


So Fi role and Ne creative, resulting in Fi+ of the EII type? How do you know Fi is low dimensional?

I know EII isn't an emotivist but it's confusing how someone can behave as an constructivist when Fi is in the social contact functions. I thought a constructivist has Ti/Te in their contact functions and that a type will be the opposite on this dichotomy when they're not using their role and creative. The contact and inert functions are a strange concept.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> So Fi role and Ne creative, resulting in Fi+ of the EII type? How do you know Fi is low dimensional?
> 
> I know EII isn't an emotivist but it's confusing how someone can behave as an constructivist when Fi is in the social contact functions. I thought a constructivist has Ti/Te in their contact functions and that a type will be the opposite on this dichotomy when they're not using their role and creative. The contact and inert functions are a strange concept.


Schizoids post was referencing Ne- to Ti+ as social contact, making the personality in question EII. By comparing to general society.

Not really following this paragraph, because the paragraph is under the assumption of the first paragraph, which I clarified as being different. Think of it like this, in simple terms. The personality displayed is the EII personality, or Fi+, but the personality is weaker than average, placing Fi+ as low dimensionality. It’s like how people can behave with different sorts of personality traits, but be better or worse at them than others.


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> Schizoids post was referencing Ne- to Ti+ as social contact, making the personality in question EII. By comparing to general society.
> 
> Not really following this paragraph, because the paragraph is under the assumption of the first paragraph, which I clarified as being different. Think of it like this, in simple terms. The personality displayed is the EII personality, or Fi+, but the personality is weaker than average, placing Fi+ as low dimensionality. It’s like how people can behave with different sorts of personality traits, but be better or worse at them than others.


I was mislead by this, where it looked like you didn't think that was contructivist;



Schizoid said:


> Which constructivist type do you think I might be?





DavidH said:


> I don’t, but that is what you described.


How can you tell that the Fi+ is weaker than average? I thought you meant LII because they typically have low dimensional Fi, not the EII. 

People behaving in different sorts of personality traits is also what function dimensionality is about, I thought. Like if an LII is using Se-Fi, they will be behaving as ESI but the ability to use those functions is weaker or worse because it's their role and vulnerable function they're using. 

Also the low dimensional Fi+ could just be an underdeveloped base function? Idk, that's how I thought it worked. I know you explained being below or above average at a function, but actually recognising that isn't that simple.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> I was mislead by this, where it looked like you didn't think that was contructivist;
> 
> How can you tell that the Fi+ is weaker than average? I thought you meant LII because they typically have low dimensional Fi, not the EII.
> 
> People behaving in different sorts of personality traits is also what function dimensionality is about, I thought. Like if an LII is using Se-Fi, they will be behaving as ESI but the ability to use those functions is weaker or worse because it's their role and vulnerable function they're using.
> 
> Also the low dimensional Fi+ could just be an underdeveloped base function? Idk, that's how I thought it worked. I know you explained being below or above average at a function, but actually recognising that isn't that simple.


The individual described being a constructivist, specifically EII/Fi+, but isn’t actually naturally talented at helping people in that way. Simply put, the individual is bad with work on the personal level, so doesn’t have the capability to socially help people with the Introverted version.


----------



## Schizoid

@Wisteria, @DavidH

I think I'm able to see Fi+ for my type. I value good relations with people, and I like making friends with people and building connections with people, these sort of things tend to come easily for me, and I can also easily tell positive feelings such as feelings of attraction between two people. If someone has romantic feelings toward another person, or if someone likes another person, I can always tell it. And speaking of valuing good relations with people, I recently have to quit my job, and I gave my boss a few months notice in advance (even though the original contract only stated to give a month notice), because I want to leave the place on good terms. I don't like burning unnecessary bridges with people. Whenever I burnt bridges with people, I tend to brood/obsess over it for a long time. So yeah, I can see Fi+ for myself. 

