# Sticky  Delta Quadra - Hangout Thread



## Invidia

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Fi is anything but rational, and Fi-doms are, by definition, p types.


Apparently the functions are defined a bit differently in Socionics than they are in MBTI - and INFj in Socionics roughly translates to INFP in MBTI, although there is no direct correlation.


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

Invidia said:


> Apparently the functions are defined a bit differently in Socionics than they are in MBTI - and INFj in Socionics roughly translates to INFP in MBTI, although there is no direct correlation.


Just looked it up. My apologies. I guess I need to get used to that :tongue:


----------



## Invidia

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Just looked it up. My apologies. I guess I need to get used to that :tongue:


No need to apologize, it can be a bit confusing switching between the systems because they are quite different.


----------



## RobynC

qrj, mnbv 

/poijudeswaq


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco

EII reporting..


----------



## RobynC

I don't know what the hell I typed... in fact come to think of it... I don't remember even typing this. Did I?


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

@RobynC Then type yourself >.>


----------



## RobynC

LIE or ENTJ, Swordsman of mana thinks I might just be a pushy INTJ and in that case I'd be LII


----------



## Chesire Tower

Hi, I'm not a Delta but since this is the only Quadra, that I haven't posted in yet; I'll say, "welcome""!

:kitteh:


----------



## soya

I think I'm an EII, but I can't be sure...


----------



## Zeit

Hi.


----------



## aniso

soya said:


> I think I'm an EII, but I can't be sure...


Why aren't you sure, if I may ask?


----------



## soya

osina said:


> Why aren't you sure, if I may ask?


Some of the dichotomies don't fit or resonate with me well...two in particular.

"Rational" is correlated to authoritarian ways which I don't relate with. I am not inclined to be an authoritative person nor accept authoritativeness directed toward me.

"Serious" types seem to believe in objective truth, which I do not...well, I do believe there is an objective reality, but I don't think people perceive anything purely objectively - we are by nature subjective.


----------



## soya

osina said:


> Why aren't you sure, if I may ask?


Some of the dichotomies don't fit or resonate with me well...two in particular.

"Rational" is correlated to authoritarian ways which I don't relate with. I am not inclined to be an authoritative person nor accept authoritativeness directed toward me.

"Serious" types seem to believe in objective truth, which I do not...well, I do believe there is an objective reality, but I don't think people perceive anything purely objectively - we are by nature subjective.

Nonetheless, EII seems to fit me better than IEI or SEI which are other types I have been suggested.


----------



## Entropic

soya said:


> Some of the dichotomies don't fit or resonate with me well...two in particular.
> 
> "Rational" is correlated to authoritarian ways which I don't relate with. I am not inclined to be an authoritative person nor accept authoritativeness directed toward me.


I think it's better to understand rational in its original Jungian context - whether you primarily take in information or whether you primarily like to sort information. With strong and obvious rationals, you see that often do spend a lot of time doing the latter that also seems to be manifested as just overall being more rigid and inflexible both in thought and in body. With that said, I think this only applies to obvious cases. There's a scale here, not one is rational or irrational. 



> "Serious" types seem to believe in objective truth, which I do not...well, I do believe there is an objective reality, but I don't think people perceive anything purely objectively - we are by nature subjective.


Same here, and I think it's easier to understand serious as opposed merry. Merry is pretty much what it says: a preference towards a loud, boisterous atmosphere that just seems merry. Serious types prefer to downplay this over more serious discussion.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

I am going to see about spending a little bit of time here especially after a few people believe I am a delta now.


----------



## Kanerou

soya said:


> Some of the dichotomies don't fit or resonate with me well...two in particular.
> 
> "Rational" is correlated to authoritarian ways which I don't relate with. I am not inclined to be an authoritative person nor accept authoritativeness directed toward me.
> 
> "Serious" types seem to believe in objective truth, which I do not...well, I do believe there is an objective reality, but I don't think people perceive anything purely objectively - we are by nature subjective.
> 
> Nonetheless, EII seems to fit me better than IEI or SEI which are other types I have been suggested.


Where do you see Rationality being linked with authoritarianism? Do you have a link?


----------



## Chesire Tower

soya said:


> I think I'm an EII, but I can't be sure...


What really helped me to figure it out is looking at the vocabulary of all the functions. I discovered that most of my language is Ne and the rest of it; Fi. I am an *EII-Ne*. I never really tried to understand Ne before; since I was pretty sure that I wasn't a Ne Dom and kept trying to figure out whether I used Ti or Ni more. Well, *Ne sounds a lot like Ti *:shocked:; although the language of Fi is more obvious. I also use Ti/Fe/Ni as well but not as much as Ne and Fi... To complicate matters, I am an (MBTI) INFJ - just like Dostoyevsky and an E5.


Wiki Vocab


Examples of *Ne* speech:



> get to the root of
> you basically imply that...
> What I really meant was more that... (some Symbol l.gif here?)
> Here's another idea.
> I have a career {or any other idea} for you.
> Just some random thoughts...
> in the long run it makes more sense to... (some Symbol p.gif here?)
> ... and discovered lots of parallels with other things
> Within a week or so
> that's the main commercial activity I've been involved in here recently since...
> it seems that things are coming together to allow me to do this
> Any ideas where we can...?
> ... has real potential
> did you learn anything about yourself, people, country, you did not know before? (some Symbol r.gif here as well)
> You seem to have found a great niche
> Imagine that!
> Something really interesting is...
> Now just imagine for a second that...
> Suppose we go there and...
> I happen to have just spoken to him.
> Now is the critical moment.
> If I had gotten there earlier, I would have had time to figure things out first.
> One thing I have noticed is that...
> It has become clear to me lately that...
> I'm starting to realize...
> I'm pretty good at figuring out...
> So hypothetically...
> Well I think in that situation I would have responded in such-and-such a way.



Examples of *Fi* speech:



> This bugs me.
> I just don't care for...
> I am truly grateful for...
> It is just exciting to be around things that old.
> We'd appreciate it a lot.
> I felt bad about the situation
> when everyone gets together I feel a bit of alienation or distance
> I just wanted to say how touched I was that...
> thinking of you (e.g. at end of letter)
> He is a good person.
> I can relate to you a lot.
> How sad.
> I have a lasting gift from you which some of my friends do not have: the knowledge that you are there when I need you, and the knowledge that you really care.
> Thank you for understanding.
> There are good and bad people everywhere.
> The son is so mean and impatient with his dad.
> I must have the most considerate son. How well he knows me!
> I surely missed you all and thought of you a lot.
> I did not realize how terribly alone and lonely she must have been.
> Be close to your extended family; you need them more than you think.
> How exciting! I'm happy for you.
> I am concerned about...
> I sent that old monster off yesterday. (referring to an appliance)
> What a terrible thought!
> I really do care about you, so much...
> It's fun to have you around.
> I am so glad you are in my life.
> Everybody is happy that we could meet.
> Do you feel different now?
> She's really frustrated by...
> I feel sorry for you for...
> I am so much looking forward to spending some time with you.
> Wishing you were here...
> I just love [a person, thing, situation].


----------



## Chesire Tower

Invidia said:


> Apparently the functions are defined a bit differently in Socionics than they are in MBTI - and INFj in Socionics roughly translates to INFP in MBTI, although there is no direct correlation.


Not exactly. (MBTI) INFP uses Fi-Ne-Si-Te and EII uses Fi-Ne-*Ti-Se*. (MBTI) INFJ uses Ni-Fe-*Ti-Se* and IEI uses Ni-Fe-Si-Te.
So, it makes perfect sense for an EII to be either an (MBTI) INFP or an (MBTI) INFJ - just like Dostoyevsky: (MBTI) INFJ and Socionics EII.


----------



## Entropic

No to the above. Socionics EII prefers and uses Fi Ne Si Te. Ti and Se are located in super-id and are therefore not used nor valued. I suggest that you read up on Model A.


----------



## aniso

Word Dispenser said:


> Hey Delts, how's it goin'?


Greaat!  It's a grey monday where I live. Other than that - all's pretty good!  What about you?


----------



## Word Dispenser

osina said:


> Greaat!  It's a grey monday where I live. Other than that - all's pretty good!  What about you?


It's so amazing that I think I'll be stunned for a good hour. :kitteh:


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> Rather living up rocks.


?

I remember when I was younger my dad mentioned pet rocks and I got so ridiculously enthusiastic about the idea, I got a few rocks and named them and put faces on them.

Of course, 3 days later I got bored of them and that was the end of that. Woo, nostalgia.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> I remember when I was younger my dad mentioned pet rocks and I got so ridiculously enthusiastic about the idea, I got a few rocks and named them and put faces on them.
> 
> Of course, 3 days later I got bored of them and that was the end of that. Woo, nostalgia.


Ah, aww. I never had pet rocks as a kid. I just had real pets, like gerbils. More often than not my mom cleaned their cage, though, so I wasn't the best owner I guess. 

But oh well. 

Still feeling unsure about your type, btw?


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Ah, aww. I never had pet rocks as a kid. I just had real pets, like gerbils. More often than not my mom cleaned their cage, though, so I wasn't the best owner I guess.
> 
> But oh well.
> 
> Still feeling unsure about your type, btw?


LOL. I had a hamster once, and also a bird. The same things happened - I wanted them SO BADLY and then I got bored of them. That's the story of my life, I feel like. I took care of them yeah but I remember thinking, damn this isn't as awesome as I thought it would be, and my dad got pissed off about it. 

Yeah, I'm still kinda eh about it. Debating whether or not I should take Reinin seriously, because I'm certain I'm more emotivist than constructivist, should I just ignore it... XD

Have you pretty much decided on EII?


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> ?
> 
> I remember when I was younger my dad mentioned pet rocks and I got so ridiculously enthusiastic about the idea, I got a few rocks and named them and put faces on them.
> 
> Of course, 3 days later I got bored of them and that was the end of that. Woo, nostalgia.


Uhm, I realized I expressed myself poorly. I meant living under rocks, not up. Not sure why I wrote "up".


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> Uhm, I realized I expressed myself poorly. I meant living under rocks, not up. Not sure why I wrote "up".


Ah, okay. Are they just very traditional or something? 

(I wouldn't characterize myself as living under rocks, though it's true I know next to nothing about current fashion/celebrities/music and I dress like a 50 year old woman 90% of the time... lol)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> LOL. I had a hamster once, and also a bird. The same things happened - I wanted them SO BADLY and then I got bored of them. That's the story of my life, I feel like. I took care of them yeah but I remember thinking, damn this isn't as awesome as I thought it would be, and my dad got pissed off about it.


Lol, I wouldn't say I got bored of my gerbils, I just wasn't so interested in cleaning up for them. I also had a bird once, but he died after a day or so. @[email protected] Now I kind of want to try having a bird again, but it would be kind of inconvenient, since I couldn't leave it alone for too long, so unless I knew someone who could take care of stuff while I was gone, I would be unable to travel away from home. =P

I also kind of always wanted a snake, but that's not gonna happen.



> Yeah, I'm still kinda eh about it. Debating whether or not I should take Reinin seriously, because I'm certain I'm more emotivist than constructivist, should I just ignore it... XD


I'm not sure how seriously to take them, though I can see the logic to some of the dichotomies. Hmm, in what way do you relate more to emotivist?



> Have you pretty much decided on EII?


Still, kind of unsure, but it seems to fit, I guess. As far as dichotomies go I can relate to constructivist too, lol. Not so sure about other dichotomies, like aristocratic, but perhaps I do categorize people to some degree. Also, dunno what I think about LSE being my dual, but then I'm not sure I've interacted with many LSEs much. (Would be easier to say if I could actually type people, though. =P)

I did end up posting another questionnaire in the socionics forum recently. Of course, now that I know more about socionics the answers might be a bit biased, but... I think they were honest enough.



ephemereality said:


> Uhm, I realized I expressed myself poorly. I meant living under rocks, not up. Not sure why I wrote "up".


Makes me think of "living it up," which sounds like a strange thing to do with rocks.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Lol, I wouldn't say I got bored of my gerbils, I just wasn't so interested in cleaning up for them. I also had a bird once, but he died after a day or so. @[email protected] Now I kind of want to try having a bird again, but it would be kind of inconvenient, since I couldn't leave it alone for too long, so unless I knew someone who could take care of stuff while I was gone, I would be unable to travel away from home. =P
> 
> I also kind of always wanted a snake, but that's not gonna happen.


Yeah, cleaning up for hamsters and gerbils is sooo annoying. Holy crap. I had a hamster with the little things they could run in except they'd pee in those, so I would have to take it apart, clean it, put it together again. Ugggghhh. 

I have a terrible problem with boredom. I guess I always knew it but I didn't really consciously admit to it until some... "events" this weekend. (I now believe I am a type 7, actually, lol)

Well, you can get a big tube for both birdseed and water, they can just get it when they need it (it won't open unless they poke at it with their beak). They used to last a good week or so with my birds (parakeet and lovebird... small birds). Of course, a week isn't very long if you're doing serious traveling...



> I'm not sure how seriously to take them, though I can see the logic to some of the dichotomies. Hmm, in what way do you relate more to emotivist?


More through comparing myself to my best friend who is definitely constructivist. 

We were looking at this:
Constructivist and emotivist - Wikisocion

... and basically comparing ourselves and how we saw each point. We both related a little bit to some parts of the other category but there were definitely significant differences in how we processed things overall.



> Still, kind of unsure, but it seems to fit, I guess. As far as dichotomies go I can relate to constructivist too, lol. Not so sure about other dichotomies, like aristocratic, but perhaps I do categorize people to some degree. Also, dunno what I think about LSE being my dual, but then I'm not sure I've interacted with many LSEs much. (Would be easier to say if I could actually type people, though. =P)
> 
> I did end up posting another questionnaire in the socionics forum recently. Of course, now that I know more about socionics the answers might be a bit biased, but... I think they were honest enough.


Yeah aristocratic vs democratic is a bit complicated. Haha, I can't figure out what my dual is either. Nothing really catches my eye but maybe I just haven't gotten to know any very well irl.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Yeah, cleaning up for hamsters and gerbils is sooo annoying. Holy crap. I had a hamster with the little things they could run in except they'd pee in those, so I would have to take it apart, clean it, put it together again. Ugggghhh.



Ugh, yeah. At least my gerbils were cute, though. I never quite saw the appeal in hamsters. 



> I have a terrible problem with boredom. I guess I always knew it but I didn't really consciously admit to it until some... "events" this weekend. (I now believe I am a type 7, actually, lol)


I get terribly bored as well, a lot of the time. What kind of events, lol? I'm not a 7 myself, though I briefly considered it.



> Well, you can get a big tube for both birdseed and water, they can just get it when they need it (it won't open unless they poke at it with their beak). They used to last a good week or so with my birds (parakeet and lovebird... small birds). Of course, a week isn't very long if you're doing serious traveling...


Perhaps that could work. Although when I did some reading about it, it sounded like you really needed to change it often. It's been a while since I read about birds, though. Haven't thought so much about keeping a pet bird lately. 





> More through comparing myself to my best friend who is definitely constructivist.
> 
> We were looking at this:
> Constructivist and emotivist - Wikisocion
> 
> ... and basically comparing ourselves and how we saw each point. We both related a little bit to some parts of the other category but there were definitely significant differences in how we processed things overall.


Ah, do you know what your friend's type is? Well, when it comes ti the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy, I'm not so sure about minimizing the emotional elements of interactions... I'm actually not so sure what to make of that. But I definitely can get emotionally hooked and such.



> Yeah aristocratic vs democratic is a bit complicated. Haha, I can't figure out what my dual is either. Nothing really catches my eye but maybe I just haven't gotten to know any very well irl.


I did talk with someone I believe is an LSE, though we haven't talked that much and aren't super-close or anything. I guess I sort of like them, but I also got a bit frustrated talking to them. Of course, there's no guarantee that you're absolutely going to love your dual, lol. Not sure how smooth the communication itself is either, though. 

Aand... yeah. I used to think Democratic fit me more, but now I'm not sure. I only have some half-formed thoughts concerning aristocracy. I like to deal with people individually, but. Idk.

Gosh, I'm tired. @[email protected] I stayed up all night, lol.


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> Ah, okay. Are they just very traditional or something?
> 
> (I wouldn't characterize myself as living under rocks, though it's true I know next to nothing about current fashion/celebrities/music and I dress like a 50 year old woman 90% of the time... lol)


More like not interacting with the world much?


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> I get terribly bored as well, a lot of the time. What kind of events, lol? I'm not a 7 myself, though I briefly considered it.


Eh, just some family issues, things that got me thinking about what I wanted and past problems and patterns in my life. Nothing too extreme but yeah.



> Ah, do you know what your friend's type is? Well, when it comes ti the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy, I'm not so sure about minimizing the emotional elements of interactions... I'm actually not so sure what to make of that. But I definitely can get emotionally hooked and such.


She thinks she is EII. We see a lot of things in a similar way but we just have different issues (as in, things we feel really self-conscious about, inferior about, like that). She also thinks she's a 1 though, so how much is due to that I don't know.

Yeah, I don't remember the specific part about minimizing the emotional elements but one thing she said is she doesn't care for anything like people trying to make her feel better, she wants answers (she has difficulty figuring out what is the best course of action, so that's what she wants - at least that's how it seemed to me)... where I am the opposite (because I already know what I need to do, that isn't what I need to hear).



> I did talk with someone I believe is an LSE, though we haven't talked that much and aren't super-close or anything. I guess I sort of like them, but I also got a bit frustrated talking to them. Of course, there's no guarantee that you're absolutely going to love your dual, lol. Not sure how smooth the communication itself is either, though.


Yeah. When it comes to intertype relations, there's no guarantee about anything, I think. Way too much goes into individual relationships. I'm thinking my mom is actually EII rather than ESI (Ne-polr matches her more than Se polr but there's a pretty good preference for Si) and my dad is either SLI or LSE... and they just can't deal with each other 99% of the time. I always have to be the bridge between them and I find when I am with either, alone, I change how I present myself really easily because it's so easy to predict their responses.



> Gosh, I'm tired. @[email protected] I stayed up all night, lol.


Oh noes! Go sleep :0


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> She thinks she is EII. We see a lot of things in a similar way but we just have different issues (as in, things we feel really self-conscious about, inferior about, like that). She also thinks she's a 1 though, so how much is due to that I don't know.


Maybe you're an LSE. =P Lol, no I don't know if I see you as one, but then it's been a while since I read your questionnaire or whatever. Not that I think questionnaires are necessarily the best tool to type someone. I actually find them kind of hard to get through because all answers start to sound the same after a while. What do you feel inferior about, though?



> Yeah, I don't remember the specific part about minimizing the emotional elements but one thing she said is she doesn't care for anything like people trying to make her feel better, she wants answers (she has difficulty figuring out what is the best course of action, so that's what she wants - at least that's how it seemed to me)... where I am the opposite (because I already know what I need to do, that isn't what I need to hear).


Yeah... I'm not sure how I feel about that necessarily. I do like getting answers, but it depends on the kind of answers I'm getting too. Sometimes I can get annoyed at people's "helpfulness", lol. I know I don't feel very good at making _other _people feel better though. Like what do I even do. Or say.



> Yeah. When it comes to intertype relations, there's no guarantee about anything, I think. Way too much goes into individual relationships. I'm thinking my mom is actually EII rather than ESI (Ne-polr matches her more than Se polr but there's a pretty good preference for Si) and my dad is either SLI or LSE... and they just can't deal with each other 99% of the time. I always have to be the bridge between them and I find when I am with either, alone, I change how I present myself really easily because it's so easy to predict their responses.


In what ways does Ne-PoLR fit her?


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Maybe you're an LSE. =P Lol, no I don't know if I see you as one, but then it's been a while since I read your questionnaire or whatever. Not that I think questionnaires are necessarily the best tool to type someone. I actually find them kind of hard to get through because all answers start to sound the same after a while. What do you feel inferior about, though?


My EII friend jokes around with me being LSE but just... no. LOL.

For whatever reason, I'm terrible at explaining my thoughts and managing people. A lot of the time I know what the answer is, what needs to be done, having a good plan but trying to get others on board... I cannot do it. I end up sounding like a total moron trying to explain myself because my brain just stops functioning so for this reason I can't deal with group work or presentations. It might just be anxiety though. (I thought maybe I was Te polr originally.)

I guess I also feel really boring.



> Yeah... I'm not sure how I feel about that necessarily. I do like getting answers, but it depends on the kind of answers I'm getting too. Sometimes I can get annoyed at people's "helpfulness", lol. I know I don't feel very good at making _other _people feel better though. Like what do I even do. Or say.


Well, yeah bad answers are going to be like, really? Like I need help deciding what to major in and you're telling me to drop out of college or something XD. I think yeah, for my friend it's definitely needing good, thought-out, practical direction.

I used to feel really uncomfortable with that sort of thing. I guess it's practice? I don't know. I find myself just mimicking, "you'll be okay!" "if you need help call me" "I can see you're frustrated..." It really does work most of the time. Still not my favorite thing to do though.



> In what ways does Ne-PoLR fit her?


Maybe I am incorrect but things that reminded me of Ne-polr: you give her lots of options and possibilities and she just stares at you like she's going to murder you, and later it actually can bring her mood down, almost depression. She hates her plans not working out because of things she didn't consider; I remember something being said about ESI liking to plan their lives in advance and that's basically my mom. There's also a lot of fear of possibilities too, like she just can't control anything because at any moment something else could happen. She's had to let it go just because our family life has never been that predictable but it's still there at some level.

But at the same time: she's very attuned to things I consider to be Si. Coziness, atmosphere, associations with past events... and those are all positive things to her.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Maybe I am incorrect but things that reminded me of Ne-polr: you give her lots of options and possibilities and she just stares at you like she's going to murder you, and later it actually can bring her mood down, almost depression. She hates her plans not working out because of things she didn't consider; I remember something being said about ESI liking to plan their lives in advance and that's basically my mom. There's also a lot of fear of possibilities too, like she just can't control anything because at any moment something else could happen. She's had to let it go just because our family life has never been that predictable but it's still there at some level.
> 
> But at the same time: she's very attuned to things I consider to be Si. Coziness, atmosphere, associations with past events... and those are all positive things to her.


That does sound fitting for Ne-PoLR... I'm not sure though.

Well, I got some sleep now, so I'm feeling better. roud: Unfortunately I had no dreams about cute video game guys. :sad: Not that I remember most of my dreams lately. I had one dream that was sort of interesting (and a bit gross/somewhat Freudian when I think about it). Don't think I posted about it here already. I dreamed that someone had a tiny tree growing in their mouth (where one of their molars should be), and when they tried to remove it it fell down their throat and started growing quickly. Then it turned into an arm, so now they had an arm sticking up from their throat, and the hand filling their mouth... fun stuff.


----------



## Word Dispenser

I don't think this has anything to do with Socionics Deltas. But, since this was my favourite show in highschool, and I've been posting it everywhere anyway:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think this has anything to do with Socionics Deltas. But, since this was my favourite show in highschool, and I've been posting it everywhere anyway:


Too bad my internet is so bad right now. That could be something to watch. :tongue:


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> That does sound fitting for Ne-PoLR... I'm not sure though.
> 
> Well, I got some sleep now, so I'm feeling better. roud: Unfortunately I had no dreams about cute video game guys. :sad: Not that I remember most of my dreams lately. I had one dream that was sort of interesting (and a bit gross/somewhat Freudian when I think about it). Don't think I posted about it here already. I dreamed that someone had a tiny tree growing in their mouth (where one of their molars should be), and when they tried to remove it it fell down their throat and started growing quickly. Then it turned into an arm, so now they had an arm sticking up from their throat, and the hand filling their mouth... fun stuff.


LOL. I have the most boring dreams, most of the time. 

It seems most dreams other people have are weird, and so I guess I should feel special when my dreams are boring but no. Not even in sleep do I have imagination. My last dream was my friend and I getting sandwiches in a cafeteria. The only weird thing about it: _my friend hates sandwiches._ <___< BLAH

Your dream sounds so much more fun and maybe you can derive meaning from it, that's always a plus. ;-;


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> LOL. I have the most boring dreams, most of the time.
> 
> It seems most dreams other people have are weird, and so I guess I should feel special when my dreams are boring but no. Not even in sleep do I have imagination. My last dream was my friend and I getting sandwiches in a cafeteria. The only weird thing about it: _my friend hates sandwiches._ <___< BLAH
> 
> Your dream sounds so much more fun and maybe you can derive meaning from it, that's always a plus. ;-;


Hah, aww. My friend would tell me she often had such strange dreams, but I always figured everyone's dreams were strange to some degree... Guess that isn't the case after all! If it makes you feel better, it was kind of an uncomfortable dream. People getting choked by trees/arms in their throat. What.

And hey, maybe there's a symbolic reason your friend was eating sandwiches in your dream. Since she's supposed to hate them. Maybe she's in denial of something. =P

Anyway, I think part of why I dream about more fantastic stuff at night is because I spend my waking time consentrating on them. Like dreaming about Pokemon a lot because I spent too much time playing and thinking about it. =P I'm not sure what I was thinking about earlier to inspire the tree-dream, though...


----------



## Word Dispenser

Nonsense said:


> That does sound fitting for Ne-PoLR... I'm not sure though.
> 
> Well, I got some sleep now, so I'm feeling better. roud: Unfortunately I had no dreams about cute video game guys. :sad: Not that I remember most of my dreams lately. I had one dream that was sort of interesting (and a bit gross/somewhat Freudian when I think about it). Don't think I posted about it here already. I dreamed that someone had a tiny tree growing in their mouth (where one of their molars should be), and when they tried to remove it it fell down their throat and started growing quickly. Then it turned into an arm, so now they had an arm sticking up from their throat, and the hand filling their mouth... fun stuff.


Whoa, I had a dream like that a long time ago. Kind of.

Only, it was based on this idea of this person, who I was playing the role of, growing up in some kind of attic... And they were being selfish, or something... And they were isolated? And like.. Spores, seedlings, began growing in their brain, throughout their body, and slowly they stopped being able to feel.. Until they became a tree.

I woke up, so terrified. I don't really remember exactly what it was about. It was a lot cooler than I describe it here, I dreamed it so long ago and, sadly, didn't write it down. There was some kind of wise-man character from the forest, in the dream, telling the selfish character why it was happening. That it was some kind of choice?
I know for sure that my dream was based on the movie, 'The Fountain' though. :tongue:

My dreams are always awesome, vivid, weird, storytelling dreams, where anything could happen. I forget who I am in my dreams, I take on different memories, I can be omniscient, myself, someone else, animal, plant, anything. Or I could even be myself, but with my own memories changed.

My subconscious rocks.


----------



## MNiS

Nonsense said:


> Wouldn't any occupation be bad if you have no interest in it, though? Or if you outright detest it (although then you might come to love to hate it =P).
> 
> As for unhappy people being more creative, sometimes I wonder if that's true. Except I have a hard time being creative if I'm too unhappy. It seems like something that varies from person to person. However, I can see how going through tough experiences can make someone be a better artist, because it gives you a more personal understanding of suffering... or whatever.


Well, I suppose I meant art in a more romantic sense which would require non-tangible qualities like "passion" and "verve". I suppose that might be less true in commercialized fields of art where people might be doing it for the money or because they have the skills for it. Although I think most jobs aren't even terrible even if you have no interest in the work itself. Like being a clerk -- I used to work as a clerk in high school and while I can confidently say I have no interest in the field and wouldn't sign up to a subscription of Clerical Monthly, I certainly didn't dread the work. Maybe I'm just idealizing art too much but I've always thought tragic lives like Picasso's or David's to be great back story for the art they create and adds value to the art they create. Well, maybe not Picasso because he was a bit of a dirtbag but someone like David, yes.

And I've yet to meet such a hate filled person who would love to hate and I'm not sure I'd like to be around such a person for long. 

Yeah, I always thought the idea that unhappiness can lead to greater creativity was a bit of a strange notion. Although if you've ever seen the movie "Stranger than Fiction", the author/narrator Karen Eiffel would be a good portrayal of the type. The reasoning makes sense though. A happy person will usually see things only from a certain perspective which gives the person a very limited outlook on life and if the same person goes through a period of angst and/or trauma, that would conceivably give the person a much expanded view of life. Plus maybe the hipster value of being angsty has some worth.


----------



## aniso

MNiS said:


> I can't think of a worse occupation than being an artist and not having an interest in art. That sounds like a living nightmare of endless cocktail parties and resentful solitude. Although maybe that would add to the "tortured" aspect of creativity? Unhappy people are supposedly more creative. Supposedly.


You mean when I said that I had been in art school for a long time and just last semester started liking to paint?  Well, it's actually not THAT bad, because I was always in the textile department...  But I absolutely feel more inspired now that I've felt the thrill of painting how I like.


----------



## aniso

Nonsense said:


> As for unhappy people being more creative, sometimes I wonder if that's true. Except I have a hard time being creative if I'm too unhappy. It seems like something that varies from person to person. However, I can see how going through tough experiences can make someone be a better artist, because it gives you a more personal understanding of suffering... or whatever.


Not sure about the last sentence, but...at least for myself, I can say that... Creating is more easy (AND pleasant) when I feel happy. I HAVE tried to express my negative feelings/moods through art, too, but I always end up hating what it turns out to be. I don't want to look at it myself, nor do I wish to throw that kind of feelings in any viewers' face. Though I have noticed that, if it isn't sadness or smth like that, but instead - some kind of anger, it Really can give me some more strength and/or energy to work with.

But maybe that's just me.  I know some people who work the most creative when being melancholic or sad... I have a friend who said that sadness (don't know the most accurate word in english) is the most beautiful emotion. And he said that mixing emotions makes them richer...like when mixing colors. For example, smile through tears is different (and more interesting) than just smiling or just crying. But that friend works...well, regardless of his emotions. Though his works always give off some mood or feeling.  I understand what he said about the emotions, but I...maybe because young and naive, lol...feel that I often wish to feel HAPPY rather than that mixing sadness or other somewhat 'knot-in-the-stomach' emotions in a beautiful way.  If ANY of this made sense to anyone...congratz and thanks for reading?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@osina
Yeah, I work better when I feel happy as well. Although I think that the more you've gone through in life, the larger a library you have to draw from for reference. So in that way, sadness can help an artist creatively even if they aren't sad while creating art. And yeah, I think I understand what you're saying.


----------



## MNiS

osina said:


> You mean when I said that I had been in art school for a long time and just last semester started liking to paint?  Well, it's actually not THAT bad, because I was always in the textile department...  But I absolutely feel more inspired now that I've felt the thrill of painting how I like.


That's great. How are you liking painting versus working with textiles? By textiles do you mean like creating clothing or as a medium?


----------



## aniso

MNiS said:


> That's great. How are you liking painting versus working with textiles? By textiles do you mean like creating clothing or as a medium?


I don't know anymore, lol.  At first I always loved textile more than painting. I went to handicraft class in grade school. Then I got into a design-high school, in a textile-design department. Despite the sometimes too-concrete, boring and grey rules of minimalist design (...our headmaster loved Finnish design...well, I can see why, but why emphasize black-white-grey combinations with teenagers?!!!), I liked about everything we had to do there. It was like... I made something beautiful that actually had a PURPOSE and that worked.

Now when I got into textile art department in academy...well, it's interesting and beautiful, and I feel more free than ever (emphasis being on ART, not practicality...so it makes sense that painting becomes more of use and interest), but I'm starting to doubt if I want to work with textile as a medium. I more than ever feel more drawn to working with graphic design programs / digital media.  Today I was to a conference about UX (user experience) in websites, it was sooooo interesting, I got to know so many new things...that I actually think may be useful in the future.

Ok. I feel like I seriously need to think about some stuff...for instance, WHY do I always end up writing WALLLS of text...is it an IEE thing?


----------



## aniso

Nonsense said:


> @_osina_
> Yeah, I work better when I feel happy as well. Although I think that the more you've gone through in life, the larger a library you have to draw from for reference. So in that way, sadness can help an artist creatively even if they aren't sad while creating art. And yeah, I think I understand what you're saying.


Yep, I believe it could be that way...that people become more versatile (?) in what they are able to express as years pass and they gain experience of different kinds. Of course. And, if I understand what you mean...it's like...They know the emotion and they can portray it in an artwork even if not completely being under its influence at the given moment..? Or - remembering, feeling it for the moment and then 'professionally' distancing oneself from it..? (like actors maybe?)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

osina said:


> Ok. I feel like I seriously need to think about some stuff...for instance, WHY do I always end up writing WALLLS of text...is it an IEE thing?


Possibly. =P Although IEE isn't the only type I've seen write walls of text.

Hmm, I think I tried textile art once. It was kind of interesting, but I haven't felt any draw to do anymore. And I remember I was so tired the last day I was having a textile art course (or whatever it's called) that I didn't go. >_> Ah, the things I've missed out on in life due to sleep deprivation (I was going to meet a friend once, but I was so tired I fell asleep... she hasn't been interested in meeting me again since, I think).


----------



## MNiS

osina said:


> I don't know anymore, lol.  At first I always loved textile more than painting. I went to handicraft class in grade school. Then I got into a design-high school, in a textile-design department. Despite the sometimes too-concrete, boring and grey rules of minimalist design (...our headmaster loved Finnish design...well, I can see why, but why emphasize black-white-grey combinations with teenagers?!!!), I liked about everything we had to do there. It was like... I made something beautiful that actually had a PURPOSE and that worked.
> 
> Now when I got into textile art department in academy...well, it's interesting and beautiful, and I feel more free than ever (emphasis being on ART, not practicality...so it makes sense that painting becomes more of use and interest), but I'm starting to doubt if I want to work with textile as a medium. I more than ever feel more drawn to working with graphic design programs / digital media.  Today I was to a conference about UX (user experience) in websites, it was sooooo interesting, I got to know so many new things...that I actually think may be useful in the future.
> 
> Ok. I feel like I seriously need to think about some stuff...for instance, WHY do I always end up writing WALLLS of text...is it an IEE thing?


Yeah, I like making things too, especially if it's functional. Although I think I'd prefer working with metal rather than say paint or fabric. I'm not sure. I was art deprived growing up so maybe that'll be an area I'll explore when I'm older. 

Also, going into graphics design and digital media would certainly be more practical. Bills need to be paid but you should still do what you have an interest in. Because unless you live in a place with absolutely no freedom in the type of work you do, if you have an interest in what you do then the money will follow. I know it's a bit of a cliche but I think it's certainly true.

As for the walls of text, I don't know. Maybe you just have too much enthusiasm bottled up to not write an essay every time.


----------



## aniso

MNiS said:


> Yeah, I always thought the idea that unhappiness can lead to greater creativity was a bit of a strange notion. Although if you've ever seen the movie "Stranger than Fiction", the author/narrator Karen Eiffel would be a good portrayal of the type.


Iiiii got an idea. I have heard that, if someone has some kind of a heavy, dark experience/emotion inside that almost drives them crazy, then art is one of the safest ways (for the author and environment) how to get that experience 'out of their system'. Ok, maybe I don't like to look at negations in art, but well, if it helps the people feel better...ok, ok, I'm not judging them for that.  (who am I to judge anyway? lol)

And I also have seen "Stranger than Fiction". Saw it for the first time when I was 16 and not in a very good emotional state...teenager emotional stuff.  I think that movie was, in a way, intense..? It for sure impacted me in some way back then. And yes, it could be an example on how unhappiness impacts creativity in some people. 


About what you wrote last...

I ABSOLUTELY agree with the cliche saying that 'if you have interest in what you do then the money will follow'.  Ok, with art, there are a bit more doubts, but...I seeeriously doubt that I'd choose art as a profession. Really...throughout all art schools, I have involved digital media somewhere, even if it's not supported. 

Lol, could be...  I guess I'm enthusiastic to share my experiences and what I think with some other people...maybe someone gets something good from it. (thinking like that...I should become a teacher  )

P.S. Good luck with exploring the world of art...it's a beautiful and exciting place to be!


----------



## aniso

Nonsense said:


> Possibly. =P Although IEE isn't the only type I've seen write walls of text.
> 
> Hmm, I think I tried textile art once. It was kind of interesting, but I haven't felt any draw to do anymore. And I remember I was so tired the last day I was having a textile art course (or whatever it's called) that I didn't go. >_> Ah, the things I've missed out on in life due to sleep deprivation (I was going to meet a friend once, but I was so tired I fell asleep... she hasn't been interested in meeting me again since, I think).


  

I know there's nothing funny about being sleep-deprived, but...it's another thing I have noticed in people of similar type to myself...fault of the Ne types?  Ok, there can be the question of WHY are you sleep-deprived...for me and the people I know who's like that, it's usually some kind of a procrastination/ last minute work/ INSPIRATION at night thing. It's funny how many creative people with this characteristic thing I come across... (though I think I know a ESE lady who's also like this, so lol, it may not be just Ne thing...stereotypes...ehhhh)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

osina said:


> I know there's nothing funny about being sleep-deprived, but...it's another thing I have noticed in people of similar type to myself...fault of the Ne types?  Ok, there can be the question of WHY are you sleep-deprived...for me and the people I know who's like that, it's usually some kind of a procrastination/ last minute work/ INSPIRATION at night thing. It's funny how many creative people with this characteristic thing I come across... (though I think I know a ESE lady who's also like this, so lol, it may not be just Ne thing...stereotypes...ehhhh)


Heh, hmm. I don't know, but it's true that inspiration tends to strike at night. I guess I feel a bit freer at night, so it's tempting to stay up and... enjoy the freedom, perhaps. During the day I'm used to being bothered more (like by my family, or whatever). And I have such poor self-control, so once I find something that captivates my interests, it's hard to put it away for the next day. Like if I'm absorbed in a video game, or reading fanfiction, or chatting with a friend. *cough* (Most of my friends live overseas, so.)

I think part of it is also wanting to do everything but what you're supposed to be doing (like sleeping).


----------



## MNiS

osina said:


> P.S. Good luck with exploring the world of art...it's a beautiful and exciting place to be!


Thanks.


----------



## aniso

Nonsense said:


> Heh, hmm. I don't know, but it's true that inspiration tends to strike at night. I guess I feel a bit freer at night, so it's tempting to stay up and... enjoy the freedom, perhaps. During the day I'm used to being bothered more (like by my family, or whatever). And I have such poor self-control, so once I find something that captivates my interests, it's hard to put it away for the next day. Like if I'm absorbed in a video game, or reading fanfiction, or chatting with a friend. *cough* (Most of my friends live overseas, so.)
> 
> I think part of it is also wanting to do everything but what you're supposed to be doing (like sleeping).


Yeeeesss, it IS the freedom, I believe. I have come to this idea some time ago, too. It's like...when working in the morning, you have a schedule, you can be late, you can affect other people by that. But when working at night...you only deal with your own self, and get less distracted by other stuff. That's where the feeling of freedom emerges from.

But it's a mistake, I think. I saw this ---> Russell Foster: Why do we sleep? | Video on TED.com TED talk and thought: "Maybe not having enough sleep during school semesters is the reason why it's gradually getting harder to come up with creative ideas..????" It all made sense then. ...inspired by a TEDtalk and socionics theory that showed me: "You're doing this wrong!" (Ne overpowering Si..?) 

(And what you said about 'not doing what you're supposed to do'...could be, too. )


----------



## zinnia

Oi... So many of my friends like staying up late for the reasons you guys describe.

Personally I can't do it. I'm the crazy person who freaks out if she doesn't get her 7-8 hours of sleep ;-; I can tell I become even more dumb than usual when I haven't rested much. I also don't work well when there isn't a natural light source of some kind... this morning I had to wake up early for school and it was dark, I tried reviewing the day's material and I kept falling asleep... as soon as light started pouring in through my window I officially woke up lol.

@_osina_ Thanks for posting that video. It's roughly consistent with stuff I learned from my neuroscience class... The brain is so interesting~ (I'm such a nerd lol)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@_zinnia_
I don't really function well on less than 8 hours of sleep either (though I liked to think I could function on less than 6). Natural light is nice, though now I'm so used to lack of sunlight that I almost find it garish. (I don't know if I already talked about that, though... and now I'm thinking of Phantom of the Opera. Turn your face away from the garish light of day/Turn your thoughts away from cold unfeeling light/And listen to the music of the night... ah, lovely cheese. =P) 


Sigh, sometimes I wish I could travel more... ;_; but then I remember that I find 99% of the world hideous anyway, so I would probably feel just as crappy no matter where I go. And considering my favorite activities involve staying inside, it's kind of a waste.


----------



## aniso

Nonsense said:


> Sigh, sometimes I wish I could travel more... ;_; but then I remember that I find 99% of the world hideous anyway, so I would probably feel just as crappy no matter where I go. And considering my favorite activities involve staying inside, it's kind of a waste.


 Travelling can be interesting staying indoors as well.  Museums and galleries...? (ok, they make people tired really fast, but usually it's worth it) My brother was studying abroad for a year and the headmaster of boarding school there took the international group travelling to many places...and my brother reviewed the headmaster's travelling as 'you go to one beautiful cafe...eat...travel further, see something on the way...go to another beautiful cafe and eat again'. For some reason it even sounds good  but it takes some money, so unless you are lucky enough to have a lot of money OR someone who pays for it all (as they did, as far as I know)...


----------



## aniso

zinnia said:


> Oi... So many of my friends like staying up late for the reasons you guys describe.
> 
> Personally I can't do it. I'm the crazy person who freaks out if she doesn't get her 7-8 hours of sleep ;-; I can tell I become even more dumb than usual when I haven't rested much. I also don't work well when there isn't a natural light source of some kind... this morning I had to wake up early for school and it was dark, I tried reviewing the day's material and I kept falling asleep... as soon as light started pouring in through my window I officially woke up lol.
> 
> @_osina_ Thanks for posting that video. It's roughly consistent with stuff I learned from my neuroscience class... The brain is so interesting~ (I'm such a nerd lol)


Welcome!  Ofcourse that the brain is interesting. The whole human body is. Like...when I start reading on what's happening inside ALL the time, I think - what, seriously?! How can it be programmed like that, everything happening at the same time and people don't (usually) feel most of the processes?! And it functions...

I know some bits of info on qigong exercises/philosophy, that's also interesting. Have you heard of it? An ancient chinese form of healing oneself (and others, too, I believe). As wikipedia says, 'qigong is a practice of aligning breath, movement, and awareness for exercise, healing, and meditation'. I know some people who have tried it and felt great after the exercises. I have read of it, but haven't tried yet, I'm afraid of falling asleep in the middle of practicing...  But it does sound good anyway!

About sleep: Well, some time ago I also couldn't function without enough sleep...then I got into art high school and, during assessment exhibitions, understood that I actually could...  But I know that lack of sleep does bad things to my emotional state and health, so I'm trying to do something about my habits. I congratulate you if you are one of the wise people who actually get enough sleep daily!!!  Hold on to your good habits!


----------



## d e c a d e n t

osina said:


> My brother was studying abroad for a year and the headmaster of boarding school there took the international group travelling to many places...and my brother reviewed the headmaster's travelling as 'you go to one beautiful cafe...eat...travel further, see something on the way...go to another beautiful cafe and eat again'.


That kind of reminds me of going on vacation with my aunt. It was as if we were eating somewhere ALL the time. Okay I like food, but I get kind of sick thinking back on it. At the time I wasn't really used to eating constantly so it was a bit overwhelming (now I eat like a pig, though). Also, my aunt seems to me like the type who wants to do things so she can cross them off the list (metaphorically). It's a bit hard to explain what I mean, though... but I'm more the "do things just because I want to"-type. :tongue: So there's some contrast.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> @_zinnia_
> I don't really function well on less than 8 hours of sleep either (though I liked to think I could function on less than 6). Natural light is nice, though now I'm so used to lack of sunlight that I almost find it garish. (I don't know if I already talked about that, though... and now I'm thinking of Phantom of the Opera. Turn your face away from the garish light of day/Turn your thoughts away from cold unfeeling light/And listen to the music of the night... ah, lovely cheese. =P)


Urg Phantom of the Opera... I actually don't recognize those lyrics.

Funny (?) random story. So I was in a chorus class all throughout high school and in the last weeks of school we would usually just watch movies since the competitions were all done... and it was always Phantom of the Opera. Somehow I would always get sick during the 3 days we would watch it and would only see the very ending. It pissed me off. Yet I was never pissed off enough to rent it... an example of my laziness. P:



osina said:


> Welcome!  Ofcourse that the brain is interesting. The whole human body is. Like...when I start reading on what's happening inside ALL the time, I think - what, seriously?! How can it be programmed like that, everything happening at the same time and people don't (usually) feel most of the processes?! And it functions...
> 
> I know some bits of info on qigong exercises/philosophy, that's also interesting. Have you heard of it? An ancient chinese form of healing oneself (and others, too, I believe). As wikipedia says, 'qigong is a practice of aligning breath, movement, and awareness for exercise, healing, and meditation'. I know some people who have tried it and felt great after the exercises. I have read of it, but haven't tried yet, I'm afraid of falling asleep in the middle of practicing...  But it does sound good anyway!
> 
> About sleep: Well, some time ago I also couldn't function without enough sleep...then I got into art high school and, during assessment exhibitions, understood that I actually could...  But I know that lack of sleep does bad things to my emotional state and health, so I'm trying to do something about my habits. I congratulate you if you are one of the wise people who actually get enough sleep daily!!!  Hold on to your good habits!


The human body is amazing~ I've taken a lot of biology classes and I love them, all the cellular signaling and whatnot... It's all so incredibly complicated; so many things can go wrong and yet >99% of the time, it doesn't. 

No I haven't heard of it. I guess it's true that I come more from the side of "allopathic" medicine so I don't know too much about that sort of thing... though many people I know are very much into meditation and find it's great for stress and mental well-being. I've never gotten into it though.

Hehe, about sleep... yeah there are times where I need to break my rule and I make my way around it (yay coffee!), like around exams or when projects are due, but in general... nope, I go to bed at 9 or 10 pm, wake up at 7. People think I am crazy... "what kind of ~20 year old goes to sleep at 9 pm?" heh. I find many of my classmates to be chronically sleep deprived and even though they still make it through, I think they are struggling more than they normally would.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Hey Delts.
> 
> Looks like I'm an LII. I'm saving this confession just for you guys.
> 
> It doesn't seem like much of a change, really, from ILE. I've always felt that they're similar birds, different plumage.
> 
> Just odd to accept it. Since I started out typologies suspecting NF, and certainly extrovert. Really funny how things turn out. :kitteh:
> 
> But, I do think that Ne is my creative function. Ti being my dominant function is a bit of a surprise. Didn't think it was that strong. Maybe I'm subconsciously attaching it to the idea of intellect... _Over_ its _actual_ information-processing.
> 
> The INTj LII include a plethora of individuals who I greatly admire, and had not thought I _could _fit into such a category. But, I think... Se PoLR makes sense to me, if nothing else does. Despite getting along well enough with some Se-dominant types that I've met, I think that I have gotten along better with Fi than Se, and at first glance, Se repulses. Not to mention my own complete and utter lack of Se?
> 
> My mom's a suspected EII though, so...
> 
> But, I guess it can be explained by the flay-vah. LII-Ne? Hum... Well. Went through a bit of 'soul-searching', you could say, with my huzzaby. He thinks LII over ILE-- Introverted. Get exhausted by socializing, and such. Need time alone to withdraw and recharge. These are classic, cliche'd definitions, of course.
> 
> But... I think... I only thought I was an extrovert because of my ADD. It messes with your brain, gives you more stimulation-seeking, dopamine, and crap like that. On Ritalin, I'm more myself, and can see the difference. Even without Ritalin, I'm still LII, but behaviour is more ILE. So, it's like my Ti-processing is dampened and I get messed a bit.
> 
> It explains a few things. Headaches when I go out and get overwhelmed by socializing, was always a problem with me. It dissipated when I started on Ritalin, though, so I think that I now have an internal equilibrium that better balances external input.
> 
> If I'm LII-Ne, I suppose I'd be attracted to ESE-Si. Which makes sense, I think!
> 
> It's amusing. I was always drawn to introverts, because I could give them something they didn't have-- A voice. But, I too, am an introvert. I'm just a very brave, outgoing, and social one. Despite being fairly incompetent socially, for the most part. It's my naivete and that general 'innocent' charm that wins people over. Then, when they get to know me over time, I generally lose what I've won. :tongue:
> 
> Reviewing the dichotomies, the only thing that sticks out is that I seem more yielding, and even if I multitask in a result-oriented fashion, I'm not very good at it. I do it in, as I'd think, a process-oriented way.
> 
> But, everything else makes a kind of glaringly obvious sense, when I look to it now.
> I had to announce it somewhere. You guys respond in a timely fashion over here.


Congrats on your new found... foundedness? 

Hm, one of the classic ways of determining introverted and extroverted tendencies is to gauge whether you feel tired or more uplifted after having prolonged social interactions with your friends. Which would you say is more accurate for you? Do you feel like you should socialize some more or are you sufficiently tired from it? Or is it a little bit of both?


----------



## Entropic

Nonsense said:


> ...Really? I would think it's the other way around, what with Se being extroverted and all. Whereas Si just takes in the impression due to being introverted.


Se also just takes in impressions. What differs between them is what kind of impression.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> Se also just takes in impressions. What differs between them is what kind of impression.


Eh, Se seems keen to take in the details to me (more so than Si).


----------



## zinnia

I feel like pretending to be an LSE today. 

List of things to do:
1. make a list of things to do
2. work at 8 am _work 15 min away; leave at 7:20 due to chronic fear of being late_
3. go shopping after worka. post-its (for list making)
b. groceries: blah blah blah regular foodstuffs
c. three cases of water, kitty litter and miscellaneous canned food _it might snow tomorrow_​ 4. charge backup charging device and all batteries _snow!!_
5. cook at 6 pm
6. dinner at 7 pm
7. watch TV at 8 pm _including Weather Channel_
8. write out calendar for next month
9. sleep at 10 pm


----------



## Entropic

Nonsense said:


> Eh, Se seems keen to take in the details to me (more so than Si).


And I always think Si is detail-oriented. To be honest though, sensation is detail-oriented in general compared to intuition.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> And I always think Si is detail-oriented. *To be honest though, sensation is detail-oriented in general compared to intuition.*


Well, I can see that.

For myself, though, I would say I tend to be more focused on the overall (sensory) impression of things, and not so much the details, which is how I think of Si.

(Not that I don't look at details at all. I'm an artist and like to get them right, but in general that seems to be what my world is like.)


----------



## Swiftstar

zinnia said:


> 5. cook at 6 pm
> 6. dinner at 7 pm


Wait, this makes so much sense. Every day I struggle with deciding what to do/get/make for food. Is this what Te seeking is like??


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> @_Word Dispenser_, I can't see LII for you honestly, because your psyche is so extroverted in how it's oriented. Stuff like this for example:
> 
> 
> 
> This is seeking data and input from the external world, not internal. I always thought you were an ILE-Ne personally, because you are if anything more of an NeFe type than you are anything Ti, quite honestly. It's not so much that you just come across this particular way in your writing (I actually suspect your writing is _subdued _compared to your real life self), but that you just don't seem to rely that much on Ti when you reason. You reason more using Fe, and that just makes no sense given that an LII is ultimately Fe DS. It's what they have the most difficulty expressing. Even a very dualized LII would still feel somewhat incapable when it comes to Fe, including those LII-Ne types.
> 
> I mean, ultimately, where is _your_ logic and reasoning in this? There isn't one much, and that's my entire point. You keep claiming "this option A" and "people say B", but there is no real Ti here that tries to nitpick it apart or make personally sense of it. Rational temperament makes little sense to me.
> 
> And while I don't doubt your SO's understanding of you, I wonder how good he is at detecting the difference between rationality-irrationality and introversion-extroversion in a cognitive sense. People may be a little different to how they are IRL vs online, but never have I thought it was so great that we are talking about an entirely new person.
> 
> ILEs lead with Ne. Ne does not have to be socially oriented or such at all. They gain the greatest satisfaction from engaging Ne, which they can do in their own head pretty much if they so desire. Einstein is for example an ILE usually typed as an introvert because that's how he led his life, but his actual thinking process doesn't really fit LII as much as it does ILE. Einstein could have been an ILE-Ti though.
> 
> 
> 
> And why can this not be Si DS for example? Si is actually more about noticing physical details than Se is about. Se takes in holistic impressions, not details necessarily. The detail-fussing is an inferior S-thing in general. By the way, @_Amaterasu_ is a klutz too.
> 
> I don't think you understand what Se is, to be honest.


If Se is about acquiring and appreciating quality, exerting dominance and/or leadership, understanding territory dynamics, and seeing things for what they are, then I think I know what Se is. It's everything that I'm not, and everything that annoys me about other people. The intense 'anger' that I've always been repulsed by, wasn't Fi as much as it was Se.

I understand what you mean when you say that you're seeing a lot of extroverted cognition here, in the form of Ne and Fe. The thing is, I'm using other people's examples, but I'm not doing this in an Fe way. 

It's because I'm very used to having my own thoughts and opinions being rejected by themselves, so I offer other people's perspectives first, before I give my own reasoning behind it, if I even give the complete intricate picture of what I've reasoned. I may not. 

Sometimes I keep it to myself, because it's not worth the effort if it's not going to be understood. Which, it often can't be, because it's my own subjective thoughts and experience. And being shamed for having a differing thought, or feeling, from the majority is uncomfortable, to say the least. 

Other people's reasoning, to me, sounds like, "If 80 % of people think this, it _must _be true, and you're being stubborn and weird to say differently." 

I can't argue with that. Sometimes they're even right. But, there's no way to know that, until something reveals itself one way or another. And, if it doesn't make sense to me, I _don't _follow what other people say, and that sometimes gets aggression in my face.

I'm often resistant to explaining my own point of view, and I give sway to others. Again-- I don't see this in an Fe way. LIIs quite commonly yield to dominance, in a misguided effort to avoid this kind of conflict. And I see this in myself.

The fact is, and this is relevant to @MNiS's question: When I go out, I _do _become physically _and _mentally exhausted. I have denied this, and have shrugged it off, and reasoned it away for other reasons (Dehydration, not enough sleep, too much stimulation, over-excitement), but it's always the same. It even gives me a headache to go out, and when I come home, I want to be alone, to relax, and to just do what it is that I want to do, to Hell with anyone else.

And, the truth is, I utilize Si a lot more than I do Fe. Definitely. My own experiences, internal sensation impressions, and everything that comes from past information, into the future, is constantly being connected with Ne. When I interact with my SO, he often sees a lot of Ti, Ne, and Si. Fe is non-existent. (He says that he sees what looks _like _Fe, with people I don't know, and I play my part well, but it isn't naturally produced, or legitimately understood.)

I appreciate Fe in others, but I cannot _naturally _produce it myself. I really do seek emotional approval from others, and I feel like this formal puppet trying to play a role. But, when I see other people who are producing Fe naturally, it's something I'm naturally envious of, and something I truly appreciate.

With Si-- It's.. Neglected. I don't like being criticized for my lack of awareness in this regard, which I quite often am. But, I think that it doesn't make sense if it were inferior.

I think that I'm pretty dysfunctional, due to my ADD, and my Non-verbal learning disorder. That affects my cognition a great deal. Since I've been taking Ritalin, though, my cognition has been a lot more clear and organized, and easier for me to observe, which is why this recent breakthrough.

I'm not resistant to ILE-Ne for me. If not LII, then that would be the obvious answer. But, I just don't think I'm as extroverted as I thought, and that it's simply not dominant. 

As a kid, I might've been a perfect example of an ILE, or even IEE, though, with all this rampant Ne. But, there was a very strong, stubborn, Ti, too, that I can't ignore. It's actually kind of amusing, when I think back on it.

Playing superheroes with the boys, they came up with a 'joke' idea-- Hot Water Woman! I leapt on this idea and clung to it, even if they protested that it was ridiculous. I started rationalizing her powers-- That she had control of heat and water, and could throw boiling hot water balls at people. And fire. And water.

I was such a meta-gamer, even at 6 years old. :kitteh:


----------



## The Exception

Word Dispenser said:


> If Se is about acquiring and appreciating quality, exerting dominance and/or leadership, understanding territory dynamics, and seeing things for what they are, then I think I know what Se is. It's everything that I'm not, and everything that annoys me about other people. The intense 'anger' that I've always been repulsed by, wasn't Fi as much as it was Se.
> 
> I understand what you mean when you say that you're seeing a lot of extroverted cognition here, in the form of Ne and Fe. The thing is, I'm using other people's examples, but I'm not doing this in an Fe way.
> 
> It's because I'm very used to having my own thoughts and opinions being rejected by themselves, so I offer other people's perspectives first, before I give my own reasoning behind it, if I even give the complete intricate picture of what I've reasoned. I may not.
> 
> Sometimes I keep it to myself, because it's not worth the effort if it's not going to be understood. Which, it often can't be, because it's my own subjective thoughts and experience. And being shamed for having a differing thought, or feeling, from the majority is uncomfortable, to say the least.
> 
> Other people's reasoning, to me, sounds like, "If 80 % of people think this, it _must _be true, and you're being stubborn and weird to say differently."
> 
> I can't argue with that. Sometimes they're even right. But, there's no way to know that, until something reveals itself one way or another. And, if it doesn't make sense to me, I _don't _follow what other people say, and that sometimes gets aggression in my face.
> 
> I'm often resistant to explaining my own point of view, and I give sway to others. Again-- I don't see this in an Fe way. LIIs quite commonly yield to dominance, in a misguided effort to avoid this kind of conflict. And I see this in myself.
> 
> The fact is, and this is relevant to @_MNiS_'s question: When I go out, I _do _become physically _and _mentally exhausted. I have denied this, and have shrugged it off, and reasoned it away for other reasons (Dehydration, not enough sleep, too much stimulation, over-excitement), but it's always the same. It even gives me a headache to go out, and when I come home, I want to be alone, to relax, and to just do what it is that I want to do, to Hell with anyone else.
> 
> And, the truth is, I utilize Si a lot more than I do Fe. Definitely. My own experiences, internal sensation impressions, and everything that comes from past information, into the future, is constantly being connected with Ne. When I interact with my SO, he often sees a lot of Ti, Ne, and Si. Fe is non-existent. (He says that he sees what looks _like _Fe, with people I don't know, and I play my part well, but it isn't naturally produced, or legitimately understood.)
> 
> I appreciate Fe in others, but I cannot _naturally _produce it myself. I really do seek emotional approval from others, and I feel like this formal puppet trying to play a role. But, when I see other people who are producing Fe naturally, it's something I'm naturally envious of, and something I truly appreciate.
> 
> With Si-- It's.. Neglected. I don't like being criticized for my lack of awareness in this regard, which I quite often am. But, I think that it doesn't make sense if it were inferior.
> 
> I think that I'm pretty dysfunctional, due to my ADD, and my Non-verbal learning disorder. That affects my cognition a great deal. Since I've been taking Ritalin, though, my cognition has been a lot more clear and organized, and easier for me to observe, which is why this recent breakthrough.
> 
> I'm not resistant to ILE-Ne for me. If not LII, then that would be the obvious answer. But, I just don't think I'm as extroverted as I thought, and that it's simply not dominant.
> 
> As a kid, I might've been a perfect example of an ILE, or even IEE, though, with all this rampant Ne. But, there was a very strong, stubborn, Ti, too, that I can't ignore. It's actually kind of amusing, when I think back on it.
> 
> Playing superheroes with the boys, they came up with a 'joke' idea-- Hot Water Woman! I leapt on this idea and clung to it, even if they protested that it was ridiculous. I started rationalizing her powers-- That she had control of heat and water, and could throw boiling hot water balls at people. And fire. And water.
> 
> I was such a meta-gamer, even at 6 years old. :kitteh:


I could have written much of this myself. I don't really know you and I haven't read enough of your other posts to get an impression but based on the stuff in this post I'd say LII is very likely for you.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Dammit, I'm getting tired from staying up all night. Why do I have to need sleep, stupid piece of shit body.

I mean, uh, I'm totally interested in my body and taking care of my health and such.

(If only.)


----------



## Swiftstar

I'm terrible at sleeping too. I'm pretty exhausted from lack of sleep and having to get up to catch an earlyish flight. I hung out with my friend last night because she was offering free food, but I ended up staying longer than expected because she and her friends wanted to watch this shitty reality TV and it was only after they finished that she was like, "OKAY LET'S GO!" 

Sighhh.

Granted, I probably would've found a way to stay up anyway but I'd at least like to have done so in a more entertaining way.

What are some things you guys do when you're at airports?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Swiftstar said:


> I'm terrible at sleeping too. I'm pretty exhausted from lack of sleep and having to get up to catch an earlyish flight. I hung out with my friend last night because she was offering free food, but I ended up staying longer than expected because she and her friends wanted to watch this shitty reality TV and it was only after they finished that she was like, "OKAY LET'S GO!"
> 
> Sighhh.
> 
> Granted, I probably would've found a way to stay up anyway but I'd at least like to have done so in a more entertaining way.
> 
> What are some things you guys do when you're at airports?


When I was 4, I did lots of fun things at airports.

I went up to a bald, muscular powerlifting looking guy with tattoos, and said, "You're a stranger, I'm not supposed to talk to you!"

And, there was a black stewardess sitting in the airport. I crawled over the seats to her, sitting in her lap, and petting her face in awe. I said: "Your makeup looks sooo beautiful!"

Finally in the airplane, some Rabbis were coming into the plane, and I stood on my seat excitedly, pointing at one particularly stout one with a long white beard, "DAD, LOOK! IT'S SANTA CLAUS!"


----------



## Swiftstar

Word Dispenser said:


> When I was 4, I did lots of fun things at airports.
> 
> I went up to a bald, muscular powerlifting looking guy with tattoos, and said, "You're a stranger, I'm not supposed to talk to you!"
> 
> And, there was a black stewardess sitting in the airport. I crawled over the seats to her, sitting in her lap, and petting her face in awe. I said: "Your makeup looks sooo beautiful!"
> 
> Finally in the airplane, some Rabbis were coming into the plane, and I stood on my seat excitedly, pointing at one particularly stout one with a long white beard, "DAD, LOOK! IT'S SANTA CLAUS!"


I don't think I could easily approach people like that. Somehow, people tend to approach me more during flights or layovers. I don't know, maybe I'm just extra approachable at airports? Maybe I look clueless (I'm not; I have a really good sense of direction, know what to do, etc.)?

Just a while ago I decided to draw and write while waiting for my phone to charge when this woman next to me complimented me on my doodles lol.

I'm a little sad that the novelty of flying/traveling on my own has gotten kind of familiar. It's routine and predictable. Seeing the same squares of farmlands and suburbs when you're thousands of feet high has gotten old and uninspiring.


----------



## zinnia

Swiftstar said:


> I'm a little sad that the novelty of flying/traveling on my own has gotten kind of familiar. It's routine and predictable. Seeing the same squares of farmlands and suburbs when you're thousands of feet high has gotten old and uninspiring.


Really? 

I find I am still incredibly inspired by being thousands of feet in the air - so many stories of crashes and dramatic events and lungs exploding. -sigh- 

There was also that one time I cut myself and was convinced I would get hepatitis and die. Or that other time when I choked on an ice cube and... -voice trails off-


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Really?
> 
> I find I am still incredibly inspired by being thousands of feet in the air - so many stories of crashes and dramatic events and lungs exploding. -sigh-


Sounds like the bad kind of inspiration? Haha.

I'm not usually too worried or excited over flying, actually. I'm more worried about getting in in the first place. What if I go wrong, etc? Ugh.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Sounds like the bad kind of inspiration? Haha.
> 
> I'm not usually too worried or excited over flying, actually. I'm more worried about getting in in the first place. What if I go wrong, etc? Ugh.


I am going to make up a new word: I am a catastrophizer. 

You know, someone coughs in an elevator, "oh god it's tuberculosis."

I don't fly frequently anymore but I remember a dream once where I ended up getting on the wrong plane  One of those dreams where you want to run but can't - I remember trying to get up before they got ready for takeoff and I was frozen to my chair.

Damn those kinds of dreams are so fucking depressing.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Ok so I still think I'm most likely an EII, but I keep wondering. Because it seems a bit funny that Ne is me creative function, yet I don't seem too good at divergent thinking. Neither do I particularly _like _it most of the time.And, well, I just don't see much potential in most objects. Things are just things. Empty, dead things.

Sometimes wonder if I'm Ne-PoLR, but my way of experiencing stuff still fits Fi-Si I guess.

Sigh, I can't sleep.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Nonsense said:


> Ok so I still think I'm most likely an EII, but I keep wondering. Because it seems a bit funny that Ne is me creative function, yet I don't seem too good at divergent thinking. Neither do I particularly _like _it most of the time.And, well, I just don't see much potential in most objects. Things are just things. Empty, dead things.
> 
> Sometimes wonder if I'm Ne-PoLR, but my way of experiencing stuff still fits Fi-Si I guess.
> 
> Sigh, I can't sleep.


o.o.....*hands you a gift










Also look at pictures of sleepy people if you are having trouble sleeping. It tends to work.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


>


That just looks uncomfortable lol.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FreeBeer said:


> o.o.....*hands you a gift


Ah, thanks?^^;



ephemereality said:


> That just looks uncomfortable lol.


Yeah, it would be better to just rest your head on the table.... not that I'm speaking from experience.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

spiderfrommars said:


> I'm also very aware of which characters the creators want me to like and dislike (this is a big problem with Joss Whedon). So instead of referring to a structure--like the hero's journey--I refer to "what the author wants" or is trying to do.


Oh yeah, I gotta be honest, when the author makes to too obvious who I'm supposed to like or dislike, I can be tempted to be contrary root for the ones I'm supposed to dislike.

On the other hand, I'm not the only fan who does this either, and if I'm aware of which characters are well liked by fans, I can be reluctant to fall for that character. =P



> That's not what fantasy is, though. I mean, a lot of fantasy _is_ derivative and cliche, but that's just because there is a lot of bad writing out there. The fantasy genre isn't defined by the hero's journey. I write a lot of fantasy that doesn't include that kind of stuff. (Not dark like Martin, but my own thing.) I call it fantasy because it's set in a fantastical universe.


Yeah, I agree with that. Although there are people who have very specific things in mind when it comes to fantasy, I guess. Which might be a good thing to keep in mind for anyone who wants to publish for example. Not that I'm speaking from experience.


----------



## spiderfrommars

Nonsense said:


> Oh yeah, I gotta be honest, when the author makes to too obvious who I'm supposed to like or dislike, I can be tempted to be contrary root for the ones I'm supposed to dislike.


Yeah, there's plenty of popular/overexposed characters that I do genuinely like, but when I can feel an author shoving a character down my throat, I start to have a hard time liking that character at all. I guess that's the root of the problem of Mary Sues and such characters--even if the character _isn't_ poorly constructed, you can feel how much the author just wants you to _looove_ them. 

It's more a question of how obvious the author's intent was than it is of whether a character is "supposed to" be likable at all, because of course the protagonists are always meant to be likable. It's when it feels like every scene with them is, "Oh, aren't they _cool_? Don't you _love them_?" Yeah.

Though, it's also very interesting to observe which characters the author really wants you to love, and which ones get less attention. It's often not the main character.



> On the other hand, I'm not the only fan who does this either, and if I'm aware of which characters are well liked by fans, I can be reluctant to fall for that character. =P


Haha, yes, fan overreactions can really sour a character for me, and sometimes the Ensemble Darkhorse is just as annoying as the author's pet. What's the annoyance trifecta is when it feels like somebody was _planned_ to be a Darkhorse, and it totally worked. (Spike from Buffy springs to mind.)

Fans also sometimes really tear down and loathe a character, and that definitely makes me defensive of them.

...I think I am a hipster.



> Yeah, I agree with that. Although there are people who have very specific things in mind when it comes to fantasy, I guess. Which might be a good thing to keep in mind for anyone who wants to publish for example. Not that I'm speaking from experience.


Yes, true, but a wide range of subgenres and types of stories are published under fantasy, so I'm guessing it would work out OK. Not that I speak from experience, either. I don't know if what I write is very marketable.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

spiderfrommars said:


> It's more a question of how obvious the author's intent was than it is of whether a character is "supposed to" be likable at all, because of course the protagonists are always meant to be likable. It's when it feels like every scene with them is, "Oh, aren't they _cool_? Don't you _love them_?" Yeah.


True, it's natural to want your readers to like your main character (unless they're supposed to be despicable for some reason, but even then the reader should want to read about them, or why else would you write a story about them anyway?). Actually, I have seen writers (on the NaNoWriMo forums, for instance) complain about how boring their main character is to write about, and how they prefer to write their villain, and I have to question why they don't just make the story about their villain then. I can't imagine writing a story about an MC I don't enjoy writing about, unless I want to challenge myself for some reason.



> Though, it's also very interesting to observe which characters the author really wants you to love, and which ones get less attention. It's often not the main character.


LOL, true that.



> Haha, yes, fan overreactions can really sour a character for me, and sometimes the Ensemble Darkhorse is just as annoying as the author's pet. What's the annoyance trifecta is when it feels like somebody was _planned_ to be a Darkhorse, and it totally worked. (Spike from Buffy springs to mind.)


 Oh yeah, as I get older I can get a bit annoyed at characters who are obvious fanbait (whereas when I was a teen I probably would have fallen for it easily >_>). 



> Fans also sometimes really tear down and loathe a character, and that definitely makes me defensive of them.
> 
> ...I think I am a hipster.


Ah well, at least you're not alone. :laughing: One time a character became my favorite because the majority of the fandom seemed to despise her. I figure it's this instinctual thing to stand up for the underdog. (Besides, some of the insults towards the character didn't make much sense to me, +they were sexist. Like saying she was a slut or something when she was mainly obsessed with one guy?)



> Yes, true, but a wide range of subgenres and types of stories are published under fantasy, so I'm guessing it would work out OK. Not that I speak from experience, either. I don't know if what I write is very marketable.


There's that. I don't keep a lot of track of them myself, admittedly. I don't even write much in the first place, and when I do it's mainly for myself and my writing is not that great anyway. Which reminds me, I should try to write more. Even though it's all crap.


----------



## Entropic

spiderfrommars said:


> Not positive yet. He has Fi in his ego block, but isn't sure yet whether he uses Se or Ne. I'm trying to help him figure out which one. Initially, I was certain he was Se (he is quite forceful, and could fit Ni seeking), but he made a good case that he might be Ne. *Said he does think a lot about the potential in people, what they could become, and such*.


Yeah, I don't see Se doing that at all. I think Se PoLR can be quite forceful at times though, and people deal with their PoLR differently. I have this friend who I think is an EII. I was wondering if ESI was more correct sometimes, because she would be quite forceful in situations she doesn't like, like she would just leave dramatically and such, but what really points towards Si for her is that she ultimately likes to do Si stuff like handicraft, is concerned about nostalgia and keeping items for the sake of memorability etc. It eventually caused a divide between us because she wanted to invite me to these kinds of activities but I just kind of sit there and go meh internally, because I am not even sure what I am doing or why. 



> I've been having a hard time figuring this out with him, because something about the system just gives him hives. It bothered him that the functions are named things like Se and Ti, because he can't attach any meaning to them. He likes for things to have evocative names, especially ones that tie in with classical/archetypal imagery--like the 4 seasons, or something. I'm hesitant about it, because I think it leads to stereotyping and for them to be really heavy with associations. So we had to name the functions after something (to me, arbitrary) in order for him to be able to process what they were and be able to talk about it. It makes me cautious about giving him too much information as we discuss things.


Seems very Pi but lower order but I was thinking perhaps more on the Si end if he needs it to be connected to something more concrete in terms of imagery. I notice this in Si types like they want to connect say, the four humors with quadras, other temperaments, the four elements etc. like they think they are analogous because it all deals with the number 4 without really reflecting on the actual content that is represented. It's more that they have this well, Si connection/association that makes sense to them in terms of say, appearance or whatever like alpha would be akin to sanguine/phlegmatic if you get what I mean, because that appearance matches the alpha description. 



> Also, he doesn't like "combining" systems, so I can't have him look at quadras or cognitive styles to help him make his decision. Even though...that's not combining systems...:laughing: It's probably a good thing to focus purely on the functions, but it does get a bit frustrating. I like to double-check stuff.


Yeah, I wonder if that's just a Te kneejerk from his side though. 



> Hmm. I do refer to things like the Hero's Journey, but it's something I have to remember. I do agree that this is Fe vs Te. I'm going to have to think more about how my Fe works in these situations. It's an interesting question.
> 
> I think my Fe makes me understand things more in terms of intention--when something is going to happen that will surprise the audience (or at least my friend), I will say, "The author's trying to trick me." I'm also very aware of which characters the creators want me to like and dislike (this is a big problem with Joss Whedon). So instead of referring to a structure--like the hero's journey--I refer to "what the author wants" or is trying to do.
> 
> It also means that I have an easier time finding the external facts to back up my realization if I discuss it with somebody else. My Fe means that being forced to explain a concept to another person is the best way to teach it to myself.


Yeah, that's interesting. I could do that but it certainly doesn't come naturally to me, to think about people's intents etc, or how something is supposed to make me feel. If it's too obvious also like even I _know_ the author intended me to feel this way in this particular situation it tends to have the opposite effect and I just go lolnowai. Generally speaking, I'm naturally oblivious too people's feeling intentions anyway. I'm oblivious to feelings as it is, as is becoming increasingly apparent to me LOL. I can't even make sense of my own damn feelings for most of the part so trying to make sense of others'? No way.


> Sure. I think that deductive reasoning has been associated with Process, and inductive reasoning has been associated with Result, and that pretty much makes sense to me. I was wondering if it made sense to you, too, since you strongly prefer deductive reasoning, and you're Process-oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah--okay. That makes a lot of sense. When you wrote that post, I was wondering if you were ILI-Te or ILI-Ni, because that vid was very ILI-Te. That's very interesting.


Yeah, I type as ILI-Ni now, because I'm too Fi-heavy to be ILI-Te. And it's possible it has such a connotation, though I also wonder if it's linked to strategic/tactical? Like an SEE is process but inductive according to Gulenko. 


> Yeah, I've been thinking more about the subtypes lately, I really find them interesting. I know a ILI-Ni and a ILI-Te in real life, and while I can see the similarities between them, they are _very_ different. I wouldn't have guessed them to be the same personality type. And the ILI-Te is stereotypically extraverted in a lot of ways, while the ILI-Ni is more the crazy medicine man type.
> 
> My friend, who I was talking about before, couldn't believe that I and a particular character were the same type--but when I went through it with him, he chose the same functions for both of us. I think it's because I'm IEI-Ni and this fellow is IEI-Fe. I've been thinking about how I, as a IEI-Ni, differ a lot from a IEI-Fe. I hope I meet one in real life at some point to compare.


Yeah, I have a really hard time relating to ILI-Tes and I often mistype them as LIEs initially. There's most likely a bit of a variable scale between the two subtypes, but comparing the two extreme ends it's really interesting how different people can be in that regard. I have been thinking about what would lead people to develop a specific subtype preference too, and whether it can change during one's life. 



> That's not what fantasy is, though. I mean, a lot of fantasy _is_ derivative and cliche, but that's just because there is a lot of bad writing out there. The fantasy genre isn't defined by the hero's journey. I write a lot of fantasy that doesn't include that kind of stuff. (Not dark like Martin, but my own thing.) I call it fantasy because it's set in a fantastical universe.


Sure, in a general sense. I was referring more to how people likely understand fantasy rather than how fantasy literature as a whole is defined. Fantasy is a difficult-to-define genre to begin with, because if you define it this loosely as simply being a fantastical universe, then even most horror stories, science fiction stories and other kinds of stories that contain some kind of surrealistic or surreal elements or at least appear out of the ordinary, fits the definition of fantasy but at that point it's questionable how meaningful that definition is. 

And of course not every fantasy story follows the hero's journey, nor do every story that follows the hero's journey contain fantastical elements, but as a whole yes, I would they go pretty much hand in hand. As an often debated example: Is Star Wars more of a fantasy story (space opera) or a science fiction story?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> @FreeBeer
> 
> What is Ti PoLR actually like? If it's mainly just an inability to spontaneously express your thoughts in a logically organized way, I can certainly relate to that. If it's being poor at logic, I can't relate to that.
> 
> Do these sound like Ti PoLR?


I am unaware of being poor at logic as far as I can tell. My logic however tends towards the empirical objective aka how does it work, whats the evidence, the facts, how is it more efficient, what is the single most optimal way to do X, how does this work, how can I make it work better etc..

As far as I can tell I'm not very interested in Ti logic such as philosophy. Imo philosophy is the best example of Ti one can give. My arguments usually tend towards realistic & tangible concerns when it comes to logic.

I believe one IEI 4w5 INFP once called me MBTI ISTJ based on a lengthy interaction and others seem to recognize that I do use Te quite a lot.

I think it does show in my difficulties of formulating well structured logical thought patterns.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FreeBeer said:


> As far as I can tell I'm not very interested in Ti logic such as philosophy. Imo philosophy is the best example of Ti one can give. My arguments usually tend towards realistic & tangible concerns when it comes to logic.


Philosophy eh. I'd say I actually like that to some degree, but I don't do it often.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Nonsense said:


> Philosophy eh. I'd say I actually like that to some degree, but I don't do it often.


I gave it as an example because it is most often subjective abstract logic.

In my experience, my thinking is pragmatic and concrete. Can't say the same thing about my Fi...which I have no idea how to explain to begin with.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FreeBeer said:


> I gave it as an example because it is most often subjective abstract logic.
> 
> In my experience, my thinking is pragmatic and concrete. Can't say the same thing about my Fi...which I have no idea how to explain to begin with.


Haha, well, Silver seems fond of philosophy from my impression. More so than me tbh. I mostly follow as long as it's simple. 

Lol, your Fi. Sorry if you didn't want that quoted.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Nonsense said:


> Haha, well, Silver seems fond of philosophy from my impression. More so than me tbh. I mostly follow as long as it's simple.
> 
> Lol, your Fi. Sorry if you didn't want that quoted.


o.o she doesn't strike me as a rational function dominant, also I get the impression she is Obstinate. By those 2 I usually get the impression of xEE or xLI: ESFp, ENFp, INTp or ISTp...none of which are Ti users.

I think she is definitely Obstinate, I could be wrong about irrationality.

How she handled my first post speaks of a definite obstinate type .


----------



## Entropic

Think it's important to realize that philosophy can be approached in many different ways though. There's spiritual, metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, analytical etc. Depending on the philosopher, it will cater to different kinds of types in my opinion. With that said yes, I do think philosophy as a field of science at least in the West, caters to Ti more so than it does Fi. I think Fi philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nitzsche et al.) would focus more on the ethical outcomes of actions which they indeed do in their works. 

Overall however, I would most of all claim that Western philosophy places emphasis on rationality over irrationality. Eastern philosophy seems more irrational in its foundation, and also decidedly more Ni with the focus stressing the perception of things in order to feel home/at peace with the world.

I think the biggest divide in philosophy is between sensation and intuition though. Take say, Berkeley or the idea of common sense wherein we should simply trust our senses in order to derive what truth is.



FreeBeer said:


> o.o she doesn't strike me as a rational function dominant, also I get the impression she is Obstinate. By those 2 I usually get the impression of xEE or xLI: ESFp, ENFp, INTp or ISTp...none of which are Ti users.
> 
> I think she is definitely Obstinate, I could be wrong about irrationality.
> 
> How she handled my first post speaks of a definite obstinate type .


She is decidedly not an Se-Ni type in my opinion. I don't think it's common for Se-Ni types to be this indecisive and uncertain about say, type. Se-Ni types even when uncertain, tend to first narrow it down to a few options that are experienced as certain or more obvious (higher level of probability) to be correct.


----------



## MNiS

FreeBeer said:


> I am unaware of being poor at logic as far as I can tell. My logic however tends towards the empirical objective aka how does it work, whats the evidence, the facts, how is it more efficient, what is the single most optimal way to do X, how does this work, how can I make it work better etc..
> 
> As far as I can tell I'm not very interested in Ti logic such as philosophy. Imo philosophy is the best example of Ti one can give. My arguments usually tend towards realistic & tangible concerns when it comes to logic.


I definitely agree with you about philosophy although some can be Fi. I think Kierkegaard is a great example of an Fi philosopher.



> I believe one IEI 4w5 INFP once called me MBTI ISTJ based on a lengthy interaction and others seem to recognize that I do use Te quite a lot.
> 
> I think it does show in my difficulties of formulating well structured logical thought patterns.


Take a course in formal logic. It's not difficult, it's about arguing and counter-arguing Ti-arguments and you'll meet some pre-law people who're some of the cockiest people you'll ever meet.


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> I always thought that quantum mechanics is the perfect scientific example of Ni, seeing probability. So it's less about denying options but more about considering what options are actually likely to occur and I assume some Ji/Je would be used in order to rank the probability of them to happen in order of importance/validity.


According to Pauli's exclusion principle, only two electrons can exist in an atomic orbital and both have the opposite spin quantum number (+1/2 and -1/2). Essentially, they revolve around in that orbital and continually repel each other and due to the repulsion, keep revolving; the process continues indefinitely. I know shit about cognitive styles, but it made me think of DA c:



spiderfrommars said:


> I actually changed my legal name several years ago, because the one I was given when I was born didn't feel "like me." I couldn't tell you even now _why_ it didn't, or what feels better about the name I have now, just that it's the one that's right. When I was a kid, I kept trying to change it--changing the spelling, stuff like that. I remember I always hated it and I just didn't know why. I like it fine on other people, it's pretty.


Oh I know the feel. I've always had this discomfort with my name because it just doesn't idk, fit right. It doesn't represent what I want to embody and it doesn't stick well even after all these years of having it. I hope to change it to something more meaningful down the line; perhaps when I move or something, so no one will get too confused lol. 

I'm very picky with meanings for my usernames too. I mean, I picked Amaterasu here because she's the sun goddess in Shinto and somehow I wanted the sun metaphor to represent me at the time because light and positivity and all that. Also, godhood lol. Very appealing. My username elsewhere translates to "queen of hearts" because I admire that ideal; being able to capture hearts. It represents power, or an aspect of it anyway, to me.



Silveresque said:


> What is Ti PoLR actually like? If it's mainly just an inability to spontaneously express your thoughts in a logically organized way, I can certainly relate to that. If it's being poor at logic, I can't relate to that.


I know you asked FreeBeer, but I want to chime in too. I don't think it's an ability to express thoughts logically because I can do that, I can sound very systematic even in a spontaneous situation and it's funny because Ti types often sound rambly and disconnected with logic lol (to me anyway), so I don't know why Ti PoLR would mean inability to come off as organized XD 

I'm good with logic in most practical situations that are very directly cause-effect and require one to be efficient and maximize the output from the allotted resources or whatever (though I wouldn't say I'm great at it compared to people I've met online). But if it doesn't follow that strict A to B to C to D progression then it just gets confusing. I can feel insecure when I have to create and present a logical system of my own to explain something's workings because while I *get* it, somehow I'm not sure I can account for all its vagaries and make it logically consistent. 

Like once I was in class and was asked to explain crystallization as a method of purification of chemical compounds. I've done an entire beautiful presentation on this topic and I'm pretty familiar with it but when asked I just went "uh, it dissolves and crystallizes and you separate it. and stuff" and everyone started laughing because it was so rudimentary. I mean, it makes sense, but it's not a complete description by any means because I didn't explain all the steps at all. 

Ti to me feels like a lot of unnecessary offshoots in how it's expressed and when I see Ti types do their thing it feels like they're nitpicking sometimes because they can do this entire spin-off thing with just one word, when to me the word meant the one thing I wanted it to mean and not a thousand other things. It just doesn't feel that crisp. Once I was at a youth conference and we were talking about social networking; I made this point that people didn't object to and which made good sense because of how methodical it seemed. Then this ISTP sitting next to me went on 10 different offshoots based on the premise which to me had seemed very linear. I didn't get the point at all and it annoyed me tremendously that he was "distorting" the point in some way.

(He and I are good friends now though. So much for the PoLR being completely intolerable xD)


----------



## Recede

I'm not sure, but I think I may have found Ti PoLR. Socionics stresses me out A LOT. Not just because I can't seem to settle on a type, but also because it can be stressful to think about and try to understand. It seems like a lot of the explanations and definitions of information elements are presented in a Ti way. For example, "Ne is the internal statics of objects," "Ti is the external statics of fields," etc. I read these things and struggle to try to understand, but ultimately get nothing but confusion out of them. These things could be interpreted in 1000 different ways, even with supposedly clear definitions. They're totally useless and meaningless unless I'm given actual concrete examples from which I can make connections with Ne. I've been trying to make sense of these things a lot lately, and it confuses and frustrates me greatly because I realize that my issue with socionics reflects a more fundamental issue of reality, and I'm constantly reminded of it. The issue is that everything is essentially chaos. When I try to fit things into a logical system such as socionics, it might seem to work up to a point, but eventually the whole thing will just fall apart. The deeper I look into it, the more I realize that logical systems don't seem to work. Nothing is true or untrue. And at the same time, everything is both true and untrue. It's all one big paradox. @[email protected]

When people around me use Ti, it often feels like they're doing unnecessary nitpicking. Not that I never do any, but they can take it too far and don't seem to realize that their definitions are subjective and there's not only one right way to define things. I've had it happen lots of times in school where I get a multiple choice question wrong so I go talk to the teacher. It goes something like this: "But my answer was right too!" - "Yes, but you're supposed to choose the _most _right answer." - "@[email protected]". Part of the problem is that the way I interpret and evaluate things is limited to my current state of mind, so I'm often never really able to tell what the overall _most _right answer is. I can only tell what seems right at the moment. 

It seems to me that a lot of people are merely playing with words rather than getting at the real substance of reality. Reality can't be perceived in terms of words and logical systems because these two things assume that there are boundaries between objects and concepts when there really aren't any in objective reality. They try to split reality into separate parts and classify them, but reality isn't meant to be split like that. That's why things like arguing over how to define something doesn't make much sense to me. It's superficial. 

Anyways, I'm not sure if any of this is really Ti PoLR but it seems like it maybe possibly could be. And I really hope it is because I don't think I'm a Ti/Fe type and I I'm not Fi enough to be an EII, nor am I Te enough to be an SLI.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> I'm not sure, but I think I may have found Ti PoLR. Socionics stresses me out A LOT. Not just because I can't seem to settle on a type, but also because it can be stressful to think about and try to understand. It seems like a lot of the explanations and definitions of information elements are presented in a Ti way. For example, "Ne is the internal statics of objects," "Ti is the external statics of fields," etc. I read these things and struggle to try to understand, but ultimately get nothing but confusion out of them. These things could be interpreted in 1000 different ways, even with supposedly clear definitions. They're totally useless and meaningless unless I'm given actual concrete examples from which I can make connections with Ne. I've been trying to make sense of these things a lot lately, and it confuses and frustrates me greatly because I realize that my issue with socionics reflects a more fundamental issue of reality, and I'm constantly reminded of it. The issue is that everything is essentially chaos. When I try to fit things into a logical system such as socionics, it might seem to work up to a point, but eventually the whole thing will just fall apart. The deeper I look into it, the more I realize that logical systems don't seem to work. Nothing is true or untrue. And at the same time, everything is both true and untrue. It's all one big paradox. @[email protected]
> 
> When people around me use Ti, it often feels like they're doing unnecessary nitpicking. Not that I never do any, but they can take it too far and don't seem to realize that their definitions are subjective and there's not only one right way to define things. I've had it happen lots of times in school where I get a multiple choice question wrong so I go talk to the teacher. It goes something like this: "But my answer was right too!" - "Yes, but you're supposed to choose the _most _right answer." - "@[email protected]". Part of the problem is that the way I interpret and evaluate things is limited to my current state of mind, so I'm often never really able to tell what the overall _most _right answer is. I can only tell what seems right at the moment.
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of people are merely playing with words rather than getting at the real substance of reality. Reality can't be perceived in terms of words and logical systems because these two things assume that there are boundaries between objects and concepts when there really aren't any in objective reality. They try to split reality into separate parts and classify them, but reality isn't meant to be split like that. That's why things like arguing over how to define something doesn't make much sense to me. It's superficial.
> 
> Anyways, I'm not sure if any of this is really Ti PoLR but it seems like it maybe possibly could be. And I really hope it is because I don't think I'm a Ti/Fe type and I I'm not Fi enough to be an EII, nor am I Te enough to be an SLI.


^^ basically yeah, that is it imo. o.o welcome to prefering Te. <.<...>.> if you re wondering I do not really relate to MBTI ENFPs either...I seem more of a thinker and less social in comparison :\...also kinda more introverted...but maybe thats due to instinctual stackings and tritype.

o.o hmm weren't you type 6?


----------



## Recede

FreeBeer said:


> ^^ basically yeah, that is it imo. o.o welcome to prefering Te. <.<...>.> if you re wondering I do not really relate to MBTI ENFPs either...I seem more of a thinker and less social in comparison :\...also kinda more introverted...but maybe thats due to instinctual stackings and tritype.


I'm extremely introverted and quiet to the point where I make introverts seem extraverted. But I'm also an irrational and Ne>Fi, so IEE it is. 



> o.o hmm weren't you type 6?


After trying just about every enneagram type multiple times, I eventually had to conclude that none of them really fit well enough beyond a superficial level.

Now that I've said that, I'll probably change my mind within a week, right? -_-

Or maybe I won't. We'll see I guess.


----------



## zinnia

Silveresque said:


> I've had it happen lots of times in school where I get a multiple choice question wrong so I go talk to the teacher. It goes something like this: "But my answer was right too!" - "Yes, but you're supposed to choose the _most _right answer." - "@[email protected]". Part of the problem is that the way I interpret and evaluate things is limited to my current state of mind, so I'm often never really able to tell what the overall _most _right answer is. I can only tell what seems right at the moment.


Hmm, this is really interesting to me because I've never made that connection to Ti before. I'm currently studying for an exam with a study group, where we basically do non-stop practice multiple choice questions and one thing I've noticed is that I am usually the one who has to explain to everyone else why my answer was "most likely." It's like I have this internal point counterpoint going on in my mind and so I am usually very good at figuring out those kinds of questions, where most of the rest of my group is stuck on "but they're all possible!" Well, yes, they are but that isn't the question P:

Of course when I try to explain my thought process it usually comes out like "this is the answer because... stuff...?" I'm notorious for knowing an answer and not really having a good grasp on how I actually got to it. Black box there XD

I'm trying to figure out if I value Ti or not... I was thinking about learning styles and I've noticed how I really disregard definitions of things. I really have to make them my own before I can ever do anything with them at all. I feel something similar about socionics definitions, because they seem kind of meaningless to me too - I need to experience examples of them, because those words just sound like stuff strung together randomly sometimes. But maybe that's an Si/Ne thing. Who knows. lol


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> I'm extremely introverted and quiet to the point where I make introverts seem extraverted. But I'm also an irrational and Ne>Fi, so IEE it is.
> 
> 
> 
> After trying just about every enneagram type multiple times, I eventually had to conclude that none of them really fit well enough beyond a superficial level.
> 
> Now that I've said that, I'll probably change my mind within a week, right? -_-
> 
> Or maybe I won't. We'll see I guess.


They say *Aldous Huxley was IEE*. Which is why IEEs are called Huxley's .

Huxley was widely acknowledged as one of the pre-eminent intellectuals of his time ^^;...bit difficult to live up to the name.

*Here is the man :*


----------



## Recede

zinnia said:


> Hmm, this is really interesting to me because I've never made that connection to Ti before. I'm currently studying for an exam with a study group, where we basically do non-stop practice multiple choice questions and one thing I've noticed is that I am usually the one who has to explain to everyone else why my answer was "most likely." It's like I have this internal point counterpoint going on in my mind and so I am usually very good at figuring out those kinds of questions, where most of the rest of my group is stuck on "but they're all possible!" Well, yes, they are but that isn't the question P:
> 
> Of course when I try to explain my thought process it usually comes out like "this is the answer because... stuff...?" I'm notorious for knowing an answer and not really having a good grasp on how I actually got to it. Black box there XD
> 
> I'm trying to figure out if I value Ti or not... I was thinking about learning styles and I've noticed how I really disregard definitions of things. I really have to make them my own before I can ever do anything with them at all. I feel something similar about socionics definitions, because they seem kind of meaningless to me too - I need to experience examples of them, because those words just sound like stuff strung together randomly sometimes. But maybe that's an Si/Ne thing. Who knows. lol


It's not just Ti, necessarily. In my case, I struggle with it due to Ne (perceives multiple possibilities), being an irrational ("limited to my current state of mind"), and weak Ti (difficulty figuring out which answer is _most _right). 



> Of course when I try to explain my thought process it usually comes out like "this is the answer because... stuff...?" I'm notorious for knowing an answer and not really having a good grasp on how I actually got to it. Black box there XD


This sounds like Ni, maybe? I think Ti would have clear thought processes because the reasoning is conscious and deductive. Ni is about limiting possibilities, so it would say "this one is most likely" but not necessarily know why or be able to explain the thought process behind it.

But then, there a lot of other possible explanations aside from Ni, so who knows.


----------



## Word Dispenser

OKAY GUYS.

FALSE ALARM.

I'm an ILE.

Carry on.


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> OKAY GUYS.
> 
> FALSE ALARM.
> 
> I'm an ILE.
> 
> Carry on.


Phew! Not my conflictor after all. I was spending all my nights tossing and turning in bed in unease, it distressed me so much!

Anyway let me get serious; what happened?


----------



## Vermillion

Silveresque said:


> I'm not sure, but I think I may have found Ti PoLR. Socionics stresses me out A LOT. Not just because I can't seem to settle on a type, but also because it can be stressful to think about and try to understand. It seems like a lot of the explanations and definitions of information elements are presented in a Ti way. For example, "Ne is the internal statics of objects," "Ti is the external statics of fields," etc. I read these things and struggle to try to understand, but ultimately get nothing but confusion out of them. These things could be interpreted in 1000 different ways, even with supposedly clear definitions. They're totally useless and meaningless unless I'm given actual concrete examples from which I can make connections with Ne. I've been trying to make sense of these things a lot lately, and it confuses and frustrates me greatly because I realize that my issue with socionics reflects a more fundamental issue of reality, and I'm constantly reminded of it. The issue is that everything is essentially chaos. When I try to fit things into a logical system such as socionics, it might seem to work up to a point, but eventually the whole thing will just fall apart. The deeper I look into it, the more I realize that logical systems don't seem to work. Nothing is true or untrue. And at the same time, everything is both true and untrue. It's all one big paradox. @[email protected]


You've gotta admit the language is fancy though. That stuff sounds so good at first sight... then you read it completely, and it's a total bitch to get through. (What the _fuck_ is the external statics of fields really? My first thought was static + electric field = static electricity. Which is kinda irrelevant.)

That's why I like people like Stratiyevskaya. She keeps the language fancy _and_ the content is simple to comprehend.



Silveresque said:


> When people around me use Ti, it often feels like they're doing unnecessary nitpicking. Not that I never do any, but they can take it too far and don't seem to realize that their definitions are subjective and there's not only one right way to define things.


I've always felt the other way -- like they find too many right ways to define things whereas I try to find the one perfect, linear answer.



> I've had it happen lots of times in school where I get a multiple choice question wrong so I go talk to the teacher. It goes something like this: "But my answer was right too!" - "Yes, but you're supposed to choose the _most _right answer." - "@[email protected]". Part of the problem is that the way I interpret and evaluate things is limited to my current state of mind, so I'm often never really able to tell what the overall _most _right answer is. I can only tell what seems right at the moment.


Never happened to me; I can identify what seems most right and I've often argued with teachers (the most recent argument lasted 3 classes) about my position. More often than not they accept it. 

I think the issue arises more when one person thinks one thing is most right and the other person thinks it's the other; that seems like a more type-related conflict to me, when the two people differ in cognition. Idk. (But ultimately, cognition shouldn't be an issue in things like this, even though the methods may differ. The answer should be the same.)



Word Dispenser said:


> A crisis of faith. But, then, as I drew closer to the Lord, and read the scriptures, I found myself again. Rest ye, with thine trembling heart-- All is well again.


Wait. The scriptures contain information about Socionics? Hey, I think I'm going to be religious again...

Also. Yo, my heart ain't _trembling_. Definitely not.



> But, more seriously... I was considering introversion quite strongly for a myriad of reasons, and I could see why it was possible for Se to be PoLR. And a lot of things added up that I could logically quantify, but they were justifications for an explanation that didn't make as much sense as ILE. That's the best way I can explain it. :kitteh:


What reasons made you consider introversion? 
Also meh, Se PoLR is different. I know it when I see it; I want to slap it around. Can't say I've ever felt that way about you.



ephemereality said:


> *Choose one out of these options. Which color is correct?*
> 
> Red
> Black
> Blue
> White
> Green
> Red
> Yellow
> Orange


What the fuck kind of question is this.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> Phew! Not my conflictor after all. I was spending all my nights tossing and turning in bed in unease, it distressed me so much!
> 
> Anyway let me get serious; what happened?


A crisis of faith. But, then, as I drew closer to the Lord, and read the scriptures, I found myself again. Rest ye, with thine trembling heart-- All is well again.

But, more seriously... I was considering introversion quite strongly for a myriad of reasons, and I could see why it was possible for Se to be PoLR. And a lot of things added up that I could logically quantify, but they were justifications for an explanation that didn't make as much sense as ILE. That's the best way I can explain it. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic

Eeeh... so I read a bit here about narrowing down options etc but narrowing things down isn't just an Ni thing, necessarily. Specifically if we are talking about Ti and delta quadra, then one must look at *Te*. Cannot stress this enough, honestly. So about multiple choice and such, there is a most or more accurate option over all the other options and this is honestly in my opinion, related to Te, *NOT *Ti. Let's make an example of something vague that I know that @Amaterasu has struggles with for some reason: 

*Choose one out of these options. Which color is correct?*

Red
Black
Blue
White
Green
Red
Yellow
Orange


etc.

What makes this related Te has to do with the fact that you take one object to match another system. Thus, external logic. There is no internal reasoning process going on here about which color is the most internally consistent based on said axiom. This is a Ti kind of question:

*What is the correct answer? *
48÷2(9+3) = ?

The reason for this is because the question is ultimately _interpretative_ and the reasoning is based on applying an internally defined logical axiom properly. There is no right or wrong answer. The answer hinges on what axioms you decide should be applied in order to arrive at an internal logically consistent result. The result itself is actually completely irrelevant and is simply a byproduct of the application of logical axioms.

In the first question though, that's not true. Then one has to match two externally derived facts/data/whathaveyou against another known system. Te seeks accuracy, Ti seeks consistency. Do note that the people who go batshit crazy over people getting the wrong answer on the maths question are either a) inferior Te types/Te suggestive or b) Ti doms/base. The reason for this is because Te inferior types cannot usually deal with the idea that a systematic approach they have been taught cannot be applicable in all scenarios. It lacks the flexibility of a Te dom who will realize that the reason why others don't get answers that are accurate against what they have been taught is because there are different systems that denote how to interpret this question, period. As such, you will arrive at different results and it's ok, as long as these results are congruent with the system you applied. 

A Ti dom will be annoyed as fuck because it fucks with their sense of logical consistency because if people get different answers it means there must be something wrong with the axioms that were applied. They are not consistent enough. If they were, the answer would always be the same. 

So imo, what you describe in the previous posts got little to do with Ti PoLR and so much more to do with weak Te.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> What the fuck kind of question is this.


A question that I know always fucks with your brain.


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> A question that I know always fucks with your brain.


I've never seen this question before.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> I've never seen this question before.


That is precisely why it fucks with your brain.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> So about multiple choice and such, there is a most or more accurate option over all the other options and this is honestly in my opinion, related to Te, *NOT *Ti.


Hmm, I was wondering about that. 



> Let's make an example of something vague that I know that @_Amaterasu_ has struggles with for some reason:
> 
> *Choose one out of these options. Which color is correct?*
> 
> Red
> Black
> Blue
> White
> Green
> Red
> Yellow
> Orange


Oh. Gee, I wonder why she would have trouble with this. >_>


Edit: Ah geez, I ended up using "I wonder" twice in a short post. Fail. orz


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> The reason for this is because the question is ultimately _interpretative_ and the reasoning is based on applying an internally defined logical axiom properly. There is no right or wrong answer. The answer hinges on what axioms you decide should be applied in order to arrive at an internal logically consistent result. The result itself is actually completely irrelevant and is simply a byproduct of the application of logical axioms.


I did a lot of math in college - so many proofs and theorems. It always seemed to me to be extremely Ti-oriented: yes, there was a "right" answer - this was how the proof should have been done or this is the conclusion one should have come to - but it was rather... disembodied? It needed to be consistent only with the previous assumption that was made, "so therefore, so therefore, so therefore" 10 more times, and bam, "if x, then y." My professors used to say that my proofs were often "brute-force-y" because I would use an actual number or variable and go from there, which would limit its universal applicability and that pissed them off. P: The vast majority of my professors were ILE or LII, though I believe there may have been one SLE (even though he had the same Ti tendency, there was something distinctly different about his presence compared to the others - aside from the fact that he dressed well and actually noticed when there was chalk all over his shirt.)

I did usually enjoy the math classes, they were a nice break from the much more intense science courses I took, but there was a reason I chose not to pursue it further. It was difficult for me to spend my time doing something that I felt was so detached from reality.

I'm trying to think of Te professors I had - I think most of my engineering professors were more oriented toward Te, save one who made us do proofs about shear flow or something. Years later, I still don't know what the hell he was going on about...

lol... I think my initial thought in this reply was supposed to be more on topic... I really dunno what I was trying to get at anymore. There are definitely days I wake up mentally slower than others and this is one of those days...


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> What reasons made you consider introversion?
> Also meh, Se PoLR is different. I know it when I see it; I want to slap it around. Can't say I've ever felt that way about you.


Hm, well... It's just hard to see myself in the psychological profile of an extrovert sometimes, when I compare myself to other extroverts. I'm not necessarily saying socio-culture, either. I just spend more time alone, I get headaches when I actually do go out and socialize, and I reeally like to relax. Don't like expending energy, even if it might seem as if I have copious amounts of it when I _am _in a social situation. Once I'm out of it-- I feel pretty damn drained.

The thing is-- There's this seeming 'personality change' my huzfiend notices when I'm on and off Ritalin. I seem a lot more serious and Ti on Ritalin. It goes out the window without. It's an interesting dichotomy. I rationalize this by saying that the Ti is just less pronounced because of the strong Ne. As a creative function, it might be made more useful with Ritalin.


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> I did a lot of math in college - so many proofs and theorems. It always seemed to me to be extremely Ti-oriented: yes, there was a "right" answer - this was how the proof should have been done or this is the conclusion one should have come to - but it was rather... disembodied? It needed to be consistent only with the previous assumption that was made, "so therefore, so therefore, so therefore" 10 more times, and bam, "if x, then y." My professors used to say that my proofs were often "brute-force-y" because I would use an actual number or variable and go from there, which would limit its universal applicability and that pissed them off. P: The vast majority of my professors were ILE or LII, though I believe there may have been one SLE (even though he had the same Ti tendency, there was something distinctly different about his presence compared to the others - aside from the fact that he dressed well and actually noticed when there was chalk all over his shirt.)
> 
> I did usually enjoy the math classes, they were a nice break from the much more intense science courses I took, but there was a reason I chose not to pursue it further. It was difficult for me to spend my time doing something that I felt was so detached from reality.
> 
> I'm trying to think of Te professors I had - I think most of my engineering professors were more oriented toward Te, save one who made us do proofs about shear flow or something. Years later, I still don't know what the hell he was going on about...
> 
> lol... I think my initial thought in this reply was supposed to be more on topic... I really dunno what I was trying to get at anymore. There are definitely days I wake up mentally slower than others and this is one of those days...


Right answer would largely hinge upon that you actually applied the rules correctly so it would yield a result consistent with what those rules say, pretty much and as an addendum to this, I think this how Te types would rationalize maths in terms of yielding correct answers. I would say that Ti is more about the meaning of the signs in maths in that the signs denote what rules should be applied than the are the numbers themselves, so as long as those rules are consistent with the overall framework that is being applied Ti types don't care if your result is 30 or 21 because these numbers can always be manipulated to fit the system (hence I don't like how Ti types sometimes are so damn willing to change A to a just to please you even though I keep saying A is not the same as a), kind of like in the previous example I provided. Te types care about the actual result itself or the numbers you put into the system.

Here we also see the difference between how Ti and Te are static and dynamic in that the rules of maths don't really change and are thus static. You always do the same thing because that's simply how you are supposed to do it. Ti also sucks at rationalizing itself like that. But Te is dynamic and the information you put into the system is always different so clearly there is a difference between the numbers you put in and the results you receive. In a similar manner, I would say that Ti is more about the logical process and Te more about the result.


----------



## Recede

I still think Se PoLR fits better than Ti PoLR. But overall I think IEE fits better than EII. I think. Maybe. @[email protected]

IEE
-irrational
-Ne>Fi

EII
-introversion
-Se PoLR

It's hard to tell though because both have aspects that fit better than the other. :/


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> Here we also see the difference between how Ti and Te are static and dynamic in that the rules of maths don't really change and are thus static. You always do the same thing because that's simply how you are supposed to do it. Ti also sucks at rationalizing itself like that. But Te is dynamic and the information you put into the system is always different so clearly there is a difference between the numbers you put in and the results you receive. In a similar manner, I would say that Ti is more about the logical process and Te more about the result.


Yes, that makes sense to me.

It was always about process in the math classes; there were hardly ever questions that actually had a specific answer (like 5000 or 10). In comparison, all of my science courses were about answers, nobody cared how you got to it (unless it was clear you copied or guessed).

Static: the situation changes, the laws do not; hence "if x then y" is always true, it just depends on presence or absence of x. The "box" between input and output is well-defined but there need to be hundreds of them simultaneously to come to a decision (hence, Pe)
Dynamic: X happens -> Y happens, Z happens -> Y does not happen; the "box" between input and output adapts depending on input, including previous input (Pi).

Sort of?


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> A Ti dom will be annoyed as fuck because it fucks with their sense of logical consistency because if people get different answers it means there must be something wrong with the axioms that were applied. They are not consistent enough. If they were, the answer would always be the same.


o.o odd, this is how I see Socionics-MBTI and I believe we have debated about this. To me since both systems are looking at the same thing they ought to arrive at the exact same answers, thus if they differ in results it must mean that one or teh other or both systems are false in one or another way. To me differences in endresult are unacceptable and demand reexamination of both theories.

I'd say there may be mutiple paths to the same result and the result counts. If all chosen paths reach the same result, then all were correct approaches. If they do not, then we made an error somewhere, something wasn't applied or thought correctly.

Imo one can have infinite approaches, if they all reach the same result they are all valid ^^;...

@zinnia

*To me the process is relatively irrelevant and I enjoy inventing new ways to do the same thing ;\...better, more efficiently.*


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> o.o odd, this is how I see Socionics-MBTI and I believe we have debated about this. To me since both systems are looking at the same thing they ought to arrive at the exact same answers, thus if they differ in results it must mean that one or teh other or both systems are false in one or another way. To me differences in endresult are unacceptable and demand reexamination of both theories.
> 
> I'd say there may be mutiple paths to the same result and the result counts. If all chosen paths reach the same result, then all were correct approaches. If they do not, then we made an error somewhere, something wasn't applied or thought correctly.


The difference is that I think a Ti dom will see the answers that were received and try to modify them in some way in order to backtrack what went wrong, so it turns into the typical issue I see with Ti types (alphas more so) trying to make the square peg fit the round hole.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> I still think Se PoLR fits better than Ti PoLR. But overall I think IEE fits better than EII. I think. Maybe. @[email protected]
> 
> IEE
> -irrational
> -Ne>Fi
> 
> EII
> -introversion
> -Se PoLR
> 
> It's hard to tell though because both have aspects that fit better than the other. :/


*EII & IEE have certain differences, such as:*

IEE is Carefree while EII is Farsighted

IEE is Obstinate while EII is Yielding

IEE is Result focused while EII is Process focused

IEE is Emotive while EII is Constructive

IEE is Tactical while EII is Strategic

IEE is a Negativist while EII is a positivist


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> o.o odd, this is how I see Socionics-MBTI and I believe we have debated about this. To me since both systems are looking at the same thing they ought to arrive at the exact same answers, thus if they differ in results it must mean that one or teh other or both systems are false in one or another way. To me differences in endresult are unacceptable and demand reexamination of both theories.
> 
> I'd say there may be mutiple paths to the same result and the result counts. If all chosen paths reach the same result, then all were correct approaches. If they do not, then we made an error somewhere, something wasn't applied or thought correctly.
> 
> Imo one can have infinite approaches, if they all reach the same result they are all valid ^^;...
> 
> *To me the process is relatively irrelevant and I enjoy inventing new ways to do the same thing ;\...better, more efficiently.*


I agree with that, for the most part. Back again to comparing my thinking/learning style to others: I find others seem to get hung up on "this is how the teacher taught it" and only seeing it in that way, even when they don't truly understand it, they are just regurgitating... I'm usually the one bending things around, redefining, thinking about things in a new way that makes more sense... but if I don't get the same answer as the "proven" method then obviously I need to redefine yet again because I messed up somewhere. 