But at the same time, I still find myself wondering if I could be Se suggestive, because I tend to appreciate it a lot when people help me with Se-related stuff. I work at a place with lots of kids, and I often find myself having difficulty controlling those rebellious kids, and then I have this colleague of mine who seems Se ego of some sort, she is just so good at controlling those kids, and sometimes when she sees me struggling with those kids, she will help me yell at those kids and help me to control those kids. I just appreciate it so much whenever she does this for me. It seems like I'm weak at Se and I need people to help me out with Se. This is Se suggestive, no?


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> The individual described being a constructivist, specifically EII/Fi+, but isn’t actually naturally talented at helping people in that way. Simply put, the individual is bad with work on the personal level, so doesn’t have the capability to socially help people with the Introverted version.


Is helping people with their personal issues actually Fi+ and contructivist? Helping people isn't the easiest thing to do, that's why professionals exist. 



Schizoid said:


> But at the same time, I still find myself wondering if I could be Se suggestive, because I tend to appreciate it a lot when people help me with Se-related stuff. I work at a place with lots of kids, and I often find myself having difficulty controlling those rebellious kids, and then I have this colleague of mine who seems Se ego of some sort, she is just so good at controlling those kids, and sometimes when she sees me struggling with those kids, she will help me yell at those kids and help me to control those kids. I just appreciate it so much whenever she does this for me. It seems like I'm weak at Se and I need people to help me out with Se. This is Se suggestive, no?


Could be supervision? IEI isn't a contructivist type so it can't be possible. You do seem like an Ne ego as well, rather than Ni leading.


----------



## Wisteria

Anyone looked visual typing before? (Figured it might be pointless to make a new thread about it, so i'll post it here since most of you are Betas). I've seen thread about it as a typing method on here before, and most people thought it was wrong, except for a couple of members who suggested that it makes sense that people with the same personalities will look the same.

I went on the socionics forum (in the link) and strangely they use VI a lot there, pretty sure it's their main typing method. The type me threads are often videos of them answering questions. They also made a typing thread where they posted videos of people with specific socionics types, where the OP would type you based on the persons reaction to them, which set of videos were most appealing and which were least (I tried it out of curiosity a while ago, they guessed IEI or SLE for me lol) 

The link shows the portraits taken by Filatova of people who were apparently the same type, and they do look uncannily similar. The page said that Filatova didn't actually use VI as well, when photographing. I think using ITR is an interesting way to determine types, but I doubt each type is supposed to have a certain appearance.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> Is helping people with their personal issues actually Fi+ and contructivist? Helping people isn't the easiest thing to do, that's why professionals exist.
> 
> Could be supervision? IEI isn't a contructivist type so it can't be possible. You do seem like an Ne ego as well, rather than Ni leading.


In that manner it is, yes.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> Anyone looked visual typing before? (Figured it might be pointless to make a new thread about it, so i'll post it here since most of you are Betas). I've seen thread about it as a typing method on here before, and most people thought it was wrong, except for a couple of members who suggested that it makes sense that people with the same personalities will look the same.
> 
> I went on the socionics forum (in the link) and strangely they use VI a lot there, pretty sure it's their main typing method. The type me threads are often videos of them answering questions. They also made a typing thread where they posted videos of people with specific socionics types, where the OP would type you based on the persons reaction to them, which set of videos were most appealing and which were least (I tried it out of curiosity a while ago, they guessed IEI or SLE for me lol)
> 
> The link shows the portraits taken by Filatova of people who were apparently the same type, and they do look uncannily similar. The page said that Filatova didn't actually use VI as well, when photographing. I think using ITR is an interesting way to determine types, but I doubt each type is supposed to have a certain appearance.


Prone to error, because you have to separate the mind from the body. Various physical impairments and disabilities affect the personality, but not the TIM.


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> Prone to error, because you have to separate the mind from the body. Various physical impairments and disabilities affect the personality, but not the TIM.


It's quite easy to tell if someone has disabilities and/or physical impairments though.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> It's quite easy to tell if someone has disabilities and/or physical impairments though.


Ever seen Angelina Jolie? She has a weird face. Doesn’t have anything to do with her brain, though.


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> In that manner it is, yes.


Hmm ok. Do you agree with her approach? What would you do in that situation? 