When it comes to Socionics, MBTI etc. it's easy for me to say they are just explaining the same phenomenon in a different way (it could be due to language, different biases of the creators, and different goals), leading to some discrepancies... but they are really only on the surface. I find I can mediate between the two - personal comfort/atmosphere has something in common with past 'memories', and that is introverted perception, based on sensing, for example. So... positivist result oriented something I dunno. P: It just means descriptions are not absolute, which is not a surprise because there's no way every person on the planet can fit one description perfectly anyway.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> I agree with that, for the most part. Back again to comparing my thinking/learning style to others: I find others seem to get hung up on "this is how the teacher taught it" and only seeing it in that way, even when they don't truly understand it, they are just regurgitating...


Ah, heh. Apparently I would get kind of hung up in how the teacher taught it when I was younger. My mom reminded me earlier that she would try to help me with my homework, and I got frustrated because "that wasn't what the teacher had said." I guess I wasn't very good at understanding it, and my mom coming with a different explanation just made it more confusing. It didn't help that I found my mom pretty confusing in general. I'm thinking we might not share cognition, because to this day she doesn't make much sense to me. =P

But yeah, I agree with that about MBTI and Socionics.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Ah, heh. Apparently I would get kind of hung up in how the teacher taught it when I was younger. My mom reminded me earlier that she would try to help me with my homework, and I got frustrated because "that wasn't what the teacher had said." I guess I wasn't very good at understanding it, and my mom coming with a different explanation just made it more confusing. It didn't help that I found my mom pretty confusing in general. I'm thinking we might not share cognition, because to this day she doesn't make much sense to me. =P


Haha. I think it's normal for very young kids - like early elementary - to be fixated on how the teacher taught it but I think different styles become more apparent in like 4th, 5th grade, and you start seeing the kids who write everything down in steps how it was taught and others who just magically come up with answers and don't know how XD

I hate memorizing stuff - to get away from that, I really need to understand. So my teacher would tell us to use this method with fractions, or memorize the multiplication tables... and I'd be like pff no and instead actually tried to understand what each meant. I hardly ever memorized anything. Unfortunately that's led me to lower my threshold for accepting "hunches" compared to others, who need specifics. That can bite me in the ass sometimes. I was a calculus teacher assistant once, and I tried to get students to understand rather than memorize. Some of them were really grateful for it but there were some that really needed to just memorize the steps before they could understand. I found it difficult to teach them because of difference in learning styles, so that cognition mismatch is a good possibility.

It's nice your mom actually helped you with homework. My parents never could, really. I remember once my dad reading my math book for like 2 hours to help me out and he didn't understand it in the end. I had to teach my mom nouns and verbs... I don't come from a highly educated family, I stick out like a sore thumb D:


----------



## Recede

FreeBeer said:


> *EII & IEE have certain differences, such as:*
> 
> IEE is Carefree while EII is Farsighted
> 
> IEE is Obstinate while EII is Yielding
> 
> IEE is Result focused while EII is Process focused
> 
> IEE is Emotive while EII is Constructive
> 
> IEE is Tactical while EII is Strategic
> 
> IEE is a Negativist while EII is a positivist


These are my reinin traits:

-Democratic
-Judidicious
-Carefree
-Tactics
-Result
-Constructivist

The rest are unknown, and even these ones are subject to change as I learn more. 

According to reinin dichotomies, the most likely types are: ILE, ESE, ESI, IEE, and SLI

However, I don't think reinin traits are necessarily accurate, so I would rather use the information elements to determine my type.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Haha. I think it's normal for very young kids - like early elementary - to be fixated on how the teacher taught it but I think different styles become more apparent in like 4th, 5th grade, and you start seeing the kids who write everything down in steps how it was taught and others who just magically come up with answers and don't know how XD


Lol. Well as I got older I lost interest in doing homework at all honestly. :X I'm not sure how I would have gone about it later if I had actually given a shit.^^; I probably would have struggled either way, though.



> I hate memorizing stuff - to get away from that, I really need to understand.


I'm not very fond of memorization either. When I was younger I would do it, but later on I tried to learn another language, and I wish they would have started with explaining how the language _works _before throwing verbs and phrases at us to memorize.



> It's nice your mom actually helped you with homework. My parents never could, really. I remember once my dad reading my math book for like 2 hours to help me out and he didn't understand it in the end. I had to teach my mom nouns and verbs... I don't come from a highly educated family, I stick out like a sore thumb D:


Yeah, I guess it was. Like I said, though, it only made me more confused. Oh, my mom isn't very good at grammar and such either. Meanwhile, language was one of the few things I actually cared about (and was at all good at) in school. Go figure. I think she was more interested in math. She's got a thing for numbers, lol.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Lol. Well as I got older I lost interest in doing homework at all honestly. :X I'm not sure how I would have gone about it later if I had actually given a shit.^^; I probably would have struggled either way, though.
> 
> I'm not very fond of memorization either. When I was younger I would do it, but later on I tried to learn another language, and I wish they would have started with explaining how the language _works _before throwing verbs and phrases at us to memorize.
> 
> Yeah, I guess it was. Like I said, though, it only made me more confused. Oh, my mom isn't very good at grammar and such either. Meanwhile, language was one of the few things I actually cared about (and was at all good at) in school. Go figure. I think she was more interested in math. She's got a thing for numbers, lol.


Yeah, I have no idea where I picked it up from but I was a stupid overachiever in school; my brother is really smart but he was not that keen on homework or anything of the sort either, so when my parents saw "oh hey this one does work without us telling her to" they really started shoving the college scholarships must do well get first place in spelling bee shit. I was about as obnoxious as Hermione for a while until I realized... I need to be less obnoxious. And then I wasn't.  Well, no, that's not totally true, I'm sure everyone is sick of me always being the one to explain stuff. I can't heeelpp ittt aagggghhh I will start twitching if I don't say something... almost literally.

Learning words and phrases is something that should be left for later in languages. Obviously, you need to know some words at first, but as I recall, we would learn grammar and sentence structure before individual different verbs or whatever.

Hmm. My mom is definitely more of a numbers person but she has difficulty with anything abstract - like try teaching her to calculate area of a circle and she will break down in tears and yet she can do all this fancy crap with accounting which I find to be way more demanding of mental resources. =/

_omg drank too much caffeine so dumb lol run on sentences _


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Learning words and phrases is something that should be left for later in languages. Obviously, you need to know some words at first, but as I recall, we would learn grammar and sentence structure before individual different verbs or whatever.


That's probably what I would have preferred, but that wasn't how they did it if I remember right. :/ I would complain about it to my friend, but he insisted that it was "incredibly difficult to explain how a language works." Why

I'm not sure how my mom is with the abstract, exactly. And I don't know how good she is at math either, but I don't think it's the kind of thing to give her most problems (I probably struggle more with it). What she's really into is astrology, though. At least she was when I was younger. :tongue:

Well, I don't know if being an overachiever is that bad necessarily. Better than pissing away your years without getting nothing out of school, right?

Lol, caffeine. I could never bring myself to like coffee, even when I was really tired.


----------



## Entropic

Silveresque said:


> These are my reinin traits:
> 
> -Democratic
> -Judidicious
> -Carefree
> -Tactics
> -Result
> -Constructivist
> 
> The rest are unknown, and even these ones are subject to change as I learn more.
> 
> According to reinin dichotomies, the most likely types are: ILE, ESE, ESI, IEE, and SLI
> 
> However, I don't think reinin traits are necessarily accurate, so I would rather use the information elements to determine my type.


I personally think aristocratic-democratic is one of the Reinin I might be less inclined to argue would be variable even depending on subtype, as it is one of the most defining differences between quadras alongside merry-serious and judicious-decisive.

If you don't relate to aristocracy assuming that you understand that Reinin dichotomy correctly, then I would also argue you cannot be a delta, period.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> That's probably what I would have preferred, but that wasn't how they did it if I remember right. :/ I would complain about it to my friend, but he insisted that it was "incredibly difficult to explain how a language works." Why
> 
> I'm not sure how my mom is with the abstract, exactly. And I don't know how good she is at math either, but I don't think it's the kind of thing to give her most problems (I probably struggle more with it). What she's really into is astrology, though. At least she was when I was younger. :tongue:
> 
> Well, I don't know if being an overachiever is that bad necessarily. Better than pissing away your years without getting nothing out of school, right?
> 
> Lol, caffeine. I could never bring myself to like coffee, even when I was really tired.


Well, maybe that is true for some languages - some languages are very complicated. I took Spanish and on the first week, the professor just had us jump in with sentences, to get an idea of structure. Most students had some experience with Spanish before (including me, as I grew up with it) but even those who knew nothing eventually caught on; we started with the different verb tenses and vocabulary later.

LOL yeah my mom is definitely into astrology. Maybe less now... I think she got annoyed by my constant "but it doesn't make any sense!" and doesn't mention it anymore.

Yeah, being an overachiever has it's advantages sometimes. Some days, it makes me feel like crap though, as it has come at the price of having a normal social life. I don't think I'd change it if I could go back in time, as I'm really not a social person by nature in the first place. And my brother, he never did well in school but he's done pretty well for himself - family, job, all that... and I'm still in school. P:

I hate coffee. I drink it if there is no hope left, but I am not used to caffeine so even tea (which I had) will make me start climbing up walls and my hands shake <_<;


----------



## Recede

ephemereality said:


> I personally think aristocratic-democratic is one of the Reinin I might be less inclined to argue would be variable even depending on subtype, as it is one of the most defining differences between quadras alongside merry-serious and judicious-decisive.
> 
> If you don't relate to aristocracy assuming that you understand that Reinin dichotomy correctly, then I would also argue you cannot be a delta, period.


To be honest, I'm not sure if I do understand it correctly. Aristocratic sounds like the basis of prejudice and stereotypes to me, making generalizations and judging people based on the group they belong to. Surely it can't be that bad? I must be mistaken in my understanding of it. Or maybe my democratic preference is just that strong.

Okay, reading more about the merry/serious dichotomy, it sounds like merry fits better. Especially these parts: 


> Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation.





> Subjectivists are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently.


So I guess I'm supposed to be an alpha after all? Hmm. o.o


----------



## Entropic

Silveresque said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure if I do understand it correctly. Aristocratic sounds like the basis of prejudice and stereotypes to me, making generalizations and judging people based on the group they belong to. Surely it can't be that bad? I must be mistaken in my understanding of it. Or maybe my democratic preference is just that strong.
> 
> Okay, reading more about the merry/serious dichotomy, it sounds like merry fits better. Especially these parts:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess I'm supposed to be an alpha after all? Hmm. o.o


The black-haired guy Shido is an EIE and this is typical beta aristocracy though exaggerated for the sake of fiction:






Delta aristocracy is more about matching people based on their perceived innate potential. The original MBTI derives its logic from delta aristocracy where people's type would help them achieve their greatest potential and happiness in life e.g. if you are an INTP you should be doing INTP things because you will be happier and better off doing INTP things than ESTJ things, for example.

Also, I think that subjectivist-objectivist description is really fucking bad. It doesn't apply to me for example. I don't relate to that objectivist description. It's better to look at how merry-serious actually manifest in people in terms of social interaction. This is an example of a merry-serious clash:






Spazie is some kind of Fe type and Sky is an Fi ego type. Notice how Sky seems oblivious to and completely disregards Spazie's attempts at seeking emotional validation _all the time_. It's not that Sky may purposefully not give a fuck, but it's just that he's not concerned or interested in it. Also notice how this actually makes Spazie uncomfortable because he doesn't know how to relate to or interact with Sky because he expects Sky to respond to his attempts at seeking said validation. It's like Sky is this black little hole Spazie just can't figure out how to interact with interpersonally because Spazie can't predict what Sky is thinking or feeling, and it's clearly making Spazie uncomfortable though he tries to hide it.


----------



## Recede

ephemereality said:


> The black-haired guy Shido is an EIE and this is typical beta aristocracy though exaggerated for the sake of fiction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta aristocracy is more about matching people based on their perceived innate potential. The original MBTI derives its logic from delta aristocracy where people's type would help them achieve their greatest potential and happiness in life e.g. if you are an INTP you should be doing INTP things because you will be happier and better off doing INTP things than ESTJ things, for example.


Hmm, I don't really judge people's potential. I don't really try to measure specific potentials in general. And the matching people thing sounds like telling people what to do or how to live their lives. I don't like that. I'll do what I want. 



ephemereality said:


> Also, I think that subjectivist-objectivist description is really fucking bad. It doesn't apply to me for example. I don't relate to that objectivist description. It's better to look at how merry-serious actually manifest in people in terms of social interaction. This is an example of a merry-serious clash:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spazie is some kind of Fe type and Sky is an Fi ego type. Notice how Sky seems oblivious to and completely disregards Spazie's attempts at seeking emotional validation _all the time_. It's not that Sky may purposefully not give a fuck, but it's just that he's not concerned or interested in it. Also notice how this actually makes Spazie uncomfortable because he doesn't know how to relate to or interact with Sky because he expects Sky to respond to his attempts at seeking said validation. It's like Sky is this black little hole Spazie just can't figure out how to interact with interpersonally because Spazie can't predict what Sky is thinking or feeling, and it's clearly making Spazie uncomfortable though he tries to hide it.


I watched the entire video and didn't even notice Spazie being uncomfortable or seeking validation. o.o

I never try to predict what the other person is thinking or feeling, but my mom does this to me all the time and it's really annoying. Especially because she projects herself onto me and therefore totally misreads me. Sometimes she asks directly how I'm feeling, and that's even more uncomfortable. I always just answer with something like "I'm fine" whether true or not because the question is invasive and it annoys me. It would bother me when other people do this too, not just my mom.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Well, maybe that is true for some languages - some languages are very complicated. I took Spanish and on the first week, the professor just had us jump in with sentences, to get an idea of structure. Most students had some experience with Spanish before (including me, as I grew up with it) but even those who knew nothing eventually caught on; we started with the different verb tenses and vocabulary later.


I had Spanish, actually. We didn't have much time on it, though, so it was all very rushed. Maybe I would have had an easier time if it had been less so. I haven't tried learning more Spanish since then either, tbh, because as far as languages go it's not the one that interests me the most. 



> LOL yeah my mom is definitely into astrology. Maybe less now... I think she got annoyed by my constant "but it doesn't make any sense!" and doesn't mention it anymore.


My mom still mentions in sometimes (mostly when it comes to reading horoscopes), but she doesn't have her tarot cards anymore. I almost miss those cards, lol. 



> Yeah, being an overachiever has it's advantages sometimes. Some days, it makes me feel like crap though, as it has come at the price of having a normal social life. I don't think I'd change it if I could go back in time, as I'm really not a social person by nature in the first place. And my brother, he never did well in school but he's done pretty well for himself - family, job, all that... and I'm still in school. P:


Haha, well, I wasn't a very social person either. Outside of chatting with people online. I'm still like that for the most part, actually. >_>



> I hate coffee. I drink it if there is no hope left, but I am not used to caffeine so even tea (which I had) will make me start climbing up walls and my hands shake <_<;


Oh, I drink some tea, but mostly green tea. Thing is, even when I tried downing a cup of coffee, or had an energy drink, I didn't notice much effect from the caffeine. These days I don't have school or anything, so I don't bother with that stuff. If I ever get a job, I guess I'll have to get used to a normal sleeping pattern, because I don't think I can rely much on caffeine. 

(My mom just asked me if I wanted a cup of tea btw. Then she was all "surely having something warm to drink is better than drinking cold water all the time.")



ephemereality said:


> Spazie is some kind of Fe type and Sky is an Fi ego type. Notice how Sky seems oblivious to and completely disregards Spazie's attempts at seeking emotional validation _all the time_. It's not that Sky may purposefully not give a fuck, but it's just that he's not concerned or interested in it. Also notice how this actually makes Spazie uncomfortable because he doesn't know how to relate to or interact with Sky because he expects Sky to respond to his attempts at seeking said validation. It's like Sky is this black little hole Spazie just can't figure out how to interact with interpersonally because Spazie can't predict what Sky is thinking or feeling, and it's clearly making Spazie uncomfortable though he tries to hide it.


Huh, that's kinda interesting, but I don't even notice it while watching the video. Although I guess they don't seem to have much chemistry or whatever.


----------



## Entropic

Nonsense said:


> Huh, that's kinda interesting, but I don't even notice it while watching the video. Although I guess they don't seem to have much chemistry or whatever.





Silveresque said:


> I watched the entire video and didn't even notice Spazie being uncomfortable or seeking validation. o.o


Those forced laughs maybe, and those "you are/that is so funny" comments? 



> Hmm, I don't really judge people's potential. I don't really try to measure specific potentials in general. And the matching people thing sounds like telling people what to do or how to live their lives. I don't like that. I'll do what I want.


That's what aristocrats do, though. They socially organize around these kinds of things like how Shido says you need a leader or conflict will occur. Aristocrats seek social structure. 



> I never try to predict what the other person is thinking or feeling,


It's not about prediction so much as it is about being able to read what people are feeling based on external cues e.g. someone is smiling it means they are happy, regardless of the actual nature of the smile. That's why my ESE grandmother keeps telling me to smile more because she thinks that there is a direct correlation between someone smiling and how they are feeling inside. Fe types read emotion based on external cues. They don't quite understand emotion when expressed say, like this (go to 7:10):






This is Fi sentiment and reasoning. Notice how Sephiroth reacts pretty much the same way Spazie does even, in that he still tries to elicit some kind of external emotional reaction through his act of smug laughter but Cloud clearly gives zero fucks about that because he doesn't react to emotion externally but internally. If we would replace Cloud with say, Naruto (ESE), Naruto would tell Sephiroth to stop laughing and that it isn't funny etc like how he reacts here (I bet that old woman is an xLI with Fe PoLR):









> but my mom does this to me all the time and it's really annoying. Especially because she projects herself onto me and therefore totally misreads me. Sometimes she asks directly how I'm feeling, and that's even more uncomfortable.


Could really be either Fi or Fe tbh. Depends on how she's projecting or what kind of questions she's asking. 



> I always just answer with something like "I'm fine" whether true or not because the question is invasive and it annoys me. It would bother me when other people do this too, not just my mom.


This has less to do with socionics and more to do with other factors like how much you trust these people etc. Sociotype likely plays little importance here.


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> Spazie is some kind of Fe type and Sky is an Fi ego type. Notice how Sky seems oblivious to and completely disregards Spazie's attempts at seeking emotional validation _all the time_. It's not that Sky may purposefully not give a fuck, but it's just that he's not concerned or interested in it. Also notice how this actually makes Spazie uncomfortable because he doesn't know how to relate to or interact with Sky because he expects Sky to respond to his attempts at seeking said validation. It's like Sky is this black little hole Spazie just can't figure out how to interact with interpersonally because Spazie can't predict what Sky is thinking or feeling, and it's clearly making Spazie uncomfortable though he tries to hide it.


I noticed the dynamic you're describing. It happened in the first minute or so, in the introduction. Spazie got a little bit thrown off when he said, "how are you?" and Sky answered "terrible." There's some awkward silences with Spazie going "hahah" almost to himself. 

This goes back to my initial belief I am Fe-valuing, as I do this a lot. You can see it in my posts as well - I will throw little statements into the air, expecting someone to notice and react. I've noticed a lot don't. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, exactly, I just move on, but it's something I do automatically and generally I respond to others who do that. Of course, when I am together with someone who is much better at it, I tend to shut down, maybe even get annoyed when they expect too much out of me; otherwise, I feel like I have to be the emotional "mediator". I still can't watch that Naruto video without wanting to pull my hair out, however... seriously shut up.


----------



## Recede

ephemereality said:


> That's what aristocrats do, though. They socially organize around these kinds of things like how Shido says you need a leader or conflict will occur. Aristocrats seek social structure.


Hmm, but I'm social blindspot, so I wonder if that makes a difference.



ephemereality said:


> It's not about prediction so much as it is about being able to read what people are feeling based on external cues e.g. someone is smiling it means they are happy, regardless of the actual nature of the smile. That's why my ESE grandmother keeps telling me to smile more because she thinks that there is a direct correlation between someone smiling and how they are feeling inside. Fe types read emotion based on external cues. They don't quite understand emotion when expressed say, like this (go to 7:10):


My mom does that too. And sometimes when I'm not smiling she'll ask "What's wrong? You look mad." And I keep telling her that's just my normal, neutral look.

I don't think external cues are that important. My preferred method of communication is instant message, and my dad says online communication is bad because you can't tell what the other person is really feeling. But I don't really see the need or importance of seeing the other person's face during interaction. Even in in-person interactions, I don't really notice or pay much attention to facial expressions anyways. 



ephemereality said:


> Could really be either Fi or Fe tbh. Depends on how she's projecting or what kind of questions she's asking.


She tends to assume things that are scary to her are generally scary to everyone. So she'll ask if I'm nervous about something, because it's something she would be nervous about. She misinterprets people's feelings because she doesn't take individual differences into account.


----------



## Mizmar

Silveresque said:


> I don't think external cues are that important. My preferred method of communication is instant message, *and my dad says online communication is bad because you can't tell what the other person is really feeling*. But I don't really see the need or importance of seeing the other person's face during interaction. Even in in-person interactions, I don't really notice or pay much attention to facial expressions anyways.


I feel the same way your dad does. I play closer attention to _how_ a person says something than what they actually say. I don't really have that option in online communication.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> Those forced laughs maybe, and those "you are/that is so funny" comments?


Hmm, I suppose. I guess your sensitivity to Fe-stuff helps. While I'm not totally blind when it comes to expressions, it's not something I naturally think about so I don't always notice or read it that well, unless it's super obvious (like in anime).



> This is Fi sentiment and reasoning. Notice how Sephiroth reacts pretty much the same way Spazie does even, in that he still tries to elicit some kind of external emotional reaction through his act of smug laughter but Cloud clearly gives zero fucks about that because he doesn't react to emotion externally but internally. If we would replace Cloud with say, Naruto (ESE), Naruto would tell Sephiroth to stop laughing and that it isn't funny etc like how he reacts here



Now in _that _​case I would be tempted to tell him off myself. I might not want to react, but I don't have much patience to people mocking me like that. =P


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, but I'm social blindspot, so I wonder if that makes a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> My mom does that too. And sometimes when I'm not smiling she'll ask "What's wrong? You look mad." And I keep telling her that's just my normal, neutral look.
> 
> I don't think external cues are that important. My preferred method of communication is instant message, and my dad says online communication is bad because you can't tell what the other person is really feeling. But I don't really see the need or importance of seeing the other person's face during interaction. Even in in-person interactions, I don't really notice or pay much attention to facial expressions anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> She tends to assume things that are scary to her are generally scary to everyone. So she'll ask if I'm nervous about something, because it's something she would be nervous about. She misinterprets people's feelings because she doesn't take individual differences into account.


I agree with yer dad here <.<...>.> I read body language in a default passive way (major source of non verbal communication for me). I only become aware of doing this every now and then, but I require body language or I can't tell what the other person is feeling. I'm extremely sensitive to other people's nonverbal communication.

I'm also very good at reading the emotional atmosphere of individual people and in general groups...kinda like a barometer tbh XD.

I believe my ability to quickly grasp who people are comes from this combination of percieving body language, hearing the voice, what the other person says aka verbal info, understanding the thinking pattern and putting this together intuitively by filling the gaps.

o.o thou I seem to be able to read into written communication the same way.

The difference between me and a Fe user I would say is that I'm not very expressive myself. More contained.

 this is also why i dislike being around a lot of people who are angry or abrasive or if there is obviously something wrong/offputting about them :\...to me that is immediately noticable.


----------



## Recede

FreeBeer said:


> I agree with yer dad here <.<...>.> I read body language in a default passive way (major source of non verbal communication for me). I only become aware of doing this every now and then, but I require body language or I can't tell what the other person is feeling. I'm extremely sensitive to other people's nonverbal communication.


Are feelings really that important in everyday interaction?  I mean, I guess maybe if you're talking to someone who's really sensitive and gets upset easily. But even then, the person can choose to express it through writing if they want you to know. I guess I just have trouble even thinking of a normal social situation that would require trying to read the other person's emotions. 



FreeBeer said:


> I'm also very good at reading the emotional atmosphere of individual people and in general groups...kinda like a barometer tbh XD.


I don't understand this emotional atmosphere stuff. I guess they do that in movies sometimes with a dark atmosphere and scary music, but I don't perceive emotional atmospheres elsewhere. 



FreeBeer said:


> I believe my ability to quickly grasp who people are comes from this combination of percieving body language, hearing the voice, what the other person says aka verbal info, understanding the thinking pattern and putting this together intuitively by filling the gaps.


Wow, that's kind of foreign to me. I'm not aware of getting much information from things like body language.

I guess I'm kind of oblivious to this Fe stuff.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> Are feelings really that important in everyday interaction?  I mean, I guess maybe if you're talking to someone who's really sensitive and gets upset easily. But even then, the person can choose to express it through writing if they want you to know. I guess I just have trouble even thinking of a normal social situation that would require trying to read the other person's emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this emotional atmosphere stuff. I guess they do that in movies sometimes with a dark atmosphere and scary music, but I don't perceive emotional atmospheres elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's kind of foreign to me. I'm not aware of getting much information from things like body language.
> 
> I guess I'm kind of oblivious to this Fe stuff.


It is one of the things I related to in the IEE description on wikisocion. It is how they describe creative Fi:



> IEEs are naturally sensitive to mood, atmosphere, and feelings. They rarely say or do anything that would worsen people's feelings, preferring instead to distance themselves from people and social situations that produce negative feelings. IEEs are naturally skilled at regulating the degree of emotional intimacy between people, which can mean being businesslike (yet polite) as well as warm and inviting.
> 
> When faced with a sad individual, the IEE will usually try to understand what is wrong, and will often try to coax the individual with kind words and actions. The IEE often displays a straight face even when faced with strong negative feelings.
> 
> Always on the IEE's mind are the feelings of his or her friends. If the IEE does not know whether an individual is feeling good or ill will, the IEE will prod the individual until he or she displays their attitude.
> 
> IEEs are concerned with the opinions and feelings of those around them and try to avoid saying things that would cause arguments and bad feelings. He does this effortlessly. In fact, IEEs will often choose to follow a very open and accepting life philosophy in order to reconcile his own views with those of others.
> 
> When interacting with others, IEEs are naturally aware of the flow of emotion present and strive to interpret meanings out of individual emotional states. When they feel they've realized an accurate potentiality of the cause of someone's behavior, IEEs commonly clarify their perceptions to ensure their understanding of another person. To actually aid the person in finding positive potential, however, depends on if the subject is important to the IEE (for example, they determine how close of a friend the person actually is to them).



*Creative Fe would be this in IEIs:*



> IEIs apply their understanding of trends of behavior over time to observing, analyzing, and influencing people's moods. They make contact with other people by attempting to influence their emotions positively, which is their way of creating something in themself worthy of being included in interaction.
> 
> IEIs are comfortable discussing feelings that arise from interaction between people. They are naturals at guessing who has been offended and approaching the person and helping them to let off steam and make amends with the offender. IEIs are typically quick to take the blame for offenses upon themselves in order to show their acceptance and good will towards the other person, and create good attitudes.
> 
> IEIs' speech and voice usually have a certain dramatic affect and depth of feeling, which influence the emotions in the atmosphere; these feelings can be used to generate elation and boisterous laughter. If IEIs prefer, they can also generate and communicate their feelings of sadness and loss. They are adept at communicating depth of feeling. If things seem too quiet and low-key, they may even generate controversy or conflict to liven things up and get people involved once again in a high-spirited atmosphere.
> 
> The IEI will often say something that sounds very deep and heartfelt only to immediately realize the ridiculousness of what they are saying and make light of it. In this way, the IEI does not induce a formal separation between joking and being serious (like their mirror, the EIE), because they are less premeditated in expression in their natural state.


*Notice the difference in approach. Fi approach does not try to influence the external mood at all. I merely understand it and then maybe I come with practical solutions to problems. In contrast creative Fe bends and morphs things to affect change in the emotional atmosphere. It tries to influence other people.*

*This is why Fe is considered expressive while Fi is not.*


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> I noticed the dynamic you're describing. It happened in the first minute or so, in the introduction. Spazie got a little bit thrown off when he said, "how are you?" and Sky answered "terrible." There's some awkward silences with Spazie going "hahah" almost to himself.
> 
> This goes back to my initial belief I am Fe-valuing, as I do this a lot. You can see it in my posts as well - I will throw little statements into the air, expecting someone to notice and react. I've noticed a lot don't. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, exactly, I just move on, but it's something I do automatically and generally I respond to others who do that. Of course, when I am together with someone who is much better at it, I tend to shut down, maybe even get annoyed when they expect too much out of me; otherwise, I feel like I have to be the emotional "mediator". I still can't watch that Naruto video without wanting to pull my hair out, however... seriously shut up.


Thank you for actually noticing it lol. It's not that difficult to spot even if you just give it some thought. 



Silveresque said:


> Hmm, but I'm social blindspot, so I wonder if that makes a difference.


No, because the social instinct has less to do with social interaction and more to do with understanding how people socially connect as in creating social networks etc in order to create power structures, social hierarchies, what have you. 




> My mom does that too. And sometimes when I'm not smiling she'll ask "What's wrong? You look mad." And I keep telling her that's just my normal, neutral look.
> 
> I don't think external cues are that important. My preferred method of communication is instant message, and my dad says online communication is bad because you can't tell what the other person is really feeling. But I don't really see the need or importance of seeing the other person's face during interaction. Even in in-person interactions, I don't really notice or pay much attention to facial expressions anyways.


I don't think that touches on Fe vs Fi. Both types can enjoy IM because you can still be emotionally expressive through text. 



> She tends to assume things that are scary to her are generally scary to everyone. So she'll ask if I'm nervous about something, because it's something she would be nervous about. She misinterprets people's feelings *because she doesn't take individual differences into account*.


Meaning?


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> No, because the social instinct has less to do with social interaction and more to do with understanding how people socially connect as in creating social networks etc in order to create power structures, social hierarchies, what have you.


o.o I agree. I'm SO blind as well :\, yet there seems to be a difference between me and @Silveresque when it comes to "feeling" in general.

I think she is a T.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> o.o I agree. I'm SO blind as well :\, yet there seems to be a difference between me and @Silveresque when it comes to "feeling" in general.
> 
> I think she is a T.


Yeah, same, I don't get this. I may understand it if someone is clearly appointed a leader over a group, but if it's a social group that's been around a while with an internal social hierarchy I will have an immensely difficult time navigating it because I don't know what kinds of people I should press in order to influence the group in a way that seems desirable to me.


----------



## Recede

FreeBeer said:


> *Notice the difference in approach. Fi approach does not try to influence the external mood at all. I merely understand it and then maybe I come with practical solutions to problems. In contrast creative Fe bends and morphs things to affect change in the emotional atmosphere. It tries to influence other people.*
> 
> *This is why Fe is considered expressive while Fi is not.*


I'm not even aware of external moods, and the concept seems strange to me. It's not like emotions are separate from the individual feeling them. The Fi description still fits me better, even though I'm not actively focused on the other person's feelings until emotional content enters the conversation. When that happens, I will try to help the person see things in a positive way. 

I consider myself expressive in certain situations, but not in the same way as Fe. It's like I have two modes: ultra-quiet and super expressive. When I'm in ultra-quiet mode, people can't really get more than an occasional few words out of me, and nothing particularly deep or self-revealing. When I'm in my expressive mode, I want to share my inner world completely, and I have to try really hard to hold myself back so I don't over-share. I have a strong desire to express my thoughts, feelings, and personality, but I do it in an emotionally subdued way. I'm never outwardly emotionally expressive.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

zinnia said:


> Ah, yes, the "of course we care, we are your family!" Well, I'd prefer if you actually cared about *me* rather than the fact that we happen to be relatives. But thanks, I guess?


Heh yeah, I find that kind of thing a bit silly too. I guess it's natural to care about family because of instincts and such, but thinking that way feels a bit cold too.

And it is nice to hear from someone that they do consider you a friend, but at the same time I think it can be awkward to define when we have gotten to "friendship-level," lol.


----------



## LibertyPrime

*IEEs and conflict, emotional atmosphere / mood*

How do you handle it? :\

When people are pissy or the mood is bad or people are arguing around me one of 2 things tends to happen:

1. I leave and they will get upset, but I don't really care what they feel as long as it is making me highly uncomfortable.
2. I'll tell them to suck it up or fuck off, because they are bothering me and thus I'll start a huge fight.

 I hate days where I'm stuck having supper or lunch with the family and they exude bile and tension at the table because they hate each other and have unreasonable emotional needs that depend on other people...\ o / GAAAH!

:shocked: and then they demand my presence, like me leaving to eat alone insults them or something... >.>...fuck that shit!


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> *IEEs and conflict, emotional atmosphere / mood*
> 
> How do you handle it? :\
> 
> When people are pissy or the mood is bad or people are arguing around me one of 2 things tends to happen:
> 
> 1. I leave and they will get upset, but I don't really care what they feel as long as it is making me highly uncomfortable.
> 2. I'll tell them to suck it up or fuck off, because they are bothering me and thus I'll start a huge fight.
> 
> I hate days where I'm stuck having supper or lunch with the family and they exude bile and tension at the table because they hate each other and have unreasonable emotional needs that depend on other people...\ o / GAAAH!
> 
> :shocked: and then they demand my presence, like me leaving to eat alone insults them or something... >.>...fuck that shit!


Probably not an IEE but I enjoy conflict, in a weird way. Not like, stupid drama, as in Woman 1 and 2 are wearing the same clothes to a wedding and make a big fuss over it, ending with one of them wielding a steak knife. Or I only invited family member 1 to my graduation and not 2, and so everyone gets weird and backstabby and talking about each other. That's just silly.

I've never been one to shy away from outright conflict though (I prefer arguing and letting things out in the open rather than passive-aggressiveness)... maybe when I am unsure of personal dynamics with someone I am more cautious but otherwise it becomes fun to see how intense it gets haha. Though I find I can't do this via letter or email or even on these message boards because I have too much time to think, because then I calm down and realize I am being dumb. But irl in the moment that's not the case and it's like letting out built up stress or something. Fun times P:


----------



## Squidtabasco

Yo, new IEE here. Just wanted to say hi!


----------



## cool

hi , enfp here 
cool to have a place where i can be myself with no constraints
!!


----------



## Serpent

How would you differentiate yourself from the Alpha quadra?


----------



## sacrosanctsun

'ello deltas


----------



## cool

ScarrDragon said:


> How would you differentiate yourself from the Alpha quadra?



Ti and Fe are used in the alpha, and Te and Fi in the delta.

The difference between them: 
Te="how to do it"
Ti="why it is"
Fe="what we need"
Fi="what is important"

But both our quadras use Ne and Si: 
Se="what is"
Si="what was"
Ne="what could be"
Ni="what will be"

I guess we all use every cognitive function but those are supposed to be our preferences 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cantarella

Soooo many IEEs up in here


----------



## Serpent

cool said:


> Ti and Fe are used in the alpha, and Te and Fi in the delta.
> 
> The difference between them:
> Te="how to do it"
> Ti="why it is"
> Fe="what we need"
> Fi="what is important"
> 
> But both our quadras use Ne and Si:
> Se="what is"
> Si="what was"
> Ne="what could be"
> Ni="what will be"
> 
> I guess we all use every cognitive function but those are supposed to be our preferences
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hmmm, definitely Ne-Si. Can you elaborate on the judging functions? Also, for that matter, can you touch upon the general discrepancies between the Alpha and Delta quadras?


----------



## Astrid Von M

LSE here ) am I the only LSE here?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Cantarella said:


> Soooo many IEEs up in here


Yeah, but its not easy to keep us around without entertainment 












Astrid Von M said:


> LSE here ) am I the only LSE here?


Maybe persuade some other ESTJs to look up Socionics?


----------



## Astrid Von M

FreeBeer said:


> Maybe persuade some other ESTJs to look up Socionics?


i sure can try but have you ever tried to persuade an ESTJ to do anything they don't have clear desire to do?  
it's gonna be tough )


----------



## LibertyPrime

Astrid Von M said:


> i sure can try but have you ever tried to persuade an ESTJ to do anything they don't have clear desire to do?
> it's gonna be tough )


o_o you have a point...that doesn't work on ENFPs either btw...no mood no play.


----------



## Astrid Von M

FreeBeer said:


> o_o you have a point...that doesn't work on ENFPs either btw...no mood no play.


haha yeah i know! i have lots of ENFP friends and it is always war with them when they have to do something they don't find interesing enough ... i guess that's why we're friends in the first place  like minds...


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FreeBeer said:


> Yeah, but its not easy to keep us around without entertainment


Well you could make some? :tongue:


----------



## sacrosanctsun

Kink said:


> Well you could make some? :tongue:


Does youtube videos count? I need to learn how to actually be witty IRL and with my words.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Kink said:


> Well you could make some? :tongue:


Hmm, well fun is relative, something I'd consider fun may be boring for you...thou I'd say most fun for me as a delta ENFP comes from going out and doing something together with a friend while talking about interesting topics both of us are into or just getting into a situation that is unusual. With a stranger >D a lot of the fun at least in the beginning comes from just getting to know them and their quirky personalities.  however some people can be terribly bland at times, and lack of Te specifically seems to be experienced by me at least as frustrating.

With Si<->Te types I find that the actual difficulty of reading them and figuring them out adds some kind of challenge and mystery that often leaves me guessing at possibilities, poking and prodding more then I usually do, which equates to more fun then I usually have.

o.o so yeah for me most of the fun comes from cognitive stimulation, aka making me think, new perspectives, possibilities, new Te info I wasn't aware of, insight into people I find interesting.

*_* for example did you now that according to epigenetics our conscious thoughts actually have an impact upon how our cells express our genome? This also leaves one open to social influence & internal processing, not just other physical information exchange.  theoretically if you are sick, you should try and imagine yourself healed ad healthy+think happy thoughts, because it will literally aide in the recovery process. * I wonder how self preservation dominants will take this info.*

...so yeah usually we'd require a certain thread topic of mutual interest where info exchange is new and stimulating o.o..unsure how to even begin making this thread more interesting, but I'd definitely be interested in finding out about ESTJs based on who @Astrid Von M is (they are hard to find here). Think I'll drop in on the ESTJ sub-forum and see whats going on ^^;.

@sacrosanctsun

XD that was awesome!


----------



## Astrid Von M

FreeBeer said:


> o.o..unsure how to even begin making this thread more interesting, but I'd definitely be interested in finding out about ESTJs based on who @Astrid Von M is (they are hard to find here). Think I'll drop in on the ESTJ sub-forum and see whats going on ^^;


what do you wanna know you curious ENFP? )) 

put that creativity into work  )


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> LSE here ) am I the only LSE here?


No, but you're one of the few ESTJs who're willing to admit that they're an LSE *and* post in the Delta threads.  Most LSEs are hanging out in the ENTJ subforum along with a bunch of LIIs, IEEs, SLEs and the occasional SLI and EII. *That's all assuming you are of course an LSE and not some other type.*


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> No, but you're one of the few ESTJs who're willing to admit that they're an LSE *and* post in the Delta threads.  Most LSEs are hanging out in the ENTJ subforum along with a bunch of LIIs, IEEs, SLEs and the occasional SLI and EII. *That's all assuming you are of course an LSE and not some other type.*


lol actually i'm totally having an identity crisis - just found out i'm actually an LSI -1Se so i'm very shocked cause this changes things big time! )


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> lol actually i'm totally having an identity crisis - just found out i'm actually an LSI -1Se so i'm very shocked cause this changes things big time! )


Does it? o.0 Is that a photo of you in your avatar? Because if it is, I would've guessed EIE and perhaps an introverted intuition subtype for you. Not sure about DCNH though... maybe D or Dominant type? >.> ...then again Megan Fox is an SLI and you look a lot like her (assuming your avatar is you), so I guess only you could figure out your own type.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Does it? o.0 Is that a photo of you in your avatar? Because if it is, I would've guessed EIE and perhaps an introverted intuition subtype for you. Not sure about DCNH though... maybe D or Dominant type? ...then again Megan Fox is an SLI and you look a lot like her, so I guess only you could figure out your own type.


no but it might as well be cause i look like her and have her expression all the time! i'm kinda new to all of this .. i mean i did check my mbti over years but that's it - no socionics or enneagrams whatsoever (and i'm even 1w2 which would correlate to an ISTj female profile as i can see) but i always felt like an introverted extrovert  basically se-ISTj (socs) description of a female fits me to a T


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> no but it might as well be cause i look like her and have her expression all the time! i'm kinda new to all of this .. i mean i did check my mbti over years but that's it - no socionics or enneagrams whatsoever (and i'm even 1w2 which would correlate to an ISTj female profile as i can see) but i always felt like an introverted extrovert  basically se-ISTj (socs) description of a female fits me to a T


The only thing I'm really certain about is your D typing. I'm one hundred percent positive you're a dominating type, meaning that's what you default to when you're left to your own devices. I'm not judging you in any way, whatsoever.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> The only thing I'm really positive about is your D typing. I'm one hundred percent positive you're a dominating type, meaning that's what you default to when you're left to your own devices. I'm not judging you in any way whatsoever.


haha excellent  lol i guess i am in an non-obvious way at least. it's okay really - everyone can and is entitled to their own opinions and impressions )) lol you're not the first person who told me that )


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> haha excellent  lol i guess i am in an non-obvious way at least. it's okay really - everyone can and is entitled to their own opinions and impressions )) *lol you're not the first person who told me that *)


Hahahah. XD I'm sure people call you a ball-buster very often which I wouldn't find to be surprising at all.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Hahahah. XD I'm sure people call you a ball-buster very often which I wouldn't find to be surprising at all.


haha not sure if i should thank you or get worried tbh haha  but surprisingly if you met me in person you wouldn't probably even be aware of my own dominance - it's just sth that manifests in the least obvious way with me


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> haha not sure if i should thank you or get worried tbh haha  but surprisingly if you met me in person you wouldn't probably even be aware of my own dominance - *it's just sth that manifests in the least obvious way with me*


Ah. I dated a D type SLI gal in school. She'd always try to beat me up in front of her friends or try to get other guys and sometimes even gals to start fights with me... so I had to break up with her.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Ah. I dated a D type SLI gal in school. She'd always try to beat me up in front of her friends though so I had to break up with her.


haha omg i just.... have too many questions regarding that relationship lol but still! you did well when you broke up w/ her  and I would never be violent in public (lol or anyplace) but especially in public - if you'd crossed me i'd just give you the deathstare while smiling politely and you would then probably regret the day you were born haha )


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> haha omg i just.... have too many questions regarding that relationship lol but still! you did well when you broke up w/ her  and I would never be violent in public (lol or anyplace) but especially in public - if you'd crossed me i'd just give you the deathstare while smiling politely and *you would then probably regret the day you were born haha )*


I somehow doubt that. :tongue:

I'd be happy to answer any questions through private message though.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> I somehow doubt that. :tongue:


haha mr. confident! okay okay - worthy opponent is always desirable to have haha


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> haha mr. confident! okay okay - worthy opponent is always desirable to have haha


All I ask is to not be beaten up for no good reason and don't try to send anyone to maim or otherwise harm me. Then we'll be cool.  Because seriously, I was kind of traumatized by that relationship. >.<


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> All I ask is to not be beaten up for no good reason and don't try to send anyone to maim or otherwise harm me. Then we'll be cool.  Because seriously, I was kind of traumatized by that. >.<


don't give me a reason and i won't. 

i totally loled to the "for no good reason " part haha, like is there ever a good reason? 


i'm kidding lol i'd never do that I'm to nice of a person to do that to anyone haha  but why did you let her tho?


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> don't give me a reason and i won't.


>______>



> i totally loled to the "for no good reason " part haha, like is there ever a good reason?


I can think of a few instances where a reasonable amount of violence is acceptable.



> i'm kidding lol i'd never do that I'm to nice of a person to do that to anyone haha  but why did you let her tho?


I'm not condemning you since you're not the same person. We were both really young and her friends probably filled her head with all kinds of stupid thoughts and ideas. I let her get away with things I normally would consider deal breakers because she was/is super hot. Also, she got away with it up until we broke up. However, I figure she just chalked it up to inexperience in the relationship department and knew not to behave that way after we graduated. True story.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> >______>
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of a few instances where reasonable violence is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not condemning you since you're not the same person. We were both really young and her friends probably filled her head with all kinds of stupid thoughts and ideas. I let her get away with things I normally would consider deal breakers because she was/is super hot. Also, she got away with it up until we broke up. However, I figure she just chalked it up to inexperience in the relationship department and knew not to behave that way after we graduated. True story, too.


oh well i can think of more than few.

ha, well obviously not! she sounds profoundly barbarian and forethought lacking but i get you tho- she's/was hot - case dismissed! haha )


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> ha, well obviously not! she sounds profoundly barbarian and forethought lacking but i get you tho- she's/was hot - case dismissed! haha )


No, it's not as difficult a relationship as it sounds. We were both class clowns and did anything for a laugh in front of a crowd. 

However yes, she was and probably still is incredibly attractive though.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> No, it's not as difficult a relationship as it sounds. We were both class clowns and did anything for a laugh in front of a crowd.
> 
> However yes, she was and probably still is incredibly gorgeous though.


i'm beginning to feel like the more questions i ask the more i'll find out   

haha well too bad plenty of women can't put their gorgeousness into function - they could dominate the world if they wanted to


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> i'm beginning to feel like the more questions i ask the more i'll find out


Sure. 



> haha well too bad plenty of women can't put their gorgeousness into function - they could dominate the world if they wanted to


Possibly, I have no clue if an Amazonian world could work. Well, actually it could work but it wouldn't be very pleasant, I would think: A lot of people being beaten up for no reason and senseless aggression against men.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, I have no clue if an Amazonian world could work. Well, actually it could work but it wouldn't be very pleasant, I would think: A lot of people being beaten up for no reason and senseless aggression against men.


such diplomatic answer - typical ENFP   
haha i think it would be awesome - there'd be no wars just plenty of female nations not talking to eachother


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> such diplomatic answer - typical ENFP


Why, thank you. 



> haha i think it would be awesome - there'd be no wars just plenty of female nations not talking to eachother


Oh, I think there'd still be war. Going by how some of my female friends fight, it would always be total war and with a lot of betrayal and double-crossing going on. :bored:


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Why, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think there'd still be war. Going by how some of my female friends fight, it would always be total war and with a lot of betrayal and double-crossing going on. :bored:


what i meant was - men usually resolve problems directly, usually physically and they rarely hold grudges while women...they have passive agressive fights for years .S i could never be that passive agressive and/ or sneaky :/


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> ...while women...they have passive agressive fights for years .S i could never be that passive agressive and/ or sneaky :/


Yes, until the earrings come off and then it becomes cat fight central. :shocked:

Have you ever seen a man get beat up by a woman before? I have and it's frickin' scary.


----------



## Astrid Von M

MNiS said:


> Yes, until the earrings come off and then it becomes cat fight central. :shocked:


icturing angry cholas fighting over their baby daddy: haha lol the visual! 

nooo i'm direct. i tell you straight in the face my problems with you. i had never had a typical catty fight ever but have witnessed more than plenty... unfortunately haha


----------



## MNiS

Astrid Von M said:


> icturing angry cholas fighting over their baby daddy: haha lol the visual!


:dry:



> nooo i'm direct. i tell you straight in the face my problems with you. i had never had a typical catty fight ever but have witnessed more than plenty... unfortunately haha


'kay. I don't have any reason to believe that you're lying or trying to manipulate me and you seem like an honest person, so I'll believe you.


----------



## MNiS

Helloooo everyone!


----------



## SweetPickles

Former skeptic but the Socionomics INFj (EII) described me to a tee, especially when it broke down all my cognitive functions and how I think. One thing that sticks out is how serious we are supposed to be. When I am comfortable in a group, or with a certain person I can be quite the giggly goofball. This doesn't fit in with my EII type or quadra, or does it? Also scored very close to ENFp, but my thinking pattern fits more with EII.

(INFp was 3rd and surprisingly ISFj 4th)

Still new to socionics, so I'm still mixing up the MBTI stereotypes with the socionics of the same type.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MelanieM said:


> Still new to socionics, so I'm still mixing up the MBTI stereotypes with the socionics of the same type.


I'd say it's best not to get too hung up in the stereotypes in general, just in case. As long as the thinking fits you well, that's what's most important.


----------



## HFGE

MelanieM said:


> Still new to socionics, so I'm still mixing up the MBTI stereotypes with the socionics of the same type.


Whoa whoa whoa, yeah @_Kink_ is correct. Don't go by stereotypes to begin with as that's what makes MBTI such so much. It has a heavy reliance on stereotypical behavior. How you process information and how you think and feel is a much better way to find out your type.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

MelanieM said:


> Former skeptic but the Socionomics INFj (EII) described me to a tee, especially when it broke down all my cognitive functions and how I think. One thing that sticks out is how serious we are supposed to be. When I am comfortable in a group, or with a certain person I can be quite the giggly goofball. This doesn't fit in with my EII type or quadra, or does it? Also scored very close to ENFp, but my thinking pattern fits more with EII.
> 
> (INFp was 3rd and surprisingly ISFj 4th)
> 
> Still new to socionics, so I'm still mixing up the MBTI stereotypes with the socionics of the same type.


Lol I'm an ILI and when I'm with good company I can be quite silly and make jokes and stuff. And ILIs are supposed to be the gloomiest of the gloomiest of all gloomy types in gloomyland. The difference that socionics wants to make is about Fe's participation in the group atmosphere and the interaction of moods vs. Fi's seeing everyone as an island with their own internal world or something like that.


----------



## Elyasis

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Lol I'm an ILI and when I'm with good company I can be quite silly and make jokes and stuff. *And ILIs are supposed to be the gloomiest of the gloomiest of all gloomy types in gloomyland.* The difference that socionics wants to make is about Fe's participation in the group atmosphere and the interaction of moods vs. Fi's seeing everyone as an island with their own internal world or something like that.




So I was looking up gloomy and found this gem:










Delta quadra likes cute murderous bears, right?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Elyasis said:


> So I was looking up gloomy and found this gem:
> 
> -pic-
> 
> Delta quadra likes cute murderous bears, right?


Lol! That_ is_ actually the first thing to come up if you google gloomy. So ironic. That bear could be an SEE.


----------



## Entropic

@HFGE, I'm curious but what's your reasoning behind your typing?


----------



## HFGE

-Ephemeral- said:


> @_HFGE_, I'm curious but what's your reasoning behind your typing?


Just through examining myself and reflecting on how I behave I've come to the conclusion that I'm mostly Ne and I value Fi over Ti. Why, do you think I'm not IEE? If so, what type would you suggest then?


----------



## Entropic

HFGE said:


> Just through examining myself and reflecting on how I behave I've come to the conclusion that I'm mostly Ne and I value Fi over Ti. Why, do you think I'm not IEE? If so, what type would you suggest then?


I was curious because you seem very heavy on Te. It became obvious with your interaction with FreeBeer. Is there any reason you didn't look into Te ego types? Aside that I don't have any real opinion on it and I was wondering how you justified it. I am not necessarily against an IEE typing but at first glance you don't seem Fi ego.


----------



## HFGE

-Ephemeral- said:


> I was curious because you seem very heavy on Te. It became obvious with your interaction with FreeBeer. Is there any reason you didn't look into Te ego types? Aside that I don't have any real opinion on it and I was wondering how you justified it. I am not necessarily against an IEE typing but at first glance you don't seem Fi ego.


Yeah, that's a very fair assessment. I was only seeming Te because I was trying to explain how a social contract is an ethical/moral construct and the only way to do so is through Te because it sounds the least subjective that way. Although I did think I was an LIE for a while and I've had LSE suggested for me a few times but those were when I wasn't necessarily being myself. It's difficult for me to say, I think I'm an IEE but I do a lot of Si and Te heavy work, especially in school.


----------



## Entropic

HFGE said:


> Yeah, that's a very fair assessment. I was only seeming Te because I was trying to explain how a social contract is an ethical/moral construct and the only way to do so is through Te because it sounds the least subjective that way. Although I did think I was an LIE for a while and I've had LSE suggested for me a few times but those were when I wasn't necessarily being myself. It's difficult for me to say, I think I'm an IEE but I do a lot of Si and Te heavy work, especially in school.


What about ILI? This post is very Te-driven too, to be quite honest.


----------



## HFGE

-Ephemeral- said:


> What about ILI? This post is very Te-driven too, to be quite honest.


Hm. I've never had anyone suggest ILI for me but I'll consider it. I did used to test MBTI INTJ when I was younger although today I'd consider myself to be an extrovert but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Entropic

HFGE said:


> Hm. I've never had anyone suggest ILI for me but I'll consider it. I did used to test MBTI INTJ when I was younger although today I'd consider myself to be an extrovert but I could be mistaken.


Well, I had a look at your type me thread in here and to be quite honest, ethical ego is out of the question for you based on how you interacted with the two woh responded to your thread. Definitely Te creative mostly because of how you utilize your Fi. SLI or ILI. Given how you dismissed my questionnaire based on that it contains "superfluous details", I'm inclined to think you are an SLI and the basis that you rejected my questionnaire on is that you don't like how it's Ni-biased.


----------



## HFGE

-Ephemeral- said:


> Well, I had a look at your type me thread in here and to be quite honest, ethical ego is out of the question for you based on how you interacted with the two woh responded to your thread. Definitely Te creative mostly because of how you utilize your Fi. SLI or ILI. Given how you dismissed my questionnaire based on that it contains "superfluous details", I'm inclined to think you are an SLI and the basis that you rejected my questionnaire on is that you don't like how it's Ni-biased.


Hahah, thanks but I really doubt I'm my own dual. lol I guess that's flattering in a sense since self-dualization is supposed to be the most self-actualized a person can become. I'll consider SLI though. If that's true then that would truly be a paradigm shift in terms of my ideal partner.


----------



## Word Dispenser

-Ephemeral- said:


> Well, I had a look at your type me thread in here and to be quite honest, ethical ego is out of the question for you based on how you interacted with the two woh responded to your thread. Definitely Te creative mostly because of how you utilize your Fi. SLI or ILI. Given how you dismissed my questionnaire based on that it contains "superfluous details", I'm inclined to think you are an SLI and the basis that you rejected my questionnaire on is that you don't like how it's Ni-biased.


I disagree.

IEE seems right for @_HFGE_. Don't underestimate that sneaky tertiary function. Remember that your Fi is quite well-used as well. :kitteh:

I daresay it, on occasion, trumps your creative function.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> I disagree.
> 
> IEE seems right for @_HFGE_. Don't underestimate that sneaky tertiary function. Remember that your Fi is quite well-used as well. :kitteh:
> 
> I daresay it, on occasion, trumps your creative function.


After seeing more yes I agree.


----------



## HFGE

Word Dispenser said:


> I disagree.
> 
> IEE seems right for @_HFGE_. Don't underestimate that sneaky tertiary function. Remember that your Fi is quite well-used as well. :kitteh:
> 
> I daresay it, on occasion, trumps your creative function.


There's a slight chance I might be Gamma. I love money, power and hoes and all that. :laughing:

Hahah I'm kidding, sort of. I'm thinking I'm either IEE or an unusually intelligent SEE. Fi-creative is the only thing I'm certain about.


----------



## Word Dispenser

HFGE said:


> There's a slight chance I might be Gamma. I love money and all that. :laughing:
> 
> Hahah I'm kidding, sort of. I'm thinking I'm either IEE or an unusually intelligent SEE. Fi-creative is the only thing I'm certain about. : )


Lucky! Only thing I'm certain about is being an Alpha. But, anytime I've ever had doubts and went to 'unknown', or switched to anything but 'ILE' there have been outcries from the public. :kitteh:

Gotta give people what they want, right? roud:

But, yeah-- Sometimes I doubt my Ne-Domness, just because I don't think I'm all that tangential or ... I dunno-- Innovative? Creative? Whatever. Still-- I can't deny that when I look outside myself, I can see it. I just can't see it when I'm introspecting, which is kinda counterproductive. That might be your problem too, who knows. Being an extrovert kinda sucks in that way.


----------



## HFGE

Word Dispenser said:


> Lucky! Only thing I'm certain about is being an Alpha. But, anytime I've ever had doubts and went to 'unknown', or switched to anything but 'ILE' there have been outcries from the public. :kitteh:
> 
> Gotta give people what they want, right? roud:
> 
> But, yeah-- Sometimes I doubt my Ne-Domness, just because I don't think I'm all that tangential or ... I dunno-- Innovative? Creative? Whatever. Still-- I can't deny that when I look outside myself, I can see it. I just can't see it when I'm introspecting, which is kinda counterproductive. That might be your problem too, who knows. Being an extrovert kinda sucks in that way.


What's your DCNH type? That has a huge influence on which aspects of you are strengthened. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you _might_ be a dominant type which means strengthened Te and Fe. If you feel you're more social status oriented and aware than a typical ENTp then dominant subtype is probably you.


----------



## Word Dispenser

HFGE said:


> What's your DCNH type? That has a huge influence on which aspects of you are strengthened. I'd guess you're a normalizing or harmonizing type which means either strengthened Ti and Fi or Ni and Si respectively. Either way would de-empathize Ne for an Ne-base.


Yeah, that and everything else points to ILE. I was finally convinced when I went through _all _the dichotomies painstakingly, and weighed my own personal quirks against that. But, I never like to say I'm convinced of _anything-- _Nothing is certain. So I still say that I'm only sure that I'm Alpha, even if I'm about 88 % sure of ILE.


----------



## HFGE

Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, that and everything else points to ILE. I was finally convinced when I went through _all _the dichotomies painstakingly, and weighed my own personal quirks against that. But, I never like to say I'm convinced of _anything-- _Nothing is certain. So I still say that I'm only sure that I'm Alpha, even if I'm about 88 % sure of ILE.


I changed my response from what you have quoted. Please re-read. 

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153995-delta-quadra-hangout-thread-49.html#post9239690


----------



## Word Dispenser

HFGE said:


> I changed my response from what you have quoted. Please re-read.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153995-delta-quadra-hangout-thread-49.html#post9239690


Ah-- No. Not particularly social status oriented. I'm rather introverted in behaviour, extroverted in cognition. :kitteh: And, well. I _am _outgoing and not shy, but I don't really go out to meet people with incentive or anything like that.

Anyway! This isn't about _me, _I was just trying to help _you _feel better about being unsure about your type. I'm pretty sure most NPs flip-flop quite a bit. And probably SPs to a certain, but probably lesser, degree.

Kinda tired with, and done with, 'searching'. I've done 5 separate questionnaires and.. Well, it's enough now, y'know? I'm an ILE, until I get a brain scan that'd say otherwise. roud:


----------



## HFGE

Word Dispenser said:


> Ah-- No. Not particularly social status oriented. I'm rather introverted in behaviour, extroverted in cognition. :kitteh: And, well. I _am _outgoing and not shy, but I don't really go out to meet people with incentive or anything like that.
> 
> Anyway! This isn't about _me, _I was just trying to help _you _feel better about being unsure about your type. I'm pretty sure most NPs flip-flop quite a bit. And probably SPs to a certain, but probably lesser, degree.
> 
> Kinda tired with, and done with, 'searching'. I've done 5 separate questionnaires and.. Well, it's enough now, y'know? I'm an ILE, until I get a brain scan that'd say otherwise. roud:


Well, I meant social status oriented and aware as in, if you meet a new group of people you're able to determine who the leader of the group is, as well as the second in charge and so on. Many people are only vaguely aware of such dynamics. Also, I don't feel bad about being indecisive at all so don't worry about me.


----------



## Word Dispenser

HFGE said:


> Well, I meant social status oriented and aware as in, if you meet a new group of people you're able to determine who the leader of the group is, as well as the second in charge and so on. Many people are only vaguely aware of such dynamics. Also, I don't feel bad about being indecisive at all so don't worry about me.


Hmm, interesting. I've never really thought about it before, to be honest. So, I guess I'd be one of those people with the vague idea of those dynamics. If I paid attention to it, maybe I could point that kind of thing out. I dunno.

Oh, cool. Well, that's good. Embrace indecisiveness. It's a grand thing.


----------



## Entropic

HFGE said:


> Well, I meant social status oriented and aware as in, if you meet a new group of people you're able to determine who the leader of the group is, as well as the second in charge and so on. Many people are only vaguely aware of such dynamics. Also, I don't feel bad about being indecisive at all so don't worry about me.


Isn't that partials related to the social instinct in the enneagram?


----------



## -Alpha-

-Ephemeral- said:


> Isn't that partials related to the social instinct in the enneagram?


I agree. I'm inclined to believe this is primarily a matter of focus as opposed to related to cognition. It seems like an ability you develop as opposed to something you're naturally inclined to. Especially considering that it doesn't make sense in evolutionary context for a small percentage of a population to have a naturally better grasp of social status than others. I, for instance have a good grasp of social status because I pay attention to such things. I pay attention to the members of the group taking up the most physical space, where the focus is, primarily to determine the group 'alpha'. I make a specific note to polarize my position to his, talk loud, take up a lot of space and make specific efforts to interrupt him in a socially acceptable way in order to disarm him. This sends a sub-communicable message to the group that his position has been compromised and the group energy will slowly deflate from him. 

From here, I can take control of a group subtly, taking it in whatever direction I need it to go. This seems much more a matter of where one looks than a natural cognitive talent.


----------



## HFGE

-Ephemeral- said:


> Isn't that partials related to the social instinct in the enneagram?


Well yes, I suppose it would also be described well to the social instinct in the Enneagram but DCNH also does a pretty good job of explaining complex social dynamics in addition to the Model A intertypes.


----------



## SweetPickles

Herp said:


> Why people say that the Delta quadra is the boring quadra?


We are the boring quadra? Bummer!


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MelanieM said:


> We are the boring quadra? Bummer!


Indeed. Especially if you're a 649 EII.^^;


----------



## SweetPickles

Kink said:


> Indeed. Especially if you're a 649 EII.^^;


Have I met my long lost boring delta quadra twin??

I'm 6w7, 4w3, 9w1...you? SX/SP or SP/SX (not sure yet on quadra)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MelanieM said:


> Have I met my long lost boring delta quadra twin??
> 
> I'm 6w7, 4w3, 9w1...you? SX/SP or SP/SX (not sure yet on quadra)


Ahah, I guess I'm pretty much the same, fix order and all. Probably sp-dom.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare

It makes sense that we're the least outgoing out of all the other groups. We're deltas. We're always being productive with ourselves. We're all seahorses. Asexual deltas, FTW.


----------



## Word Dispenser

So, like.. All the Quadras are getting animals now. 

Deltas are Seadragons (The Chinese name for seahorse, tee hee. Way cooler), 

Betas are Otters, 

Gammas are Manta Rays, 

and Alphas are Dolphins.

Just sticking with the water theme.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Gammas are Manta Rays,


wat


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Entropic said:


> wat


http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/016/6/8/Smiling_Manta_ray_by_strangelittleimp.jpg

Hmmm nope. Fe because smile.

Alternatively, it is an awful smile so Fe-porl.


@Word Dispenser But seriously, I'm confused. Can we at least be penguins? I like penguins.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> I've noticed Se DSers tend to be attracted to general confidence, power, control... It's all rather gross, really. :kitteh:


lol? Rather gross?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> lol? Rather gross?


Quite, yes. It just appears so shallow to me. To even care about physical appearances to that extent, and that someone can take control. Se DSers like bullies. roud:


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Quite, yes. It just appears so shallow to me. To even care about physical appearances to that extent, and that someone can take control. Se DSers like bullies. roud:


What do you care about then if physical appearance is of little importance? I mean, Si as is described in socionics is also about the ability to tell what is beautiful and is associated with decorative practices and the arts?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> What do you care about then if physical appearance is of little importance? I mean, Si as is described in socionics is also about the ability to tell what is beautiful and is associated with decorative practices and the arts?


'Beauty' transcends physical reality. Especially in people. Life is about decay--And there is beauty in that too. I'm rather disgusted by people who consider make-up, and dressing well to be top priority, when all of that stuff doesn't make a lick of difference long term, or even in everyday affairs. 

Don't get me wrong-- Make-up and dress up is _fun as Hell. _But, all in all-- That's my lowest priority when interacting with people.

Many don't really make those considerations, though. A lot of the time, these first physical appearances are their only impressions of someone, and they have no idea who that person is, and what truly makes them interesting.

'Beauty' is different than 'physical appearance'. I don't have much concern about decorations, either-- That's also rather shallow. It's nice to be in a space which I find to be pleasant to look at, but that's _not_ what 'beauty' means. At least not to me.

And the arts. Ah, the arts-- I think to talk about 'the arts' and 'beauty', is really underestimating what art actually is. Whether we're talking about theatre, music, or visual art... These are more convoluted and complex than simple 'beauty'. There is also a kind of ugliness, and discomfort in a lot of these mediums-- But, they are building powerful messages that encompass a full range of emotions and experiences. 

I think talking about 'beauty' is too simplistic when discussing things like that, though.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> 'Beauty' transcends physical reality. Especially in people. Life is about decay--And there is beauty in that too. I'm rather disgusted by people who consider make-up, and dressing well to be top priority, when all of that stuff doesn't make a lick of difference long term, or even in everyday affairs.
> 
> Don't get me wrong-- Make-up and dress up is _fun as Hell. _But, all in all-- That's my lowest priority when interacting with people.
> 
> Many don't really make those considerations, though. A lot of the time, these first physical appearances are their only impressions of someone, and they have no idea who that person is, and what truly makes them interesting.
> 
> 'Beauty' is different than 'physical appearance'. I don't have much concern about decorations, either-- That's also rather shallow. It's nice to be in a space which I find to be pleasant to look at, but that's _not_ what 'beauty' means. At least not to me.
> 
> And the arts. Ah, the arts-- I think to talk about 'the arts' and 'beauty', is really underestimating what art actually is. Whether we're talking about theatre, music, or visual art... These are more convoluted and complex than simple 'beauty'. There is also a kind of ugliness, and discomfort in a lot of these mediums-- But, they are building powerful messages that encompass a full range of emotions and experiences.
> 
> I think talking about 'beauty' is too simplistic when discussing things like that, though.


Then what is beauty?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> Then what is beauty?


I suppose beauty can encompass a myriad of meanings... But, when I think of beauty, I may not actually be thinking of 'beauty' on its own, but of a lot of different positive reactions to what I perceive. Or even negative reactions that somehow encompass something that holds some kind of positive message.

I'll give an example in a game play through I watched recently. In one chapter, my favourite, actually: The girl is homeless during the winter. She nearly dies on the street in the cold, but she's taken in by a homeless man, and the homeless community accepts her. It's freezing, and she has the option to steal, to beg, or to busk. She's already been through a lot-- She was used to do some pretty terrible things, and she just wants to give up. Even though what she's going through is very ugly, desperate, and full of sorrow-- What comes out of the situation ends up being very beautiful.

Perhaps 'beauty', at least in my view, is more apparent when there is ugliness. There is duality in all things, of course-- And that duality is a balance. Without ugliness, is there even beauty? Would we be able to conceive of this concept without the opposing meaning?

Maybe 'beauty' is actually a type of 'ugly'.

'Beauty' is a simple concept, on its own, by a standard definition. But, when you talk about what someone finds to be holding 'beauty', you'll get very disparate answers.

Beauty is obviously also very subjective-- So nothing of what I say is 'objective fact'. That kinda goes without saying, but... I don't know. It's complex. I just see it as being beyond what _is, _and moreof how we subjectively react. I don't think that there will ever be a definition that everyone can agree with, either.

A character in fiction is never interesting if they have no flaws. Its their flaws that make them stand out. It's the flaws that make them beautiful. 

In that same way, when I'm drawing someone, what one person may see as an 'ugly flaw', I see it as a beautiful characteristic, something that marks the person as who they are, that gives them identity.

Maybe I'm not making much sense. roud:


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> Maybe I'm not making much sense. roud:


Nah. It makes good sense to me, anyway, and I like your example. I've definitely felt that way before, with things that are similar.


----------



## Vermillion

Dunno, reading about this makes me wonder if Si types are likelier to value the body horror genre more, because they find beauty in distortion?


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Dunno, reading about this makes me wonder if Si types are likelier to value the body horror genre more, because they find beauty in distortion?


Not sure, though there is an interesting instance of of an IEE in the anime Fate/Zero who was obsessed with an idea of creating beauty using corpses. In particular, he had a fixed notion of abducting children and torturing them in specific ways because he wanted to experience something beyond mere physical sensation by subjecting them to all this horror and pain. He kept looking for that "beautiful" or feeling within the pain he subjected others to. The voyeurism aside, the moral of the story is that this character eventually got what he deserved and got shot by a bullet in the stomach and it finally dawned on him, in his moment of dying, that the beauty in pain he sought was not that in others but that of his own mortality. It wasn't so much others' pain he was looking for but his own, and that mere recreation of this in others did not satiate this need which is why he never felt he actually found it. 

I thought it was a very interesting and different take on inferior Si and shows that Si-Ne must not be turned away from say, violence and pain, that literature often stresses.

EDIT
Ultimately I am not sure it's the manifestation that matters so much in the first place because every object is merely seen from its particular facet we are biased to seeing due to cognitive prejudice, so we can abstract whatever we want from something because that is what we want to find or see.

I for example think the Silent Hill video game series is very Ni-Se and I see a lot of Ni symbolism in how it presents itself, but if someone like Word Dispenser can appreciate it, she clearly does not do that for the same reasons I do it and do not see the same things I do or rather, does not choose to see those things as opposed to other things. Some things just have universal appeal.

EDIT 2
@Word Dispenser 

Is this an example of something you'd find shallow?





I'd say this is very Se.


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> Not sure, though there is an interesting instance of of an IEE in the anime Fate/Zero who was obsessed with an idea of creating beauty using corpses. In particular, he had a fixed notion of abducting children and torturing them in specific ways because he wanted to experience something beyond mere physical sensation by subjecting them to all this horror and pain. He kept looking for that "beautiful" or feeling within the pain he subjected others to. The voyeurism aside, the moral of the story is that this character eventually got what he deserved and got shot by a bullet in the stomach and it finally dawned on him, in his moment of dying, that the beauty in pain he sought was not that in others but that of his own mortality. It wasn't so much others' pain he was looking for but his own, and that mere recreation of this in others did not satiate this need which is why he never felt he actually found it.
> 
> I thought it was a very interesting and different take on inferior Si and shows that Si-Ne must not be turned away from say, violence and pain, that literature often stresses.


Hah well everything is an axis. This is why I think that, more than anything, the dominant function is best associated with _temperance_ and the inferior function with _indulgence_. The area we can cultivate the most discipline around is the dominant, and discipline and self-control doesn't involve constant engagement and nourishment. I think an Si ego type in the same scenario would have come to terms with their connection to pain much easier and not been as bothered about nourishing that thought.



Entropic said:


> EDIT
> Ultimately I am not sure it's the manifestation that matters so much in the first place because every object is merely seen from its particular facet we are biased to seeing due to cognitive prejudice, so we can abstract whatever we want from something because that is what we want to find or see.
> 
> I for example think the Silent Hill video game series is very Ni-Se and I see a lot of Ni symbolism in how it presents itself, but if someone like Word Dispenser can appreciate it, she clearly does not do that for the same reasons I do it and do not see the same things I do or rather, does not choose to see those things as opposed to other things. Some things just have universal appeal.


I know, but this is shaky too, because some forms of expression just don't appeal to some people. 



> EDIT 2
> @_Word Dispenser_
> 
> Is this an example of something you'd find shallow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say this is very Se.


Frankly whenever I have played games where I bash people around... I always think of how much pain the person getting bashed would be in, lol.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Hah well everything is an axis. This is why I think that, more than anything, the dominant function is best associated with _temperance_ and the inferior function with _indulgence_. The area we can cultivate the most discipline around is the dominant, and discipline and self-control doesn't involve constant engagement and nourishment. I think an Si ego type in the same scenario would have come to terms with their connection to pain much easier and not been as bothered about nourishing that thought.


Perhaps. Ironically, he had an Si ego type SLI, likely, to help him staging murder scenes in a "beautifully arranged way". Also of course as funnily, the SLI got the most upset when someone found one of their hideouts that they had staged in this particular way and burnt the whole place to the ground feeling that whatever was created was utterly and forever lost, almost as if they lost a part of themselves. 



> I know, but this is shaky too, because some forms of expression just don't appeal to some people.


I think certain facets can be expressed more than others. Not saying everything has universal appeal but saying some things are more likely to get universal appeal and those things are also likely to be appreciated by people regardless of type. I don't like much impressionist art for example; I think at its root it's a very Si thing:










I like pieces like these though, while employing a similar art style, I'd say they are less about capturing the depth of the moment and more about giving strong impressions:










So we create and recreate with our subjective bias in mind. 



> Frankly whenever I have played games where I bash people around... I always think of how much pain the person getting bashed would be in, lol.


lol, I'll think of that next time I'll challenge you in a fighting game XD


----------



## Word Dispenser

@Entropic: Haha, that's just fun. I don't really see any 'beauty' in it. Unless we're talking about graphics... Just killin' monsters. Get to the story already. It's been awhile since I've played DMC games.

I do love the Silent Hill series a great deal. I tend to like that dark aspect of Ni. I was never a big fan of Resident Evil, in contrast-- I found it kind of boring. But, then, I just never got into it, I suppose. A similar video game I loved was Parasite Eve-- That definitely harboured Ni.

I also watched the Silent Hill movie on youtube, and got enjoyment out of it. I like the idea of this uncontrollable darkness that takes over everything, the fog.. It's all metaphor and symbolism for emotions, experiences, etc. There's a lot of mystery to it, and a visceral, raw profundity. I've had nightmares about this looming darkness that takes over, and everything changing to a horrific counterpart.

I never really thought about making corpses beautiful, haha. I always thought that kind of thing went into the realm of Ni, actually, but I can see how inferior Si could corrupt it.

My point was more about experiential ugliness that makes you appreciate the beauty around you.
@Amaterasu: Not sure what you mean by body horror. Like gore, or something? Never been a fan of gore. I like horror that's more insidious, plot-driven, and often psychological. Gets in your head. Creepy dark stuff is _awesome. _And I do like me some meaningful symbolism/metaphor.

I'm tellin' you, I know I'm supposed to find Ni boring, but I find it wondrous. It's like a counterpart to Ne, in a way. If you think about it simplistically, Ne is light, happy, idealistic. Ni is dark, gothic, poetic. I like Ni a great deal-- At least how I idealize it. And I've always liked horror movies, ever since I was a tot. Horror fascinated me. Still does. I love the emotions it evokes. (Is that what is meant by being a constructivist-- Taking fictional material as an anchor for emotions? That's what I thought it meant.) 

I think... There's curiosity and wonder in something horrifically mysterious. I have _no idea _how to explain. I love darkness as much as I love happy lightness.


----------



## Gentleman

Amaterasu said:


> Dunno, reading about this makes me wonder if Si types are likelier to value the body horror genre more, because they find beauty in distortion?


Not body horror specifically, but horror is fascinating to me. I really like mind-fuck horror. Body horror doesn't bother me as much as it does most people. I'm not sure if that's type related.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> @Entropic: Haha, that's just fun. I don't really see any 'beauty' in it. Unless we're talking about graphics... Just killin' monsters. Get to the story already. It's been awhile since I've played DMC games.


Yes, it's fun but to me at least, the appeal of the game is similar the appeal all hack 'n' slash games have which is ultimately an involvement of force. Especially with the first portion of the video with Nero, what I love about DMC is not just how it's just kill monsters left and right, that in itself grows stale very fast, but it's precisely how it focuses on aesthetic presentation. It's about killing monsters stylishly. Not just style in itself, but style in how to utilize force, to flow with force, with and against, manipulate and express it, in a way that results in what to me, when you look at very high levels of play, a very seamless stream of movements. And there's also this resonance that flows throughout in outwards manifestation of it. I especially like this with Nero because I think he just wields it better also being an Se type himself with how more power results in greater impact. Bigger, grander animations. More color. More force. It leaves a strong impact and I am not sure but it draws me in. I find it interesting. Getting lost in that kind of momentary sensation. 



> I do love the Silent Hill series a great deal. I tend to like that dark aspect of Ni. I was never a big fan of Resident Evil, in contrast-- I found it kind of boring. But, then, I just never got into it, I suppose. A similar video game I loved was Parasite Eve-- That definitely harboured Ni.


I think subsequent RE games are pretty beta. Much more focused on force and action and voyeurism in order to elicit reactions from the player. 



> I also watched the Silent Hill movie on youtube, and got enjoyment out of it. I like the idea of this uncontrollable darkness that takes over everything, the fog.. It's all metaphor and symbolism for emotions, experiences, etc. There's a lot of mystery to it, and a visceral, raw profundity. I've had nightmares about this looming darkness that takes over, and everything changing to a horrific counterpart.


Yeah, I like how the entire movie actually never quite tries to scare in the sense of doing it by actually killing people. Very few people die. Instead it's more about a much more primeval form of evil. Less about its actual manifestation and more about the fear lurking in the darkness. I think the original first film is extremely faithful to the atmosphere of the games. And yeah, it's very symbolic. There's a reason Gans chose to focus so much on religion in it. 



> I never really thought about making corpses beautiful, haha. I always thought that kind of thing went into the realm of Ni, actually, but I can see how inferior Si could corrupt it.


I don't think Ni itself would be so concerned about that, dealing directly with physical reality in such a way. 



> My point was more about experiential ugliness that makes you appreciate the beauty around you.
> @Amaterasu: Not sure what you mean by body horror. Like gore, or something? Never been a fan of gore. I like horror that's more insidious, plot-driven, and often psychological. Gets in your head. Creepy dark stuff is _awesome. _And I do like me some meaningful symbolism/metaphor.


Body horror would be torture porn like Saw. 



> I'm tellin' you, I know I'm supposed to find Ni boring, but I find it wondrous. It's like a counterpart to Ne, in a way. If you think about it simplistically, Ne is light, happy, idealistic. Ni is dark, gothic, poetic. I like Ni a great deal-- At least how I idealize it. And I've always liked horror movies, ever since I was a tot. Horror fascinated me. Still does. I love the emotions it evokes. (Is that what is meant by being a constructivist-- Taking fictional material as an anchor for emotions? That's what I thought it meant.)
> 
> I think... There's curiosity and wonder in something horrifically mysterious. I have _no idea _how to explain. I love darkness as much as I love happy lightness.


Though your outlook on this is so decidedly Ne lol.


----------



## GnothiSeauton

Word Dispenser said:


> I'll give an example in a game play through I watched recently. In one chapter, my favourite, actually: The girl is homeless during the winter. She nearly dies on the street in the cold, but she's taken in by a homeless man, and the homeless community accepts her. It's freezing, and she has the option to steal, to beg, or to busk. She's already been through a lot-- She was used to do some pretty terrible things, and she just wants to give up. Even though what she's going through is very ugly, desperate, and full of sorrow-- What comes out of the situation ends up being very beautiful.


Beyond: Two Souls? roud:

Personally, my perception of beauty is all about detail. More specifically, about the communicative intent each detail bears and is able to convey to the viewer. If there is one small trait, a characteristic that can be easily overlooked, but ends up making a whole world of difference by examining it better, both in a purely aesthetic and abstract sense, then it _is _beautiful. It's about catching, or rather even tentatively suggesting, a whole array of ideas with a simple artistic choice, to test the viewer's mind's reaction towards a state of harmony, realism or even total and utter disarray. Or even all three things at a time. You introduce them to a brand new kind of harmony that they wouldn't encounter in their regural lives, but nevertheless it's still _there_, under the surface.

_Death of Marat_. A painting that illustrates the murder of a French revolutionary. The time's newspapers illustrated the circumstances of his death rather faithfully, so the environment in which it's shown is real and credible enough. And yet, the table beside the bathtub is made to look like a grave. Almost no blood is shown. And yet, you empathize with Marat's death and his ideals through that single, skillful detail.

The manga _Gantz_. Absoulutely ugly and grotesque creatures, and yet there's skill in the way this ugliness is portraited. You totally didn't expect it, it fucks you up, and yet you want more as you grow accostumed to it. Also the case with most horror/splatter movies. The mind has a kind of visceral fixation on whatever may impress it, even to the point of doing psychological damage. I don't know how it works in other parts of the world, but here when I live, when there's a car crash on the railway, many people stop by to watch the consequences, creating traffic jams.

Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_. What's so great about it? Just four seasons, something you witness every year of your existence. Yet, the mind has a way to create some abstract plane of relation that goes beyond the experience of cold, of red leaves and everything else, and yet _stems _from those, and can be plugged back to them. There's a reason why artists are influenced by other artists, after all.

To me, beauty is just a big associative game that the mind pulls on us. A unison of the grand and the commonplace, of cuteness and deformity, of reality and abstraction, the brutal and the harmonious, the new and unexpected and the tested and tried: to which one gets morbidly attached, in contemplation. All of these things are, rather uncannily, undiscernable, and this is why you don't get a universally objective definition of beauty, why nobody can tell if art imitates life, or if life imitates art. The artist just sings a tune to it. Not even he knows precisely _how_.

About cognitive functions... I've also played several Silent Hill games (the last one was _Downpour_, I think?) and I can appreciate how they are set up aesthetically. Though I can see how a Ni user may be more apt to notice the symbolism and abstractions. I think I tend to approach the games in a more Ne valuing way though, i.e. how they tend to fuck with your mind and twist your regular perception of reality. _Downpour _had many sequences where you entered a different dimension, for example, with infinite alleys and passageways appearing out of nowhere. The symbolism is nice, but personally, it's only something I tend to notice much later, if at all.

As a Si user, my perception of beauty is more physical and intimistic in nature. It can be the _Dragon Aerie _from Dark Souls 2, but even something considerably smaller.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> Yeah, I like how the entire movie actually never quite tries to scare in the sense of doing it by actually killing people. Very few people die. Instead it's more about a much more primeval form of evil. Less about its actual manifestation and more about the fear lurking in the darkness. I think the original first film is extremely faithful to the atmosphere of the games. And yeah, it's very symbolic. There's a reason Gans chose to focus so much on religion in it.
> 
> Body horror would be torture porn like Saw.


All I can say about aesthetic presentation and power in Devil May Cry is: Yes. Haha.

Yeah-- It's great when a horror medium manages to be creepy/scary without actually broaching death. Or, it _does _broach death, but without actually killing anybody. It's more the environment and ambiance, the mind state of the people (Everyone is insane, hehe) , and this otherworldly quality to everything. I would definitely agree that the first movie was true to the games.

You can tell that there is a purpose behind everything, everything you can see has meaning. Symbolism. Metaphor. And that's powerful, and exciting. And it can be used to be horrific as well. They really thought ahead about how they were going to do it, and what they wanted to evoke. And connect. There are always different themes to their games, and looking into the behind the scenes stuff is always interesting as well. Even a simple visual effect of removing someone's eyebrows causes an uneasy reaction.

As for Saw... I enjoyed the films I actually saw. But, not so much the pain and torture. Those things made me uncomfortable, and not in a good way. It's more the idea _behind _why these people were put in these situations, and what their lesson is supposed to be. And the character intrigue, the backstabbing. Interesting. But, not really top favourite in horror.


----------



## Word Dispenser

GnothiSeauton said:


> Beyond: Two Souls? roud:


YES. I loved that story. I watched two different playthroughs, and all the endings, lol. I can't believe the reviews were _so _mixed. It was _such _an epic story. And the acting was _amazing. _I can't really rave enough about it right now. Latest obsession.

As for details-- The big picture is made out of small details. So, of course, they're important. I suppose I overlook it because.. Well.. Si inferior? :kitteh:


----------



## GnothiSeauton

Word Dispenser said:


> YES. I loved that story. I watched two different playthroughs, and all the endings, lol. I can't believe the reviews were _so _mixed. It was _such _an epic story. And the acting was _amazing. _I can't really rave enough about it right now. Latest obsession.
> 
> As for details-- The big picture is made out of small details. So, of course, they're important. I suppose I overlook it because.. Well.. Si inferior? :kitteh:


I also really liked the game, but I can see why it got mixed reviews. Watching it is a differnt matter than playing it, and as epic as the story was, at some points I _did _feel that the emotional undertone was being somewhat overplayed, or dragged along too much; as though the game were constantly trying to prove its own worth and epicness. At least, that's how I felt about it.

Still, even small sequences like her date were priceless. Emotionally moving, but humorous and deeply human at the same time.

May I suggest _The Last of Us_​? There's a winter sequence I find you may appreciate :kitteh:.

As for Si... yes, I tend to feel I get lost in details too much sometimes. But it's no losing the forest for the trees IMO. To me the details _are _the big picture and vice versa. Better yet, the big picture is an atmosphere created by the details being sort of blown out of proportion and fused together. A bit like focusing on each panel of a comic's page from its own angle, and then looking at the whole page. It's got to do with different "dimensions", quite literally, even though I have a really hard time making sense of it.


----------



## Word Dispenser

GnothiSeauton said:


> I also really liked the game, but I can see why it got mixed reviews. Watching it is a differnt matter than playing it, and as epic as the story was, at some points I _did _feel that the emotional undertone was being somewhat overplayed, or dragged along too much; as though the game were constantly trying to prove its own worth and epicness. At least, that's how I felt about it.
> 
> Still, even small sequences like her date were priceless. Emotionally moving, but humorous and deeply human at the same time.
> 
> May I suggest _The Last of Us_​? There's a winter sequence I find you may appreciate :kitteh:.
> 
> As for Si... yes, I tend to feel I get lost in details too much sometimes. But it's no losing the forest for the trees IMO. To me the details _are _the big picture and vice versa. Better yet, the big picture is an atmosphere created by the details being sort of blown out of proportion and fused together. A bit like focusing on each panel of a comic's page from its own angle, and then looking at the whole page. It's got to do with different "dimensions", quite literally, even though I have a really hard time making sense of it.


Well, as an artist, I deal with details all the time. It's amazing what happens when you work really close, and then zoom out and see how it comes together. Remarkable, really.

I figured that it must've been different. The watching/playing of it. It really _is _like a gigantic movie. I heard that the controls are frustrating, which is disappointing when I went to look at the behind-the-scenes stuff, and they say that they were trying to make the controls as easy as possible, so that you could just immerse yourself. So, it's unfortunate that they weren't able to accomplish that.

Yes, I've heard these two games compared quite often. I was hesitant to watch a playthrough of it, since I'm planning to get a PS4 eventually. And I'd play it there, I thought. But, I'm _really _tempted. Might watch it after Indigo Prophecy/fahrenheit. I dunno. I've heard that the gameplay is simply worlds apart compared to Beyond, but that Beyond's story is better.

And I've heard that Beyond will be moved and remastered to PS4 as well, so I'd probably do a personal playthrough as well, see what it's like. I don't really envy people the action sequences.

Odd that you say winter scene, as even though the homeless chapter in Beyond was in winter, I often find barren landscapes and wintery scenes as boring. I didn't really like the Navajo chapter's environment, as an example, even though there was plenty of plants... I dunno. :kitteh:

Oi, but I want more storiieeess! AAAH.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> All I can say about aesthetic presentation and power in Devil May Cry is: Yes. Haha.
> 
> Yeah-- It's great when a horror medium manages to be creepy/scary without actually broaching death. Or, it _does _broach death, but without actually killing anybody. It's more the environment and ambiance, the mind state of the people (Everyone is insane, hehe) , and this otherworldly quality to everything. I would definitely agree that the first movie was true to the games.


Yeah, it annoys how fans of the games hate on the first movie just because it's not Harry but Rose and how they think the plot isn't faithful enough to the plot of the first game. I think the adaptation is great. Not a direct translation but the core is still there and I also think the original ending is actually better and more powerful. I mean, in the first game it's more like, Dahlia just being a crazy mom who wants to use Alessa as a vessel to summon the devil but there's like zero meaning behind it more than that. There's a bit of a backstory with Kauffman and Cybil, but the end result is to me, a game that initially had no religious undertones suddenly going 180 to include a cultist nutjob backstory which feels very tacked on to the otherwise psychological aspect of the game. It also resolves some of the later issues when the Alessa story is explored in more detail along with Metatron in Silent Hill 3, which is not a perfect retcon imo. 



> You can tell that there is a purpose behind everything, everything you can see has meaning. Symbolism. Metaphor. And that's powerful, and exciting. And it can be used to be horrific as well. They really thought ahead about how they were going to do it, and what they wanted to evoke. And connect. There are always different themes to their games, and looking into the behind the scenes stuff is always interesting as well. Even a simple visual effect of removing someone's eyebrows causes an uneasy reaction.


Yes, I agree. That's also why I like the Silent Hill games though I've never played them but I've seen LPs of all up to 4. There is always a lot of thought behind everything and how it's done, even when it comes down to small and minor details like why Henry has a hole in his bathroom that is circular the way it is circular. It's actually an allusion to the umbilical cord which goes back to the entire idea of how room 302 is turned into a metaphorical idea of mother. 



> As for Saw... I enjoyed the films I actually saw. But, not so much the pain and torture. Those things made me uncomfortable, and not in a good way. It's more the idea _behind _why these people were put in these situations, and what their lesson is supposed to be. And the character intrigue, the backstabbing. Interesting. But, not really top favourite in horror.


Seen the first movie. I actually successfully predicted who he was quite early on the film. I thought it was ok but I don't see the hype around the series, no. Torture porn isn't quite my thing and while I'm sure there's a bit of thought behind every character and what they are being subject to, I think it could be told in way more meaningful ways.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@lavendersparrow
Oh, I know I don't have to have a villain. Just thinking it would be easier if I did. Or maybe not. As it is I mostly have some characters and an idea what I want their relations to be like, but am lacking a proper context to put those things in, as that's more vague so far. As usual. Lol, I was telling someone too, "I feel like I have a good idea for this story, I'm just lacking the actual plot." Whoops.

And yeah, the sense of mystery can help for sure, but I think if that is all a character has going for them... Well, I think it also depends on how good an author actually are with their characters. If they don't write them that well, the better they might be the less we actually get inside their minds, because the author has less chances to ruin them. That aside, a protagonist can also be mysterious, and then there are villain protagonists, of course. In many cases I guess the protagonist is more like a vessel than anything, but you can still do something with them if you want to. 

I'm not sure how well I would deal with being famous, but the thought of my books (if I ever actually end up completing one) being read by a decent number of people is kinda exciting, so I could troll my readers and stuff. :kitteh:


----------



## Wunderkind

So this is the delta quadra hangout ... very nice. Villains - that's intersting. I would love to read a story that has this classical setup of protagonist (good guy) and antagonist (villain). In the middle, the story shifts points of view and tells it from the villain's perspective - him becoming now the protagonist (good guy) and the other one the antagonist.

For instance: when watching a documentary about antelopes and you see a lion chasing an antelope, you want to have the life of the antelope spared. (Because she just reached some grassland after a long and tedious travel) But when watching a documentary about lions, you want the lion kill the antelope. (Because she is hunting food for her cubs and they would else starve). I'm sure, this intersting effect can be used in a story.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Well, I'm going to read this thread... wait, 63 pages, that's a lot of reading one topic to do...


----------



## Wunderkind

At that point, you'd probably be the first one to read the whole thread.


----------



## Dalton

The_Wanderer said:


> Well, I'm going to read this thread... wait, 63 pages, that's a lot of reading one topic to do...


It's a hangout thread. This thread isn't meant to have one topic.

Yeah, I'm going with SLI, so hi guys.


----------



## tangosthenes

dagluda ba ba bee do ba bee do ba pe deedo


----------



## kitsu

tangosthenes said:


> dagluda ba ba bee do ba bee do ba pe deedo


And a merry christmas to you too.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Haappyyy Christmaaassss


----------



## tangosthenes

Merry blues said:


> And a merry christmas to you too.


punception


----------



## disguise

Calling for all IEEs, but also ILEs, EIIs and LIIs to explain through examples the wonders of Ne (and a bit on Ni) :kitteh:

Let me just harass a bunch of people by tags (all chosen _highly selectively_ from the Alpha and Delta hangout threads) @Superfluous @The_Wanderer @FreeBeer @osina; @Kink @Merry blues @zinnia @lavendersparrow  @Word Dispenser @randomshoes @Privileged; @Fractals and Pterodactyls @Draki

The questions are as follow: 
*1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? 
*2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?
*3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?
*4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?
*5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?


----------



## LibertyPrime

*1) What is Ne to you and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? *

For me its akin to pattern recognition in the external world. I tend to be sort of a problem solver as I can recognize patterns & the possible outcomes that they lead to. This makes it relatively easy to decide on viable alternatives...unless I like multiple potential outcomes & can't choose...

Since I'm type 6 in the enneagram I'm particularly sensitive to negative patterns & probabilities, which I avoid if possible (coincides with negativism I guess)

This is easier when it comes to people as I tend to be able to read them rather effectively & it is here that I managed to figure out how it works. My subconscious seems to connect random bits of information and serve the patterns up as intuitive insight. I mainly seem to subconsciously read body language, voice tonality, facial muscle patterns, context & content together into this gut level understanding of what is happening inside another person from one moment to the other.

Same with external patterns & this leads to a preference for puzzle solving or logical/practical system optimization..or to just improve upon something because its fun. It also leads to an odd need to share my insights with others >.>...the reception of which tends to be mixed. I sometimes can't communicate the experience with words :/ or the other person can't seem to comprehend it..or both. 

*2) Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?*

I think in patterns, so if I see a pattern I can infer other potentialities from it, its sort of like you see a part of a map & you begin to understand the whole picture from it, which leads to looking for more data that contradicts or asserts what I already know. The whole process is highly inductive 7 I often change my mind based on the evidence I find & how it connects to everything else.

*3) Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?*

Nope, although I have given this a lot of thought. Took me years before I arrived at IEE. Originally i typed as MBTI INFP...however there are a lot of differneces between me & other INFPs on these forums >.> to me they always seemed needlessly emotional & irrationally idealistic to a fault.

*4) Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?*

I'm more present focused at first, until I spot something & then that will trigger a chain reaction of thoughts that may drift out to the far future. I may indulge in Ni this way. In general I'm more short term focused, but I do enjoy discussing anything related to how past & present patterns predict certain kinds of futures: geopolitics, economy etc..

One thing I can tell is that I basically live in my head being an enneagram head type (6) & that I'm not particularly aware of my surroundings most of the time.

*5) Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?*

I prefer to think & I mainly think about tings I observe, but its even better when I can have feedback from some competent person that has reliable info & can debate me. Debates are fun. I'd still classify myself as an introvert to be honest due to certain factors, such as me being a phlegmatic type, me living in my head basically & being able to keep up my energy level & sociability only for about 1-3 hours before I run out of juice. I can't really party for too long as I run out of batteries and need sleep to recharge.


----------



## Draki

Yippey I'm the selectively chosen one  ! Okay ... one of the sel... well.. okay actually I'm the last one you have selectively chosen. :'( Well, whatever... I'm a (proud) selectively chosen one!!! 

Let's go (I like the way you formatted it, it will be easy to read for you with the bold numbers^^):

Just for your background information, I see me as an LII-Ne. It was suggested that I could be EII or even IEE and sometimes I think I'm a bit like an ILE which is my favorite type because I love their Ne ^^. But actually I'm quite sure that Ne is my second function. It was also the first function I ever noticed in myself. My Ti (or Fi if you think I'm an EII) is like a filter which doesn't let out the whole Ne craziness/possibilites. It also makes me less open-minded than Ne-dominants because I'm most of the time searching the "truth" or some other parameters when I'm collecting and/or considering data. I'm not producing ideas just for the sake of producing ideas. It has to be useful to my inner system. I'm also often observing that I can switch Ne on and off. I can be very ignorant, not collecting or searching new things at all. However I never can stop anaylzing what I think is due to my dominant Ji function. There is this dangerous Ti-Si loop where you keep analyzing old stuff in your head / comfort zone without going out and collecting new stuff (Ne). 

*1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? 

Well, I didn't read the Ne definition since a while so I could be mixing it up with other functions like Ti. And all my actions are a product of all my functions, it's difficult to describe only one function. But when I think about my Ne now, I think of being able to read between the lines, to see hidden meanings and the motives of other people very well - in general, things which are not there but "could be". However I think the ability to really get the core of a problem and leaving out everything unimportant is also due to my dominant function. I also see many possibilities (however my dominant functions is shooting down many of them). At the moment I remember all the posts, examples and other things I wrote or other possibilities which could help here to describe Ne. It's like brainstorming. Ideas explode and you get more and more and you try to describe them all (which is not possible), you also get indecisive which one would be the best and what would you miss with the others if you take only one. 

I always was described as someone who has a (too) great imagination. I'm not at all down to earth but floating in the clouds or like my teacher said "I have trouble to stay in or to connect with the physical world" others phrased it friendlier as "she has new, creative and unconventional solutions". I think that is due to my high N over S preference (plus introversion) and also let us not forget that my vulnerable function is Se. So I'm very oblivious to the physical world, usually living in my head (Ji-dom) in the world of thoughts - contemplating. Someone said Ne is theorizing, I would agree with that: What if... ? What will happen if the moon would suddenly disappear? There would be no ebb anymore... blahblahblah. It's about endless theorizing. For me it's all in my head. I think Ne doms rather discuss things.

I also know that I have a particular writing style which I think is very Ne.ish. It's kind of rambling and exploring, sometimes changing the topic quickly. A lot of "maybe" in it. A lot of "on the one side.. on the other" (but this is due to the holographic panorama thinking style I guess (LII - not EII/ILE have this thinking style). I heard that Ni rather want to get to the point quickly. It wants to find the one, true possibility. They start with a few possibilities and then narrow it down. I start writing with no goal in mind and just write and write and have fun to explore more and more. I'm breeding more ideas and get broader when I keep rambling and writing. And I don't want to narrow it down because there are so many possibilities out there. Sometimes I get an information overload (like now) I want to write so many things that I just notice that I can't but I also don't want to leave them all out because I think they would be important to describe. But I can't because they are too many and then it gets too much and I just stop writing. All or nothing. 

I'm often describing something but didn't went into detail enough for others to understand me, because I left out important information which are totally clear for me but not for other, but I don't notice it. I think I sometimes see connections which others don't see. I think my humor is made of funny connections and/or talking random nonsense by the way.
When I describe a topic I'm also often seeing the connection to other fields. It's actually like the word association game:
sun - sun burn - hot - fire - temperament - astronomy - stars - space. Then we can also make useless connections with the words... Stars with sun burn are hot tempered and study astronomy in space while burning like fire. 
Actually I think you can always make connections between things. I agree that it can be crazy or useless but also funny or innovativ. I see such connections very naturally.

There is another aspect of Ne. Enthusiam and curiosity. You really have that drive to learn something new and you are so bored with routine. I need change although my Ji makes me a rational (Ne doms are irrational, but don't take the name literally, it's just about judging versus perceiving) person and I'm actually quiet structured on the inside. Sometimes I just need something fresh. I use to travel and to live in another country when I get bored and need new experiences. There are also times where I'm very extraverted. Then I'm very open for every kind of information. I talk to people and want to know everything, I'm reading new books, learn about a new topic, enthusiastic like little child, not judging or shooting down an idea just perceive, perceive and perceive new information. Ne dominants do that much more often I guess. What I notice with Ne doms in comparison to myself is that they keep getting information but they never really seem to do something with it. Like I said in the beginning I'm usually searching for something. And reflecting very often about these new information. I'm constantly analyzing what I'm perceiving. But Ne-doms analyze much less I think. 

Well, there is so much more to say, but I guess I'll go to the next question. 

*2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?
I think Ne dominants are often thought to be carefree and optimistic (which doesn't mean the dichotomy positivist (IEE is not)). I'm definitely farsighted... well I'm not an Ne-dom. 
I just compared the dichotomies for IEE/ILE/EII and LII. They are all static and judicious. Seems a bit like the jumping from scene to scene of Ne and the freedom you need to explore. But that's highly speculative now. 
The Ne description seems a bit small on wikisocion: Extroverted intuition - Wikisocion ,although I would agree with it. I didn't talk about the big picture yet, but that's very important, too. I'm really a big picture person, although Ti can be a scope looking at a small detail when necessary. Although Ne dominants seek broader information and introverts depth.

I found this INTP (MBTI) description of the thought process very accurate. He is talking about Ti in the first part and about Ne in the second.







*3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?

Well, I could identify with a lot of descriptions of Ne actually. Of course I'm not an Ne dom so I'm always a bit "yeah I see it, too but it's not that important for me" like I said with the searching more and broader topics but not analyzing them in depth is a no go for me. I know that there is a Ji function in me which is the dominant one. So of course not all Ne description will fit for me. However it's hard to search them now. For example I'm not good at motivating people or seeing every potential in people. It's just not my main function in my life. I turn it on when I need new information but I also can turn it off and be totally ignorant about new things. 

*4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?

Here again due to Ne being my second function, there are some differences to Ne doms. I'm usually looking into the distant future and have problems to be in the present moment. I also look into the past. For this question I can explain it very well with reinin dichotomies. I'm farsighted, strategic, obstinate and result. I'm always prepared for every situation, making decisions on all the information I have ever learned, will not forget about my interests and work on them if I don't meet the requirements and I see the result before starting to work from the beginning. I'm not a person who likes risk. I'm usually considering every scenario which could happen to be prepared. I always have severals plans for the case that one fails. I need much more stability than Ne doms I think. I think you cannot exactly forecast what will happen int the future (that seems to be Ni). There are too many possibilities and sometimes I just say "you cannot prepare for everything" just see how it will play out. But it's rather uncomfortable. I usually try to predict what will happen the most likely. (Ni demonstrative?)

*5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?

I'm an introvert but like I said in I'm sometimes in my extravert mode ^^ I wouldn't say that I seek physical stimulation like my sister (SLE - Se dom) she is kinda going to concerts and festivals. I'm more into intellectual stimula. I wanna learn new things and so on. But it's usually about information of the external world. New things to think about, not so much engaging in the real world in terms of a club (also I sometimes like to do that to, but there always is my introversion crossing my plans a bit. I get so tired around people, I don't have the energy for that, also unlike Ne doms, I don't like to discuss all my ideas with people, I do that on my own in my head)

I don't know how familar you are with all the theory. I used a lot of words like e.g. Ji (introverted judging function.. so Ti or Fi)... just ask if you didn't understand something


----------



## kitsu

I've considered IEE because I can be pretty Ne-ish, I'm likely a creative subtype.



disguise said:


> The questions are as follow:
> *1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?


It's kinda like weaving a web of ideas, philosophies, observations into a coherent whole I guess? Drawing general principles from individual occurrences and incorporating them into a perpetually growing theory which informs how I interpret things.
I like to keep an open mind to the world and I'm unwilling to apply harsh judgement until I've really given it a lot of thought. I often prefer to observe politely rather than impose my perspective because there are many ways of looking at things and I feel like if I'm too strongly focused on my own I might miss out on some that are equally pertinent. It makes it easy to see/accept/reconcile differing perspectives.



> *2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?


Yeah I think the static side of the static/dynamic dichotomy is central if you want to understand Ne. It perceives qualities of the objective world and correlations between them that are relatively permanent, it's not tracking a dynamic process in real time like Pi or Je.



> *3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?


I've never been able to relate to the chasing possibilities and novelty aspect. I don't prefer beginnings to endings or breadth over depth. But I don't think these are poor descriptors of the function, it probably just applies more to Ne base.



> *4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?


Most of the time I prefer to experience the present, I don't want to spend my life constantly thinking about the next moment until there isn't one anymore. But I'm studying for my undergraduate degree at the moment so I guess it's a time where I do have to consider my future. There's this one NGO whose work I admire and I'd really like to be a part of later, so I'm presently considering which path would lead me there. I'm also completely cool with the idea of finding other opportunities along the way and changing direction but I like to have a specific goal to orient towards in my mind, it makes it easier to decide which actions I should take in the present.



> *5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?


Holy mother of no, but I'm not an extrovert.


----------



## Word Dispenser

@disguise



*1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? 

It seems to have a lot to do with recognizing patterns and associations, a great deal to do with interest and/or disinterest, and being able to bounce ideas enthusiastically around. I also have a tendency to take information from the world around me and live stories through that information, in my head. 

*2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?

Not particularly. I like the Jungian descriptions of _any_ function, but Lenore Thomson's is good as well. http://personalitycafe.com/nfs-temp...05-lenore-thomsons-extraverted-intuition.html

*3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?

I think that the focus on 'interest' is a bit misleading.

*4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?

I'm often in the present, and think about future _potentialities_, but I rarely end up making any plans toward that effect, because I find it much more interesting/exciting to let things unfold. I like to be surprised, and I'm normally pleasantly surprised. When I do plan towards something, it's normally just a framework, and I fill information in as time goes along. I don't generally plan long term-- I never have. And, I think that it follows, as Alpha-- We tend to be short term planners as a whole. I might have a fancy idea, though, like, "Let's live in China for a year!" And I'd research the area and imagine what it could be like. I'm often pulled down to earth by my loved ones, though. But, if I were alone, I probably would leap at it, and simply 'do it', and it would be impulsive and present-thinking, even if I am as prepared as I could be through research. I'm of the opinion that you can't plan for everything, you know? So... I plan to be prepared, but I don't generally plan that well. I leave that to my masterful planner husband.

*5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?

Yes. I can't stand introspection/introversion without some kind of external aspect to engage with. Even something as simple as a lava lamp that I could stare at to 'guide me' through my thoughts, in a way. But, yeah-- My introspective husband will be able to sit for a very long time, just with his own thoughts. It's not that I can't do that-- It's that I'm _uncomfortable _doing that. I like to 'do things' with my mind. But, I'm also uncomfortable being physical, unless that physical activity is mentally stimulating in some way, or it's one of my ideas. For example-- Doing Ashtanga yoga, or indoor mountain climbing, or rollerblading. Something that is 'fun' and/or 'interesting' that I've thought about, that I've imagined as being fulfilling in some way. I tend to get bored of things like that fairly quickly once I've been at them for awhile-- Once the potential of the idea is exhausted and there's no more novelty.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Here you go @disguise! Thanks for listing me, this was fun. 



disguise said:


> *1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?


It's hard to narrow it down, but it's quite clear from much of my temperament. As a kid I was always asking "why?", often several times in sequence, while also drawing random thoughts into the conversation, and having a number of parallel topics and ideas that I tended to bounce to and from in a discussion. Not much has changed; as an adult I'm still that ever-questioning kid.



disguise said:


> *2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?


I think the judicious side of the judicious/decisive Reinin dichotomy accurately, or in my case _very accurately_, describes my cognition. Essentially this remains true for most of my Ne leading/creative friends - of which I have quite a few.



disguise said:


> *3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?


I could pick and choose word usage I guess, but that's pointless and boring.



disguise said:


> *4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?


Most certainly in the moment as opposed to being in the distant future. I _can _and occasionally _do_ think about the distant future, especially while I'm by myself, but listening to other people drivel on about it isn't exactly what I'd call enjoyable or purposeful, _especially_ if they're acting like quack pseudo prophets... which happens a little too often on the internet :dry:. Even if a future scenario seems extremely likely, you shouldn't forget the endless potential alternatives that you could draw from just looking around you, or from broadening your horizons a bit.



disguise said:


> *5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?


I think the final part of my previous answer relates pretty well to my answer about this. I think clearer, quicker and more effectively when I'm not idle, when I'm not forced to focus my energy on a single idea or object. Productivity, for me, has always been fueled by the amount of unproductive things I'm doing at the time.


----------



## The Exception

*1) What is Ne to you and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? *
Seeing multiple possibilities. Imagining various possible scenarios that could happen without committing to just one. Pattern recognition. Seeing the big picture. Divergent thinking. Free association- X reminds me of Y even though most people wouldn't see an apparent or obvious connection between the two. Ne can come up with relationships between very different things and see how they are similar. 

*2) Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?*

Seeing the overall essence of something. Seeing multiple 'sides' to something. Things can be interpreted in multiple ways. Free association thinking. 

*3) Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?*

Not that I'm aware of.

*4) Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?*

I think alot about both. I tend to see multiple paths rather than singling out one scenario. I have long-term dreams in life and a sense of where I'd like to be in the distant future but I'm not as good at actually making a specific plan and implementing it.

*5) Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?*

I'm an introvert. I care far more about my own thoughts than the world out there. I will use stimuli from the external world as a springboard for thinking about possibilities internally.


----------



## The Exception

Draki said:


> Yippey I'm the selectively chosen one  ! Okay ... one of the sel... well.. okay actually I'm the last one you have selectively chosen. :'( Well, whatever... I'm a (proud) selectively chosen one!!!


Yay! Such an honor isn't it? I was the second to the last one picked. I'm better than you! :tongue:

Anyway, your analysis of Ne is far more in-depth and comprehensive than mine. I didn't spend a whole lot of time on my post- just wrote the first things that came to mind.