DavidH said:


> Ever seen Angelina Jolie? She has a weird face. Doesn’t have anything to do with her brain, though.


Haha of course I have. She is thought to be an attractive celebrity though lol.

The Filatova portraits also look weird (especially the gamma photos). Figured it was because they're all Russian or something.


----------



## Schizoid

Wisteria said:


> Anyone looked visual typing before? (Figured it might be pointless to make a new thread about it, so i'll post it here since most of you are Betas). I've seen thread about it as a typing method on here before, and most people thought it was wrong, except for a couple of members who suggested that it makes sense that people with the same personalities will look the same.
> 
> I went on the socionics forum (in the link) and strangely they use VI a lot there, pretty sure it's their main typing method. The type me threads are often videos of them answering questions. They also made a typing thread where they posted videos of people with specific socionics types, where the OP would type you based on the persons reaction to them, which set of videos were most appealing and which were least (I tried it out of curiosity a while ago, they guessed IEI or SLE for me lol)
> 
> The link shows the portraits taken by Filatova of people who were apparently the same type, and they do look uncannily similar. The page said that Filatova didn't actually use VI as well, when photographing. I think using ITR is an interesting way to determine types, but I doubt each type is supposed to have a certain appearance.


This V.I. topic reminds me of something interesting I saw awhile ago. This website here actually tests people's V.I. skills. 

Test your V.I. skills

If you haven't tried practicing your V.I skills at this website before, you should totally try out this website.

Oh, it's just so fun to type all the different faces in there. 
When typing the faces on there, I'll compare and contrast some of those facial features with the people I know irl.
I tried typing most of the faces on there, and out of all the faces on there, I find it easiest to V.I. the ESFp, probably because I used to know an ESFp in real life, and one of the faces on there actually reminds me a lot of that ESFp that I knew irl, hence I managed to V.I. that face as ESFp immediately, that youthful-looking face with sensory-looking eyes. The ENTp is probably the hardest for me to V.I., I think it took me at least 10 tries before I finally got it correct. And INTp have interesting faces, they have this stern-looking face to them and their eyes have this soulful gaze in it.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> This V.I. topic reminds me of something interesting I saw awhile ago. This website here actually tests people's V.I. skills.
> 
> Test your V.I. skills
> 
> If you haven't tried practicing your V.I skills at this website before, you should totally try out this website.
> 
> Oh, it's just so fun to type all the different faces in there.
> When typing the faces on there, I'll compare and contrast some of those facial features with the people I know irl.
> I tried typing most of the faces on there, and out of all the faces on there, I find it easiest to V.I. the ESFp, probably because I used to know an ESFp in real life, and one of the faces on there actually reminds me a lot of that ESFp that I knew irl, hence I managed to V.I. that face as ESFp immediately, that youthful-looking face with sensory-looking eyes. The ENTp is probably the hardest for me to V.I., I think it took me at least 10 tries before I finally got it correct. And INTp have interesting faces, they have this stern-looking face to them and their eyes have this soulful gaze in it.


Haha that was quite fun, some of them were just impossible to guess though! I got the SEI, IEI and LSI right away but the others were almost impossible. I started to recognise ILE and ESE though by remembering the last one. Also these faces look so strange, some of them were really creepy.

That's interesting that can you notice a resemblance. I can't type people IRL but none of the portraits look like anyone anyway. INTp/ILI seemed to have the most deadpan look. I also looked at the celebrity page, think ILI was one of the types that looked most like me. Some of the celebrity types seem off though, like Russell Brand is definitely not an EII lol. The LIE was the only image that actually reminds me of someone. 