Draki said:


> Just for your background information, I see me as an LII-Ne. It was suggested that I could be EII or even IEE and sometimes I think I'm a bit like an ILE which is my favorite type because I love their Ne ^^. But actually I'm quite sure that Ne is my second function. It was also the first function I ever noticed in myself. My Ti (or Fi if you think I'm an EII) is like a filter which doesn't let out the whole Ne craziness/possibilites.


Same here. Even the mistypings are the same for us. Except that in addition, I've also had people type me as ILI (due to strong Ni demonstrative, I suppose) and SEI (also alpha introvert), and SLI (not sure where that came from).



Draki said:


> It also makes me less open-minded than Ne-dominants because I'm most of the time searching the "truth" or some other parameters when I'm collecting and/or considering data. I'm not producing ideas just for the sake of producing ideas. It has to be useful to my inner system. I'm also often observing that I can switch Ne on and off. I can be very ignorant, not collecting or searching new things at all. However I never can stop anaylzing what I think is due to my dominant Ji function. There is this dangerous Ti-Si loop where you keep analyzing old stuff in your head / comfort zone without going out and collecting new stuff (Ne).


Yep



Draki said:


> *1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?


Too long to quote it all here but I'll just say I relate to most of what you said.



Draki said:


> *2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?
> I think Ne dominants are often thought to be carefree and optimistic (which doesn't mean the dichotomy positivist (IEE is not)). I'm definitely farsighted... well I'm not an Ne-dom.
> I just compared the dichotomies for IEE/ILE/EII and LII. They are all static and judicious. Seems a bit like the jumping from scene to scene of Ne and the freedom you need to explore. But that's highly speculative now.
> The Ne description seems a bit small on wikisocion: Extroverted intuition - Wikisocion ,although I would agree with it. I didn't talk about the big picture yet, but that's very important, too. I'm really a big picture person, although Ti can be a scope looking at a small detail when necessary. Although Ne dominants seek broader information and introverts depth.


I see my thinking as an adjustable lens. Zoom in to the details and zoom out to the big picture with equal skill. I'm more farsighted too, I think.



Draki said:


> *3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?
> 
> Well, I could identify with a lot of descriptions of Ne actually. Of course I'm not an Ne dom so I'm always a bit "yeah I see it, too but it's not that important for me" like I said with the searching more and broader topics but not analyzing them in depth is a no go for me. I know that there is a Ji function in me which is the dominant one. So of course not all Ne description will fit for me. However it's hard to search them now. For example I'm not good at motivating people or seeing every potential in people. It's just not my main function in my life. I turn it on when I need new information but I also can turn it off and be totally ignorant about new things.


Yep, I cannot not analyze the possibilities I take in. I definitely need to balance breadth with depth. I'm not good at motivating people either. I don't know how much of that is Ne related- there could be other functions in use too like Fe and Se. I see potential in people but I'm more interested in my own potential or potential in ideas. I think the part about potential in people is more of a delta NF thing.



Draki said:


> *4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?
> 
> Here again due to Ne being my second function, there are some differences to Ne doms. I'm usually looking into the distant future and have problems to be in the present moment. I also look into the past. For this question I can explain it very well with reinin dichotomies. I'm farsighted, strategic, obstinate and result. I'm always prepared for every situation, making decisions on all the information I have ever learned, will not forget about my interests and work on them if I don't meet the requirements and I see the result before starting to work from the beginning. I'm not a person who likes risk. I'm usually considering every scenario which could happen to be prepared. I always have severals plans for the case that one fails. I need much more stability than Ne doms I think. I think you cannot exactly forecast what will happen int the future (that seems to be Ni). There are too many possibilities and sometimes I just say "you cannot prepare for everything" just see how it will play out. But it's rather uncomfortable. I usually try to predict what will happen the most likely. (Ni demonstrative?)


I agree with you, particularly regarding the need for stability. I read that ILE is much more comfortable making guesses and relying on luck for things. I prefer not to do that. I also like to feel like I have some control over the outcome. I think ILE/IEE would care less about control and just going with the flow. 



Draki said:


> *5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?
> 
> I'm an introvert but like I said in I'm sometimes in my extravert mode ^^ I wouldn't say that I seek physical stimulation like my sister (SLE - Se dom) she is kinda going to concerts and festivals. I'm more into intellectual stimula. I wanna learn new things and so on. But it's usually about information of the external world. New things to think about, not so much engaging in the real world in terms of a club (also I sometimes like to do that to, but there always is my introversion crossing my plans a bit. I get so tired around people, I don't have the energy for that, also unlike Ne doms, I don't like to discuss all my ideas with people, I do that on my own in my head)
> 
> I don't know how familar you are with all the theory. I used a lot of words like e.g. Ji (introverted judging function.. so Ti or Fi)... just ask if you didn't understand something


I understand everything you said. I do the same thing with external information- think it through in my own head. I don't need to share everything either but if I have a really cool idea, I like having someone to share it with whom I think will find it interesting. I don't have enough people in my life that I'm comfortable sharing all my ideas with.


----------



## Draki

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Same here. Even the mistypings are the same for us. Except that in addition, I've also had people type me as ILI (due to strong Ni demonstrative, I suppose) and SEI (also alpha introvert), and SLI (not sure where that came from).


Well, like every beginner in socionics I first thought INTPs (MBTI) are usually INTps. So I had a hard time to distinguish between LII and ILI a year ago. The Ni dominant description of being an observer and so on is correct for me. However I always find Te auxilary somehow wrong. We extravert ourselves with our preferred extraverted functions. In our case Ne-Fe, that's much more non-critical and friendly than a Te-Se. I'm very sure that I'm a Ne-Si type. And I think functions are better than to rely on description which are often not very accurate. I also identified that the Gamma Quadra is not mine very quickly and the reinin traits are also different. So I agree the two types seem similar but actually they are also very different. 
So ILI is not really an option for me anymore if I think about the functions. Funny enough that I sometimes score ILI very high in tests (as a second or third possibility). But I think there is a very clear difference between Ti and Te logic. 
I never considered to be an Si-dom. My mother is a very clear one (Probably Si-Fe but actually I think she is more delta quadra than alpha? Of course she could be SLI, too, but she makes a lot of illogical statements in my opinion and my father (who could be LSI or SLI) is always pointing it out. So I'm unsure about her type, but I think she shows strong Si bahaviour). She is doing everything about comfort for me. Like making me food, she often asks if I feel good and what she can do that I feel better (and I never have an answer for that ô.o I feel like always...), she is also very hardworking and dutiful. She likes sport to feel her body, all this is very foreign to me, but I guess that's Si dominant. 
Si dominant would also mean Ne inferior. But my Ne is definitely higher.

It would be interesting to invite Ni-Se types now to see what they do different and what they don't like about our Ne-Si style ^^ Analyzing our answers here is very interesting by the way. I hope there will be more answers of this kind. And you picked interesting people @disguise ^^ Unfortunately I'm not really up to date what you are doing here on PerC. Do you still search your type? Do you want to find out if you're an Ne user? or just an explanation or examples of Ne? ...


----------



## disguise

Draki said:


> Unfortunately I'm not really up to date what you are doing here on PerC. Do you still search your type? Do you want to find out if you're an Ne user? or just an explanation or examples of Ne? ...


I'm definitely a rambler too. At least when I've been thinking about something for a longer while.


* *





I had actually settled on IEI. It seemed good, Reinin correlated, a couple of souls agreed based on a questionnaire, and it was all a merry dance in daffodils. Then I made a post where in my sentiment was more so Fi valuing than Fe. It stumbled down to someone I very much appreciate as a typer suggesting IEE for me, with extroverted cognition as an underlined truth without question marks. Being myself, I immediately abandoned any armor of knowledge and assumed I must have understood the functions incorrectly, that I was mixing my image of Ni with that of Ne. I did a bit more reading to compose myself again. These questions were a part of my reconstruction in action. Turned out I did not understand Ni as well as I could have, but Ne was neatly on the palm of my hand.

Reinin still contradicts IEE (the two dichotomies I am absolutely sure of and can support by several examples are Farsighted and Emotivist; I'm leaning Dynamic and Result). I still cannot see Ne base for myself, not by Lenore Thomson's descriptions. I still do not identify as Si seeking nor Ti PoLR. But incongruence between internal and external understanding of myself is near detrimental for me. My life is not at question, but far worse - my identity is. Joking 

I do find it frustrating. I suppose to this typer I came out as validating the object over the subject, taking what is presented as granted. It makes for a question: How can one be confident in their typing, if they cannot see into their typees mind and be sure that what they say about themselves is true? How can one be confident in their self-typing, if the external perspective does not meet with the internal?

My conscious identity tends to become what I myself or others expect to see in me. If before talking to me you say I seem like a very caring person, when I describe myself to you later, I will only speak of the times I have been driven by some humanitarian foundation. You won't hear about all the times I acted out of cruel heart and apathy. So it spins. That's the problem in external validation of type based on a single moment [one interview, one questionnaire, one test] for me. If I attach to a type/function, I will answer in a way that suits it (80q and I thought for myself IEI & strong Ti -> was typed as LII, xEI; interview and I was thinking of an Fi attitude and intuition -> was typed as IEE).

I don't enjoy inconsistency, when points don't add up and apples don't make an apple pie. I know it's a journey of internal discovery, and I do prefer it as such, but there is a part in me that doubts the inside and thus asks for external support. When support doesn't act as it would need to in order to sustain a structure, everything falls apart and you're building again. I would be content with IEE if it made sense _to me_, but it doesn't. By the means of reduction, I still would think IEI. And they insist IEE. And I say it doesn't work. And they say they can't see IEI. And they remind me it's my journey, and I say that you're in the way of my path, or that you sunk my ship that was on the way to India. At the end of the day it doesn't matter outside the framework of the theory, outside PerC, outside with people who just experience another without pondering whether their attitude is that of an intuit or a sensor.

Enough venting. I'll keep ruminating on it silently.


----------



## Cellar Door

Draki said:


>


Are you sure this guy is an INTj?


----------



## Draki

Cellar Door said:


> Are you sure this guy is an INTj?


No, he is not talking about LII (socionics) but INTP in MBTI. Some INTPs (MBTI) are INTps in socionics, others INTjs. 
These two videos show very much my impression about how Ti with auxilary Ne play out for an INTP (for more Ti explanations watch his first part), so I also see him as an INTP. I saw a lot of other INTPs agreeing with him as well. 
It could be that this is a mistake but actually I think LII is not too far away from his explanations about Ti and Ne. I'm trying to find that out actually.


----------



## Cellar Door

Draki said:


> No, he is not talking about LII (socionics) but INTP in MBTI. Some INTPs (MBTI) are INTps in socionics, others INTjs.
> These two videos show very much my impression about how Ti with auxilary Ne play out for an INTP (for more Ti explanations watch his first part), so I also see him as an INTP. I saw a lot of other INTPs agreeing with him as well.
> It could be that this is a mistake but actually I think LII is not too far away from his explanations about Ti and Ne. I'm trying to find that out actually.


I don't know about this guy, I didn't really identify with what he had to say. Just sounded like a ton of intellectual masturbation.


----------



## Draki

disguise said:


> I'm definitely a rambler too. At least when I've been thinking about something for a longer while.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had actually settled on IEI. It seemed good, Reinin correlated, a couple of souls agreed based on a questionnaire, and it was all a merry dance in daffodils. Then I made a post where in my sentiment was more so Fi valuing than Fe. It stumbled down to someone I very much appreciate as a typer suggesting IEE for me, with extroverted cognition as an underlined truth without question marks. Being myself, I immediately abandoned any armor of knowledge and assumed I must have understood the functions incorrectly, that I was mixing my image of Ni with that of Ne. I did a bit more reading to compose myself again. These questions were a part of my reconstruction in action. Turned out I did not understand Ni as well as I could have, but Ne was neatly on the palm of my hand.
> 
> Reinin still contradicts IEE (the two dichotomies I am absolutely sure of and can support by several examples are Farsighted and Emotivist; I'm leaning Dynamic and Result). I still cannot see Ne base for myself, not by Lenore Thomson's descriptions. I still do not identify as Si seeking nor Ti PoLR. But incongruence between internal and external understanding of myself is near detrimental for me. My life is not at question, but far worse - my identity is. Joking
> 
> I do find it frustrating. I suppose to this typer I came out as validating the object over the subject, taking what is presented as granted. It makes for a question: How can one be confident in their typing, if they cannot see into their typees mind and be sure that what they say about themselves is true? How can one be confident in their self-typing, if the external perspective does not meet with the internal?
> 
> My conscious identity tends to become what I myself or others expect to see in me. If before talking to me you say I seem like a very caring person, when I describe myself to you later, I will only speak of the times I have been driven by some humanitarian foundation. You won't hear about all the times I acted out of cruel heart and apathy. So it spins. That's the problem in external validation of type based on a single moment [one interview, one questionnaire, one test] for me. If I attach to a type/function, I will answer in a way that suits it (80q and I thought for myself IEI & strong Ti -> was typed as LII, xEI; interview and I was thinking of an Fi attitude and intuition -> was typed as IEE).
> 
> I don't enjoy inconsistency, when points don't add up and apples don't make an apple pie. I know it's a journey of internal discovery, and I do prefer it as such, but there is a part in me that doubts the inside and thus asks for external support. When support doesn't act as it would need to in order to sustain a structure, everything falls apart and you're building again. I would be content with IEE if it made sense _to me_, but it doesn't. By the means of reduction, I still would think IEI. And they insist IEE. And I say it doesn't work. And they say they can't see IEI. And they remind me it's my journey, and I say that you're in the way of my path, or that you sunk my ship that was on the way to India. At the end of the day it doesn't matter outside the framework of the theory, outside PerC, outside with people who just experience another without pondering whether their attitude is that of an intuit or a sensor.
> 
> Enough venting. I'll keep ruminating on it silently.


Hmmm.... Sounds like my own story a bit and @Fractals and Pterodactyls story as well  Aaaand it sounds like schweeeeksy @Schweeeeks  *wave* you should read the 80Qs of us and you will find a similar problem. IEE was suggested for us, too, but usually EII. Well, I didn't read every answer here in detail but I think I saw a difference between Ne doms and Ne auxialary in some posts  and it matches with my knowledge about Ne, so I also described it already. I think Ne doms live more in the external world, they are usually people who really DO stuff (change the external world) instead of just thinking about it (living/(changing the) in their internal world). For Ne auxilary users there is something more important: The Ji function, Fi or Ti (xII). 

So I crashed over my whole knowledge about socionics a few times and rebuilded it. I can really see a lot of flaws in it, so it's a good thing, I'm still on my way doing it, so excuse me that I can't help you that much with the definitions of functions at the moment because I need to find it out by myself first. 
But I recommend the interview of Fractals with WSS (video in her 80Q thread somewhere at the end I think, too lazy to post a link xD) and keep studying socionics for yourself 

I noticed I have a lot of flawed knowledge about functions because I'm always learning from other amateurs here. So at the moment I tend to doubt everything I see here and I'm very sceptical towards everything, also about wikisocion descriptions because there are things which contradict each other. So at the moment I'm only trusting official definitions and original sources.  And sometimes I don't even trust those... I noticed how unsure and not defined typology actually is... there are no official definitions.... there are always people who say something else... That made me think about how real the reality is we're living in and how we can know/prove if everything is true that we see and I watched a lot of films till I was contemplating and watching films about the big bang xD ... which is also only a theory by the way. Well back to typology... 
For example I'm reading Jung's definitions and Augusta's and so on... My favorite texts ans theories are still from Gulenko which is funny because we have the same self-typing (LII-Ne, type 5). His theories always make sense to me somehow 

So I know the feeling that other typers here type you differently and then it kinda disturbs you because it doesn't match with your 
(I almost said: inner framework/system because it reminds me of my (flawed) Ti knowledge ^^ I see Ti as having an internal framework which always need to make sense to you, and it's very frustrating if it doesn't match with external data, because it actually should match, otherwise it could be flawed, so you keep researching and researching and researching...) understanding. 

But don't forget that nobody can look into your head and others also make mistakes. That's why typing is quiet difficult, others never see everything. With typologies I actually learned that there are people who see the world from another perspective and they will type you from their perspective. And I learned that we have an internal world which differs strongly from the external world. Just take Ti-Ne-Si-Fe as an example. Ti-Si very stable and detail-focused functions on the inside and on the outside Ne (I would say playful, kinda going with the flow) and Fe (often described as chameleon like in my opinion it's a "nice mask", wanna have harmony in the environnement).
In contrast I heard that ILI (Ni-Te-Fi-Se) are flexible, perhaps even very emotionally deep (Fi) on the inside (I don't know if it's true by the way) but very fact-oriented (Te) on the outside and Se is also more described as a "can-be-forceful function" if I got that right. 
So I always had the impression that LII's can be "nice on the outside but are critical on the inside" and ILI's "Critical on the outside but nice on the inside". At least that's what makes sense to me at the moment. Although to make it more complicated we actually have all functions in us... So LII's will also have a certain Fi (stronger than Fe) in them for example. 

But I have to research it further by actually asking ILI's and LII's. The problem is to find real ILI's and LII's. At the moment I see PerC as a big pool of people with a lot of amateurs in it (myself included, although I actually think that I already read a lot about MBTI, Enneagram and Socionics, after all we're all just guessing the types and in my case I also think that even Wikisocion descriptions are kind of flawed... I love the decision of @Word Dispenser to say that she doesn't type people anymore because of too many misses, like you described it.. if someone types you but it doesn't make sense to you it's nevertheless in your way, because you get more unsure) and many rumors about functions and so on. 

The funny thing is that actually most people come here to learn about themselves but they (myself included) try to press themselves into a certain type. If you think IEE doesn't fit you at all then why should you be one? You would be unhappy forever with this typing even if it would be correct because it doesn't make sense to you. And as long as nobody can convince you with good arguments being a certain type I would go with the type which makes the most sense to me. But that's only my perspective... there are 15+ others 

well enough rambling ^^ 
I feel nihilistic now... ... but I'm glad I am feeling that way.. because it's a confirmation for my enneagram type 5 typing  *yay*
oh wait... type 5's are not supposed to feel their feelings, right?  
Typology can be such a bul..... ^^ but I like it nevertheless.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Draki said:


> I love the decision of @_Word Dispenser_ to say that she doesn't type people anymore because of too many misses, like you described it.. if someone types you but it doesn't make sense to you it's nevertheless in your way, because you get more unsure) and many rumors about functions and so on.
> 
> The funny thing is that actually most people come here to learn about themselves but they (myself included) try to press themselves into a certain type. If you think IEE doesn't fit you at all then why should you be one? You would be unhappy forever with this typing even if it would be correct because it doesn't make sense to you. And as long as nobody can convince you with good arguments being a certain type I would go with the type which makes the most sense to me. But that's only my perspective... there are 15+ others
> .


Yeah, I'm awesome.

But, actually, I'd _kinda _disagree a bit here. Mainly about 'choosing' a type. If your goal in typology is about personal growth, and growth with others, then you'd want to make sure that you've got your finger pretty solid on the correct cognition. Or ball parking it, at least. Without an EEG, I'm thinkin' it's unlikely you'll get 100 % answers. And, with so many contradictory answers, it's confusing, to say the least.

All in all, I think that listening to others is important, but ultimately, you've got to do the research yourself and figure it out. Others can really only help you along with information. Those that give you a type without any education aren't really helping, in my opinion. 

It _is _true that we all have our own truths, separate realities that don't really touch on an actual objective truth. So, bearing that in mind, it's just gotta fit with what we know. And being open to change, and adapting our understanding is pretty paramount to personal growth, I think.


----------



## Draki

Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, I'm awesome.
> 
> But, actually, I'd _kinda _disagree a bit here. Mainly about 'choosing' a type. If your goal in typology is about personal growth, and growth with others, then you'd want to make sure that you've got your finger pretty solid on the correct cognition. Or ball parking it, at least. Without an EEG, I'm thinkin' it's unlikely you'll get 100 % answers. And, with so many contradictory answers, it's confusing, to say the least.
> 
> All in all, I think that listening to others is important, but ultimately, you've got to do the research yourself and figure it out. Others can really only help you along with information. Those that give you a type without any education aren't really helping, in my opinion.
> 
> It _is _true that we all have our own truths, separate realities that don't really touch on an actual objective truth. So, bearing that in mind, it's just gotta fit with what we know. And being open to change, and adapting our understanding is pretty paramount to personal growth, I think.


Hm.. are you still awesome if you disagree with me? 
Actually I don't think we disagree, we just talk about the same differently... and this is quiet strange/scary because I always have the same problem with my ILE teacher ô.o .... okay, you're awesome. 
kinda. 

I actually wanted to say that you will always find your correct type sooner or later. And for growth it is not really important how long it will take, I would say with mistypings you learn more. If you have to press yourself into a type, it's probably not a good choice to accept this type, whatever others might say, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. Keep searching. 

Perhaps it was nevertheless your correct type and you find that out later because you didn't have enough knowledge to see it and others have seen it earlier. But I think that's not so bad, you nevertheless learned something and grew... it's a journey.

And of course it is important to listen to others as well, they keep you thinking. I probably wouldn't have started to read only official definitions about the functions, if someone wouldn't have pointed out that my understanding of them could be flawed.

Are there actually growth recommendations in socionics? I think it's not so much about growth. At least I've never read about it. It seems to be more about interactions.


----------



## Draki

Cellar Door said:


> I don't know about this guy, I didn't really identify with what he had to say. Just sounded like a ton of intellectual masturbation.


You make me curious of how your thought process is... because he described mine very well actually. xD
Do you remember with what you didn't agree?

Especially this interplay of Ti and Ne with the evolution example was quiet good I think. Because in my opinion Ti-Ne is always building something and if something doesn't make sense it crashes the whole theory and start new. I do that very often. And I read very often that INTPs would start a new chess game over and over again because they aren't satisfied. 

In contrast I learned that Ni-Te keep with one idea and try to make it perfect but would never throw it away. Also they don't explore so many possibilities but narrowing them down. So Ne and endless, sometimes useless theorizing like he did in the video is something I do very often. 

Or the example with solving problems by rephrasing the problem. That's something I always do if I want to understand something or when I learn something I always make my own version of it and I also get the core of the problem by cutting off unimportant data.


----------



## Ixim

*1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?

Well, it shows as a perception of wholeness of outr world. It also manifests itself as an inbuilt ability to see all the possible combinations, how to optimise them and the focus on fantasy and future. But I've been working on being more focused on here and now and, more importantly, on shifiting that focus towards the "bridge" between here and now and tomorrow(so I can see all the possiblities both present and potential)

*2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?

A lot of it does. From the lack of focus on time(unless it's something DEAD SERIOUS as a job interview or something) to the focus on possibilites and the lack of focus on fine details(numbers = ENEMIES!). God dam I hate numbers and stat crunching and excel and such activities1

*3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?

Well, I'd argue the focus on negativity. But I don't think that's what it looks like. I think that negative reinin is merely the focus on what is not here, as opposed to what is here. Such as "Where'd that picture go?" as opposed to "What a nice collection of pictures!". Plus I'd wager everything I have on IEEs being EXTREMELY optimistic, so the final answer? ...meh who knows these things? I guess not. I guess they are approximately right.

*4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?

I don't really like to think of the distant future. Why? Totally random reason: <forgot where I read it on wikipedia> -> it's about weather forecasting and how EXPONENTIALLY more difficult it is to orecast weather for more than...3 days in advance. It just becomes too random. What I like to do is to take things that are present here and imagine what their optimal could be. Yes, I use both Ni and Ne with mostly equal success. The difference is that I don't really enjoy to forecast or to choose something. What I like about it is the whole transcendental experience of taking a thing and making it whole. Such as putting the right thing into the right spot. To do that I of course must eliminate all the wrong spots(which is just what Ni does). But I see Ni just as a tool. What I like to do is to single out one possible future scenario with the highest chance of success and then see where that'll take me. So...a synergy?

*5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?

Of course, of course! Please do keep in mind that extroversion isn't exactly about outer-wordlyness but rather about a broad approach to life. Which is exactly why we (most often) end up outer-wordly focused. In every game that I played to this day there was one qustion: "how could this be better?" . Also games where you have a crap-ton of skills to choose and limited skill-slots to put them in(Guild Wars 1/The Secret Wordl) are a wet dream for Ne I think. Or here's another example I've been doing lately: "How to optimise SWTOR levelling experience" . They recently changed the way you level which allows them to use WAY MORE freedom when deciding when you get something. So I've been ordering what is crucial to get ASAP in order to have most fun and what's "numbers dribble blah blah [email protected]".

But, one beautiful experince would be the act of focusing INWARDLY. As in meditation/centering/call it what you will. Of course, ofcourse! You shouldn't do it like the Monks do it. You should do it infrequently when you feel the need for it. I found out this tones down our inborn aggression by few levels and allows us to be more clear in the moment. Hence seeing more possibilities. Hence, more happyness.


Of course, this is all IEE random(yeah this is the word I would descibe us as) talk, so YMMV. Cheers!


----------



## Cellar Door

Draki said:


> You make me curious of how your thought process is... because he described mine very well actually. xD
> Do you remember with what you didn't agree?
> 
> Especially this interplay of Ti and Ne with the evolution example was quiet good I think. Because in my opinion Ti-Ne is always building something and if something doesn't make sense it crashes the whole theory and start new. I do that very often. And I read very often that INTPs would start a new chess game over and over again because they aren't satisfied.
> 
> In contrast I learned that Ni-Te keep with one idea and try to make it perfect but would never throw it away. Also they don't explore so many possibilities but narrowing them down. So Ne and endless, sometimes useless theorizing like he did in the video is something I do very often.
> 
> Or the example with solving problems by rephrasing the problem. That's something I always do if I want to understand something or when I learn something I always make my own version of it and I also get the core of the problem by cutting off unimportant data.


In my opinion the best Ti descriptions ever made are by Lenore Thomson, Adymus, and whoever else is responsible for the proposed definitions in this link.

Socionics - the16types.info - Lenore Thomson's MBTI Wiki Explanation of Functions

I would say that Ti-Ne and Ni-Te could and possibly would match both the descriptions that you gave, for that matter probably any type. After thinking about it more, that guy could very well be an MBTI INTP and socionics INTj but myself and him definitely don't have the same instinctual stacking.

I'll pull out some quotes from the link that I like:

Introverted thinking is a form of mental representation in which every input, every variable, every aspect of things is considered simultaneously and holistically to perceive causal, mathematical, and aesthetic order. What you know by Ti, you know with your hands, your eyes, your muscles, even a tingling sensation "downstairs" because you sense that everything fits. Every variable is fair game to vary, every combination of variables worthy of consideration; the only ultimate arbiter is how well the parts form a unified whole rather than a jumble.

Orienting by Ti, you track causal harmony: you are part of the system, you do your part to fit in with that overall way that things make sense and harmonize. You get into "the flow" or "the zone". You need a gestalt sense of order to know what to do--a sense that you feel in your body, in your mind, in everything at once. "I get it." Without that, you are lost.

For example: You hear a Brahms piece that you've never heard before, and you're sure it's Brahms. How can you tell? You can't name a criterion, like the pitch of the notes, the number of notes, or some simply measurable criterion like that (see extraverted thinking). You know "all at once" because of the way in which the notes all relate to each other. You sense the overall pattern as an indivisible gestalt way in which the music makes sense.

For example: You are composing a piece of music, and you sense that something "doesn't fit". A dominant seventh chord here just doesn't fit the style of the piece. You take it out and replace it with a peculiar series of ambiguous chords, bridging two sections of the piece in a way that leads to but doesn't give away what is to come. Ahh, now that's right. That's what the piece really wanted. It's not what "you" wanted, it's what the emerging causal harmony of the music wanted. "Your" only job is to create faithfully to that emerging harmony--to follow the groove.

What is that groove? What distinguishes the harmonious whole from the jumble, or the almost-whole? This cannot be said, it can only be pointed to. It cannot be defined in advance of knowing it. It cannot be defined separately from the physical material that it potentially exists within. You can "say" it only by directing someone's attention to the parts and how they fit together. You acquire terms of discourse--a vocabulary of things to say--only through "conversation" with the material itself: interacting with it, letting it take shape. Once you've found the groove, you can explore it endlessly--the infinity of ways in which the underlying Idea of the Whole necessitates the arrangement of the parts, the infinity of different ways that the same Idea can be realized in different parts and different situations, and what that Idea is.

In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it.

In contrast to other attitudes, especially left-brain and Feeling attitudes, Ti does not lead you to experience a sense of self. There is no "you" who is separate from the process in which the material takes on the form that is natural to it. Whether people find the way the parts want to arrange themselves into a harmonious whole offensive, whether you find it pleasant or painful, whether you personally like it or not--you see these as distractions. Your job is to get yourself in harmony with it. The Idea of the whole must become real, and it must be necessitated by the nature of the parts. What "you" create must already be there, as form latent within the material, already yearning to exist. You bring no notion of self to your work except perhaps that of midwife to Nature.

High-bandwidth understanding

Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.

This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. You don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your email. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).

Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aesthetic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures.
True knowledge comes through the fingers

In a sense that everyone understands, true knowledge comes through the fingers, not through the ears or the eyes.

To illustrate what we mean by that, consider what happens when someone tells you how to do something moderately complicated with a certain computer program (say, MS-Word or Excel). They tell you how to work it, but that day you don't operate it yourself (maybe they were telling you over the phone when you weren't at a computer). When you finally try it yourself the next day, you can't get anything to work. All sorts of crucial details are missing from your memory. Or perhaps you remember everything perfectly, but they forgot to tell you something crucial. Now consider what happens when someone sits down in front of you and demonstrates how to operate the program. They run through the whole thing and explain as they go. The next day, you try it yourself for the first time. And barely anything works, again because crucial details are missing. And now consider what happens when they show you how to work the program by having you sit down at the computer. You type as they tell you what to do and point things out on the screen. Every time they forget a detail, you catch it immediately, and they supply the missing info. Every time you run into something you don't understand, you just ask them right away, or they tell you without your asking because it's obvious what you need to be shown. When you work the program again the next day, you're not a pro yet, but you can actually do stuff.

What's relevant here is not the sense of touch, but whether you are actively engaged with the tool. When you interact with the tool using your very own body, the reality of the tool becomes known to you in a different way than when someone tells you or shows you how to use the tool. You understand in a right-brain way rather than a left-brain way. The reality of the tool is guaranteed to have shown itself, because you had a concrete experience with the tool, not just a verbal or symbolic representation of it. The causal relationships of the tool get burned into your brain in a way that transcends words. You could try to translate your understanding into a linear stream of words, but you would indeed be translating: the actual knowledge that you have is not linear and not words. It's an "all at once" thing, and it seems that the knowledge resides in your hand. Or in other words, you have come to understand the tool in the Ti way.

Another example: Let's say you want to make a tower out of random irregular objects. For example a book, an eraser, a pencil and a cup.

A Te approach would be to think of the tower as a list. And try to reduce variables to a minimun. For instance, you would only use the book closed to keep variables down. If you use every object in only one way you only have 24 combinations in total. That way you can be sure that you make the best choice. Then you can decide to put the book with the biggest base first. So you put the book first, then the cup, the eraser and the pencil. Done.

Ti, on the other hand, would encourage you to pick two objects and try to add more. Feel them, consider all the possibilities. Once you are very familiar with each object you can picture everything in your mind. You can see how they fit and how they interact with each other in time. But you don't longer think in 'objects', you think in gestals. You see everything as a fluid. For instance, you consider now the table and your breath as part of the system. You are familiar with the everything in a way that you can consider things like keeping the book open, or taking pages out of it and add them elsewhere to keep balance. After playing with everything a little you see how it would work best and you just do it.
Goals


----------



## zinnia

@disguise I left for vacation the same day you asked those questions; sorry. If you're still interested, I wrote something up, though fair warning that I am not 100% sure I am indeed Ne ego.

*1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world? 

I am not the best at explaining so I will just give examples. 

*In a learning environment: I cannot memorize to save my life. Instead, I prefer making connections between concepts, based on previous knowledge and patterns I recognized. As in, why memorize multiplication tables rather than just realizing it's just a lot of addition? 
*At work: I don't need instruction manuals. Don't have the patience. Give me whatever it is, and I bet I can figure it out, as I go. This goes there, then this there, oh well, maybe not, let me undo that, oh, that works.
*In general: My mind flies in a million directions pretty much all the time - this means being able to do things like finishing people's sentences, understand what is being said even if someone can't explain it well, thinking up a potential problem or solution and being able to deal with it right away. Seeing different perspectives, like how a person from this culture would see this thing, versus this other culture, or this upbringing, etc.

*2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?

Ugh, I have already forgotten all the Reinin dichotomies and it has only been a week. 

I think that the description of Ne types being able to see opportunities is a good one. That was one thing I felt I brought to my family - seeing ways we could do this differently, or whatever the case may be. I tend to learn pretty quickly and in that way, get "bored" with things, as I see how this connects to that... so nothing is really totally new. Also I see generalities a lot, and sometimes can overdo it.

*3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?

I think Ne ego types are described as being a little flighty. I can be that way depending on the situation but I am also someone who is pretty goal-oriented most of the time, so I don't like that stereotype much.

*4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?

I usually think about the near/immediate future. There are certain things I think about in the distant future, like one day I want to own a house near the beach, but it's not planned much. I do see a lot of possible paths but they don't have an equal likeliness of success. I do not think it is possible to single out a future scenario, as there are so very many variables in life, all of which need to be accounted for... which, in my opinion, is impossible. 

*5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?

It depends on what you mean by this. I probably would not be happy in a dark room in silence by myself, but I am content listening to music by myself, or talking to someone online, or reading. I would prefer being by myself to being with other -people- 99% of the time, because I have an issue with personal space and habits. However, I enjoy teaching people or discussing ideas with other people, as long as it's a safe space.


----------



## Ixim

zinnia said:


> @_disguise_ I left for vacation the same day you asked those questions; sorry. If you're still interested, I wrote something up, though fair warning that I am not 100% sure I am indeed Ne ego.
> 
> *1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?
> 
> I am not the best at explaining so I will just give examples.
> 
> *In a learning environment: I cannot memorize to save my life. Instead, I prefer making connections between concepts, based on previous knowledge and patterns I recognized. As in, why memorize multiplication tables rather than just realizing it's just a lot of addition?
> *At work: I don't need instruction manuals. Don't have the patience. Give me whatever it is, and I bet I can figure it out, as I go. This goes there, then this there, oh well, maybe not, let me undo that, oh, that works.
> *In general: My mind flies in a million directions pretty much all the time - this means being able to do things like finishing people's sentences, understand what is being said even if someone can't explain it well, thinking up a potential problem or solution and being able to deal with it right away. Seeing different perspectives, like how a person from this culture would see this thing, versus this other culture, or this upbringing, etc.
> 
> *2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?
> 
> Ugh, I have already forgotten all the Reinin dichotomies and it has only been a week.
> 
> I think that the description of Ne types being able to see opportunities is a good one. That was one thing I felt I brought to my family - seeing ways we could do this differently, or whatever the case may be. I tend to learn pretty quickly and in that way, get "bored" with things, as I see how this connects to that... so nothing is really totally new. Also I see generalities a lot, and sometimes can overdo it.
> 
> *3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?
> 
> I think Ne ego types are described as being a little flighty. I can be that way depending on the situation but I am also someone who is pretty goal-oriented most of the time, so I don't like that stereotype much.
> 
> *4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?
> 
> I usually think about the near/immediate future. There are certain things I think about in the distant future, like one day I want to own a house near the beach, but it's not planned much. I do see a lot of possible paths but they don't have an equal likeliness of success. I do not think it is possible to single out a future scenario, as there are so very many variables in life, all of which need to be accounted for... which, in my opinion, is impossible.
> 
> *5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?
> 
> It depends on what you mean by this. I probably would not be happy in a dark room in silence by myself, but I am content listening to music by myself, or talking to someone online, or reading. I would prefer being by myself to being with other -people- 99% of the time, because I have an issue with personal space and habits. However, I enjoy teaching people or discussing ideas with other people, as long as it's a safe space.


Almost EVERYTHING from here applies to me as well. The only differences is that I have good relationship/image memory(numerical memory S.U.C.K.S. on the other hand!). I also dislike dark(or light, doesn't matter) empty rooms. It's just unnerving to me. I'd rather have kitsch than spartanic empty room tyvm!

This reminded me of two things:

1. I wasn't able to learn simple numbers(prices really) for an exam at a workplace(2 or 3 pages). It was just a potential workplace, but still. I had more aggravation with that than I did with #2 :

2. I was able to learn ~150 pages of air traffic regulations(law) in ~35 minutes and still get a C. Bloody amazing feat if you ask me. I was also able to learn the whole year's worth of maths during one summer and pass the grade.

The reason for #2 ? Relational learning. We are VERY GOOD at it! But pure, numerical learning? Years in history, sections of law, specific numbers(constants in science/prices etc)... OMG NO!


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> *In general: My mind flies in a million directions pretty much all the time - this means being able to do things like finishing people's sentences, understand what is being said even if someone can't explain it well, thinking up a potential problem or solution and being able to deal with it right away. Seeing different perspectives, like how a person from this culture would see this thing, versus this other culture, or this upbringing, etc.


I do this too. And hold multiple perspectives in my head. Like... One person will give me their opinion, and another will give me a vastly disparate, on-the-other-end-of-the-spectrum kind of opinion, and I can agree, _or _disagree (For the sake of argument), with both.

Actually, I'm more likely to agree. This can annoy others, because they will give me their opinion about someone else, and though I may agree with them, I don't say that first. I say what I agree with about the other person's opinion first. I think this is for the sake of discussion, but I actually very rarely 'disagree' in an argument anyway. It's funny how you can argue through agreement. As if agreement with one stance neutralizes the other. It doesn't work that way with me.


----------



## mushr00m

I find socionics really confusing, there's almost too much information to read. I started a type me thread over a year ago and some vague direction in type was reached and then forgot about socionics for awhile. And posted on a different socionics forum where I was offered different results based on the difference of information I gave in the form of music, favourite art and personal pictures, the results were just as muddled. Im intrigued but just want to know my type to get some closure on it. I wish it were more simple really. *sigh* :mellow:


----------



## The Exception

mushr00m said:


> I find socionics really confusing, there's almost too much information to read. I started a type me thread over a year ago and some vague direction in type was reached and then forgot about socionics for awhile. And posted on a different socionics forum where I was offered different results based on the difference of information I gave in the form of music, favourite art and personal pictures, the results were just as muddled. Im intrigued but just want to know my type to get some closure on it. I wish it were more simple really. *sigh* :mellow:


Are you talking about the Socionics International forum? They buy into Associative Socionics- the idea that the art and music we like plays a big role into our Socionics type. It's mostly bullshit if you ask me. It's also not widely accepted by the Socionics community at large.


----------



## Gentleman

How are SLIs "positivists" while IEEs are "negativists"? Usually the opposite is thought to be the case.


----------



## kitsu

Gentleman said:


> How are SLIs "positivists" while IEEs are "negativists"? Usually the opposite is thought to be the case.


Positivist/negativist doesn't equate to being a positive or negative person like as in glass half full/half empty philosophies, it's a question of what you primarily notice. IEE's are likely to notice absence, something that is not there, SLI's sees things that are present. For example, IEE: "there's _not_ a cloud in sight" versus SLI: "It's a nice day"


----------



## Ixim

kitsu said:


> Positivist/negativist doesn't equate to being a positive or negative person like as in glass half full/half empty philosophies, it's a question of what you primarily notice. IEE's are likely to notice absence, something that is not there, SLI's sees things that are present. For example, IEE: "there's _not_ a cloud in sight" versus SLI: "It's a nice day"


exactly. There is one little caveat though:

I as an IEE often say things like "what a lovely day!" . But it's grounded in fact that there is no clouds, no rain etc.
Meanwhile SLIs would say things like "there aren't any clouds to be seen" which gives you an overview of current state. It'd also imply that a weather is good.

It's not really rock solid I think. The bottom "grounding" is what matters imo.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Yeah, positivists are like "So much win!" Or "So much fail!"

But negativists are like, "You lack win." or "You lack fail."


----------



## kitsu

Ixim said:


> exactly. There is one little caveat though:
> 
> I as an IEE often say things like "what a lovely day!" . But it's grounded in fact that there is no clouds, no rain etc.
> Meanwhile SLIs would say things like "there aren't any clouds to be seen" which gives you an overview of current state. It'd also imply that a weather is good.
> 
> It's not really rock solid I think. The bottom "grounding" is what matters imo.


It was just an example, didn't mean it literally


----------



## mushr00m

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Are you talking about the Socionics International forum? They buy into Associative Socionics- the idea that the art and music we like plays a big role into our Socionics type. It's mostly bullshit if you ask me. It's also not widely accepted by the Socionics community at large.


I was chatting on Facebook to someone who runs this website. Mmm, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of associative socionics, it seems pretty unreliable as a firm typing basis.


----------



## The Exception

mushr00m said:


> I was chatting on Facebook to someone who runs this website. Mmm, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of associative socionics, it seems pretty unreliable as a firm typing basis.


I got ILE on their associative socionics test, both times. I chatted with one of the 'experts' and she concluded I'm probably LII with an ILE TPE subtype. That was based on my VI and some pictures I posted that I liked. 

Actually, that's probably an accurate assessment of my type but the methodology used to arrive at that is questionable.


----------



## Elyasis

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Actually, that's probably an accurate assessment of my type but the methodology used to arrive at that is questionable.


The fact that you disagree with them based on methodology alone makes you undoubtedly an LII.

Also, probably_ extremely_ fun at parties.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Elyasis said:


> The fact that you disagree with them based on methodology alone makes you undoubtedly an LII.
> 
> Also, probably_ extremely_ fun at parties.


LIIs are always bringing the fun tie and wearin' it.


----------



## mushr00m

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I got ILE on their associative socionics test, both times. I chatted with one of the 'experts' and she concluded I'm probably LII with an ILE TPE subtype. That was based on my VI and some pictures I posted that I liked.
> 
> Actually, that's probably an accurate assessment of my type but the methodology used to arrive at that is questionable.


Oh ok. Do you think being typed through an interaction than through a test tends to be more accurate? I don't disagree with photo typing but only as something complimentary to the process. 

The person I spoke to, seemed to sway from my EII typing. We got as far as her asking me to check out irrational types. There seems to be a multitude of angles to type from - quadra, dynamic/static etc and then the informational elements. I kinda got overwhelmed and gave up in the end, lol, only to be intrigued once again.


----------



## Conterphobia

Hi  I just found out I belong to this delta thing or other. Just saying hi.


----------



## Ixim

No!

Bye!

Did the relation between a notebook and a car ever cross your mind :crazy: You get...MINI :laughing:


----------



## Conterphobia

I'et sir posts a lot.


----------



## Gentleman

This guy has been making some interesting socionics videos:


----------



## To_august

I feel there's something wrong with me enjoying Five Nights at Freddy's. It only increases my paranoia, but something pulls me back to it.


----------



## Draki

Does someone here feel familiar with being objectivist? Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomy - Merry | Serious

I would like to hear your point of view of it 
What about the name thing for example: Is it so important to know the name of somebody? Or what about the whole introduction part?



> For Serious types, becoming acquainted with a new person constitutes a special ritual necessary for bridging the distance (If this ritual did not take place, then Serious types do not consider themselves to be acquainted, for example: "We did not introduce ourselves").





> For association, Serious type needs to know the name, title, any other information that describes the new person—therefore formal introduction for them is a very important stage of getting acquainted with someone.


I just feel guilty because I never really ask for names, they are so uninteresting for me. 
I noticed people ask for my name of course, but I never thought there could be people who see this as very important. 
I also found it ridiculous to say all these introductory statements "Hi, how are you?" "Good. And you?" (<-- pointless? no honest answer expected). So I was quiet good at not saying it, however I noticed it's indeed important for some people, so I try to remember it to make a good impression  (and I guess it works) Not sure if that is the serious dichotomy though. Perhaps it also depends on the culture. 

And what is about the emotional background? Do you recognize it? I think that's the way I connect to the people when I first meet them. I kinda observe the atmosphere or body language and then I already know how this will play out. I will forget names very quickly but not the first impression you made on me. 

Not sure if all this is the difference between merry and serious types. But I would like to hear how you approach all this.


----------



## To_august

Draki said:


> What about the name thing for example: Is it so important to know the name of somebody? Or what about the whole introduction part?


Not sure if I relate to this. I usually don't care for names (use them too rarely anyway). They barely hold any valuable information while I prefer to know something more substantial about who people are. 

Introductory statements seem rather pointless as well, as I prefer to go strait to business instead of roaming roundabouts. It can depend on culture differences too. OOMF from the USA been puzzled by the reaction of our people when he greeted them with a local equivalent of 'How are you?'. They usually provided him with long and detailed rant on problems and issues they had, while he meant it to be just a form of polite greeting XD

Externally predetermined emotional distance would be useful though. It's just easier this way for me to get acquainted with people, as I'm no keen on active search of social interactions. When person is introduced to me it right away gives a clear enough picture of where we can start. I don't need to know the full list of ranks and titles, just something useful to begin with.



> And what is about the emotional background? Do you recognize it?


Kind of. But it is not so much emotional background as it is understanding the distance I have with other people and on that premise estimation how freely I can express myself around them. 

Naturally I wouldn't jump on strangers with hugs and can feel people's predisposition (whether they have more serious air around them or are more flighty, how appropriate it would be to joke around particular person, how far can I go with usage of formal/informal language etc), I'm not completely blind to this side of things. Don't think my recognition is sophisticated enough though.


----------



## Recede

Does anyone know of any better socionics function descriptions? The Fi descriptions on Sociotype seem lacking, and the Fi leading one doesn't sound 4D to me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

I remember seeing a trope that Gammas tend to be prone to holding grudges or something... but I'm pretty sure I'm not a Gamma, yet I can see myself as having the potential to hold quite a grudge once I get angry enough, so heh. :frustrating:

Yeah I'm in a good mood today. :V


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kink said:


> I remember seeing a trope that Gammas tend to be prone to holding grudges or something... but I'm pretty sure I'm not a Gamma, yet I can see myself as having the potential to hold quite a grudge once I get angry enough, so heh. :frustrating:
> 
> Yeah I'm in a good mood today. :V


I've always connected Fi with grudges. But, I think introverts in general may be more likely to be grudge-holders, because they can be introspective and understand pain more readily than extroverts.

I've always found it very difficult to hold grudges. In fact, I have none. But, in a way, this leaves me vulnerable to repeating mistakes in terms of my dealings with people.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> I've always connected Fi with grudges. But, I think introverts in general may be more likely to be grudge-holders, because they can be introspective and understand pain more readily than extroverts.


That might be yeah. Of course, other factors could play a part too probably, like enneatype or whatever.


----------



## Recede

Word Dispenser said:


> I've always connected Fi with grudges. But, I think introverts in general may be more likely to be grudge-holders, because they can be introspective and understand pain more readily than extroverts.
> 
> I've always found it very difficult to hold grudges. In fact, I have none. But, in a way, this leaves me vulnerable to repeating mistakes in terms of my dealings with people.


I'm incapable of holding real grudges. I can hold pseudo-grudges for my own protection, but if I've ever had positive feelings or respect toward someone, they never go away, no matter how much I may try to deny them. So I don't, I just accept it.

So I'm not sure how much it has to do with Fi. I can't be anything other than forgiving and understanding, it's just how I am. But then other Fi types can be very much grudge-holders, so it varies I suppose.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Silveresque said:


> I'm incapable of holding real grudges. I can hold pseudo-grudges for my own protection, but if I've ever had positive feelings or respect toward someone, they never go away, no matter how much I may try to deny them. So I don't, I just accept it.
> 
> So I'm not sure how much it has to do with Fi. I can't be anything other than forgiving and understanding, it's just how I am. But then other Fi types can be very much grudge-holders, so it varies I suppose.


Everyone is individual. I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with enneagram type as well. :kitteh: 

In my experience, it just seems that people with valued Fi don't forget personal affronts, and in not forgetting, they may also not forget or may not wish to let go of, bitterness associated with it.


----------



## Recede

Word Dispenser said:


> Everyone is individual. I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with enneagram type as well. :kitteh:
> 
> In my experience, it just seems that people with valued Fi don't forget personal affronts, and in not forgetting, they may also not forget or may not wish to let go of, bitterness associated with it.


Yeah, I remember personal affronts. But it's almost just information to me, I tend not to feel strongly about it. I'm not inclined to take most things personal in the first place. 

And there's also that I tend to easily empathize and understand others' points of view. The affront itself is tiny within the context of everything that went into it, such as personal history, state of mind, miscommunication, etc. I'd rather just simply understand than judge or blame, because how can I when I know there's always so much more to everything?

So yeah, like you said, everyone's an individual. With different ways to deal with the same information, because everyone feels differently and has different psychology. Perhaps in my case, ennea emphasizes detached understanding.


----------



## MNiS

Kink said:


> I remember seeing a trope that Gammas tend to be prone to holding grudges or something... but I'm pretty sure I'm not a Gamma, yet I can see myself as having the potential to hold quite a grudge once I get angry enough, so heh. :frustrating:
> 
> Yeah I'm in a good mood today. :V


I think Gammas who are also Enneagram 8 would be the most prone to holding grudges. Same goes for Deltas, although Delta 8 or H or w/e seems kind of rare to me so I don't have much exposure with the type.

I think the type tends to be heroic to people who need heroes though. :wink:


----------



## The Exception

Draki said:


> Does someone here feel familiar with being objectivist? Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomy - Merry | Serious
> 
> I would like to hear your point of view of it
> What about the name thing for example: Is it so important to know the name of somebody? Or what about the whole introduction part?


I don't care much about the person's name either. Their name says nothing about who they are deep down as a person. It's embarrassing, I'll talk to someone for awhile and realized I forgot to ask their name or I ask their name and forgot it shortly after. 

The introduction part I do out of politeness (Fi role function, I think) but I don't find it particularly meaningful.





Draki said:


> And what is about the emotional background? Do you recognize it? I think that's the way I connect to the people when I first meet them. I kinda observe the atmosphere or body language and then I already know how this will play out. I will forget names very quickly but not the first impression you made on me.
> 
> Not sure if all this is the difference between merry and serious types. But I would like to hear how you approach all this.


I'm very much a merry type. I notice emotional background instantly without thinking about it. I need to be in a pleasant emotional atmosphere. I rarely, if ever forgot first impressions others have made on me even if I do forget objective data about them like names.


----------



## Recede

Draki said:


> Does someone here feel familiar with being objectivist? Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomy - Merry | Serious
> 
> I would like to hear your point of view of it
> What about the name thing for example: Is it so important to know the name of somebody? Or what about the whole introduction part?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel guilty because I never really ask for names, they are so uninteresting for me.
> I noticed people ask for my name of course, but I never thought there could be people who see this as very important.
> I also found it ridiculous to say all these introductory statements "Hi, how are you?" "Good. And you?" (<-- pointless? no honest answer expected). So I was quiet good at not saying it, however I noticed it's indeed important for some people, so I try to remember it to make a good impression  (and I guess it works) Not sure if that is the serious dichotomy though. Perhaps it also depends on the culture.


I dislike small talk and introductions. But I do think names are important, as well as gender, which isn't always known online. The only reason this matters is so I can know what to call people and whether to address them as "he" or "she". Even if I don't ever need to know for any external purpose, I like knowing so there aren't any blank spots in my thoughts if I happen to think about the person.



> And what is about the emotional background? Do you recognize it? I think that's the way I connect to the people when I first meet them. I kinda observe the atmosphere or body language and then I already know how this will play out. I will forget names very quickly but not the first impression you made on me.
> 
> Not sure if all this is the difference between merry and serious types. But I would like to hear how you approach all this.


I still am not quite sure what an emotional background is. I don't think it's something I'm aware of.


----------



## Draki

Silveresque said:


> I dislike small talk and introductions. But I do think names are important, as well as gender, which isn't always known online. The only reason this matters is so I can know what to call people and whether to address them as "he" or "she". Even if I don't ever need to know for any external purpose, I like knowing so there aren't any blank spots in my thoughts if I happen to think about the person.


oh I like those situations because you can be funny and say "it" all the time, or make other (friendly) jokes about it.  
I think I already did this with Fractals 




Silveresque said:


> I still am not quite sure what an emotional background is. I don't think it's something I'm aware of.


I understand the emotional background as the atmosphere of a conversation. You know, if there is a serious topic you're also serious (adjust to the emotional background) or usually you try to keep a positive atmosphere or to liven it up if it is negative (change the topic for example). 
Whenever I'm in a negative atmosphere I feel very uncomfortable and that's not a nice state to be in ^^
I guess you know this "awkward silence" in conversations when there is nothing to say? I would see that as a negative atmosphere.

Or I remember someone arguing with the teacher the whole time and the atmosphere was really getting negative. I could understand his criticism and he was right but yeah.. I wouldn't do it in such a way because a positive atmosphere is more important to me. I would convey the critic in a friendlier manner. But he didn't seem to notice the negative atmosphere and was irritated because the teacher made a mistake and didn't want to correct it, although you could see that the teacher got the message already. 

I wonder if this is emotivist versus constructivist or just some feeling functions (fe?) or something completely different.


----------



## Recede

Draki said:


> I understand the emotional background as the atmosphere of a conversation. You know, if there is a serious topic you're also serious (adjust to the emotional background) or usually you try to keep a positive atmosphere or to liven it up if it is negative (change the topic for example).
> Whenever I'm in a negative atmosphere I feel very uncomfortable and that's not a nice state to be in ^^
> I guess you know this "awkward silence" in conversations when there is nothing to say? I would see that as a negative atmosphere.
> 
> Or I remember someone arguing with the teacher the whole time and the atmosphere was really getting negative. I could understand his criticism and he was right but yeah.. I wouldn't do it in such a way because a positive atmosphere is more important to me. I would convey the critic in a friendlier manner. But he didn't seem to notice the negative atmosphere and was irritated because the teacher made a mistake and didn't want to correct it, although you could see that the teacher got the message already.
> 
> I wonder if this is emotivist versus constructivist or just some feeling functions (fe?) or something completely different.


Hmm. I would recognize if a topic changes to something really serious that shouldn't be taken lightly. And I guess I could sort of see that as an "atmosphere" in the sense that everyone is likely to have more serious attitudes? I don't think I've ever tried to liven things up, but I will refrain from expressing too much negativity because other people may not like that and I wouldn't want to be seen as a negative person. Awkward silence is something I can feel, but it's never an atmosphere to me, it's just something I feel when I think I'm supposed to say something but I have nothing to say. The focus is on myself and I don't see it as anything external. I don't know, I just find this notion of an "emotional atmosphere" strange and a bit hard to grasp. To me, feelings and attitudes are not atmospheres but information that is connected to a person. 

It's interesting though, to hear the emotivist Fe perspective. Pretty different from how I process things I guess.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Silveresque said:


> It's interesting though, to hear the emotivist Fe perspective. Pretty different from how I process things I guess.


o.o its kind of the same from an emotivist Fi perspective with demonstarive Fe. Wow, you really are a constructivist with ignoring Fe. EII...certainly didn't see it at first, but now it makes sense for you based on that statement alone.

I am very strongly aware of the emotional atmosphere in any situation.


----------



## Recede

Strangely, my Fi is still invisible. I don't think I "use" Fi. There's no need to ever think about ethics/morals, and I don't have a value system because it's really unnecessary. And I rarely feel strongly about things, I'm rather apathetic. 

But Fi does seem to shape the way I understand reality. Basically there is no such thing as good or evil, just people and psychology. Everyone has reasons for doing the things they do or thinking the way they think, and it makes sense to them. Nothing is necessarily good or bad, and all that's left to do is simply understand. Lenore Thomson described a "resolute nonjudgmentalness" in Fi doms which fits me very well. It's precisely because I understand that I cannot judge. And it's why morals and ethics are useless to me as well.

My guess is that Fi creative may understand this as well, but they don't necessarily _become _this ideal. They may use it to support or justify the goals of their base function instead.


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> o.o its kind of the same from an emotivist Fi perspective with demonstarive Fe. Wow, you really are a constructivist with ignoring Fe. EII...certainly didn't see it at first, but now it makes sense for you based on that statement alone.
> 
> I am very strongly aware of the emotional atmosphere in any situation.


Sorry if you've spoken about this before, but how do you experience "emotivist Fi perspective", aside from emotional atmosphere?

I get that xEE's have 4D Fe and all... well, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, thought I would ask you for your experience. I'm guessing at this point I am not IEE thanks to maybe-not-so-4D Fe.

(Also nice avatar P


----------



## LibertyPrime

zinnia said:


> Sorry if you've spoken about this before, but how do you experience "emotivist Fi perspective", aside from emotional atmosphere?
> 
> I get that xEE's have 4D Fe and all... well, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, thought I would ask you for your experience. I'm guessing at this point I am not IEE thanks to maybe-not-so-4D Fe.
> 
> (Also nice avatar P


^^; xEEs have "demonstrative" Fe. This kinda means I understand it the same way as a Fe dominant would & its as strong as my base function: Ne. The difference is I don't express it myself, especially in public & despite my same level of understanding I think its often overdone, often fake, unnecessary. My tendency is to mock it & to be irritated by Fe for various reasons which are Fi related.

I have this tendency to go against the flow of group cohesion dynamics. ^^ my parents used to say I'm a "separatist", but what is happening in reality is that I subjugate my Fe to my creative function Fi...so if I disagree with the external situation I will demonstrate it.

People would call this being "Outspoken about one's own values & beliefs despite external pressures to comply & get along to a go along.".  thou I somehow similarly to @Silveresque have no use for a value or belief system as mine is constantly fluctuating & I can tell the difference in right & wrong by subjective feeling alone. To me its like* common ethical sense*, derived from context.

xEEs tend to be irritated by awkward or negative emotional atmospheres & even thou we could influence the external situation through Fe, we prefer not to. I Prefer Fi  and Te, so I may end up criticizing the emotional atmosphere & come from a rather practical point of view or with personal input that may or may not conflict with the external emotional or value situation.

I am sad to say I'm really really good at manipulating other people emotionally into liking me ...its because I understand them through Ne-Fi & in a one to one situation with my Fe subjugated to my Fi & can deploy it to get from point A to point B within the relationship :|. Adapting to other people's preferences is rather easy while maintaining my goals & not theirs. In short I can be kind of likable & get under ppl's skin rather easily...as long as its a one to one situation & I think I can benefit from it. A lot depends on my Fi & what I think is ok or not.

<_< oddly I can't do it in a group however :\..feels wrong somehow, prefer not to...however overall the end result always is that people sort of like me if I want to be liked. XD can really piss off ppl for the same reason as well ^^; ahahaha.

^^; here is a good song about SEE displaying the same concept:






The avatar is Fen'Harel the dread wolf's tarot card from Dragon Age.


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> ^^; xEEs have "demonstrative" Fe. This kinda means I understand it the same way as a Fe dominant would & its as strong as my base function: Ne. The difference is I don't express it myself, especially in public & despite my same level of understanding I think its often overdone, often fake, unnecessary. My tendency is to mock it & to be irritated by Fe for various reasons which are Fi related.
> 
> I have this tendency to go against the flow of group cohesion dynamics. ^^ my parents used to say I'm a "separatist", but what is happening in reality is that I subjugate my Fe to my creative function Fi...so if I disagree with the external situation I will demonstrate it.
> 
> People would call this being "Outspoken about one's own values & beliefs despite external pressures to comply & get along to a go along.".  thou I somehow similarly to @_Silveresque_ have no use for a value or belief system as mine is constantly fluctuating & I can tell the difference in right & wrong by subjective feeling alone. To me its like* common ethical sense*, derived from context.
> 
> xEEs tend to be irritated by awkward or negative emotional atmospheres & even thou we could influence the external situation through Fe, we prefer not to. I Prefer Fi  and Te, so I may end up criticizing the emotional atmosphere & come from a rather practical point of view or with personal input that may or may not conflict with the external emotional or value situation.
> 
> I am sad to say I'm really really good at manipulating other people emotionally into liking me ...its because I understand them through Ne-Fi & in a one to one situation with my Fe subjugated to my Fi & can deploy it to get from point A to point B within the relationship :|. Adapting to other people's preferences is rather easy while maintaining my goals & not theirs. In short I can be kind of likable & get under ppl's skin rather easily...as long as its a one to one situation & I think I can benefit from it. A lot depends on my Fi & what I think is ok or not.
> 
> <_< oddly I can't do it in a group however :\..feels wrong somehow, prefer not to...however overall the end result always is that people sort of like me if I want to be liked. XD can really piss off ppl for the same reason as well ^^; ahahaha.
> 
> ^^; here is a good song about SEE displaying the same concept:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The avatar is Fen'Harel the dread wolf's tarot card from Dragon Age.


Awesome, thanks. Yeah, I meant 4D meaning demonstrative. 

I am trying to figure out how I relate to Fe. I am also decent at manipulating people to like me, as I can usually tell a good amount about a person by just interacting with them for a few minutes. It is also easy for me to pick up on "emotional" cues. I never thought this was anything special, just common sense, until I saw how others often don't/can't pick up on them. Things like someone talking about, say, an accident that happened, and the small change in the tone of their voice as they trail off, like they are waiting for you to pick up on it so they can continue their sentence... without feeling ashamed that they put too much emphasis on it. People have also told me I am great at matching another's energy... is that Fe? Like they are bubbly and I will pick up the same tone when interacting with them. Quiet, I will lower my voice, even try to match it in pitch to some extent. Does that sound at all something you could relate to? I just find it's not so much manipulating emotional atmosphere, which pff I can't do to save my life (or care to, anyway), as much as making a connection with an individual. "Negative emotional atmosphere" I notice but do not care in most instances. 

Also LOL yeah I've beaten that game 3 times. I've typed everyone. *whistles innocently* About Sera, I was wondering if ESI-Se would be a better fit. She just seems to have Ne PoLR, she is absolutely terrified of possibilities and farts on your character every time you even mention it. @@ Like, what you mean there could be something else out there? -greatly disapproves-


----------



## LibertyPrime

zinnia said:


> Awesome, thanks. Yeah, I meant 4D meaning demonstrative.
> 
> I am trying to figure out how I relate to Fe. I am also decent at manipulating people to like me, as I can usually tell a good amount about a person by just interacting with them for a few minutes. It is also easy for me to pick up on "emotional" cues. I never thought this was anything special, just common sense, until I saw how others often don't/can't pick up on them. Things like someone talking about, say, an accident that happened, and the small change in the tone of their voice as they trail off, like they are waiting for you to pick up on it so they can continue their sentence... without feeling ashamed that they put too much emphasis on it. People have also told me I am great at matching another's energy... is that Fe? Like they are bubbly and I will pick up the same tone when interacting with them. Quiet, I will lower my voice, even try to match it in pitch to some extent. Does that sound at all something you could relate to? I just find it's not so much manipulating emotional atmosphere, which pff I can't do to save my life (or care to, anyway), as much as making a connection with an individual. "Negative emotional atmosphere" I notice but do not care in most instances.
> 
> Also LOL yeah I've beaten that game 3 times. I've typed everyone. *whistles innocently* About Sera, I was wondering if ESI-Se would be a better fit. She just seems to have Ne PoLR, she is absolutely terrified of possibilities and farts on your character every time you even mention it. @@ Like, what you mean there could be something else out there? -greatly disapproves-


Seems like you are emotivist & not constructivist. I can relate, yes.

o.o well I have a theory about Sera based on some things she does, like putting a beehive into Cullen's training dummy without being aware of how she did it, knowing how to perfectly shoot a bow without any training, having her "ears face toward the fade" subconsciously meaning she can hear magic ^^ & the fade, her fear of mages, history & her crazy internal chaos.

You see she can hear voices in her head similar to Varic's internal narration, just that those voices aren't her's. She is either Andruil, Goddess of the Hunt suffering from Mythal ripping her fade abilities away (as the story goes) or she has Andruil's Eluvian key or has some connection to the goddess, is possessed by a spirit or has some odd connection to the fade. The crazy & the fear is basically her way of shutting out the voices  in her head & what those are saying to her. She needs to keep her thoughts racing&chaotic in order to stop hearing. Notice how she thinks about Mythal & the the elven gods or about the elves themselves, her self hatred about being elven.

If you listen carefully to her conversations with the other characters: Solas, Varric & Cole ^^ you'll see. I think there will be more in a DLC or something.


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> Seems like you are emotivist & not constructivist. I can relate, yes.
> 
> o.o well I have a theory about Sera based on some things she does, like putting a beehive into Cullen's training dummy without being aware of how she did it, knowing how to perfectly shoot a bow without any training, having her "ears face toward the fade" subconsciously meaning she can hear magic ^^ & the fade, her fear of mages, history & her crazy internal chaos.
> 
> You see she can hear voices in her head similar to Varic's internal narration, just that those voices aren't her's. She is either Andruil, Goddess of the Hunt suffering from Mythal ripping her fade abilities away (as the story goes) or she has Andruil's Eluvian key or has some connection to the goddess, is possessed by a spirit or has some odd connection to the fade. The crazy & the fear is basically her way of shutting out the voices  in her head & what those are saying to her. She needs to keep her thoughts racing&chaotic in order to stop hearing. Notice how she thinks about Mythal & the the elven gods or about the elves themselves, her self hatred about being elven.
> 
> If you listen carefully to her conversations with the other characters: Solas, Varric & Cole ^^ you'll see. I think there will be more in a DLC or something.


Haha, I do stereotypically constructivist shit though, like listening to music to evoke a mood or whatever. I feel like when I am with people I do not know well, I become like a mirror. Nothing there, nothing behind it, just reflecting. It feels really weird until I ground myself again, and try to connect with them on a personal level. 

Yeah, there's something up with that one. Though I wouldn't be surprised if she was just written that way and OH YEAH NO SHE'S NORMAL cuz everyone hated her and blah blah no money to be made on a character everyone hates.

Unless she gets possessed and changes. Then maybe? LOL.

Though I have had that so-called "banter bug" so it annoys me I haven't heard a lot of it. I just hear it on youtube. Sad.

<3 Solas. ILI? That was my guess.


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> <3 Solas. ILI? That was my guess.


Holy crap, I was just _wondering _what Solas' type was.

I've only just gotten to Skyhold though, so there's not much to go on. But, I actually thought LII for him, tentatively. He seems very enthusiastic about certain subjects. The idea of spirits being people, and the way he describes dreaming in the Fade. And anything having to do with accumulating knowledge. He seems the sort who might do riddles for fun.

I don't see Ni or Fi as of yet. I highly doubt Se DS... I can see Fe DS quite easily.

But, we'll see!

The other characters seem a bit bland to me, so far. Only just met Cole, who has potential to be interesting.


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> Holy crap, I was just _wondering _what Solas' type was.
> 
> I've only just gotten to Skyhold though, so there's not much to go on. But, I actually thought LII for him, tentatively. He seems very enthusiastic about certain subjects. The idea of spirits being people, and the way he describes dreaming in the Fade. And anything having to do with accumulating knowledge. He seems the sort who might do riddles for fun.
> 
> I don't see Ni or Fi as of yet. I highly doubt Se DS... I can see Fe DS quite easily.
> 
> But, we'll see!
> 
> The other characters seem a bit bland to me, so far. Only just met Cole, who has potential to be interesting.


Lol, and I find Fe DS difficult to see with him. Hm. I admit I am typing these characters mostly on their little "approval" depending on how you respond to them. He responds well to sarcasm and needs to be pushed a little bit. He doesn't really shy away from conflict like I imagine Se polr to. He's also aware of his "bad manners" but seems to just not really care about it... He's a bit of a special case though @[email protected]

Also yeah blandness. Blackwall takes the prize for most bland character ever. SLI?


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> Lol, and I find Fe DS difficult to see with him. Hm. I admit I am typing these characters mostly on their little "approval" depending on how you respond to them. He responds well to sarcasm and needs to be pushed a little bit. He doesn't really shy away from conflict like I imagine Se polr to. He's also aware of his "bad manners" but seems to just not really care about it... He's a bit of a special case though @[email protected]
> 
> Also yeah blandness. Blackwall takes the prize for most bland character ever. SLI?


Possibly. I like Blackwall-- He's dependable and there's a haunted nature to his character. But, I haven't been playing long.

So far I have Solas and him on my team. I wanted to put Iron Bull there too, but I need a thief. Annoying that you can't have more than 3. I hope for more thieves. :3 Varric, even as he's slightly interesting, _still _seems kind of dull.

In terms of Solas, he seems to be generally approving of all my decisions, so we're off to a good start. He is more humanistic and warm than I'd see an ILI being. I don't see Fi. But, then, I haven't pinned him down just yet. He seems to like asking questions that startle me, which I like. Like, when you tell him that you want his advice, he says, "Why?" Just a one-word question that made me blink, for some reason. Almost self-deprecating, but at the same time, challenging. It _seemed _to be challenging in a Ti-base kind of way, rather than an Fi way.

I dunno. There's a lot of blanks I'd need to fill before I tried to pinpoint his type. I'm basing this off of maybe two or three convos, haha. :kitteh:

But, anyway, I like him. He's wise and weird.


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> Possibly. I like Blackwall-- He's dependable and there's a haunted nature to his character. But, I haven't been playing long.
> 
> So far I have Solas and him on my team. I wanted to put Iron Bull there too, but I need a thief. Annoying that you can't have more than 3. I hope for more thieves. :3 Varric, even as he's slightly interesting, _still _seems kind of dull.
> 
> In terms of Solas, he seems to be generally approving of all my decisions, so we're off to a good start. He is more humanistic and warm than I'd see an ILI being. I don't see Fi. But, then, I haven't pinned him down just yet. He seems to like asking questions that startle me, which I like. Like, when you tell him that you want his advice, he says, "Why?" Just a one-word question that made me blink, for some reason. Almost self-deprecating, but at the same time, challenging. It _seemed _to be challenging in a Ti-base kind of way, rather than an Fi way.
> 
> I dunno. There's a lot of blanks I'd need to fill before I tried to pinpoint his type. I'm basing this off of maybe two or three convos, haha. :kitteh:
> 
> But, anyway, I like him. He's wise and weird.


What kind of character are you playing? Should play as a rogue, solve all problems P:

Yeah Solas is pretty humanistic... and can be warm, this is true. He's one of my favorite characters, love that guy. Real life I'd probably hug him until he passed out from lack of oxygen cuz so cute. LOL uhhhh maybe shouldn't admit that. 

I don't abuse my friends... really...


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> What kind of character are you playing? Should play as a rogue, solve all problems P:
> 
> Yeah Solas is pretty humanistic... and can be warm, this is true. He's one of my favorite characters, love that guy. Real life I'd probably hug him until he passed out from lack of oxygen cuz so cute. LOL uhhhh maybe shouldn't admit that.
> 
> I don't abuse my friends... really...


I decided to play a Dalish elf mage. It's pretty damn awesome. :kitteh:

It fits so well into the story... I'm glad of it. Although the fighting mechanics for the mage seems kind of boring. Rogue is normally what I play, though, so I wanted to do something different.


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> I decided to play a Dalish elf mage. It's pretty damn awesome. :kitteh:
> 
> It fits so well into the story... I'm glad of it. Although the fighting mechanics for the mage seems kind of boring. Rogue is normally what I play, though, so I wanted to do something different.


Female or male? Female, go romance Solass. Do it.

Yes, Solass.

Yeah, mage is kinda boring this time around, though it's always fun to throw fireballs.


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> Female or male? Female, go romance Solass. Do it.
> 
> Yes, Solass.
> 
> Yeah, mage is kinda boring this time around, though it's always fun to throw fireballs.


Female, but I won't be romancing Solas.

I might romance the female diplomat though.


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> Female, but I won't be romancing Solas.
> 
> I might romance the female diplomat though.


Oh, she's absolutely adorable. Cute romance story too. Good choice, lol.

I'm torn between Alpha or Delta for her. Hm.


----------



## Recede

zinnia said:


> Awesome, thanks. Yeah, I meant 4D meaning demonstrative.
> 
> I am trying to figure out how I relate to Fe. I am also decent at manipulating people to like me, as I can usually tell a good amount about a person by just interacting with them for a few minutes. It is also easy for me to pick up on "emotional" cues. I never thought this was anything special, just common sense, until I saw how others often don't/can't pick up on them. Things like someone talking about, say, an accident that happened, and the small change in the tone of their voice as they trail off, like they are waiting for you to pick up on it so they can continue their sentence... without feeling ashamed that they put too much emphasis on it. People have also told me I am great at matching another's energy... is that Fe? Like they are bubbly and I will pick up the same tone when interacting with them. Quiet, I will lower my voice, even try to match it in pitch to some extent. Does that sound at all something you could relate to? I just find it's not so much manipulating emotional atmosphere, which pff I can't do to save my life (or care to, anyway), as much as making a connection with an individual. "Negative emotional atmosphere" I notice but do not care in most instances.


I have little awareness of this stuff. I couldn't "match another's energy" to save my life. I have no idea how to be bubbly or enthusiastic. Like, the best I can do is just smile or laugh. I have little control over the tone of my voice. I've been told that I'm monotone, and this is probably true most of the time. If there is such a thing as energy in a room, I probably suck it out with my lifelessness. Even when I'm trying hard to seem friendly, it's probably still not enough. 

And I'm supposed to have 3D Fe? o_o


----------



## LibertyPrime

zinnia said:


> Haha, I do stereotypically constructivist shit though, like listening to music to evoke a mood or whatever. I feel like when I am with people I do not know well, I become like a mirror. Nothing there, nothing behind it, just reflecting. It feels really weird until I ground myself again, and try to connect with them on a personal level.


Isn't that more like Fe?



> Yeah, there's something up with that one. Though I wouldn't be surprised if she was just written that way and OH YEAH NO SHE'S NORMAL cuz everyone hated her and blah blah no money to be made on a character everyone hates.


o.o writing a *chaotic neutral character* is rather difficult.



> Unless she gets possessed and changes. Then maybe? LOL.
> 
> Though I have had that so-called "banter bug" so it annoys me I haven't heard a lot of it. I just hear it on youtube. Sad.


o.o aww sucks. You can check it out on youtube then.



> <3 Solas. ILI? That was my guess.


 that is my take on him as well (fave char btw). XD my female elf rogue romanced him actually.



> Also yeah blandness. Blackwall takes the prize for most bland character ever. SLI?


o.o...I like Blackwall A LOT....or maybe just his beard...gotta love that beard! In all honesty I liked his ethics & perspective a LOT. :/ if he'd be a woman..hmmm.



Word Dispenser said:


> I decided to play a Dalish elf mage. It's pretty damn awesome. :kitteh:
> 
> It fits so well into the story... I'm glad of it. Although the fighting mechanics for the mage seems kind of boring. Rogue is normally what I play, though, so I wanted to do something different.


Perfect choice imo. I recommend going Rift Mage.

If you ever play warrior I recommend templar, o.o closes rifts really fast. Having Cassandra in the party is really good for closing rifts once she goes templar.

I only hated 1 char. Vivienne :/ I seriously hate her guts....can't stand her in the party, which is why I only used her if I had to. :S I can't handle her nature.....can't..even the way she talks I just want to punch her.. @zinnia, what is Vivienne's type? I WANT Sera to "throw a dagger"at her..know what I mean? If She were the enemy ^^; I'd be stoked to kill her ass!

Chars i like: Solas>Sera>Blackwall>Varric=Dorian=Cole>The Iron Bull=Cassandra....*takes Vivienne out the back and puts her out of her misery.

o.o was kinda sad when i figured out Sera was 100% lesbian :\ as I couldn;t romance ^^; she is still one of the most fun chars.


----------



## zinnia

> Isn't that more like Fe?


It could be. That was why SEI at one point... well, part of it. 



FreeBeer said:


> I only hated 1 char. Vivienne :/ I seriously hate her guts....can't stand her in the party, which is why I only used her if I had to. :S I can't handle her very Se-ish nature.....can't..even the way she talks I just want to punch her.. @_zinnia_, what is Vivienne's type?


Te base with a good heaping of 3w4 is my take. I didn't like how she was so much into impressions and titles and whatnot, but I liked her views on most things... to me they made sense. But ugh so stuck up, can't deal with that most of the time.

I made a female elf mage for Solas. <3.

Interesting you guys liked Blackwall. He was just... so boring to me. I never got that he really believed what he said he did... like he was just saying them, empty words. But well-written characters are the ones that some people love and some people hate, right? Same with Sera. 

My favorites: Solas, Cullen, Josephine... haha, 2/3 are advisors and not even part of the main party. Cass is okay.


----------



## LibertyPrime

zinnia said:


> It could be. That was why SEI at one point... well, part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Te base with a good heaping of 3w4 is my take. I didn't like how she was so much into impressions and titles and whatnot, but I liked her views on most things... to me they made sense. But ugh so stuck up, can't deal with that most of the time.


O_O no...her views of things are not good. There is nothing redeemable about her. She partially reminded me of Wynne...that old windbag...hated her as well. She opens her mouth & 2 words in I already am itching to knife her.

Everything about that woman just irritates me. She is my perfect villain..whatever her type is, she is my conflictor for sure.

Vivienne's perspective is entirely antagonistic to mine, Sera's, Blackwall's & that of Solas. 

^^ I prefer Morrigan to both of them & I don't like Morrigan.

To be honest my conscience resembles that of Blackwall the most, he is definitely Fi-ish, its why I like Blackwall so much...his ethics just mirrors my own. * Blackwall is a man after my own heart...can't deny that.*


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> O_O no...her views of things are not good. There is nothing redeemable about her. She partially reminded me of Wynne...that old windbag...hated her as well. She opens her mouth & 2 words in I already am itching to knife her.
> 
> Everything about that woman just irritates me. She is my perfect villain..whatever her type is, she is my conflictor for sure.
> 
> Vivienne's perspective is entirely antagonistic to mine, Sera's, Blackwall's & that of Solas.
> 
> ^^ I prefer Morrigan to both of them & I don't like Morrigan.
> 
> To be honest my conscience resembles that of Blackwall the most, he is definitely Fi-ish, its why I like Blackwall so much...his ethics just mirrors my own. * Blackwall is a man after my own heart...can't deny that.*


LOL I liked Wynne. 

I liked how Vivienne tended to focus on actually getting things done as well as a little bit of mention of the right time to do things (like protesting is fine, but don't do it and start a war and kill innocents). However, she has image issues for sure, which icked me out. I remember someone in the game saying "when she talks, all I hear are empty words; does she believe anything truly?" We will never know. Scary.

Hehe, and I typed Blackwall as SLI. No wonder you love him. Silly dual.


----------



## Nephilibata

Hello

I'm new to socionics but have gotten far enough in my understanding of it that MBTI INFJs share the same functions as a Socionics INFp/IEI while a MBTI INFP has the same functions as a Socionics INFj/EII. The thing is, I tested as an INFj in socionics, but used the MBTI functions to type myself and figured out I'm an INFJ. Technically, I know this makes me an INFp, but are there any other INFJs here that got Socionics INFj as result?


----------



## zinnia

Ocean Eyes said:


> Hello
> 
> I'm new to socionics but have gotten far enough in my understanding of it that MBTI INFJs share the same functions as a Socionics INFp/IEI while a MBTI INFP has the same functions as a Socionics INFj/EII. The thing is, I tested as an INFj in socionics, but used the MBTI functions to type myself and figured out I'm an INFJ. Technically, I know this makes me an INFp, but are there any other INFJs here that got Socionics INFj as result?


Which Socionics test did you take? Was it a description-based one?

A friend of mine typed herself as INFJ in MBTI both using the function descriptions and the official MBTI test she took but there was still a lot of INFJ versus INFP. She typed as IEI at first too (by matching NiFe) but we've since both thought Socionics Fi described her a lot better; as far as I know she now types as MBTI INFP too. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe the function definitions in both systems are just two ways of describing the same phenomenon, or that they are just entirely separate - you'll see different opinions on this around these forums. Sorry I couldn't answer your question more specifically.


----------



## Nephilibata

zinnia said:


> Which Socionics test did you take? Was it a description-based one?
> 
> A friend of mine typed herself as INFJ in MBTI both using the function descriptions and the official MBTI test she took but there was still a lot of INFJ versus INFP. She typed as IEI at first too (by matching NiFe) but we've since both thought Socionics Fi described her a lot better; as far as I know she now types as MBTI INFP too. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe the function definitions in both systems are just two ways of describing the same phenomenon, or that they are just entirely separate - you'll see different opinions on this around these forums. Sorry I couldn't answer your question more specifically.


I think I took a description based one. I also did another one which was translated into English, so the questions were sometimes a bit hard to follow.

I think I did the test three times when I was still trying to figure out my MBTI and got INFj twice and INFp once. Don't know what that makes me. I do believe that the functions in both systems are the same, but I could be wrong. To be honest, I don't put much stock into type descriptions or percentages when getting a result, since I rely mostly on the definition of the functions.

Thanks for your reply


----------



## zinnia

Ocean Eyes said:


> I think I took a description based one. I also did another one which was translated into English, so the questions were sometimes a bit hard to follow.
> 
> I think I did the test three times when I was still trying to figure out my MBTI and got INFj twice and INFp once. Don't know what that makes me. I do believe that the functions in both systems are the same, but I could be wrong. To be honest, I don't put much stock into type descriptions or percentages when getting a result, since I rely mostly on the definition of the functions.
> 
> Thanks for your reply


Those translations can get pretty funny, can't they? lol.

It's good to rely on definitions and get an idea of what they are trying to describe, rather than the description itself. I think descriptions of other types are filtered through the lens of whoever is writing it, which can create problems (like an ILE trying to describe ESI... I think that might not go as well as an ESI trying to do the same).

The friend I was telling you about said this (I would paraphrase but I'm too damn lazy):



> Also I think it helps, if you are between IEI and EII, if you are Te or Se seeking. I suppose they both can be action oriented in a way but one is more about taking steps to do things versus experience and willpower. I think that was one of the biggest factors between them. Like both have strong Fi and Ni, right? Neither helped in figuring out my type since they're just active. During college I wanted to look for efficient ways to do stuff, basically a strong preference for that as opposed to Ti which I didn't give as much importance to. And constructivist versus emotivist, I guess looking at beta versus delta stuff too.


Hope that helps even just a little


----------



## To_august

Delta rant. 
Why do people like to objectify those who stand out for their looks?
Today I've been with someone in the store and there was a transgender person, who's been unfortunate to draw attention to himself asking sales assistant for help with choosing a tea. Sales assistant seemed just dumbstruck and quickly ran away without giving any answer, while all the rest people started to giggle and stare like that transgender person were a monkey in a circus. It felt so plain rude and horrible and... just so wrong, ugh.

Afterwords for about half an hour I have to cringe and listen person, with whom I've been in the store, while ignoring my lawful rant on injustice of such treatment were retelling over the phone the story of meeting a transgender person - about his looks, his nail polish, gait, shoes, hairdo, manners, the way he pronounced words, supposed age, pitch of the voice, aaagh... 

It seems to happen with just everybody who happen to vary from "standard" looks, even if it's just a little bit. Why some people seem incapable of ignoring exterior and seeing just another human being in someone else above all, no matter how he/she looks like, and not an object for dissection into parts?


----------



## Recede

This is too perfect. Perception in Socionics:


----------



## Recede

Maybe I just have silent Fi base that doesn't do anything. Though I'm not sure why the dominant function wouldn't ever show up in my everyday cognition. 

Although, I do find that I'm very confident when it comes to relationships, in the sense that I tend to automatically steer toward open and honest interaction. I don't believe in holding back one's real thoughts and feelings. I know how to have conflicts that are constructive and actually strengthen the relationship rather than breaking it. This despite having almost no experience in relationships and no role models who did this well. (But is that really Fi or just common sense? Then again, it seems to be surprisingly uncommon...)

My worldview rejects conventional morality and involves acceptance of reality, people, and oneself. I thought it was the lack of Feeling because I don't make judgments of good or bad, but..."accepting or rejecting" were Jung's actual words.

Hmm.


----------



## aniso

disguise said:


> Calling for all IEEs, but also ILEs, EIIs and LIIs to explain through examples the wonders of Ne (and a bit on Ni) :kitteh:
> 
> The questions are as follow:
> *1)* What is Ne _to you_ and how does it show in your thinking and interaction with the world?


Oh goodness, this is going to be a LONG post. 

To me, Ne is a very strong and active associative memory and thinking. I can make a connection between almost any two things through a longer or shorter chain of thought and associations. Sometimes when I see a new person, even if I don't know anything about them, I have an immediate associative reaction with something/somebody I've seen before, and tend to see similarities in people who don't seem similar to others - that's, I suppose, my Ne in action...connecting what i've seen before to something new, guessing what I could see this person doing or being like.

Some time ago in high school when i felt a bit sad and stressed, I used this kind of thinking to lure myself away from sad thoughts that seemed to slip into my mind unnoticed (until when i noticed them, apparently). It was like - hmm, what the hell am I thinking?! Ok, this reminds me of that, and that reminds me of this other thing, and wow, here i am thinking about something absolutely else. Good.

Ok, that might have been a really weird example, but whatever.  When I study or learn something, if it's a thing/theory I don't really know much about, I try to - kinda artificially - think of something that I already know that associates with it, even if another person would think it sounds crazy (tbh, i usually don't tell anyone these things that help me remember stuff in this way  ). It's then easier to remember.

In my interaction with the outside world... Well, hmm. I like to come up with ideas. I love the feeling when I learn something new and I see: OH WOW WOW, this could be useful in so many ways! Or even if it's useful for me or somebody else in ANY way. I love when somebody has a question or a problem to which I happen to know an answer or can suggest a solution - because I some time ago heard a random fact, noticed something near me or heard another person suggest me something that I wasn't really interested in at the moment but thought it could be useful another time.



disguise said:


> *2)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think particularly describes your cognition (for example a description or Reinin dichotomy or other)?


Socionics Types: IEE-ENFp
I find this description of Ne in IEEs to be quite spot-on for me. Except that maybe I like some kind of a routine - but oh well, that doesn't always happen...though I always feel that I absolutely lack discipline in my daily rhythm and I try to learn it, but it just doesn't seem to come naturally and easily to me , plus, I don't always dread all household chores  I tend to procrastinate cleaning house if i'm occupied by some interesting thing to do or something I'm reading/researching/watching, but then, when I have a feeling that there's just TOO much going on in my brain, I feel almost a physical need to go and wash/clean/cook something. 




disguise said:


> *3)* Is there some Socionics aspect to Ne that you think does not describe your cognition at all or accurately?


The thing that I wrote on the last question. I dunno. There seems to be a stereotype of Ne-types to be kinda scatter-brained. I can say that, as long as something (a task or a job) is interesting or I see a value in it, I can be quite determined and focused. I've heard that Ni-types tend to be the most focused ones. Ni-mode switches on? 

Also, from what I've researched reading about the functions, I think I could conclude that Ne-types like things that have some kind of a possible use or smth...and art that is witty and have a really cool idea behind the actual work. So i think I should love conceptual art, but the truth is - at least where I live - i've been to some conceptual/contemporary art exhibitions and I have seen near to nothing that I like there. I've seen some foreign conceptual pieces that are cool, though - but those are the ones that don't need a 2-page-long description to understand the idea.
I've heard that Si-types are the ones who adore beautiful art...i feel like a Si-type when I read that sort of a description.  I love harmonious compositions, calm colors (vivid ones, too, though), and art pieces that are just really aesthetically pleasing. Of course, if there is an interesting or valuable message, I'd say its worth grows in my eyes, but...i don't think it must ALWAYS be present in a work of art - or to be obviously visible. I just love pieces that make me feel good, that have a calm or positive, or happily-vivid feeling about them. And as for the ideas - ya know, stuff can be said/shown in different ways. (that goes for Se/Fe-beta-kind of art...it just bothers me so much. I know some people like to be shocked and enjoy emotional drama and bloody sights. Well, I dunno, maybe sometimes I can look at that kind of stuff, but normally that isn't what I hope to see when going to an exhibition or so.) Plus, I sometimes just love watching how people draw or paint, or just look at detailed - or minimalistic -, professional designs or art pieces that are just beautiful and don't carry much other meaning than just to be pretty. I love watching how professional people work, watching on youtube how confectioners decorate cookies or make pretty chocolate ornaments, etc. I don't think I've read this kind of a thing in any Ne-descriptions. 




disguise said:


> *4)* Are you in the moment and think about the near future? Or do you like to think about the distant future? Do you see a lot of possible paths you could take with equal likeliness of success? Or do you often single out a possible future scenario (you see more or less one way the future is most likely to unfold as)?


Usually I think about the near future and, as said in Ne-descriptions - I can see many different paths coming true somehow. Theoretically mostly, though.  I kinda like to control my imagination - if I let myself dream too much about what could happen, some a bit unrealistic ideas seem to slip into my mind. Though I usually critically look at them and think: well, in a movie this could happen. In real life? Nope. So stop dreaming (or stop worrying!!!).

Sometimes I love thinking about 'what could my life be in 10 years or so', but i dunno. I then always come to the thought that I can never predict where I'm going to be, what will be happening in my life...and that there are so many possible ways my life could develop  and I think it's more interesting to see life happening as it is, and not to think that much about the distant future. Especially in the case when my ideas consider not only me, but my loved ones, friends, and others. 

Also, I just went to the cinema yesterday and watched the movie "Whiplash" (about which I read that it's a strongly beta movie...well i can agree with this opinion, i was actually thinking that throughout the entire movie - and although I felt strong negative emotions watching it: angrer, horror, etc...i can say it's a good movie. Reminds me of "The Black Swan" a lot, but I liked "Whiplash" better! maybe because of the ending  ). And after the movie I felt a bit drama-queen-ey about everything, especially going home at late night through the dark streets. 

What I wanted to say is that - I guess my surrounding environment influences me a bit. Like, the way I see something happening in the future, can be a bit biased when under the influence of some strong external force. But I guess it's normal and something like that happens to all people at some point. Maybe though there are differences between how strongly different people react to different 'external forces'.




disguise said:


> *5)* Especially for the extroverts, do you enjoy having a lot of external mental stimulation (things to think about, things to engage you in the outside world)?


Yeeeees, I love to have many things happening around me, nice and interesting things to think about. That's why I've always somehow liked going to school and learning, I guess - because that's new stuff that I can see and get to know. That also means that I can meet people and talk about things. I know that at one point school breaks seemed to make me feel sick (even physically) because there was too much staying at home, being lazy and doing nothing. In my childhood I read a lot, that made my school breaks more interesting, but at one point, when my taste in books changed and I couldn't find any books that I liked (and before I discovered socionics... ), this was especially noticeable.

But now - yep. I love seeing new places, travelling (though here's ANOTHER thing that seems to not relate to Ne-type descriptions...I value comfort in my life and dislike if I have to give up my comfort when travelling, going to festivals, camps, etc...i just feel like I don't function as good then!), going to culture events, libraries, reading stuff on the internet, watching movies, going to lectures on topics that are interesting to me...those are really a Ne-kind of things to do, I guess.  It's like - I need some alone time daily to process/digest the stuff that I've just seen, but long periods of nothing-happening and nothing-to-do/think-about leave me feeling weak. And when I get out of my house, meet people, discuss and see new things, I feel alive again.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

hey deltas! do any of u want 2 do weed and then work on our taxes next Friday? i just need 2 unwind


----------



## Golden Rose

MightyLizardKing said:


> hey deltas! do any of u want 2 do weed and then work on our taxes next Friday? i just need 2 unwind


Ah yes. Meeting up with a stranger to work on taxes is _definitely_ my favorite Friday activity.


----------



## To_august

MightyLizardKing said:


> hey deltas! do any of u want 2 do weed and then work on our taxes next Friday? i just need 2 unwind


Fridays in my short-term schedule are already jam-packed with "nothing even remotely non-fun" and "damn urgent work" activities ten moths ahead.
Maybe later.


----------



## To_august

I desire the ability to unlearn.

Today I've discovered that left eyebrow means ethics and right eye means introversion. As if this was not enough, I've been redirected at the numerology chart. One have to simply add up numbers corresponding to the letters of one's name and voilà - the cognitive type is found.:th_woot:
My life was a lie.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Hotaru said:


> Ah yes. Meeting up with a stranger to work on taxes is _definitely_ my favorite Friday activity.


oo cool! we shuld meat up


----------



## Word Dispenser

Dearest @To_august,

I'd just like to say...

I'm glad you put your name back. :kitteh:

To_august is so much more mysterious and exciting.


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Dearest @_To_august_,
> 
> I'd just like to say...
> 
> I'm glad you put your name back. :kitteh:
> 
> To_august is so much more mysterious and exciting.


Awwww. Thank you! You're such nice and supportive person:th_blush:.

Snatching at a chance.
I noticed that you're quite into gaming, so I think maybe you can direct me in a way of any interesting stuff to play 
I'm mostly interested in games with logical element and more opportunities for action. Not action in terms of shooters or slashers, but in a sense of - less cutscenes and conversations and more me actually doing something. I really enjoyed point-and-click adventure "Machinarium" (great little game) and Antichamber. Portal was of course awesome too. Is there something in the same vein, or anything interesting and "puzzling" to try out?


----------



## Word Dispenser

To_august said:


> Awwww. Thank you! You're such nice and supportive person:th_blush:.
> 
> Snatching at a chance.
> I noticed that you're quite into gaming, so I think maybe you can direct me in a way of any interesting stuff to play
> I'm mostly interested in games with logical element and more opportunities for action. Not action in terms of shooters or slashers, but in a sense of - less cutscenes and conversations and more me actually doing something. I really enjoyed point-and-click adventure "Machinarium" (great little game) and Antichamber. Portal was of course awesome too. Is there something in the same vein, or anything interesting and "puzzling" to try out?


Oooh. 

Well, as long as you don't mind point-and-click adventure games, I have sooo very many suggestions!

Check out GOG.com for an extensive list, but.. Deponia is pretty amusing, with some lateral-thinking puzzles. And one I've started playing is Broken Sword, though the puzzles are quite easy at first-- There is some decryption, which is a bit more tricky that I've enjoyed. 

Some games I know of are kind of dated, but I love them, and I will suggest them as long as you don't mind dated graphics. :wink:


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Oooh.
> 
> Well, as long as you don't mind point-and-click adventure games, I have sooo very many suggestions!
> 
> Check out GOG.com for an extensive list, but.. Deponia is pretty amusing, with some lateral-thinking puzzles. And one I've started playing is Broken Sword, though the puzzles are quite easy at first-- There is some decryption, which is a bit more tricky that I've enjoyed.
> 
> Some games I know of are kind of dated, but I love them, and I will suggest them as long as you don't mind dated graphics. :wink:


Wow. Thank you. That's quite a list!
Lots of stuff to discover. 
I don't mind old graphics at all, please, bring suggestions to the table.:th_wink: 
Already checked out Deponia. Looks really interesting:th_love: (new ninja emoticons are amusing:th_o


----------



## Word Dispenser

To_august said:


> Wow. Thank you. That's quite a list!
> Lots of stuff to discover.
> I don't mind old graphics at all, please, bring suggestions to the table.:th_wink:
> Already checked out Deponia. Looks really interesting:th_love: (new ninja emoticons are amusing:th_o


Awesome!

Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, is a _must _play. Simply _must_. It's one of my favourites, if not _the _favourite video game. Its two descendents are also quite good. Puzzles are really awesome!

Then.. Let's see... King's quests 5, 6 and 7 are the ones I'd recommend. Before 5 goes into parser, and can be much more tricky and hard to get into for those not used to parser.

Quest for Glory 3, 4, and possibly even 5, for the same reasons as King's quest 5 - 7. 

More coming if desired!


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Awesome!
> 
> Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, is a _must _play. Simply _must_. It's one of my favourites, if not _the _favourite video game. Its two descendents are also quite good. Puzzles are really awesome!
> 
> Then.. Let's see... King's quests 5, 6 and 7 are the ones I'd recommend. Before 5 goes into parser, and can be much more tricky and hard to get into for those not used to parser.
> 
> Quest for Glory 3, 4, and possibly even 5, for the same reasons as King's quest 5 - 7.
> 
> More coming if desired!


Thanks. That's already more than I hoped for. 
Time for treasure hunt!


----------



## To_august

Socionics subforum feels so abandoned 
I wish one day it will be so crowded that separate subforums for quadras and types will become a must.


----------



## Sygma

To_august said:


> Wow. Thank you. That's quite a list!
> Lots of stuff to discover.
> I don't mind old graphics at all, please, bring suggestions to the table.:th_wink:
> Already checked out Deponia. Looks really interesting:th_love: (new ninja emoticons are amusing:th_o


The Talos Principle.

Get ready for the headache, that and some seriously awesome thought provoking stuff in it regardin philosophy. What is a man in the end ?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Sygma said:


> The Talos Principle.
> 
> Get ready for the headache, that and some seriously awesome thought provoking stuff in it regardin philosophy. What is a man in the end ?


Hmmm.. Looks very Myst-like. But, it _is _on sale on Steam.


----------



## Sygma

It absolutely worth the money if you like puzzles, and well philosophy. Its like a serious portal (in the sense, theres not really any kind of funny element at all) that is so filled with content its pretty amazing. multiple ends too and lots, LOTS of easter eggs :kitteh:


----------



## To_august

Sygma said:


> The Talos Principle.
> 
> Get ready for the headache, that and some seriously awesome thought provoking stuff in it regardin philosophy. What is a man in the end ?


Youtubed its gameplay and it looks somewhat similar to Portal. My braindy is ready!









@Word Dispenser
Thanks once again for awesome suggestions. Deponia appeared to be exactly what I've been looking for.


----------



## Word Dispenser

To_august said:


> Youtubed its gameplay and it looks somewhat similar to Portal. My braindy is ready!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @_Word Dispenser_
> Thanks once again for awesome suggestions. Deponia appeared to be exactly what I've been looking for.


Awesome! Hope you like it!

Remember as well that you have an appointment with a fortune. Don't be late. roud:


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Awesome! Hope you like it!
> 
> Remember as well that you have an appointment with a fortune. Don't be late. roud:


I'll say! Challenging puzzles, creative environment, funny characters, nice graphics, guaranteed brain-racking. I'm easily pleased:kitteh:

_P.S. Thanks for the reminder. I'm on my way _


----------



## To_august

Today I've made my first ever to-do list; 38 items included.
Guess I'm progressing on Te valuing scale.:laughing:


----------



## ElliCat

To_august said:


> Today I've made my first ever to-do list; 38 items included.
> Guess I'm progressing on Te valuing scale.:laughing:


Congratulations!

(38 items though... that sounds.... terrifying.  )


----------



## To_august

People put too much stock in outward appearance.

Here and there I encounter opinions that people, who find their way to television, music industry and are exposed in media, should be eyecandy. But why? Shouldn't they be, you know, talented and creative itfp?

If someone beautiful creates interesting medium, it's treated as being within the norm, but if someone average looking succeeds in providing interesting and talented material, it is seen as odd and irregular. "Look at her! Notwithstanding being plain Jane, she has a great voice and good songs". As if beauty and talent are interdependent somehow. As if beauty provides for talent or something. Ugh.

Appearance is distracting. I prefer nobody to have an appearance, but the meaningful essence. Or, that we can see right to the essence of people first, deeming appearance only as a supportive element of apperception.


----------



## LibertyPrime

To_august said:


> People put too much stock in outward appearance.
> 
> Here and there I encounter opinions that people, who find their way to television, music industry and are exposed in media, should be eyecandy. But why? Shouldn't they be, you know, talented and creative itfp?
> 
> If someone beautiful creates interesting medium, it's treated as being within the norm, but if someone average looking succeeds in providing interesting and talented material, it is seen as odd and irregular. "Look at her! Notwithstanding being plain Jane, she has a great voice and good songs". As if beauty and talent are interdependent somehow. As if beauty provides for talent or something. Ugh.
> 
> Appearance is distracting. I prefer nobody to have an appearance, but the meaningful essence. Or, that we can see right to the essence of people first, deeming appearance only as a supportive element of apperception.


The mistake in your thinking is that below average to average looks do not sell. The bottom line is profit in every industry, its not really about the art, its about the money. There are non "hott" awesome artists in the non mainstream scene.

Its the same as in the media. Its not about the news or the truth, its about the ratings, which translate into MONEY. Sexy is simply easier to sell. Most of the population responds well sexy male or female models in jeans for example, which makes selling them easier. Same reason why pharmaceutical sales ppl are good looking themselves, doctors respond better & the companies the sales ppl work for sell more drugs, which means PROFIT & POWER PP.

Society runs on POWER and since money gets one power :th_blush: society is ruled by money. Its important imo to realize this early on in life, no matter one's outlook or ideals.

Its all connected, see? / END Ne-ish explanation.


----------



## Word Dispenser

FreeBeer said:


> The mistake in your thinking is that below average to average looks do not sell. The bottom line is profit in every industry, its not really about the art, its about the money. There are non "hott" awesome artists in the non mainstream scene.
> 
> Its the same as in the media. Its not about the news or the truth, its about the ratings, which translate into MONEY. Sexy is simply easier to sell. Most of the population responds well sexy male or female models in jeans for example, which makes selling them easier. Same reason why pharmaceutical sales ppl are good looking themselves, doctors respond better & the companies the sales ppl work for sell more drugs, which means PROFIT & POWER PP.
> 
> Society runs on POWER and since money gets one power :th_blush: society is ruled by money. Its important imo to realize this early on in life, no matter one's outlook or ideals.
> 
> Its all connected, see? / END Ne-ish explanation.


The really odd thing about this is that _most _people seem to say that 'looks don't matter'-- But, yes, Hollywood would declare otherwise, because that's what people will look at. So, either people are being dishonest, or Hollywood is being dishonest, or both.

I certainly do agree with To_august, though. _I_ am not selling these people, so my interest lies in their performance, their ability. It's rather sad that _people _have become a commodity, like a slave trade, or something. But, we are all slaves, in one way or another, I suppose. And we are all ruled by it, no matter our station in life-- Money.


----------



## To_august

FreeBeer said:


> The mistake in your thinking is that below average to average looks do not sell. The bottom line is profit in every industry, its not really about the art, its about the money. There are non "hott" awesome artists in the non mainstream scene.
> 
> Its the same as in the media. Its not about the news or the truth, its about the ratings, which translate into MONEY. Sexy is simply easier to sell. Most of the population responds well sexy male or female models in jeans for example, which makes selling them easier. Same reason why pharmaceutical sales ppl are good looking themselves, doctors respond better & the companies the sales ppl work for sell more drugs, which means PROFIT & POWER PP.
> 
> Society runs on POWER and since money gets one power :th_blush: society is ruled by money. Its important imo to realize this early on in life, no matter one's outlook or ideals.
> 
> Its all connected, see? / END Ne-ish explanation.


Yep. I understand how it all sells. It wasn't my point though. Reaction to people in the media was just an example and, perhaps, not the most clear one.

I tried to make a point about how terms "beauty" and "ugliness" are loaded with unwanted content. When people see beauty, they subconsciously expect "good". They expect talent, kindness, selflessness, politeness and all the other stuff falling under the "good things" umbrella. And it's totally opposite situation when it comes to someone who is "ugly". They expect this person to be shady, evil, rude, mediocre and all the other "bad" stuff, and if this person turns out to be actually nice, kind and talented they are surprised.

I'v been wondering why is that.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Word Dispenser said:


> The really odd thing about this is that _most _people seem to say that 'looks don't matter'-- But, yes, Hollywood would declare otherwise, because that's what people will look at. So, either people are being dishonest, or Hollywood is being dishonest, or both.


The majority (even if it's just 51%) seems to prefer attractive ppl, so outward appearance matters as a factor in attraction and thus appeal. I doubt its social conditioning, we prefer healthy fit individuals on a subconscious level, I don't think I need to explain why. For certain ppl this is irrelevant or significantly different. The whole (beauty on the inside) thing is a comfortable lie we tell ourselves imo, because physical appearance is not something under our control, so we perceive it as unfair and compensate for it's lack. Can't deny one's subconscious however. *Its not like internal beauty is irrelevant however, it is also a factor. Optimally one would have both.*



> I certainly do agree with To_august, though. _I_ am not selling these people, so my interest lies in their performance, their ability. It's rather sad that _people _have become a commodity, like a slave trade, or something. But, we are all slaves, in one way or another, I suppose. And we are all ruled by it, no matter our station in life-- Money.


Yeah, agreed.



To_august said:


> Yep. I understand how it all sells. It wasn't my point though. Reaction to people in the media was just an example and, perhaps, not the most clear one.
> 
> I tried to make a point about how terms "beauty" and "ugliness" are loaded with unwanted content. When people see beauty, they subconsciously expect "good". They expect talent, kindness, selflessness, politeness and all the other stuff falling under the "good things" umbrella. And it's totally opposite situation when it comes to someone who is "ugly". They expect this person to be shady, evil, rude, mediocre and all the other "bad" stuff, and if this person turned to be actually nice, kind and talented they are surprised.
> 
> I'v been wondering why is that.


Hmm...no idea. I'll need to think about this. It could have a base in the same reason as to why we like good looking healthy ppl or prefer good looking fruit. We expect it to be healthy, large energy gains etc.. Deformed rotten fruit is unappetizing :/ tho I may be stretching it. Thoughts?

Our food is also selected based on aesthetic factors & we expect it to taste good if it looks good...


----------



## aendern

To_august said:


> People put too much stock in outward appearance.
> 
> Here and there I encounter opinions that people, who find their way to television, music industry and are exposed in media, should be eyecandy. But why? Shouldn't they be, you know, talented and creative itfp?
> 
> If someone beautiful creates interesting medium, it's treated as being within the norm, but if someone average looking succeeds in providing interesting and talented material, it is seen as odd and irregular. "Look at her! Notwithstanding being plain Jane, she has a great voice and good songs". As if beauty and talent are interdependent somehow. As if beauty provides for talent or something. Ugh.


I'm not sure.

There are two famous people who come to mind--Kim Kardashian and Susan Boyle.

Boyle was very surprisingly talented and became a hit due to her talent, despite her appearance.

Kim K is generally considered to be very untalented yet beautiful, and so is famous despite her untalent. I don't think it surprised anyone, though, that she wasn't talented. She has the typical look about her that makes you assume her entire worth is on the outside.

So it seems like it goes both ways. You can be untalented and famous, and you can also be unpretty and famous.

It seems like neither talent nor pretty is the deciding factor. If you have one of those, all you need do is let people know you have it, and you're in.



To_august said:


> Delta rant.
> Why do people like to objectify those who stand out for their looks?
> Today I've been with someone in the store and there was a transgender person, who's been unfortunate to draw attention to himself asking sales assistant for help with choosing a tea. Sales assistant seemed just dumbstruck and quickly ran away without giving any answer, while all the rest people started to giggle and stare like that transgender person were a monkey in a circus. It felt so plain rude and horrible and... just so wrong, ugh.
> 
> Afterwords for about half an hour I have to cringe and listen person, with whom I've been in the store, while ignoring my lawful rant on injustice of such treatment were retelling over the phone the story of meeting a transgender person - about his looks, his nail polish, gait, shoes, hairdo, manners, the way he pronounced words, supposed age, pitch of the voice, aaagh...
> 
> It seems to happen with just everybody who happen to vary from "standard" looks, even if it's just a little bit. Why some people seem incapable of ignoring exterior and seeing just another human being in someone else above all, no matter how he/she looks like, and not an object for dissection into parts?


This is a rhetorical question, right? Or do you seriously not understand why people do that?


----------



## Jeremy8419

"Sales assistant seemed just dumbstruck and quickly ran away"
Considering that grocery store sales assistants often aren't very sharp, I'd be more inclined to think the associate was legitimately confused. Intellectually challenged (yes, that's the new politically correct term) people sometimes flight at that which confuses them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> The really odd thing about this is that _most _people seem to say that 'looks don't matter'-- But, yes, Hollywood would declare otherwise, because that's what people will look at. So, either people are being dishonest, or Hollywood is being dishonest, or both.


The only people that I know that actually believe that are ugly people. Similarly, the only ones who place "slut" terms on people, are those who aren't attractive enough to get alpha males.

When one looks in the mirror, they see a certain general form. This, over time, becomes their norm. Whether you call it ugly or pretty or whatever, if your looks are far different than another's, your unconscious will trigger this as being "not normal." Often people idolize movie stars or get star-struck, but by doing so, they show their internal rift between what the person sees as "normal" and how the celebrities look. If you are closer to the looks of these celebrities, quite honestly, you usually won't give much of a damn about them.