I must be really bad at Visual typing xD seems like something Si egos would be good at, or someone who can notice patterns. Which sucks because I would really like to sketch each type (because I like drawing portraits anyway)


----------



## DavidH

Schizoid said:


> @Wisteria, @DavidH
> 
> I think I'm able to see Fi+ for my type. I value good relations with people, and I like making friends with people and building connections with people, these sort of things tend to come easily for me, and I can also easily tell positive feelings such as feelings of attraction between two people. If someone has romantic feelings toward another person, or if someone likes another person, I can always tell it. And speaking of valuing good relations with people, I recently have to quit my job, and I gave my boss a few months notice in advance (even though the original contract only stated to give a month notice), because I want to leave the place on good terms. I don't like burning unnecessary bridges with people. Whenever I burnt bridges with people, I tend to brood/obsess over it for a long time. So yeah, I can see Fi+ for myself.
> 
> But at the same time, I still find myself wondering if I could be Se suggestive, because I tend to appreciate it a lot when people help me with Se-related stuff. I work at a place with lots of kids, and I often find myself having difficulty controlling those rebellious kids, and then I have this colleague of mine who seems Se ego of some sort, she is just so good at controlling those kids, and sometimes when she sees me struggling with those kids, she will help me yell at those kids and help me to control those kids. I just appreciate it so much whenever she does this for me. It seems like I'm weak at Se and I need people to help me out with Se. This is Se suggestive, no?


So you’re bad at Fi+ and like Fi-


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Hi.


----------



## Schizoid

I love how this article here says that spending more than 200 hours around a person would make two person become best friends with each other.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-you-make-or-maintain-friends-put-in-the-time

Put me in the same room with my conflictor and make us spend more than 200 hours around each other and I'm sure we will become enemies with each other by the time those 200 hours are up.


----------



## Carla Rose

Schizoid said:


> I love how this article here says that spending more than 200 hours around a person would make two person become best friends with each other.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-you-make-or-maintain-friends-put-in-the-time
> 
> Put me in the same room with my conflictor and make us spend more than 200 hours around each other and I'm sure we will become enemies with each other by the time those 200 hours are up.


I wouldn't mind watching anime together for 200 hours :3
Who's that in your new avatar? <.<


----------



## Schizoid

Carla Rose said:


> I wouldn't mind watching anime together for 200 hours :3
> Who's that in your new avatar? <.<


Oh it's just some randoms in my avatar. xD

No idea who's that either, but I'm using that for my avatar as that anime character in my avatar reminds me a lot of myself, she seems to have quite a contemplative side to her and I find myself able to identify with that contemplative side of her personality.

Since she's my kindred spirit, might as well use her as my avatar. xD


----------



## Kerik_S

idk where on these forums to post this, bc it's related to autism (neurotype rather than... psychotype? that's a cool word I'm happy to coin), but i came back to PerC to explore strategies for dealing with my sensory processing issues and dealing with transitioning from one sensory environment to another.

I think this is the only place I've been in the past that would bother offering insights into such head-shrinky nervous system kinda stuff. Anyone know which forum might be appropriate? I think my trouble comes from having sensory processing issues, yea, but I've met other autists who profess to have always been really good at figuring out sensory coping strategies while I literally have to carry around a list of self-stimulation ("stimming"/fidgetting) suggestions to remember my options for coping with aversive sensory experiences.

I haven't studied any typology for about 3 and a half years, but i found this on Socionics, remembering that introverted sensation is one of my weakest and most hard-to-maintain functions:



> IEIs may be overly diffident about matters pertaining to their health. Overall, they may have difficulty interpreting the signals of the body and may be inclined to focus excessively on them, possibly leading to alarmist self-diagnoses. They may perceive caring for one's body as a chore rather than a fulfilling activity.


Having been professionally diagnosed as autistic for years now, I no longer an alarmist about sensory dysregulation, but I still have trouble coping with it, in ways that aren't explained merely by autism, so I'm back from PerC retirement to figure out specifically how to develop sensory coping strategies as an intuitive.

I started school again yesterday, and even the lights made things difficult. ��


----------



## Arthrospira

Where are all the mean jokes and memes? I thought that was kind of our deal.


----------



## sweetrice

blah blah blah blaaahhhhhhhh i'm so bored


----------



## Schizoid

My favorite ESI singer, she has such a nice singing voice.. I just realized that ESIs make really talented musicians?


----------



## Schizoid

.


----------



## Strelok

Arthrospira said:


> Where are all the mean jokes and memes? I thought that was kind of our deal.


bunch of mistypes, if you ask me


----------



## Max

Does anyone even go here anymore? Hello?


----------