Edit: Same also seems to apply for Se PoLR. I can't ever remembering meeting anyone and giving them any difference in behaviors based upon looks, wealth, or fame, and I have met a surprising amount of these people. CEO for my company came to our location one day, and everyone else was hanging on his words and actions. I walked in, he turns, introduces himself, I say, "Hey, what's up, I'm Jeremy." and kept on walking.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> The only people that I know that actually believe that are ugly people. Similarly, the only ones who place "slut" terms on people, are those who aren't attractive enough to get alpha males.
> 
> When one looks in the mirror, they see a certain general form. This, over time, becomes their norm. Whether you call it ugly or pretty or whatever, if your looks are far different than another's, your unconscious will trigger this as being "not normal." Often people idolize movie stars or get star-struck, but by doing so, they show their internal rift between what the person sees as "normal" and how the celebrities look. If you are closer to the looks of these celebrities, quite honestly, you usually won't give much of a damn about them.
> 
> Edit: Same also seems to apply for Se PoLR. I can't ever remembering meeting anyone and giving them any difference in behaviors based upon looks, wealth, or fame, and I have met a surprising amount of these people. CEO for my company came to our location one day, and everyone else was hanging on his words and actions. I walked in, he turns, introduces himself, I say, "Hey, what's up, I'm Jeremy." and kept on walking.


Well, I know I'm not an ugly person, but I really don't think looks matter. And from what I've seen of To_August, well, she's quite the looker, and seems to think this way as well. :kitteh:

Beauty is a fairly subjective thing though-- And how we view beauty is normally different depending on our perspectives. I can honestly say that the way a person behaves influences my idea of their attractiveness far more than their physical appearance does. I see physical appearances as transient-- We're all going to wither away, anyway, or get burned in a tragic accident, etc, etc, so it really _shouldn't _be the primary focus. It's meaningless.

To me, anyway.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> the way a person behaves influences my idea of their attractiveness far more than their physical appearance does.


Still an appearance when you think about. Principle of socionics is that we are unconsciously attracted to those in our Quadra. As someone who "gets around," most of the females I am instantaneously attracted to are those within Delta, and occasionally LII for their freaky-deaky-ness. This goes to both their gait, posture, preferences for how they dress and keep themselves up.

For instance, see girl with straight, black hair, quaint and simple studs for earings, elegant barrette, feminine yet respectful dress/skirt, walking upright with poise, air of "little miss perfect" and such.... ESTJ. Takes quiz, and is ESTJ. Why? Because I know that while although she is most likely an 8 realistically, to me she is a 10, and vice versa. Can do this fairly regularly. Similarly, ones that seem a little quirky versions of this are usually SLI, and those who are giggly versions with slightly more flare are IEE.

Are they 7ish's? Yeah. Look like 9ish's to me in appearance, though.


----------



## Psithurism

Does anyone here have examples of delta art, but more on the xSTJ side? I have my own ideas about it but I am curious if anyone has anything to share.

No pictures of sober architecture preferably.


----------



## Ninjaws

Verglas said:


> Does anyone here have examples of delta art, but more on the xSTJ side? I have my own ideas about it but I am curious if anyone has anything to share.
> 
> No pictures of sober architecture preferably.


Since Si is subjective sensations, I'd say that xSTJ art is something that calls forth a certain sensation in yourself.
This means it can vary greatly, just like Fi art, because it completely depends on the person.

I think sober architecture is more Se than Si, since it is focussed on the objective sensations. Thinking about it, Se is probably more interested in the blueprint, the colours, the shape, etc, while Si is more interested in how all these things affect yourself. "Cover the floor with carpet so that it will be soft to walk on."

When I see steel, I feel cold. When I see grass, I feel comfortable. Stone walls make me uncomfortable, while looking at beds makes me feel comfortable. I feel the sensation I'd feel if I were touching it by just looking at it. A room made out of steel is extremely uncomfortable to sit in, because every time I look at a wall, I can feel a cold sensation.

Look at this, for instance:








The leaf is smooth, soft to the touch. Warm sunlight is shining on it, the sky is clear. I think "I want to be there, feeling the warmth of the sun on my body."


----------



## Recede

Ninjaws said:


> When I see steel, I feel cold. When I see grass, I feel comfortable. Stone walls make me uncomfortable, while looking at beds makes me feel comfortable. I feel the sensation I'd feel if I were touching it by just looking at it. A room made out of steel is extremely uncomfortable to sit in, because every time I look at a wall, I can feel a cold sensation.


Are you sure that's Si and not synesthesia? I don't know, when I look at a wall I see a wall. It can have some kind of meaning which can be felt internally, but usually I'd have to be intentionally focused on that to notice, and even then it's very subtle and not something I could concretely describe.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Silveresque said:


> Are you sure that's Si and not synesthesia? I don't know, when I look at a wall I see a wall. It can have some kind of meaning which can be felt internally, but usually I'd have to be intentionally focused on that to notice, and even then it's very subtle and not something I could concretely describe.


Synesthesia is placed with dynamics, which Si is one of.

SLI is fond of nature and the harmony thereof, so I imagine that would be a popular subject of such.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Silveresque said:


> Are you sure that's Si and not synesthesia? I don't know, when I look at a wall I see a wall. It can have some kind of meaning which can be felt internally, but usually I'd have to be intentionally focused on that to notice, and even then it's very subtle and not something I could concretely describe.


That's Si. But, I think it's going on in the background, and it's not something you're aware of unless you think about it.

I know that I think of the sun as being warm and comforting, and such. Not to say that Si should be that well-developed in me, but it's experiential, and thus, I understand it and am maybe more aware of it than I was when I was younger.


----------



## Ninjaws

Silveresque said:


> Are you sure that's Si and not synesthesia? I don't know, when I look at a wall I see a wall. It can have some kind of meaning which can be felt internally, but usually I'd have to be intentionally focused on that to notice, and even then it's very subtle and not something I could concretely describe.


That's a good point. I think I have synesthesia and I might be mixing the two up here.


----------



## To_august

@Verglas

Wassily Kandinsky was typed in Socionics as LSE. Don't know what to think about it tbh. I can see Alpha too - Collection Online | Browse By Artist | Vasily Kandinsky - Guggenheim Museum

Also I saw this minimalist landscape painter - Arkhip Kuindzhi - been typed as SLI.

Zentangle art strikes me as a very Si thing. The very idea behind this art is relaxation, meditation and regaining piece of mind in the process of drawing structured patterns - Zentangle art


----------



## Recede

Word Dispenser said:


> That's Si. But, I think it's going on in the background, and it's not something you're aware of unless you think about it.
> 
> I know that I think of the sun as being warm and comforting, and such. Not to say that Si should be that well-developed in me, but it's experiential, and thus, I understand it and am maybe more aware of it than I was when I was younger.


He was describing getting physical sensations just from looking at something, though. It'd be one thing to feel comforted (emotionally) by the sight of something pleasant, but he was describing getting a cold sensation from looking at a wall. A mixing of the senses, hence synesthesia. There's no reason he can't be Si base too, but I don't think this would be an accurate description of Si in general when very few Si types (or any type) have synesthesia. 

I don't experience a mixing of the senses as Ninjaws described. I don't get physical sensations when I look at things, unless it triggers an emotional reaction which has a physical component. Walls are just walls, the sun is the sun, warmth is warmth. To be honest I'm not sure how my Sensation is supposed to be subjective, and I don't think it really is because I experience things to be exactly as they are. I guess it's just that my internal state matters more than making some kind of external impact most of the time.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Silveresque said:


> He was describing getting physical sensations just from looking at something, though. It'd be one thing to feel comforted (emotionally) by the sight of something pleasant, but he was describing getting a cold sensation from looking at a wall. A mixing of the senses, hence synesthesia. There's no reason he can't be Si base too, but I don't think this would be an accurate description of Si in general when very few Si types (or any type) have synesthesia.
> 
> I don't experience a mixing of the senses as Ninjaws described. I don't get physical sensations when I look at things, unless it triggers an emotional reaction which has a physical component. Walls are just walls, the sun is the sun, warmth is warmth. To be honest I'm not sure how my Sensation is supposed to be subjective, and I don't think it really is because I experience things to be exactly as they are. I guess it's just that my internal state matters more than making some kind of external impact most of the time.


Well, they're internal sensations. That's what Si is. Isn't it? I'm pretty sure I don't have synesthesia, and I understand what he's saying. Grass makes me feel things when I look at it. Can be thought of as emotional, I suppose, but I see it as being more intrinsic and sensational.

Like, grass gives me a warm feeling, thinking of the sun shining through it. Or it can be cold, when it's in the shade.


----------



## Recede

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, they're internal sensations. That's what Si is. Isn't it? I'm pretty sure I don't have synesthesia, and I understand what he's saying. Grass makes me feel things when I look at it. Can be thought of as emotional, I suppose, but I see it as being more intrinsic and sensational.
> 
> Like, grass gives me a warm feeling, thinking of the sun shining through it. Or it can be cold, when it's in the shade.


Well this is completely foreign to me, so I'm not sure what to say. Are you really speaking of literal warm and cold sensations? Or more like happy/sad emotions?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Silveresque said:


> Well this is completely foreign to me, so I'm not sure what to say. Are you really speaking of literal warm and cold sensations? Or more like happy/sad emotions?


Not literal. My best explanation is that it's connecting warm and cold sensations from the imagination, rather than anything literal-- So maybe this is my Ne with Si filtering through it.


----------



## Ninjaws

Word Dispenser said:


> Not literal. My best explanation is that it's connecting *warm and cold sensations from the imagination*, rather than anything literal-- So maybe this is my Ne with Si filtering through it.


Yes, this. I don't actually 'feel' it, as in actually feeling the sun on your face while it is only a picture. My imagination takes over and creates a sort of replica of the sensation that is felt when you are in the sun. Thus, I can imagine how it would feel to be there.

For instance, if I see a picture like this:








I think "Rough floor, low ceiling, bugs can easily get in, cramped."
I would not be comfortable in there, thus I will not sleep in a tent.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Ninjaws said:


> Yes, this. I don't actually 'feel' it, as in actually feeling the sun on your face while it is only a picture. My imagination takes over and creates a sort of replica of the sensation that is felt when you are in the sun. Thus, I can imagine how it would feel to be there.
> 
> For instance, if I see a picture like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think "Rough floor, low ceiling, bugs can easily get in, cramped."
> I would not be comfortable in there, thus I will not sleep in a tent.


Yeah! Only.. I wouldn't have known how to express that, so thanks. xD


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Not literal. My best explanation is that it's connecting warm and cold sensations from the imagination, rather than anything literal-- So maybe this is my Ne with Si filtering through it.


Yeah, I get what Ninjaws is talking about. This is not literal physical sensation, but something on the level of brain awareness of how something is. Prediction on how something would feel like if we physically touch/experience it. Rock shelter "feels" cold, room with yellow wallpaper "feels" warm, image of a fork lying in a frying pan inevitably sickens me, as it brings negative association with scraping, yecch.

Distinction between warm and cool colours is based on the same phenomenon I think. They don't make us physically feel warmer or colder, it's just some mental awareness about how they make us feel.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Ninjaws said:


> Yes, this. I don't actually 'feel' it, as in actually feeling the sun on your face while it is only a picture. My imagination takes over and creates a sort of replica of the sensation that is felt when you are in the sun. Thus, I can imagine how it would feel to be there.
> 
> For instance, if I see a picture like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think "Rough floor, low ceiling, bugs can easily get in, cramped."
> I would not be comfortable in there, thus I will not sleep in a tent.


 @Word Dispenser
Think this guy is happy to see you. Check out that tent he pitched when he saw you.
Giggity.


----------



## Ninjaws

Jeremy8419 said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=37769" target="_blank">Word Dispenser</a></i></span>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> Think this guy is happy to see you. Check out that tent he pitched when he saw you.
> Giggity.


----------



## Recede

To_august said:


> Yeah, I get what Ninjaws is talking about. This is not literal physical sensation, but something on the level of brain awareness of how something is. Prediction on how something would feel like if we physically touch/experience it. Rock shelter "feels" cold, room with yellow wallpaper "feels" warm, image of a fork lying in a frying pan inevitably sickens me, as it brings negative association with scraping, yecch.
> 
> Distinction between warm and cool colours is based on the same phenomenon I think. They don't make us physically feel warmer or colder, it's just some mental awareness about how they make us feel.


Hm, I don't have these associations. There's just the world as it is and my internal sensations of ease or discomfort. Objects don't give me subjective impressions, I just see them as they are. Yellow wallpaper is just that, yellow wallpaper. A rock shelter is what it is and what it looks like.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Silveresque said:


> Hm, I don't have these associations. There's just the world as it is and my internal sensations of ease or discomfort. Objects don't give me subjective impressions, I just see them as they are. Yellow wallpaper is just that, yellow wallpaper. A rock shelter is what it is and what it looks like.


It's not present in all dynamics, just far more dynamics than statics. 



http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Statics_and_dynamics said:


> Dynamics often develop a psycho-physiological phenomenon known as 'synaesthesia'—a complex relationship between the sensory modalities that results in confluence between them. Synchronized perception of color, sound, smell, and taste as a single complex gives Dynamics a special vividness in their perception of reality. Sometimes fusion of sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear indistinguishable from reality. For Statics, given the discreteness of their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception or the result of special training.


----------



## Recede

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not present in all dynamics, just far more dynamics than statics.


What To_august described wasn't synesthesia though, because she explained it wasn't literal sensations but mental associations. I think this kind of subjective impression is consistent with Jungian Si, though I've never related.


----------



## aendern

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, they're internal sensations. That's what Si is. Isn't it? I'm pretty sure I don't have synesthesia, and I understand what he's saying. Grass makes me feel things when I look at it. Can be thought of as emotional, I suppose, but I see it as being more intrinsic and sensational.
> 
> Like, grass gives me a warm feeling, thinking of the sun shining through it. Or it can be cold, when it's in the shade.


I think I get what you're saying. It's simply remembered sensations that stick out to you when you think about certain objects that trigger these sensations. Like grass in the shade being cold. I totally relate to that and know what you're talking about, as I've had lots of experience with grass in the shade and it feeling cold on my hands. And I remembered that and could relate when you wrote about it here.

That's a neat function.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Silveresque said:


> What To_august described wasn't synesthesia though, because she explained it wasn't literal sensations but mental associations. I think this kind of subjective impression is consistent with Jungian Si, though I've never related.


Seems like abstract normative association to me. On that picture typing quiz website, they have a picture of a lake with mountains and a little rowboat that is shored; this would feel "cool" by normative means.

Edit: What emberfly wrote does seem like Si. Perhaps, a bit of function interplay on this matter? Actual experiences being Si and abstract similarities being Ne?


----------



## To_august

Silveresque said:


> Hm, I don't have these associations. There's just the world as it is and my internal sensations of ease or discomfort. Objects don't give me subjective impressions, I just see them as they are. Yellow wallpaper is just that, yellow wallpaper. A rock shelter is what it is and what it looks like.


This is really strange to me. 
No associations at all? No associations about how certain sensing elements affect you in a particular way?

That would mean you won't understand what he is talking about by using color associations for creation of particular atmospheres for movie scenes (scroll to 0:51 where he starts talking about specific lighting effects: cold, thriller, intense ones etc)...





... and this guy talking about how warm and cool lighting creates atmospheres within a house.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I think Si association was more like looking at a random object in your room (say a video game box) and say "my first ps3 videogame!". From objective point of view its "Gta 4"(or whatever the game) but Si makes you perceive the object from an subjective layer.


----------



## VoodooDolls

To_august said:


> This is really strange to me.
> No associations at all? No associations about how certain sensing elements affect you in a particular way?
> 
> That would mean you won't understand what he is talking about by using color associations for creation of particular atmospheres for movie scenes (scroll to 0:51 where he starts talking about specific lighting effects: cold, thriller, intense ones etc)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and this guy talking about how warm and cool lighting creates atmospheres within a house.


that's a pretty good way to explain Si but that won't be that useful for determining your type, i think that if you are honest with yourself you do percieve differently different ambiences naturally. some houses can give you a certain vibe that doesn't match with yours and thus you dislike it for no reason, or some rooms by themselves. everyone obviously experiences it.
the thing is how much you care about those issues. everything depends on how you see it. if i buy a house i would certainly care for such aspects but they would came as a second or tertiary or fourth or whatsoever factor to have in mind, i wouldn't be caring so much about it. Unless it was a house where you feel something in the air do some research and it turns out it was the house that killed his owners for the last 4 generations and eventually you find out there's a indian cemetery below its basement. i'm forcing myself here i think this is bullshit, i wouldn't consider that in a serious level, i'm putting this as a example.
i think si should be seen as a place where everything is safe, there's no need ever to disrupt this cool wave of energy. while se is about destroying it, VS is a se word, get up and do something.


----------



## To_august

MeTheParrot said:


> that's a pretty good way to explain Si but that won't be that useful for determining your type, i think that if you are honest with yourself you do percieve differently different ambiences naturally. some houses can give you a certain vibe that doesn't match with yours and thus you dislike it for no reason, or some rooms by themselves. everyone obviously experiences it.
> the thing is how much you care about those issues. everything depends on how you see it. if i buy a house i would certainly care for such aspects but they would came as a second or tertiary or fourth or whatsoever factor to have in mind, i wouldn't be caring so much about it. Unless it was a house where you feel something in the air do some research and it turns out it was the house that killed his owners for the last 4 generations and eventually you find out there's a indian cemetery below its basement.


I'm not sure if I follow your string of thought, but I didn't try to describe Si with this post at all.

I've been just puzzled by Silveresque's response that she doesn't experience such "feels" or "vibes", or whatever one can call them, and everything are just that - things the way they are objectively seen. Among other things that would mean, for example, that girl, in the first video I posted, just doing weird faces in the red light of spot lamp through 1:58-1:59. It's like, there's no interpretation to the scene happening at all?


----------



## Word Dispenser

emberfly said:


> I think I get what you're saying. It's simply remembered sensations that stick out to you when you think about certain objects that trigger these sensations. Like grass in the shade being cold. I totally relate to that and know what you're talking about, as I've had lots of experience with grass in the shade and it feeling cold on my hands. And I remembered that and could relate when you wrote about it here.
> 
> That's a neat function.


Yeah... I know that people give a lot of flack for saying that Si is so connected to memory, but it really is. It's just in the _way _that it is that sets it apart. 

It's not that people with higher Si will have good memories (I have really low Si, but my memory and memorization skills are pretty great. My sister is probably an SEI, and she can't remember from before she was 4, but I remember all the way back to 2.), it's that the way they interact through the world is how they have interacted with the world in the past-- And the many different ways in which it can be interpreted through those memorial impressions. Si seems very flexible to me, because someone who sees grass can see it in many different ways, and then take that into their database, and compare, reflect, mix and match what is appropriate to the current context.

I do that too, but I do it very poorly. It's kind of like.. I am stuck with just one of the many paths from those memorial impressions, whereas someone with high Si is able to differentiate.

Low Si means that I'm actually kind of regimented in certain respects-- Like when it comes to food, or aesthetics, or how I think about comfort, or practical matters. It makes me kind of limited. Routined. When there's someone with high Si to guide me, they open me up to many other ways-- Which can seem completely novel to me, but that they've carefully considered through their experiential impressions and options.

Still, the way I relate to Si/Fe sometimes makes me think it must be higher up. But, that's apparently quite a normal way to view the lower functions, I guess.


----------



## VoodooDolls

To_august said:


> I'm not sure if I follow your string of thought, but I didn't try to describe Si with this post at all.
> 
> I've been just puzzled by Silveresque's response that she doesn't experience such "feels" or "vibes", or whatever one can call them, and everything are just that - things the way they are objectively seen. Among other things that would mean, for example, that girl, in the first video I posted, just doing weird faces in the light of spot lamp through 1:58-1:59. It's like, there's no interpretation to the scene happening at all?


i think i was just trying to point out the levels of bs being outputted by silveresque


----------



## Entropic

MeTheParrot said:


> i think i was just trying to point out the levels of bs being outputted by silveresque


Calling it bs is unnecessarily harsh imo.


----------



## aendern

To_august said:


> This is really strange to me.
> No associations at all? No associations about how certain sensing elements affect you in a particular way?
> 
> That would mean you won't understand what he is talking about by using color associations for creation of particular atmospheres for movie scenes (scroll to 0:51 where he starts talking about specific lighting effects: cold, thriller, intense ones etc)...


I hate the idea that those lights are the only "right" way to light a particular scene or achieve an effect you want. It seems so close-minded and traditional to me. "green light is for sci-fi films" .. umm.. what? Green light is for when you want green light.

I guess that's why I've always sort of appreciated really arty, like french new wave films. Because they say "fuck you" to ideas about how things "should be" and they purposely do things "wrong" to push the envelope. I really appreciate that.


----------



## zinnia

emberfly said:


> I hate the idea that those lights are the only "right" way to light a particular scene or achieve an effect you want. It seems so close-minded and traditional to me. "green light is for sci-fi films" .. umm.. what? Green light is for when you want green light.
> 
> I guess that's why I've always sort of appreciated really arty, like french new wave films. Because they say "fuck you" to ideas about how things "should be" and they purposely do things "wrong" to push the envelope. I really appreciate that.


That's how it came across to you? It just sounded like a bunch of suggestions, not really "you can never use anything but green for sci-fi" at all.

Did you get what they were saying though? I have always loved looking at movies or even photographs, knowing the tricks people use to get across the effect they are looking for.


----------



## To_august

emberfly said:


> I hate the idea that those lights are the only "right" way to light a particular scene or achieve an effect you want. It seems so close-minded and traditional to me. "green light is for sci-fi films" .. umm.. what? Green light is for when you want green light.
> 
> I guess that's why I've always sort of appreciated really arty, like french new wave films. Because they say "fuck you" to ideas about how things "should be" and they purposely do things "wrong" to push the envelope. I really appreciate that.


Notice the name of the video - "Lighting _Essentials_". The basic stuff, you know. It doesn't say anywhere that this is the only or the right way to do the lighting. Just a bunch of basic tricks to create certain effects.


----------



## aendern

To_august said:


> Notice the name of the video - "Lighting _Essentials_". The basic stuff, you know. It doesn't say anywhere that this is the only or the right way to do the lighting. Just a bunch of basic tricks to create certain effects.


Ya, sure, I get it. It's indoctrination.



zinnia said:


> That's how it came across to you? It just sounded like a bunch of suggestions, not really "you can never use anything but green for sci-fi" at all.
> 
> Did you get what they were saying though? I have always loved looking at movies or even photographs, knowing the tricks people use to get across the effect they are looking for.


I "get" that other people like it, yes. It seems contrived to me. Like when I see these elements together, all I see are these elements together. I don't feel "immersed" or whatever. Often these elements can be very annoying because they tell me what I'm supposed to think or feel.

Like suspenseful music telling you something bad is about to happen. This is like the death of horror movies lol.


----------



## zinnia

emberfly said:


> Ya, sure, I get it. It's indoctrination.
> 
> I "get" that other people like it, yes. It seems contrived to me. Like when I see these elements together, all I see are these elements together. I don't feel "immersed" or whatever. Often these elements can be very annoying because they tell me what I'm supposed to think or feel.
> 
> Like suspenseful music telling you something bad is about to happen. This is like the death of horror movies lol.


I'm not trying to start an argument just to be clear about my intention, but to me, this misunderstanding is interesting. I did not see it as indoctrination. They were just suggestions. End of story. Take 'em or leave 'em. Where was the implication that if you didn't follow their suggestions, you were "breaking the rules"? 

I also don't think they are really telling you what to think or feel... they are just trying to get across an atmosphere, an effect. Some people can use this very well and people don't really realize it - when it gets cheesy is when it's obvious like how movies that are making fun of horror movies do it.

I haven't seen the movies you are mentioning, but I would guess they have their own effects and tricks they use too. Will you not enjoy them anymore once they are noted?


----------



## aendern

zinnia said:


> I did not see it as indoctrination. They were just suggestions. End of story. Take 'em or leave 'em. Where was the implication that if you didn't follow their suggestions, you were "breaking the rules"?


No. That's not what I was trying to say. I apologize that I'm bad at explaining myself.

But "laying down the basics" is exactly that--indoctrination. Telling you how things are done. It never says "you must do them this way", but by telling you the way that they are currently done, they're already influencing your thoughts and opinions. Your opinions and thoughts are no longer yours. They are influenced by what these people have told you. You're already indoctrinated without even realizing it.



> I also don't think they are really telling you what to think or feel... they are just trying to get across an atmosphere, an effect.


You don't see that these are exactly the same thing? They want you to see the blue light and think that it means cold. Maybe you already do think that.

But why? There's no reason that blue has to mean cold. It makes me want to take photographs of wintery scenes are use red tones just to fuck with these people. It's so ridiculous and arbitrary to me.



> I haven't seen the movies you are mentioning, but I would guess they have their own effects and tricks they use too. Will you not enjoy them anymore once they are noted?


I actually took a class on film in college. That's where I was exposed to French New Wave films. They're cool. I would really recommend them if you like film and analysis of mise en scène.

The point of the class was to analyze films based on all the elements we are talking about now. Staging, framing, lighting, camera angle, music, set design, etc etc etc.

I don't think noting them makes me enjoy a film less, no. I think noting them was always something I naturally did. I always viewed movies as movies. As a work of art, not real life.

And there are of course lots of movies that I enjoy. So, again, no, not at all--this doesn't make me not enjoy films. But certain films do annoy me when they try to tell me how to think in predictable ways. It's the predictability that I hate, I guess. Especially when the intended mood or effect is nothing like what I'm actually experiencing.

Like sad music when a character you didn't even like is finally killed off. That's so stupid to me. Why don't you leave the music out of it and let me feel real sadness if there is any? Why do you have to fabricate it with your stupid music and tell me how to behave? Your sad music doesn't make me sad. It just makes me think you're a bad director because you can't create real sadness without using music.


I hope I'm not coming across as rude, but I probably am. :/

edit:

I did a thing









Now how can you tell me that looks warm. There's snow on the ground. Really deep snow, at that.


----------



## zinnia

emberfly said:


> No. That's not what I was trying to say. I apologize that I'm bad at explaining myself.
> 
> But "laying down the basics" is exactly that--indoctrination. Telling you how things are done. It never says "you must do them this way", but by telling you the way that they are currently done, they're already influencing your thoughts and opinions. Your opinions and thoughts are no longer yours. They are influenced by what these people have told you. You're already indoctrinated without even realizing it.


No problem. I'm not the best at explaining myself either so this might be like, blind leading the blind, in a sense XD

Hm. Yeah, I guess I don't see it that way. They say how things are done, but nowhere in that is actually an implication that things cannot be done another way. If I were to make a movie right now, I may or may not use their advice, so I suppose I do not consider myself "indoctrinated." If I were to watch another video from another saying that, actually, red light is used in sci-fi movies, I would then be... un-doctrinated? I would just form my own opinion when making my own movie, which I'd do regardless.



> You don't see that these are exactly the same thing? They want you to see the blue light and think that it means cold. Maybe you already do think that.
> 
> But why? There's no reason that blue has to mean cold. It makes me want to take photographs of wintery scenes are use red tones just to fuck with these people. It's so ridiculous and arbitrary to me.


There literally is no reason blue has to mean cold. I think it is an experience that many people can understand in an abstract way, sort of the sensory archetype we were talking about in chat yesterday. The idea behind cool and warm colors, I think many people can relate to, even though they are not literally told "blue is cold."

I think it is taking advantage of something that many people already experience. Does it reflect an absolute truth that blue is cold? Definitely not, because there's no such thing. On some other planet/world, maybe fire is more likely to be blue or green, something which most people don't experience at a sensory level, because we associate fire with red, and therefore, red with heat (though we are aware that, from a scientific perspective, blue light actually has a higher energy, etc)



> I actually took a class on film in college. That's where I was exposed to French New Wave films. They're cool. I would really recommend them if you like film and analysis of mise en scène.
> 
> The point of the class was to analyze films based on all the elements we are talking about now. Staging, framing, lighting, camera angle, music, set design, etc etc etc.
> 
> I don't think noting them makes me enjoy a film less, no. I think noting them was always something I naturally did. I always viewed movies as movies. As a work of art, not real life.
> 
> And there are of course lots of movies that I enjoy. So, again, no, not at all--this doesn't make me not enjoy films. But certain films do annoy me when they try to tell me how to think in predictable ways. It's the predictability that I hate, I guess. Especially when the intended mood or effect is nothing like what I'm actually experiencing.
> 
> Like sad music when a character you didn't even like is finally killed off. That's so stupid to me. Why don't you leave the music out of it and let me feel real sadness if there is any? Why do you have to fabricate it with your stupid music and tell me how to behave? Your sad music doesn't make me sad. It just makes me think you're a bad director because you can't create real sadness without using music.


I'm not really into art though that sounds like a fun elective to have taken. I guess I see it as almost everything out there is predictable, in as much as it uses ideas from somewhere.

To me, using green as sci-fi may be predictable, sure, as it comes from a rule or maybe rule of thumb. But if someone decided to use red instead, to "break the rules"... well, you're still then giving credit to the rule to begin with, aren't you? In that sense I don't see it as "true" creativity or anything new.

Also, when you mentioned that example about sadness, I think you are also viewing things more emotionally than I do... Blue giving an idea of ice or coolness is not the same as sad music because "ofc you should feel sad!" which I don't usually pay attention to but I also think is usually unnecessary. If it is felt, it will be felt, you don't need to force it.

edit because I just saw your post edit now lol



> I hope I'm not coming across as rude, but I probably am. :/
> 
> edit:
> 
> I did a thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now how can you tell me that looks warm. There's snow on the ground. Really deep snow, at that.


No, I don't think you came across as rude.

And to be honest, that picture freaks me out some, because it does look kinda warm to me despite the image being of an obviously cold landscape. 

Thanks emberfly now I'm going to go have a seizure or something. lolol


----------



## aendern

zinnia said:


> Hm. Yeah, I guess I don't see it that way. They say how things are done, but nowhere in that is actually an implication that things cannot be done another way.


The implication is that 1) this is the standard or usual way that things are done, 2) if you don't do them this way, you're not following the standard.

I think we'll just agree to disagree. I think the implication is totally there. It just seems like a very one-sided view of things.. to think "sci-fi films are typically like this.. films that are like that over there aren't typical of the sci-fi genre.." ugh. Doesn't that so totally stifle creativity? And openness to new interpretations?

Maybe it doesn't. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe it's much ado about nothing.



> If I were to make a movie right now, I may or may not use their advice, so I suppose I do not consider myself "indoctrinated." If I were to watch another video from another saying that, actually, red light is used in sci-fi movies, I would then be... un-doctrinated?


Now you have the idea in your head that sci-fi films typically feature red or green lighting. So now you can't choose a lighting without considering how your audience will perceive it. So you can't truly create what you wanted-- You're now forced to be influenced by others' expectations. _No matter what_ color you choose, it will have been influenced by that information you obtained. Whether you choose red, green, both, neither, doesn't matter. The thought of others' expectations has now been planted in your brain, and it will be there when you make that decision.

Have you ever seen the movie _Inception_? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't get it out of your mind now. It's there forever. Your thoughts have now been influenced.

This can be a great thing sometimes, but when it comes to artistic creation, I think it's largely negative. It seems to go against what art is all about -- raw, unfiltered, unadulterated self-expression. When you're now forced to be made aware of and face other peoples' biases about how something "typically is" or "should be", you're no longer capable of raw, unfiltered, unadulterated self-expression.



> There literally is no reason blue has to mean cold. I think it is an experience that many people can understand in an abstract way, sort of the sensory archetype we were talking about in chat yesterday. The idea behind cool and warm colors, I think many people can relate to, even though they are not literally told "blue is cold."
> 
> I think it is taking advantage of something that many people already experience. Does it reflect an absolute truth that blue is cold? Definitely not, because there's no such thing. On some other planet/world, maybe fire is more likely to be blue or green, something which most people don't experience at a sensory level, because we associate fire with red, and therefore, red with heat (though we are aware that, from a scientific perspective, blue light actually has a higher energy, etc)


I agree with you.



> I guess I see it as almost everything out there is predictable, in as much as it uses ideas from somewhere.


Yes.



> To me, using green as sci-fi may be predictable, sure, as it comes from a rule or maybe rule of thumb. But if someone decided to use red instead, to "break the rules"... well, you're still then giving credit to the rule to begin with, aren't you?


Yes, of course.



> In that sense I don't see it as "true" creativity or anything new.


Me either. I think "true" creativity exists in a vacuum. When you literally create something when nothing exists as a predecessor to guide your process. You have to come up with it all on your own. Obviously you will use information you have internalized and gleaned--you can't use information you _haven't_ internalized and gleaned--but this way you're forced to do it all on your own, without a model to show you one way that you _could_ do it. Because that automatically influences you and now you no longer have a vacuum and anything you create will be compared to that other thing and influenced by that other thing if you are aware of that other thing. Completely without your permission, too. Your awareness completely mind-rapes you, and now you have been irrevocably influenced.



> Also, when you mentioned that example about sadness, I think you are also viewing things more emotionally than I do... Blue giving an idea of ice or coolness is not the same as sad music because "ofc you should feel sad!" which I don't usually pay attention to but I also think is usually unnecessary. If it is felt, it will be felt, you don't need to force it.


Ya I thought the extension to music and emotion would be relevant but maybe it wasn't totally.. I get that emotion is different from sensory interpretation, for sure, but they seem logically the same.. your thoughts (sensory impression or emotion) are influenced and inspired by some artificial creation constructed by someone who wanted you to think or feel a certain way.

I will totally admit that I could be wrong and blowing this out of proportion, though. But it makes sense to me.


----------



## To_august

emberfly said:


> Ya, sure, I get it. It's indoctrination.


Well, I don't know if I'm already indoctrinated then, but I felt like video was stating the obvious (not regarding sci-fi, that one was pretty much arbitrary). I don't need any videos or anybody to tell me that red is warm or dangerous, or any other stuff I can come up with. I touched the fire, I saw blood, the associations are obvious to me. They are just there, existing on some unconscious level.

It is interesting what you said about annoyance with movies trying to force certain moods and feelings that you don't really feel. It's pretty much different from experience. It's ether all clicks or it doesn't. If I like the movie, I never notice details like atmosphere, lighting or music, if I'm not watching it for the umpteenth time, or didn't take a note to myself to intentionally pay attention to that. It's a comprehensive experience for me. If I liked the movie, I can later google its soundtrack and upon listening find out that yeah this theme been there, and it was sad and fitting the scene, but that's about it. I start paying attention to details when movie bores me, or I don't care about what is going on on the screen. Then I can make fun of music that forces me to feel what I don't feel, or scenes being too dark or whatever, trying to bring more suspense and tension. My minds starts wandering, trying to find things to be entertained. But really it's never about predictability of those details, just about whether I like or dislike the movie. It's eather do it for me, or it doesn't.


----------



## Jeremy8419

zinnia said:


> And to be honest, that picture freaks me out some, because it does look kinda warm to me despite the image being of an obviously cold landscape.


It's probably because the focus of the picture is on "_sunrise_ in snowy mountains."


----------



## VoodooDolls

emberfly said:


> Have you ever seen the movie _Inception_? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't get it out of your mind now. It's there forever. Your thoughts have now been influenced.


i never liked that movie. dunno if seriously overated or not my thing besides the whole ambience the movie is in makes me angry for some reason. i think that's the most obvious ne - ti kind of plot. not attracted to that stuff. perhaps i need to re-watch it or something.


----------



## zinnia

emberfly said:


> The implication is that 1) this is the standard or usual way that things are done, 2) if you don't do them this way, you're not following the standard.
> 
> I think we'll just agree to disagree. I think the implication is totally there. It just seems like a very one-sided view of things.. to think "sci-fi films are typically like this.. films that are like that over there aren't typical of the sci-fi genre.." ugh. Doesn't that so totally stifle creativity? And openness to new interpretations?
> 
> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe it's much ado about nothing.


Sorry if you really didn't want to discuss it anymore, so just feel free to ignore this post if that's the case. 

Again, as a disclaimer, I'm not meaning to minimize your ideas or make you feel like you're blowing something out of proportion, I really do find this interesting and I'm trying to pinpoint where exactly (and why) our opinions are diverging. I like these sort of things - I love learning about others' perspectives and why they think the way they do, sorry if I appear judgmental in any of this.

You are absolutely right in that first sentence. The part I don't get is... so what if it's not following the standard? That is not relevant to me (ofc, this is personal). Yes, there is a standard. I may not follow it. Cool. No hard feelings. 

We will always be influenced by others' opinions and expectations, in everything we do. And if art is really meant to be self-expression, what am I doing trying to mold it to fit an expectation? Maybe it never becomes popular because it's sci fi and isn't green enough, but if it was for my own personal satisfaction, does that matter? I would then wonder why I wanted to create this art in the first place... was it for my self-expression, or was it to make money or a name by reaching the most amount of people possible?

Then again, I do not usually consciously think about the specific color I use or whatever when making a graphic or designing my room so maybe this really only applies to people who are more deliberate and reasoning than I am?


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Something just made my day.
> 
> I've been reading through Talanov's article on Ti and Te (mostly on Ti), which is built around findings made upon research of three thousand questionnaires. Article is pretty much serious and all, and one of the things they point out is that Te egos tend to permanently perfect themselves, training and controlling their efficiency and increasing personal quality. This concerns their appearances as well.
> 
> So, in this regard, one of their findings concerning differences between Ti and Te was that Te egos (both S and N) tend to significantly more often brush their teeth than the general population, while Ti egos, on the contrary, have a tendency to brush their teeth significantly rarer than the general population on average.:laughing:


The articles on socionics.com have type profiles that are "read at your own risk." The LII one says something like, "the saying LIIs like is 'I think, therefore I am,' but in reality, it is 'I stink, therefore I am.'" lol


----------



## To_august

I noticed through my interaction with someone else that there's a thing about me not easily shaping likes and dislikes towards people. Or, to be more exact, "likes" in particular, because dislikes are easier to become aware of.

Example. Once, we watched part of a new TV show (something about a girl being chained to other five-or something guys. They were supposed to interact and pass different tests/challenges and in the end she had to choose someone. Usual stuff). So, in like 10 minutes into the show she started to inquire me for whom of the guys I like, who I think is better fit for the girl, what impression participants made on me, my attitude towards them etc. This happens frequently, so I get used to this and as usual answered that I didn't figured it out yet. In another 5-or-so minutes she proceeded with asking me again and after not getting clear answer provided her opinions on whom she likes/dislikes, why she feels this way about them etc. As usual, again, I got irritated, puzzled and aware that I don't really have any opinion about those people on the screen. They didn't do or say anything meaningful so I could fairly judge their character, while she, in contrast, watched 15 minutes of the show and already got pretty profound opinions and was eager to share her insights. For me it was too little information and I couldn't make a conscious decision about how I feel for those people. I know attraction/repulsion isn't supposed to be a 'conscious decision', but there's no obvious answer to like/dislike and I apparently try to make it into a one. We watched a bit more and I decided that I don't care about anybody of them and it was just a silly show, which I concluded was closer to dislike.

Opinions she provided seemed to me unfounded, they came out of thin air and didn't have enough validity (in my opinion only of course, because to her it was perfectly natural and obvious). This made me aware that I have difficulties with grouping people according to likes and dislikes. It's like she's been asking me if I like maple or oak tree more. I mean, what's the point of reference? Maple tree is just a tree and oak one is just another tree with its own parameters of growing and the like. I don't see them as objects which should be exposed to personal bias. They are facts of the world. I can not like or dislike them for that. Same with people. Unless they do something bad or dishonest, or obviously show some good qualities for a longer period of time I can not tell if I like them or not. And even then it can be difficult, because frequently it's like - this person is an asshole, he did bad things, but this is just who he is, it doesn't mean I personally feel some form of repulsion towards him. Or, that person is doing good their job, they are useful and responsible - they are just that - reliable person whom I can trust with a job to do. People easily throw around 'I love this' and 'I hate her' and seemingly really mean it, and I don't understand it.

This is just one example of many, which bothers me in terms of where the hell is my Fi activating.

I rather easily form attachments and likes to things like music, movies, books, or even fictional characters, but real people are whole nother story.

Is it me being logical ego vs someone else being an ethical one, or is there other, more nuanced pattern behind this?


----------



## Word Dispenser

To_august said:


> I noticed through my interaction with someone else that there's a thing about me not easily shaping likes and dislikes towards people. Or, to be more exact, "likes" in particular, because dislikes are easier to become aware of.


This is actually really amusing to me, because _my _issue is forming _dislikes _towards people. :laughing: The likes are something I'm actually more aware of. This is something I've noticed continually IRL. Even if someone has slighted me, I don't tend to harbour any ill will or hard feelings or what have you. I'm kind of naiive in this way.

It's probably different when it comes to shows, though. I don't really form emotional opinions about characters, as I'm fairly distant. Unless it's something like Disney, where I can be a bit gushy depending on where my hormones are at, at the time. :kitteh: But then, I'm more 'emotionally attached' to the scene itself, to the environment that it has created. Like, awww, that's romantic, or, heee, horror rocks!



> Is it me being logical ego vs someone else being an ethical one, or is there other, more nuanced pattern behind this?


Hmmmm.. Probably logical ego.. And possibly negativist? It might have nothing to do with that dichotomy, mind. Just seems parallel interestingly.

Socionics Dichotomies: R3t3


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> This is actually really amusing to me, because _my _issue is forming _dislikes _towards people.:laughing: The likes are something I'm actually more aware of. This is something I've noticed continually IRL. Even if someone has slighted me, I don't tend to harbour any ill will or hard feelings or what have you. I'm kind of naiive in this way.
> 
> It's probably different when it comes to shows, though. I don't really form emotional opinions about characters, as I'm fairly distant. Unless it's something like Disney, where I can be a bit gushy depending on where my hormones are at, at the time. :kitteh:But then, I'm more 'emotionally attached' to the scene itself, to the environment that it has created. Like, awww, that's romantic, or, heee, horror rocks!


My issue is more about being neutral and reluctant to form like or dislike in general. But when I become aware of some sort of a relation it's more likely to be a dislike. For me to honestly tell that I like someone takes a lot of work and time. I mean I don't go round disliking everybody, it's that I just don't feel this sort of stuff towards people in general. It's more along the lines: we get along well -> positive relationships; she helped me -> box ticked, I can rely on her in the future; they let me down -> damned they be, I wouldn't entrust them with anything anymore  Personal likes somehow don't even enter the picture.

One of my most hated questions to be asked is 'How do you feel about me?', because I just want to run as far as I could, since internally I think 'Damned if I know'. The asker frequently becomes offended as in the result I mumble some unintelligible answer :frustrating:



> Hmmmm.. Probably logical ego.. And possibly negativist? It might have nothing to do with that dichotomy, mind. Just seems parallel interestingly.
> 
> Socionics Dichotomies: R3t3


Yep. I definitely feel like a negativist, taking into account that it's always been easier for me to exclude what doesn't fit, than see what fits better in any given decision or process. In terms of typing I'm also more aware about what I'm not than what I really am XD

So, negativists (all but one extroverted negativist type are too unlikely, so I'm left with):

LII - Ti-Ne seems too much of an abstract thinking to me. LII description is the one I relate the most indeed, but I consider myself more practical person. Can be a learned quality though. If choosing between LII and LSI I would say I'm closer to the latter.

SEI - Fe creative is way too unlikely as my Fe is terribly poor. In the most optimistic (and unrealistic) scenario it would be valued and 2D, but that's all I can squeeze out of myself in terms of Fe. Also Te PoLR... Nope. Unlikely.

ESI - this is interesting actually. Ne PoLR fits in particular, but Fi base... bearing in mind my dilemma with likes/dislikes and strong Fe they have, also unlikely.

ILI - fits overall apart from Se dual seeking. Dunno, I just find Se a bit boring. I need physical push from time to time, but if someone would do this to me on every other occasion chances are that it would only irritate me.

LSE - Rational base fits, but option of being extraverted base scares me a bit. Also, Ni PoLR, Ti ignoring, Se demonstrative - don't know what to do with all of this, because I don't think these positions of elements fit with me.

On the other hand... I can do the same break up for all the positivists types on the matter how none of them fit :laughing:


----------



## Word Dispenser

To_august said:


> My issue is more about being neutral and reluctant to form like or dislike in general. But when I become aware of some sort of a relation it's more likely to be a dislike. For me to honestly tell that I like someone takes a lot of work and time. I mean I don't go round disliking everybody, it's that I just don't feel this sort of stuff towards people in general. It's more along the lines: we get along well -> positive relationships; she helped me -> box ticked, I can rely on her in the future; they let me down -> damned they be, I wouldn't entrust them with anything anymore  Personal likes somehow don't even enter the picture.
> 
> One of my most hated questions to be asked is 'How do you feel about me?', because I just want to run as far as I could, since internally I think 'Damned if I know'. The asker frequently becomes offended as in the result I mumble some unintelligible answer :frustrating:
> 
> 
> Yep. I definitely feel like a negativist, taking into account that it's always been easier for me to exclude what doesn't fit, than see what fits better in any given decision or process. In terms of typing I'm also more aware about what I'm not than what I really am XD
> 
> So, negativists (all but one extroverted negativist type are too unlikely, so I'm left with):
> 
> LII - Ti-Ne seems to much of an abstract thinking to me. LII description is the one I relate the most indeed, but I consider myself more practical person. Can be a learned quality though. If choosing between LII and LSI I would say I'm closer to the latter.
> 
> SEI - Fe creative is way too unlikely as my Fe is terribly poor. In the most optimistic (and unrealistic) scenario it would be valued and 2D, but that's all I can squeeze out of myself in terms of Fe. Also Te PoLR... Nope. Unlikely.
> 
> ESI - this is interesting actually. Ne PoLR fits in particular, but Fi base... bearing in mind my dilemma with likes/dislikes and strong Fe they have, also unlikely.
> 
> ILI - fits overall apart from Se dual seeking. Dunno, I just find Se a bit boring. I need physical push from time to time, but if someone would do this to me on every other occasion chances are that it would only irritate me.
> 
> LSE - Rational base fits, but option of being extraverted base scares me a bit. Also, Ni PoLR, Ti ignoring, Se demonstrative - don't know what to do with all of this, because I don't think these positions of elements fit with me.
> 
> On the other hand... I can do the same break up for all the positivists types on the matter how none of them fit :laughing:


Hmm, why does being extraverted base scare you? :kitteh:

Seems like LSE and ILI are closest for you in terms of this list. And ESI as a back-up. 

But, you've always struck me as a Delta in terms of quadra values.


----------



## To_august

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, why does being extraverted base scare you? :kitteh:
> 
> Seems like LSE and ILI are closest for you in terms of this list. And ESI as a back-up.
> 
> But, you've always struck me as a Delta in terms of quadra values.


LSE scares me a bit, because in terms of temperament this means EJ - proactive, restless and energetic temperament. And I really don't fit any of this. IJ and IP are much closer.

Also that would mean that my dual is an introverted temp and I wonder if we wouldn't bore each other to death, being both so profoundly calm and inert. On certain days I work with someone who I think is ether SLI or LSI. We share the same office, doing our job and exchange literary just a couple sentences/words throughout the whole day. Both of us feel perfectly comfortable about it (at least I think so, because I certainly do XD), only if our extraverted boss arrives, the place comes alive. I always felt that I reach out for more energetic people than I am.


----------



## Jeremy8419

to_august said:


> As usual, again, *I got irritated*, puzzled and aware that I don't really have any opinion about those people on the screen.


That's super-ego, homes.



> For me it was too little information and I couldn't make a conscious decision about how I feel for those people. I know attraction/repulsion isn't supposed to be a 'conscious decision', but there's no obvious answer to like/dislike and I apparently try to make it into a one.


It is supposed to be a conscious decision, if it is in your first 4 functions.



> It's like she's been asking me if I like maple or oak tree more. I mean, what's the point of reference?


That's annoyance at Fi-Ne. I like oak trees. They're strong. They watch over time. Maples have pretty leaves, but offer nothing else.


----------



## Jeremy8419

to_august said:


> LSE scares me a bit, because in terms of temperament this means EJ - proactive, restless and energetic temperament. And I really don't fit any of this. IJ and IP are much closer.
> 
> Also that would mean that my dual is an introverted temp


That's not EJ. That's ESJ.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's super-ego, homes.
> 
> It is supposed to be a conscious decision, if it is in your first 4 functions.
> 
> That's annoyance at Fi-Ne. I like oak trees. They're strong. They watch over time. Maples have pretty leaves, but offer nothing else.


I didn't mean _conscious_ in Socionics sense, but that how some people are so easily aware and voice opinions about their like/dislike towards people, while I have to forcefully analyze this thing to form an opinion. I understand though that the reason behind this is that they exactly _consciously _aware of their attraction/repulsion.

That does sound like a superego on my part, and this confuses me, because it means Beta ST and I can't come to terms with me being Ti base.



Jeremy8419 said:


> That's not EJ. That's ESJ.


Why ESJ in particular? Both EJs are dynamic and rational, so they supposed to share the same temperament.


----------



## Valtire

To_august said:


> I didn't mean _conscious_ in Socionics sense, but that how some people are so easily aware and voice opinions about their like/dislike towards people, while I have to forcefully analyze this thing to form an opinion.


I can see 1D Fi being quite likely based on this. I have 2D Fi, and I'm aware of my sentiments, I would just happily drop them on a whim and have very large amounts of indifference most of the time.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Mother effer. Just lost 30 min of typing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> I didn't mean _conscious_ in Socionics sense, but that how some people are so easily aware and voice opinions about their like/dislike towards people, while I have to forcefully analyze this thing to form an opinion. I understand though that the reason behind this is that they exactly _consciously _aware of their attraction/repulsion.


Fi is responsible for the gradients that exist within the realm of attraction and repulsion. Ti is responsible for setting that which is found as precedence for future use, like a road marker. You're trying to Ti your Fi. Not being able to simultaneously do so is indicative of leading/role for Ti and Fi. When Ti has priority, the road markers will be very detailed, but there will be few of them. With Fi priority, there will be tons of half-arse markers.



> That does sound like a superego on my part, *and this confuses me*, because it means Beta ST and I can't come to terms with me being Ti base.


How so? If it exists, then it exists. Socionics is a deterministic theory to explain reality. It does not create reality. If you find that Ti ego makes other parts of Socionics contradict reality, then you may want to rethink your judgments on socionics, as Socionics doesn't contradict aspects of reality, only one's perception and judgments of socionics does such.
Side-story: My parents pester me to go to church, to create/join structure of society, and consider themselves "good guys" (relatively speaking, they are fairly good). They criticize me giving away all my possessions steadily to try and help people, and criticize me giving away parts of my present/future to stand by people who need help. My mother steals hotel towels and I criticize her and tell her I will buy them for her myself. My father says some crappy carpet we had pre-hurricane was in great condition and they got new wood floors paid by insurance, so I make sure to get them dirty everytime I visit and say I am role-playing Mr. Karma. I save my money and get a house, and they praise me and say they are so proud, and i tell them they should be proud when I am broken and penniless after having believed in the world.
Point is... Socionics is bullshit if you don't have the awareness of the innards of others (Fi) to properly place yourself amongst it. Socionics isn't a chemical absolute. It is a comparison of your psyche to the pscyhes of the general population. I love my parents. They are LSI (ISTJ) and IEI (INFP). If they told me that they were Fi valuing and I was Fe valuing, I'd tell them they are full of shit. Ti-based organized religion is NOT Fi; granted, I support it, because I prefer people weak in Fi at least have some rules that keep society afloat. Totally forgot where this rant was going...



> Why ESJ in particular? Both EJs are dynamic and rational, so they supposed to share the same temperament.


Yeah, I got nothing lol. Think I misread something when I wrote that.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Fi is responsible for the gradients that exist within the realm of attraction and repulsion. Ti is responsible for setting that which is found as precedence for future use, like a road marker. You're trying to Ti your Fi. Not being able to simultaneously do so is indicative of leading/role for Ti and Fi. When Ti has priority, the road markers will be very detailed, but there will be few of them. With Fi priority, there will be tons of half-arse markers.


That makes no sense whatesoever. Ti would be concerned about the rules of the road markers e.g. 100 meters precisely between each marker. Fi would be concerned about whether they are nice/likable for oneself and that of others'. Fi would for example consider can blind people still use the road markers? Probably not, because they can't see them, and implement a way so blind people can use them too.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> That makes no sense whatesoever. Ti would be concerned about the rules of the road markers e.g. 100 meters precisely between each marker. Fi would be concerned about whether they are nice/likable for oneself and that of others'. Fi would for example consider can blind people still use the road markers? Probably not, because they can't see them, and implement a way so blind people can use them too.


Ti would be the defined space, and Fi would be the undefined space.

The purpose of the example was to emphasize that people use both alternatingly, throughout the course of their life to assign, with varying details and sophistication dependent upon Ti, their preferences. While one "feels out" the unrefined spaces, the other places markers for future reference.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ti would be the defined space, and Fi would be the undefined space.
> 
> The purpose of the example was to emphasize that people use both alternatingly, throughout the course of their life to assign, with varying details and sophistication dependent upon Ti, their preferences. While one "feels out" the unrefined spaces, the other places markers for future reference.


That still doesn't make any sense, since it's not about the space but the rules you apply to govern the space, why that space exists.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> That still doesn't make any sense, since it's not about the space but the rules you apply to govern the space, why that space exists.


It was from a Ti-perspective.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> It was from a Ti-perspective.


You don't get it, do you? Ti and Fi both define the space, but they define it very differently. Fi isn't about being undefined space; no, Fi defines the space simply on a different set of criteria than Ti does. Both define the space. That was the entire point of what I was trying to suggest. That's why your analogy falls apart because it doesn't make any real sense; its accuracy is poor and doesn't at all capture what you are trying to suggest it does suggest.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> You don't get it, do you? Ti and Fi both define the space, but they define it very differently. Fi isn't about being undefined space; no, Fi defines the space simply on a different set of criteria than Ti does. Both define the space. That was the entire point of what I was trying to suggest. That's why your analogy falls apart because it doesn't make any real sense; its accuracy is poor and doesn't at all capture what you are trying to suggest it does suggest.


It does, your definitions just fail, because you're weaker at Fi than I am at Ti. You're still trying to "Ti your Fi", even in your attempts to associate Fi to anything.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Mother effer. Just lost 30 min of typing.


There is "Restore Auto-Saved Content" button at the bottom left corner of the "Quick Reply" window for such occasions.



> Fi is responsible for the gradients that exist within the realm of attraction and repulsion. Ti is responsible for setting that which is found as precedence for future use, like a road marker. You're trying to Ti your Fi. Not being able to simultaneously do so is indicative of leading/role for Ti and Fi. When Ti has priority, the road markers will be very detailed, but there will be few of them. With Fi priority, there will be tons of half-arse markers.


Ok. I've read it like five times and still don't get your analogy. Why Ti has few markers and Fi has many? Why Ti's markers would be detailed, but Fi's ones "half-arsed"?



> How so? If it exists, then it exists. Socionics is a deterministic theory to explain reality. It does not create reality. If you find that Ti ego makes other parts of Socionics contradict reality, then you may want to rethink your judgments on socionics, as Socionics doesn't contradict aspects of reality, only one's perception and judgments of socionics does such.


It's not Ti ego that makes other parts of Socioncs contradict reality, but Ti ego itself doesn't fit well yet with my observations about myself. My earlier question about likes/dislikes can be the case of weak Fi and information trying to be accessed and processed through stronger logical IM elements, and well, not only Ti-base types have weak Fi.



> Side-story: My parents pester me to go to church, to create/join structure of society, and consider themselves "good guys" (relatively speaking, they are fairly good). They criticize me giving away all my possessions steadily to try and help people, and criticize me giving away parts of my present/future to stand by people who need help. My mother steals hotel towels and I criticize her and tell her I will buy them for her myself. My father says some crappy carpet we had pre-hurricane was in great condition and they got new wood floors paid by insurance, so I make sure to get them dirty everytime I visit and say I am role-playing Mr. Karma. I save my money and get a house, and they praise me and say they are so proud, and i tell them they should be proud when I am broken and penniless after having believed in the world.
> Point is... Socionics is bullshit if you don't have the awareness of the innards of others (Fi) to properly place yourself amongst it. Socionics isn't a chemical absolute. It is a comparison of your psyche to the pscyhes of the general population. I love my parents. They are LSI (ISTJ) and IEI (INFP). If they told me that they were Fi valuing and I was Fe valuing, I'd tell them they are full of shit. Ti-based organized religion is NOT Fi; granted, I support it, because I prefer people weak in Fi at least have some rules that keep society afloat. Totally forgot where this rant was going...


? 
Religion?
What does this has to do with religion?

This part of your post is even more mazy and I don't know even how this supposed to be Causal-Deterministic thinking style. Just an observation. So... your mother steals towels because she has weak Fi? People weak in Fi are constrained to refer to organized religion, because they don't have their own morals aka Fi? Weak Fi doesn't have awareness of the innards of others and can't properly place itself amongst other individuals? Yeah -> Ausra Augustinaviciute -> Founder of Socionics -> ILE -> Fi PoLR. ><


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> There is "Restore Auto-Saved Content" button at the bottom left corner of the "Quick Reply" window for such occasions.


Hmmm... Not seeing it, but I think I've seen it before. Maybe it doesn't show up on my phone's browser. I usually lose stuff by trying to move around page too fast and accidently going "back," or hitting the reload button accidently.




> Ok. I've read it like five times and still don't get your analogy. Why Ti has few markers and Fi has many? Why Ti's markers would be detailed, but Fi's ones "half-arsed"?


 The markers themselves are Ti, representative of explicit likes/dislikes. The area between the markers are Fi, representative of implicit likes/dislikes.

I'll expand on this heavily:

There's a 1000 acre field with various flora and variations of landscape. You walk around looking at various places and look at trees, grass, rocks, whatever. At some point you spend a long time deciding on an area you've seen thus far that you like best for a sleeping spot (Fi). You mark it with a sign with it's properties (Ti). You walk around more, and find another similar spot. You then spend a lot of time deciding which spot you like better (Fi), and decide you like the original best. You mark it (Ti) as the second-best sleeping spot and mark it's properties. You repeat this a dozen times. You repeat all of this for a dozen different purposes of places, besides the original sleeping spot one. Your likes are now explicitly defined. You now have a list of explicitly ranked places (objects) you like to reference while you spend your days on the 1000 acres. If you're tired, you can Ti which place to sleep at, based upon criteria of your "like scale", distance, etc. However, sometimes you find a new spot, and use their comparisons of parts (field) compared to other places parts (field), to determine what your implicit level of "like" is (Fi). Over time, the entire realm of like/dislike is categorized, detailed, etc. for this field, and your necessity for implicit relationships is non-existent. 

High Fi, on the other hand, will cover the entire field of like/dislike much more quickly, utilizing implicit comparisons. They will toss out simplistic signs and markers, more as a breadcrumb trail in case they get lost or need to give directions. Explicit categorizing is not their focus, so the systemization is only done to a minor extent. 

So, high Ti doesn't know the field well on the first day, but does have several detailed markers in place for clear, detailed use in the future. High Fi knows the field well the first day, but stuck sticks and rocks in a couple of places as his future reference.

Go to real world examples:

Ti-base knows he likes a restaurant and gives clear reasons for such, yet doesn't know if he will like a new restaurant based upon parts of descriptions of it.

Fi-base knows he likes a restaurant , but if you ask him, will just give broad generalities or say "I just like," and will know very quickly if he will like/dislike something based upon loose descriptions.

So, the two work in-tandem throughout life, to develop the person's preferences, both from explicit and implicit means. Think about it... If you've been to McDonald's a bunch, and you like it, what "feeling" is involved in the future? The act of determining like/dislike may be Fi, but once you know, it's just a factual statement. Determining McDonald's or Burger King? Again, Fi. Once you know you like Burger King better, it's then an explicit categorization scale.



> It's not Ti ego that makes other parts of Socioncs contradict reality, but Ti ego itself doesn't fit well yet with my observations about myself. My earlier question about likes/dislikes can be the case of weak Fi and information trying to be accessed and processed through stronger logical IM elements, and well, not only Ti-base types have weak Fi.


Yeah, the ease of doing so and passing through other elements would just be indicative of weak Fi; however, weak and a sense of annoyance at having to do such is Fi super-ego, with Ti base or Ti creative. If Fi is in your super-id, you would be amused by figuring out your likes and dislikes. The four blocks and their effects on individuals are one of the more basic and straightforward parts of socionics.




> ?
> Religion?
> What does this has to do with religion?
> 
> This part of your post is even more mazy and I don't know even how this supposed to be Causal-Deterministic thinking style. Just an observation. So... your mother steals towels because she has weak Fi? People weak in Fi are constrained to refer to organized religion, because they don't have their own morals aka Fi? Weak Fi doesn't have awareness of the innards of others and can't properly place itself amongst other individuals? Yeah -> Ausra Augustinaviciute -> Founder of Socionics -> ILE -> Fi PoLR. ><


LOL sorry. I started my original post when I sat down at a bar and started drinking. By the time I got back to this point after rewriting, I was pretty lit up, and just started rambling.

I think the point of religion was that it was similar to the first example. Morality is Fi. Moral Code is Ti. Both go back and forth over time, as Ti categorizes that found with Fi. Though things such as the Ten Commandments, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jewish Tenets, etc. may be founded originally due to Morality/Fi, they are structured systems and moral codes and laws, which is Ti..

Due to such, people's Morality is often criticized and scrutinized due to one's own preference for Fi or Ti. While my parents attest to Moral Code and Church Doctrine, I do not. Well, actually, I do somewhat, but Morality is higher than Moral Code in my preferences. As such, if you were to ask one such as my parents who of us is more focused on "Morality," they would often be inclined to say themselves; however, Morality and Moral Code are not the same thing, and Morality in Socionics is Fi.

Actually, I wasn't speaking of weak Fi in that rant, but rather valued vs unvalued. The primary difference between Ti and Fi is the internals/externals dichotomy of the aspects. Ti compares (relations, introversion, of fields) stuff as objects (externals). Fi compares (relations, introversion, of fields) stuff as fields (internals). That is, you can compare people as objects with explicit properties (outter stuff), or you can compare people as fields with implicit properties (psychological make-up). 

This correlates with the ILE thing. The models of socionics are comparisons of objects within a system; how the objects manifest in a function, how they interact with other objects, how they fit together to make rules and guidelines, etc. Such that, the ILEs gave remarkable clarity within the logical structure of the system. An LII, critically analyzed it via holographic analysis. Model A is both an object and a field, the parts of which were arranged as objects by Ti egos. Fitting Model A to an individual's psyche is a comparison of fields, and is Fi. Fitting the Model as an object to the individual as an object is Ti. Do you fit the large round peg into the large round hole? Or do you fit all the internal square pegs of the large round peg into all the internal square holes of the large square hole?

So, take the supervision ring of the Ti ego ILE vs the Fi ego EII... They were concerned with how the objects within the models match up. I, on the other hand, gravitate to matching different systems up. Eventually, the whole ring creates a unified deterministic theory of personality.


----------



## Korra

Recently took the test and here I am. 

EII descriptions seemed more in depth than INFP ones o.o

Also, instead of baking brownies, I make sandwiches (hopefully someone got that inside joke)!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Balla, shot calla


----------



## Word Dispenser

Fried Eggz said:


> I can see 1D Fi being quite likely based on this. I have 2D Fi, and I'm aware of my sentiments, I would just happily drop them on a whim and have very large amounts of indifference most of the time.


Makes sense. I have 1d Fi, and has been said before, I kind of take a 'stance of pretense', and argue for a position which I don't actually have a strong opinion about. I have no real strong opinions, even if it may seem that I do, because I can convincingly argue for any point of view, really.

It's kind of frustrating though, because I may argue a point, and the person of which I share discourse with would take offense, and say something like, "How could you believe/think that?" And my response is, "I don't, really, I was just curious about what you thought of this issue, based on this definition that I know of." Usually.

It's... Weird.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Makes sense. I have 1d Fi, and has been said before, I kind of take a 'stance of pretense', and argue for a position which I don't actually have a strong opinion about. I have no real strong opinions, even if it may seem that I do, because I can convincingly argue for any point of view, really.
> 
> It's kind of frustrating though, because I may argue a point, and the person of which I share discourse with would take offense, and say something like, "How could you believe/think that?" And my response is, "I don't, really, I was just curious about what you thought of this issue, based on this definition that I know of." Usually.
> 
> It's... Weird.


It does have something to do with it, but not directly.

What y'all are speaking of isn't "1D Fi," but rather Ne completely overriding Fi. Essentially, you're in "full ego mode" of your primary type. Normally, you would be retaining part of your super-ego (ESI ego) that would retain relations somewhat, or, in Model B, some of your shadow (which, at this point of my understanding is most likely likely EII ego). Instead, full utilization of Ne causes your PoLR, which already is low in itself, to have near none of your psyche directed at Fi.


----------



## Valtire

Word Dispenser said:


> It's kind of frustrating though, because I may argue a point, and the person of which I share discourse with would take offense, and say something like, "How could you believe/think that?" And my response is, "I don't, really, I was just curious about what you thought of this issue, based on this definition that I know of." Usually.


The worst part of all is when people assume I'm taking sides when I criticise their bad arguments. I'm always on the side of logic.



Jeremy8419 said:


> What y'all are speaking of isn't "1D Fi," but rather Ne completely overriding Fi.


1D Fi in the case of the ILE is the result of "Ne completely overriding Fi." So it is 1D Fi.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fried Eggz said:


> The worst part of all is when people assume I'm taking sides when I criticise their bad arguments. I'm always on the side of logic.
> 
> 
> 1D Fi in the case of the ILE is the result of "Ne completely overriding Fi." So it is 1D Fi.


No. Saying "1D Fi is like _this_" with that example is not accurate. It's a specific situation of her having PoLR Fi (vital self-regulates) and utilizing base to it's full extent. Normally, her super-ego, including Fi, will share part of her conscious activity. What she is describing for ILE is equivocal to when SLE's get bent on maintaining their dominance. In both cases, their normally apparent weakness at Fi turns into to near non-existence of it, and it is extremely consciously noticeable by EII and ESI, which is why I was able to immediately answer. In the course of my life, I've had to shutdown ILE's and LSE's numerous times, before I even knew what typology was. It's one of the social responsibilities of my type, just as others have a social responsibility when my PoLR goes unchecked.


----------



## piano

i love deltas. they're my fav


----------



## d e c a d e n t

i cant play the piano said:


> i love deltas. they're my fav


why


----------



## piano

Distortions said:


> why


easiest time talking to em


----------



## Jeremy8419

i cant play the piano said:


> easiest time talking to em


Least confrontational to you, probably. Makes it simple, but also unfulfilling, probably.


----------



## Coburn

I'm here because @Raawx says I go here.

Hello all.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Didn't I say that too? Lol


----------



## To_august

Pilot said:


> I'm here because @_Raawx_ says I go here.
> 
> Hello all.


Welcome to Delta hub:teapot:

We can sit drinking tea with our pinkies raised after getting stuff done, before that, instead of that or, actually, combine it in any other way:kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

I, personally, like to get stuff done. Then, I think. Then I think while getting stuff done. Then I get stuff done. Then I get my freak on. Then I get stuff done. Then I get intoxicated. Then I watch "videos." Then I go to sleep. Then I wake up. Then... I get stuff done.


----------



## To_august

Final episode of the final Fringe season is coming yet inevitably closer.

I will miss you my friend. Sniff-sniff.


----------



## Flowerpot92

Yay ! I really discovered socioncs this summer and you know what? IEE descriptions fit me better than ENFP mbti description ever will ! I love love love ISTps (and ISFps !!) Sensors just ROCK ! I think I fell in love with the delta quadra description, I felt like I finally discovered what I have been looking for.

MBTI sucks for making me believe xSTJs (socionics ISTp) were rigid and annoying. Those are the ISTPs (socionics ISTj) and when I know how ENFJs annoy me a little, it's no wonder it's because of their quadra.

<3 Delta !!


----------



## AdInfinitum

Do not worry, the first aspect people approach whenever they encounter the theory itself are the shameless labels. I think you can find the potential in the theory only when you have unleashed yourself from this induced hatred.


----------



## Kintsugi

I feel like I'm loving Delta-ness right now. Whatever the fook that is.

How would you guys define (or reject) it?


----------



## To_august

The Perfect Storm said:


> I feel like I'm loving Delta-ness right now. Whatever the fook that is.
> 
> How would you guys define (or reject) it?


"Delta-ness" reminds me of this. 
Si-Te heaven.:kitteh:


----------



## Kintsugi

To_august said:


> "Delta-ness" reminds me of this.
> Si-Te heaven.:kitteh:


AaHH, this is my idea of bliss/heaven/all that jazz...

I don't think t'd type related. Me and my boy (ILI), both relate...and yet, at tyhe same time, we appreciate and perceive the dangers of such a Utopia.\

*sigh*

I just think it'd wonderful...

Can I be a harmless fan-girl? :3


----------



## Jeremy8419

I think the point is that the subject is working in that picture lol


----------



## To_august

The Perfect Storm said:


> AaHH, this is my idea of bliss/heaven/all that jazz...
> 
> I don't think t'd type related. Me and my boy (ILI), both relate...and yet, at tyhe same time, we appreciate and perceive the dangers of such a Utopia.\
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> I just think it'd wonderful...


Haha:laughing:

I just thought it's very stereotypical Si aka having and/or building comfortable environment in order to achieve the most efficiency while doing something productive aka Te. Y'now, everything-is-comfy-and-at-an-arm-length stuff.



> Can I be a harmless fan-girl? :3


Sure, just bring a separate cup, don't feed someone else's fish with another else's cookies and use dustbin for its intended purposes.

We always have another "working-chair", just in case.:kitteh:


----------



## Captain Mclain

so what is delta quadra hangout all about?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> so what is delta quadra hangout all about?


I read, and watch cartoons, and play with my Legos.


----------



## violashropshire

Things are very un natural!


----------



## To_august

Captain Mclain said:


> so what is delta quadra hangout all about?


I listen to rain sounds and browse if there's anything new and interesting in the Hidden Objects realm.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Raise your hands up if your one of those people who loves the smell of new books/magazines. 
That and petroleum of course :kitteh:


----------



## To_august

crashbandicoot said:


> Raise your hands up if your one of those people who loves the smell of new books/magazines.
> That and petroleum of course :kitteh:


love-Love-LOVE new books smell!
Petroleum not so much, but I had a thing for soap and shampoo foam.:kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion

crashbandicoot said:


> Raise your hands up if your one of those people who loves the smell of new books/magazines.
> That and petroleum of course :kitteh:


Ohhhh my god yes! Well ok, not magazines that often, they have this uncomfortable plasticky and chemical smell, but new novels smell amazing.

Also! New car seats, petroleum, rain, nail paint, and correction pen ink. Love love.


----------



## Serpent

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. 

But seriously, I love the smell of petroleum. I also like the smell of rain. It kind of smells like something you can taste.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Omg :sad: how could i forget the new car smell ? I swear if i would be too rich one day, i will just keep on buying new cars for the smell, once a month :kitteh:
They also sell it though, new car smell car parfumes. Anyone using those ? Do they work ?
I also like the morning rain smell, too. I noticed that after it rains, its like atmosphere lost its tension and it feels relaxed. Almost like human beings.


----------



## Entropic

I didn't even think about whether books smell or not lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Omg :sad: how could i forget the new car smell ? I swear if i would be too rich one day, i will just keep on buying new cars for the smell, once a month :kitteh:
> They also sell it though, new car smell car parfumes. Anyone using those ? Do they work ?
> I also like the morning rain smell, too. I noticed that after it rains, its like atmosphere lost its tension and it feels relaxed. Almost like human beings.


The do-it-yourself carwashes here have stations where you can spray scent into the floor under the seats. There's new car smell, cherry smell, and lemon smell. I do the new car smell every 3-6 months.


----------



## Psithurism

crashbandicoot said:


> Raise your hands up if your one of those people who loves the smell of new books


Yea, it has a nice distinct smell usually. I remember thinking it was like I was breathing knowledge. 

It's a little bit similar to when I go into a library and I get engulfed by the academic mood.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

I do enjoy libraries and bookstores, but whenever visiting one I'd get too excited/overwhelmed and feel the need to use the restroom. :frustrating:


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Verglas said:


> Yea, it has a nice distinct smell usually. I remember thinking it was like I was breathing knowledge.
> 
> It's a little bit similar to when I go into a library and I get engulfed by the academic mood.


I think i know what your talking bout with libraries. 
Similarly, i feel travelly(?) at airports 


@Jeremy8419
Himm i d give it a try then. Its cheaper than buying new cars.:wink-new:


----------



## To_august

Ooh, I forgot rain smell!!!

and coffee too. I don't drink coffee, but smell of freshly ground beans is amazing.

Also, autumn has very distinct smell. I call it smell of magic.:kitteh:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Personally, I like the smell of cigarette smoke.  Not the best thing to indulge, though.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Ooh, I forgot rain smell!!!
> 
> and coffee too. I don't drink coffee, but smell of freshly ground beans is amazing.
> 
> Also, autumn has very distinct smell. I call it smell of magic.:kitteh:


Rain smell is good.

I like the smell outside during autumn when it starts to get cold outside. Mix of autumn and crisp cold air.


----------



## Psithurism

Jeremy8419 said:


> I like the smell outside during autumn when it starts to get cold outside. Mix of autumn and crisp cold air.


This is actually one of the reasons Autumn is my favorite season. It's rejuvenating. The weather is ideal for me.

Furthermore, the ''look'' of it in general is pleasing to me. Nice earthy colors. Both vibrant and dry. Both hopeful and melancholic.

It feels bittersweet.


----------



## Entropic

What kind of physical intelligence do you guys excel at? Visual, spatial, auditory, kinesthetic, whatever smell/taste counts as? Because I love the sound of rain, especially really heavy summer rain. It has a very distinct feeling. I often find I seem to care more for sounds that other people just don't.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> What kind of physical intelligence do you guys excel at? Visual, spatial, auditory, kinesthetic, whatever smell/taste counts as? Because I love the sound of rain, especially really heavy summer rain. It has a very distinct feeling. I often find I seem to care more for sounds that other people just don't.



I'm a big fan of smells and sounds. That particular sound is quite nice and refreshing. Soothing, even. I'm very sensitive to sound though-- If it's too loud, even construction work very close to me, I will plug my ears.

I often like smells that other people find too distinct or perfumey-- And I actually don't mind manure too much (But, I grew up in the country.)

With sounds: I'm really good at identifying music and voices. If I've heard it at least once, I can usually pinpoint what it is within the first few seconds. Same goes for actors-- If I can't identify them visually, I can through their voice.

I tend to be pretty great with auditory issues-- Maybe even moreso than visually, I think, even though I'm an artist and I draw quite a lot. Doing so has honed my sight quite a bit, but perhaps in a different way.

I suck at anything having to do with the physical space around me, though-- Arranging things, or putting together Ikea furniture-- It's so boring and so extremely outside of my interest that I simply am disastrous with it. Also don't really see the need for being organized. I'm one of those people who has everything in chaos, but can generally find whatever I'm looking for. I have a coping mechanism for not-losing things-- Always keeping wallet and keys in the same place. Even the same pocket, in my coat. Wallet goes in the right, keys go in the left. :kitteh: I'm at a loss in the summer time, if it's hot enough. But, it's generally not too hot for me to wear a jacket.


I'm quite good at finding things, because I'll cycle through all possible, logical areas where they might reside. If I'm looking for a particular object, I will imagine what it looks like in my head, and 'feel' my way to it through my eyes.

I'm pretty sensitive to light when sleeping-- Even a small bit of light can keep me from sleep.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> I'm a big fan of smells and sounds.


/farts in your ear

:}


----------



## To_august

Entropic said:


> What kind of physical intelligence do you guys excel at? Visual, spatial, auditory, kinesthetic, whatever smell/taste counts as? Because I love the sound of rain, especially really heavy summer rain. It has a very distinct feeling. I often find I seem to care more for sounds that other people just don't.


Sound of rain is awesome. When I work or do some stuff at computer I frequently youtube 'rain sounds' and enjoy it playing in the background. I quite like celestial sounds as well.

I don't think I have special auditory intelligence, but I'm good at identifying songs by the first couple seconds of their melody. Even after very long time I can easily pinpoint songs and musicians' voices that I heard many years ago. It often puzzles me when people can't tell apart live performance from the prerecorded one. I mean, it's obvious by the sound. I also, easily distinguish "western" music from local one by the beginning of the song when none of the words are yet sang. Production and sound patterns give it away for me.

Also there is this this thing about food and its smell. I usually sniff almost everything before eating and by the smell can tell how would it taste and if it would be healthy for my body.

I suck at street directions, but have vivid mental maps of surroundings when I'm in smaller environments. It doesn't take me long to absorb arrangement of things and then almost intuitively know where any given thing is situated. I easily find my belongings where I put them (of course if someone wouldn't decide to move them and put in a place were they belong ). I believe to have some sort of spatial synesthesia too.

I'm good at visual recognition. Faces, scenes, images - I easily recall and trace patterns in them. Sometimes I can't remember the very fine details, but things like colour, positioning of things, their size, how they were situated in relation to each other - are all easily remembered. But more often than not I don't have problems with envisioning in full and detailed manner.

Before mid-teens I had a bit weird ability to sense when someone was approaching me before I had any chance to see or hear them. It usually started like growing ringing sensation in the body signalling that some entity is moving towards me, and after a while I could hear steps or other sounds of someone coming. When I've been telling people about this, they assumed I just hear their footsteps, but I _knew _- sensation was coming _before _I could hear, see or in any other way "sense" them. Probably it had something to do with hearing indeed, or maybe with something else.


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> Sound of rain is awesome. When I work or do some stuff at computer I frequently youtube 'rain sounds' and enjoy it playing in the background. I quite like celestial sounds as well.
> 
> I don't think I have special auditory intelligence, but I'm good at identifying songs by the first couple seconds of their melody. Even after very long time I can easily pinpoint songs and musicians' voices that I heard many years ago. It often puzzles me when people can't tell apart live performance from the prerecorded one. I mean, it's obvious by the sound. I also, easily distinguish "western" music from local one by the beginning of the song when none of the words are yet sang. Production and sound patterns give it away for me.
> 
> Also there is this this thing about food and its smell. I usually sniff almost everything before eating and by the smell can tell how would it taste and if it would be healthy for my body.
> 
> I suck at street directions, but have vivid mental maps of surroundings when I'm in smaller environments. It doesn't take me long to absorb arrangement of things and then almost intuitively know where any given thing is situated. I easily find my belongings where I put them (of course if someone wouldn't decide to move them and put in a place were they belong ). I believe to have some sort of spatial synesthesia too.
> 
> I'm good at visual recognition. Faces, scenes, images - I easily recall and trace patterns in them. Sometimes I can't remember the very fine details, but things like colour, positioning of things, their size, how they were situated in relation to each other - are all easily remembered. But more often than not I don't have problems with envisioning in full and detailed manner.
> 
> Before mid-teens I had a bit weird ability to sense when someone was approaching me before I had any chance to see or hear them. It usually started like growing ringing sensation in the body signalling that some entity is moving towards me, and after a while I could hear steps or other sounds of someone coming. When I've been telling people about this, they assumed I just hear their footsteps, but I _knew _- sensation was coming _before _I could hear, see or in any other way "sense" them. Probably it had something to do with hearing indeed, or maybe with something else.


That's very interesting and a lot of this sounds like strong Si.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@To_august
So you have spidey like senses eh ? Cool !!!:biggrin-new::beguiled::beguiled:



> Before mid-teens I had a bit weird ability to sense when someone was approaching me before I had any chance to see or hear them. It usually started like growing ringing sensation in the body signalling that some entity is moving towards me, and after a while I could hear steps or other sounds of someone coming. When I've been telling people about this, they assumed I just hear their footsteps, but I knew - sensation was coming before I could hear, see or in any other way "sense" them. Probably it had something to do with hearing indeed, or maybe with something else.


:redface-new::friendly_wink:


----------



## AdInfinitum

To_august said:


> Sound of rain is awesome. When I work or do some stuff at computer I frequently youtube 'rain sounds' and enjoy it playing in the background. I quite like celestial sounds as well.
> 
> I don't think I have special auditory intelligence, but I'm good at identifying songs by the first couple seconds of their melody. Even after very long time I can easily pinpoint songs and musicians' voices that I heard many years ago. It often puzzles me when people can't tell apart live performance from the prerecorded one. I mean, it's obvious by the sound. I also, easily distinguish "western" music from local one by the beginning of the song when none of the words are yet sang. Production and sound patterns give it away for me.
> 
> Also there is this this thing about food and its smell. I usually sniff almost everything before eating and by the smell can tell how would it taste and if it would be healthy for my body.
> 
> I suck at street directions, but have vivid mental maps of surroundings when I'm in smaller environments. It doesn't take me long to absorb arrangement of things and then almost intuitively know where any given thing is situated. I easily find my belongings where I put them (of course if someone wouldn't decide to move them and put in a place were they belong ). I believe to have some sort of spatial synesthesia too.
> 
> I'm good at visual recognition. Faces, scenes, images - I easily recall and trace patterns in them. Sometimes I can't remember the very fine details, but things like colour, positioning of things, their size, how they were situated in relation to each other - are all easily remembered. But more often than not I don't have problems with envisioning in full and detailed manner.
> 
> Before mid-teens I had a bit weird ability to sense when someone was approaching me before I had any chance to see or hear them. It usually started like growing ringing sensation in the body signalling that some entity is moving towards me, and after a while I could hear steps or other sounds of someone coming. When I've been telling people about this, they assumed I just hear their footsteps, but I _knew _- sensation was coming _before _I could hear, see or in any other way "sense" them. Probably it had something to do with hearing indeed, or maybe with something else.


Damn, such a dense post. I do identify some of these patterns in myself yet I could never pinpoint the sensory patterns I notice, to me everything is riddled together, I need to focus and put effort into sensory issues like you describe. I have issues remembering sounds/tastes I have encountered before and I do not at the same time. Does it make sense? Not really, however, I am capable of remembering yet not concretely name the object I am recalling to the point of frustration.


----------



## Jeremy8419

NobleRaven said:


> Damn, such a dense post. I do identify some of these patterns in myself yet I could never pinpoint the sensory patterns I notice, to me everything is riddled together, I need to focus and put effort into sensory issues like you describe. I have issues remembering sounds/tastes I have encountered before and I do not at the same time. Does it make sense? Not really, however, I am capable of remembering yet not concretely name the object I am recalling to the point of frustration.


It's more interesting to think about the patterns that unfold in the internal world than the physical world imo. Like, the evolving patterns of people's inner lives as they unfold when in a relationship, or with a hobby, or with anything really. Just that sort of ethereal feeling always taking place around us... I always think about that more than like the sensations and such.


----------



## To_august

NobleRaven said:


> Damn, such a dense post. I do identify some of these patterns in myself yet I could never pinpoint the sensory patterns I notice, to me everything is riddled together, I need to focus and put effort into sensory issues like you describe. I have issues remembering sounds/tastes I have encountered before and I do not at the same time. Does it make sense? Not really, however, I am capable of remembering yet not concretely name the object I am recalling to the point of frustration.


Yeah, to me it just pops up effortlessly. I don't have to concentrate or think about it. I don't really think about sensations, just had to while writing the post since I've been thinking what could be relevant to answer Entropic's question. 

Sensations are just...erm... sensed, I guess. They just happen. It's like being in a pool with piranhas - it doesn't matter if you think of them or not, they will still bite your flesh.


------
Experiencing one of those creepy moments of clariry, when history ends being something that happened to someone distant at some time in the past and starts being real thing happened to real people in the nearby place and, come to think of it, not so long time ago in the bigger scheme of things. And we are still capable to repeat the same horrid things, it's all within us. If I lived back then who knows whose side I'd be on.
So much for the listening talk radio at work on remembrance days.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Yeah, to me it just pops up effortlessly. I don't have to concentrate or think about it. I don't really think about sensations, just had to while writing the post since I've been thinking what could be relevant to answer Entropic's question


Uhhhh... Wouldn't that make it Vital, then?


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uhhhh... Wouldn't that make it Vital, then?


Nope. Sensations are there to be sensed, not reasoned about. They are irrational and don't require any active thinking process. I don't think about them because there are far too many interesting things to ponder on beyond sensations. 

Is it wrong to feel cold? Is it right to sense hotness of fire as it licks fingertips? Oh, this door handle is smooth. Let's think more about door handles. XD. I don't even know what's the worth of such concentration would be.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Nope. Sensations are there to be sensed, not reasoned about. They are irrational and don't require any active thinking process. I don't think about them because there are far too many interesting things to ponder on beyond sensations.
> 
> Is it wrong to feel cold? Is it right to sense hotness of fire as it licks fingertips? Oh, this door handle is smooth. Let's think more about door handles. XD. I don't even know what's the worth of such concentration would be.


It wouldn't be, if it was unvalued XD


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> Nope. Sensations are there to be sensed, not reasoned about. They are irrational and don't require any active thinking process. I don't think about them because there are far too many interesting things to ponder on beyond sensations.
> 
> Is it wrong to feel cold? Is it right to sense hotness of fire as it licks fingertips? Oh, this door handle is smooth. Let's think more about door handles. XD. I don't even know what's the worth of such concentration would be.


Would you say you are detail-oriented or have a knack for detail? Would you also say that detail-orientation is a part of Si or not? I can see the argument go both ways, there. 

Though, it is funnily foreign, how you describe things. I remember I was once suggested to practice mindfulness and I equaled it to trying to pay attention to my surroundings and what I literally do, because it was recommended as a practice to improve my memory. I for example cannot remember if I locked the front door or not, or where I put my keys etc. Just today, I kept running around my apartment to find a drinking tube with orange juice that I was going to make a smoothie in, because I couldn't remember where I (mis)placed it and I didn't find it anywhere until I checked behind a plastic bag on my counter, lol. Naturally, I also gave up mindfulness within a day, because it was too draining and taxing.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Entropic said:


> Would you say you are detail-oriented or have a knack for detail? Would you also say that detail-orientation is a part of Si or not? I can see the argument go both ways, there.


I like think myself as having a knack for detail rather than detail oriented. On the other hand I cant conceive how you can get details unless you have an orientation towards that by default. i.e. "It caught my eye that you have a stain on your shirt" but that means you are already looking for sth that is out of synch within the shirt even if you notice it concsiously or not.


----------



## Entropic

crashbandicoot said:


> I like think myself as having a knack for detail rather than detail oriented. On the other hand I cant conceive how you can get details unless you have an orientation towards that by default. i.e. "It caught my eye that you have a stain on your shirt" but that means you are already looking for sth that is out of synch within the shirt even if you notice it concsiously or not.




That's what I'm wondering, I suppose. Si doms can be quite zany and in their own ways detached from reality, so does this mean they are bad at noticing details or good at it?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> That's what I'm wondering, I suppose. Si doms can be quite zany and in their own ways detached from reality, so does this mean they are bad at noticing details or good at it?


Both are introverts and both are infantile. Both of these have a typical la-la-land appearance in public. This is based on ISTPs and ISFPs, though, who both are typical poked at for being "light" and detached. All IPs seem fairly "on a cloud." Perhaps what you are thinking of falls into one of the small groups other than Quadra?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Both are introverts and both are infantile.


You mean Si-doms? I believe they're supposed to be caregivers.


----------



## Jeremy8419

R Up


Distortions said:


> You mean Si-doms? I believe they're supposed to be caregivers.


Derp. You're right lol.
All Ip's are the "feminine" romance style. Aggressor and Infantile are both the masculine.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> All Ip's are the "feminine" romance style. Aggressor and Infantile are both the masculine.


In what way do you see Infantile as masculine? Or do you mean that's how Socionics portray them, because Caregiver is more feminine in comparison?


----------



## Zamyatin

Distortions said:


> In what way do you see Infantile as masculine? Or do you mean that's how Socionics portray them, because Caregiver is more feminine in comparison?


To be honest, that probably has more to do with the fact that he identifies as an infantile type than anything else. Although I find it silly to try to classify everything as "masculine" or "feminine" because those concepts are fairly useless, caregiver seems to fit the masculine stereotype better if you ask me, drawing off of the old stereotypes of the male provider, breadwinner, and protector of the family. Women were stereotyped as frivolous, impractical and incapable of true commitment from ancient Greece basically until the late Victorian period, which actually resembles Ne base stereotypes far better than it does Si base.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> It wouldn't be, if it was unvalued XD


You misinterpret what I'm saying about thinking.
If you're trying to suggest I'm Ti base then going by that logic I should dedicate majority of time to thinking Ti stuff, and I don't. I think about all different things and cannot squeeze my thinking into one single element. Does that mean I don't have ego?

Why IPs are "feminine"? There's been article on masculine/feminine features of Socionics types and both Delta STs were considered to be masculine.



Entropic said:


> Would you say you are detail-oriented or have a knack for detail? Would you also say that detail-orientation is a part of Si or not? I can see the argument go both ways, there.


I'd go with knack for detail as well. "Detail-oriented" sounds to me as someone going around and paying attention to every little detail notwithstanding if they have any relevance or significance. Also, there's this usual stuff about detail-oriented vs big picture that varies from this - 10 Things Only Detail-Oriented People Do - which is pretty fine, to this - Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented? - that implies missing on the big picture if you are detail-oriented and missing on the details if you are big picture oriented. I definitely don't support the latter view, since I don't feel like I miss anything. I'm just in a sensory flow and build my understanding of the big picture through it.

On your second question it depends on the context I think. There's a difference between noticing all the details and being hyper aware of everything that is going on around you, and noticing some distinct details that come to your awareness from time to time. The latter would be part of Si I think.



> Though, it is funnily foreign, how you describe things. I remember I was once suggested to practice mindfulness and I equaled it to trying to pay attention to my surroundings and what I literally do, because it was recommended as a practice to improve my memory. I for example cannot remember if I locked the front door or not, or where I put my keys etc. Just today, I kept running around my apartment to find a drinking tube with orange juice that I was going to make a smoothie in, because I couldn't remember where I (mis)placed it and I didn't find it anywhere until I checked behind a plastic bag on my counter, lol. Naturally, I also gave up mindfulness within a day, because it was too draining and taxing.


If I can't remember if I locked the door I go nuts. Argh! Thieves will steal my possessions! They'll burn the place! My creepy neighbor will have access to it! So usually I make sure to remember. Lol.

I lose things as well, it just happens quite rarely. I mean, these were my hands that put cup on the windowsill, so later I can retrace it back in time to the needed moment. Associative thinking and logic help with this.

It's hard to explain something when it's the thing you live and breathe. Definitely it doesn't resemble forceful focus on something, but is more like white-noise that is turned on by default and you can't help but hear it.


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> You misinterpret what I'm saying about thinking.
> If you're trying to suggest I'm Ti base then going by that logic I should dedicate majority of time to thinking Ti stuff, and I don't. I think about all different things and cannot squeeze my thinking into one single element. Does that mean I don't have ego?
> 
> Why IPs are "feminine"? There's been article on masculine/feminine features of Socionics types and both Delta STs were considered to be masculine.
> 
> 
> I'd go with knack for detail as well. "Detail-oriented" sounds to me as someone going around and paying attention to every little detail notwithstanding if they have any meaning, relevance or significance. Also, there's this usual stuff about detail-oriented vs big picture that varies from this - 10 Things Only Detail-Oriented People Do - which is pretty fine, to this - Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented? - that implies missing on the big picture if you are detail-oriented and missing on the details if you are big picture oriented. I definitely don't support the latter view, since I don't feel like I miss anything. I'm just in a sensory flow and build my understanding of the big picture through it.
> 
> On your second question it depends on the context I think. There's a difference between noticing all the details and being hyper aware of everything that is going on around you, and noticing some distinct details that come to your awareness from time to time. The latter would be part of Si I think.
> 
> 
> If I can't remember if I locked the door I go nuts. Argh! Thieves will steal my possessions! They'll burn the place! My creepy neighbor will have access to it! So usually I make sure to remember. Lol.
> 
> I lose things as well, it just happens quite rarely. I mean, these were my hands that put cup on the windowsill, so later I can retrace it back in time to the needed moment. Associative thinking and logic help with this.
> 
> It's hard to explain something when it's the thing you live and breathe. Definitely it doesn't resemble forceful focus on something, but is more like white-noise that is turned on by default and you can't help but hear it.


No it makes sense in this distant way. I can make those associations too, tracing back why this particular insight dawned on me, but usually it's very unconscious and more that I just know. I know x is gonna happen. I guess it fits Jungs idea of Ni being prophetic like that. I also often have hunches about somethings true nature before I have evidence to support it or can logically rationalize. Again I just know. Sometimes it's even contrary to my own understanding at the time.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> In what way do you see Infantile as masculine? Or do you mean that's how Socionics portray them, because Caregiver is more feminine in comparison?


Something somewhere had a write-up about extroverted sensing being in Mental ring causing the Aggressor and Infantile to be the "dominant" of the four. In effect, both Aggressor/Infantile would be expecting Victim/Caregiver to primarily cater towards the Aggressor's/Infantile's personality.

In real life scenarios, this seems to be the case as well. All ILE/IEE males/females that I know seem fairly set in expecting that their partners bend to their whims.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Something somewhere had a write-up about extroverted sensing being in Mental ring causing the Aggressor and Infantile to be the "dominant" of the four. In effect, both Aggressor/Infantile would be expecting Victim/Caregiver to primarily cater towards the Aggressor's/Infantile's personality.


Hmm, I see. I kinda imagine the Caregiver having more control in a way, though, but then I suppose the same is true for the Victim.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Hmm, I see. I kinda imagine the Caregiver having more control in a way, though, but then I suppose the same is true for the Victim.


My vision is more like: Aggressor/Victim=Father/Elektra, Infantile/Caregiver=Spoiled kid/Mother. I expect my women to feed me and pick up after me, otherwise I eat tv dinners and clean once a month lol


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> I expect my women to feed me and pick up after me, otherwise I eat tv dinners and clean once a month lol


Lol no wonder he's single.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> My vision is more like: Aggressor/Victim=Father/Elektra, Infantile/Caregiver=Spoiled kid/Mother. I expect my women to feed me and pick up after me, otherwise I eat tv dinners and clean once a month lol


Yeah, well, at the same time that does make you kind of helpless when you depend on a "mother figure" to take care of your needs.

Also, yeah. What a charming attitude to have.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Well, my current gf is an IEE, so she makes more of a mess than I do lol. Walked in living room yesterday to see 100 DVDs spread out over floor with her looking through them and then she asked what we were going to eat lol


----------



## To_august

Entropic said:


> *No it makes sense *in this distant way. I can make those associations too, tracing back why this particular insight dawned on me, but usually it's very unconscious and more that I just know. I know x is gonna happen. I guess it fits Jungs idea of Ni being prophetic like that. I also often have hunches about somethings true nature before I have evidence to support it or can logically rationalize. Again I just know. Sometimes it's even contrary to my own understanding at the time.


Can't unnotice the bolded - such a textbook affirmative negativist statement 

And I, on the contrary, don't trust hunches, unless they are rooted in something I can directly experience or rationalize in some way. Also it doesn't help that when I get this "just knowing" feeling, it usually has negative bent, like, yeah this thing will go wrong, I don't know yet why, but it will. Or, our cooperation with that person wouldn't work or bring trouble, dunno why I think so, but it'll just happen eventually. This is something I usually try to shrug away or further substantiate by reasoning.



Jeremy8419 said:


> I expect my women to feed me and pick up after me, otherwise I eat tv dinners and clean once a month lol


It sounds like you're looking for a cook-housekeeper.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Can't unnotice the bolded - such a textbook affirmative negativist statement
> 
> And I, on the contrary, don't trust hunches, unless they are rooted in something I can directly experience or rationalize in some way. Also it doesn't help that when I get this "just knowing" feeling, it usually has negative bent, like, yeah this thing will go wrong, I don't know yet why, but it will. Or, our cooperation with that person wouldn't work or bring trouble, dunno why I think so, but it'll just happen eventually. This is something I usually try to shrug away or further substantiate by reasoning.
> 
> 
> It sounds like you're looking for a cook-housekeeper.


I like to call it ESTJ housewife lol.


----------



## Verity

To_august said:


> If I can't remember if I locked the door I go nuts. Argh! Thieves will steal my possessions! They'll burn the place! My creepy neighbor will have access to it! So usually I make sure to remember. Lol.
> 
> I lose things as well, it just happens quite rarely. I mean, these were my hands that put cup on the windowsill, so later I can retrace it back in time to the needed moment. Associative thinking and logic help with this.
> 
> It's hard to explain something when it's the thing you live and breathe. Definitely it doesn't resemble forceful focus on something, but is more like white-noise that is turned on by default and you can't help but hear it.


Funny, when I was around 10 and started walking to school by myself, my father(a walking SLI 6w7 stereotype) made me text him every fifth minute, and when I questioned it he told me it was for safety-reasons. I told him it was unnecessary since there were other people walking the same way, but he told me that I could never know if I could trust them. 
One time, he had forgotten(!) to charge my phone, so I just walked to school like usual without texting him. He called my school and shouted to me that I should never leave home with my phone turned off, because if I did, *I would be* abducted or hit by a car. I told him he was being unrealistic, and didn't text him the next day and the day after that, he even threatened to force me into the car, but I simply knew he could never do it(Se-ignoring? lol). So after a while he gave up and I offered him a compromise since I felt bad for him; I would text him when I was at school instead, he tentatively agreed.

Unlike my father, I avoid thinking about unrealistic "what if?"-scenarios. Having children might change that I guess... Even for an Ne-devaluing type. 

Would you say that belief with absolute trust in the development of unlikely but still possible events is how Ni manifests in SxI's?


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> Can't unnotice the bolded - such a textbook affirmative negativist statement
> 
> And I, on the contrary, don't trust hunches, unless they are rooted in something I can directly experience or rationalize in some way. Also it doesn't help that when I get this "just knowing" feeling, it usually has negative bent, like, yeah this thing will go wrong, I don't know yet why, but it will. Or, our cooperation with that person wouldn't work or bring trouble, dunno why I think so, but it'll just happen eventually. This is something I usually try to shrug away or further substantiate by reasoning.
> 
> 
> It sounds like you're looking for a cook-housekeeper.


Rofl well, I'm so hardcore negativist it's funny-sad sometimes. You're not the first one to point that out, nor likely the last one. And do you always assume hunches are negative in nature? Like sure, I can get hunches like "this is gonna go to hell" too, but I never associated that necessarily as something negative in and of itself. You never get positive hunches?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Rofl well, I'm so hardcore negativist it's funny-sad sometimes. You're not the first one to point that out, nor likely the last one. And do you always assume hunches are negative in nature? Like sure, I can get hunches like "this is gonna go to hell" too, but I never associated that necessarily as something negative in and of itself. You never get positive hunches?


Negative hunches sounds like Ni-.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Negative hunches sounds like Ni-.


I can't even classify my hunches as positive or negative, man, because they exist outside of that kind of spectrum to begin with. Hunches just are. They tell me something about reality, of what is to come, or the very true nature of something beyond what is currently possible to perceive. I can for example get hunches about a person's inner reality, their psyche, how they operate internally, what motivates them. I can get hunches whether this project is gonna go to hell or not, I can get hunches whether I should pursue that job prospect and move across the country, I can get hunches whether I should board that train today or wait for the day after and the list goes on, really. I've had hunches that someone died that day I heard a gun shot though I didn't even realistically know it was one; I was correct that someone was gunned down because it was in the news the day after; I've had hunches concerning my own type like what happened in both socionics and the enneagram though it was the most profound in the enneagram where I knew I was a type 8 before I could rationalize why I was; I've had hunches that something's gonna happen in the future if we don't take X action now and do something about it; I have that a lot, actually; I also very often get hunches whether I'll land that job prospect or not like last time I went to an interview I knew right away I wouldn't get that job even though everything went very well and I knew they would proceed to hire internally instead of taking in fresh blood and lo and behold, they inform me a week later that that is exactly what happened. I'm still disappointed about that, actually, because I really wanted that job. I also primarily type people based on hunches, even though I realistically understand it's really just recognizing patterns, though unconsciously. Trying to posit that hunches are positive or negative just doesn't make any sense, tbh. Hunches just are, most of the time.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> I can't even classify my hunches as positive or negative, man, because they exist outside of that kind of spectrum to begin with. Hunches just are. They tell me something about reality, of what is to come, or the very true nature of something beyond what is currently possible to perceive. I can for example get hunches about a person's inner reality, their psyche, how they operate internally, what motivates them. I can get hunches whether this project is gonna go to hell or not, I can get hunches whether I should pursue that job prospect and move across the country, I can get hunches whether I should board that train today or wait for the day after and the list goes on, really. I've had hunches that someone died that day I heard a gun shot though I didn't even realistically know it was one; I was correct that someone was gunned down because it was in the news the day after; I've had hunches concerning my own type like what happened in both socionics and the enneagram though it was the most profound in the enneagram where I knew I was a type 8 before I could rationalize why I was; I've had hunches that something's gonna happen in the future if we don't take X action now and do something about it; I have that a lot, actually; I also very often get hunches whether I'll land that job prospect or not like last time I went to an interview I knew right away I wouldn't get that job even though everything went very well and I knew they would proceed to hire internally instead of taking in fresh blood and lo and behold, they inform me a week later that that is exactly what happened. I'm still disappointed about that, actually, because I really wanted that job. I also primarily type people based on hunches, even though I realistically understand it's really just recognizing patterns, though unconsciously. Trying to posit that hunches are positive or negative just doesn't make any sense, tbh. Hunches just are, most of the time.


Well, I say that, because I never get positive hunches. All of mine are "oh... Shit....", which is most similar to Ni-. Ni+ is more like a grand vision of where things may lead for benefit. ILI friend of mine occasionally gets like a dream of where things could go, and then works to make them happen.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, I say that, because I never get positive hunches. All of mine are "oh... Shit....", which is most similar to Ni-. Ni+ is more like a grand vision of where things may lead for benefit. ILI friend of mine occasionally gets like a dream of where things could go, and then works to make them happen.


You do realize ILI is negativist, though?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> You do realize ILI is negativist, though?


Yes, but with positive Ni. Ni is forecasting, so forecasting to increase positive things is Ni+, while forecasting to prevent negative things is Ni-. My Ni- always occurs as warnings.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, I say that, because I never get positive hunches. All of mine are "oh... Shit....", which is most similar to Ni-. Ni+ is more like a grand vision of where things may lead for benefit. ILI friend of mine occasionally gets like a dream of where things could go, and then works to make them happen.


EII has Ni+, same as ILI, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Also I'm not sure you understand what negativism entails. A "positive" negativist message is basically telling someone what they can do to fix a problem or a lack. Even people with base Ni+ like Abraxas basically use that to forecast the ways people can fix problems by addressing a lack or removing something, like "you'll save yourself a lot of trouble if you stop caring so much about what others think". Just take a second look at his posts on politics in the gamma thread - pure negativism and avoiding negative outcomes even when he was using his Ni.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yes, but with positive Ni. Ni is forecasting, so forecasting to increase positive things is Ni+, while forecasting to prevent negative things is Ni-. My Ni- always occurs as warnings.


Except the Balzac stereotype is built on how ILIs make negative forecasts. Take Filatova's for example, or Beskova's, or even Stratiyevskaya's, to name a few. Also, EII has +Ni as well, since they have -Ne. 

The +Ni for ILI is simply a focus on a longer range rather than making more immediate forecasts.


----------



## Jeremy8419

It's Ni- per IIS.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> I like to call it ESTJ housewife lol.


ESTJ will more likely to give you slap upside the head and teach to pick up after yourself.



Verity said:


> Funny, when I was around 10 and started walking to school by myself, my father(a walking SLI 6w7 stereotype) made me text him every fifth minute, and when I questioned it he told me it was for safety-reasons. I told him it was unnecessary since there were other people walking the same way, but he told me that I could never know if I could trust them.
> One time, he had forgotten(!) to charge my phone, so I just walked to school like usual without texting him. He called my school and shouted to me that I should never leave home with my phone turned off, because if I did, *I would be* abducted or hit by a car. I told him he was being unrealistic, and didn't text him the next day and the day after that, he even threatened to force me into the car, but I simply knew he could never do it(Se-ignoring? lol). So after a while he gave up and I offered him a compromise since I felt bad for him; I would text him when I was at school instead, he tentatively agreed.
> 
> Unlike my father, I avoid thinking about unrealistic "what if?"-scenarios. Having children might change that I guess... Even for an Ne-devaluing type.


Wow, that's pretty extreme. When I started school mobile phones weren't yet a thing, but don't think my parents would be so hard-concerned with control. I had strict guidelines when I supposed to return home, informing them about delays and other out of normal stuff, but besides that they always encouraged me to be independent and be able to take care of myself on my own. I've been accompanied to school only when having my first grade, then I've been just going with friends. Think I began to develop anxieties while studied at the university. Before that I frequently was carefree and selfish when disappearing from my parents' radar and couldn't get my head around why people worry about what could be's.



> Would you say that belief with absolute trust in the development of unlikely but still possible events is how Ni manifests in SxI's?


I don't see them as unlikely, I guess. I've been mentioning worrying if I closed the door and this stems from pretty much real possibility - I really have a creepy neighbor whose friend once being drunk tried to break the lock and get into my place, as well as there's been two more occasions of attempted robbery (luckily they weren't successful).

Sometimes it really can turn into development of crazy negative scenarios though, depends on how bad my anxiety goes. I'd say it can be weak intuition in general, since low dimensional Ne or Ni can't operate on situational and time levels.



Entropic said:


> Rofl well, I'm so hardcore negativist it's funny-sad sometimes. You're not the first one to point that out, nor likely the last one. And do you always assume hunches are negative in nature? Like sure, I can get hunches like "this is gonna go to hell" too, but I never associated that necessarily as something negative in and of itself. You never get positive hunches?


*Trying to recall positive hunches* *Error* *Beep* *Error* *Beep* *Error*... XD

In all seriousness, there must be some, they just don't register that well in my mind I guess. I recall having a hunch on my graduation work, that notwithstanding I was behind time, I shouldn't hurry, but work my pace and it'll end in a good way, and yep, it happened exactly this way.

There are also other kind of hunches, like, sensory ones. When I see something and know that the thing changed, or that something is missing from it, or out of place and then I can tell what exactly. I don't treat them as negative or positive ones, just as you describe your attitude towards intuitive ones, I think.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> ESTJ will more likely to give you slap upside the head and teach to pick up after yourself.


It's an ESTJ lol. They like traditional gender roles lol.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's an ESTJ lol. They like traditional gender roles lol.


You have conflicting idea of an ESTJ then.


----------



## Captain Mclain

To_august said:


> You have conflicting image of an ESTJ then.


basically, how i think that relation playout is. EII say alot about how he or she value and feel about stuff then LSE point out everything and give EII specifics where EII can apply that energy. In LSE->EII direction.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> You have conflicting idea of an ESTJ then.


Conflicting compared to what? The male ESTJ is opposite.

Socionics - the16types.info - Stirlitz, Female Portrait, ESTj by Beskova

I know many ESTJ women.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> basically, how i think that relation playout is. EII say alot about how he or she value and feel about stuff then LSE point out everything and give EII specifics where EII can apply that energy. In LSE->EII direction.


EII gives the direction in the relationship pair. the16types.info has relationship overviews for all the dual pairs. Want me to fetch yours?


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> EII gives the direction in the relationship pair. the16types.info has relationship overviews for all the dual pairs. Want me to fetch yours?


Ye somehow I picture it so that it ends up being EII that make all the value calls, what the pair think is important and what should be done and LSE make it happend. hehe 

No need but thank you for the offer


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Conflicting compared to what? The male ESTJ is opposite.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Stirlitz, Female Portrait, ESTj by Beskova
> 
> I know many ESTJ women.


Conflicting in itself.

Earlier you said that woman who'll "feed me and pick up after me" is your idea of an "ESTJ housewife". Then you agreed with "ESTJ will more likely to give you slap upside the head and teach to pick up after yourself." Both views are obviously in conflict.

Male ESTJ is opposite of what? Of female ESTJ?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> Ye somehow I picture it so that it ends up being EII that make all the value calls, what the pair think is important and what should be done and LSE make it happend. hehe
> 
> No need but thank you for the offer


Yeah, that sounds fairly accurate.

A common misconception is that the work in the physical world is the only work. EII is working constantly as well, just not in ways that are always apparent. E.g., LSE values EII Fi, but that Fi is the result of a lot of internal work and effort.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah, that sounds fairly accurate.
> 
> A common misconception is that the work in the physical world is the only work. EII is working constantly as well, just not in ways that are always apparent. E.g., LSE values EII Fi, but that Fi is the result of a lot of internal work and effort.


Ye it make sense.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Conflicting in itself.
> 
> Earlier you said that woman who'll "feed me and pick up after me" is your idea of an "ESTJ housewife". Then you agreed with "ESTJ will more likely to give you slap upside the head and teach to pick up after yourself." Both views are obviously in conflict.
> 
> Male ESTJ is opposite of what? Of female ESTJ?


I didn't agree with your slap statement. I said it's an ESTJ. ESTJs like traditional gender roles; therefore, ESTJ female is typically in agreement that the male works and the female stays at home with children.

Yes, of female ESTJ. Male ESTJ would work and the female EII would be the homemaker.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> I didn't agree with your slap statement. I said it's an ESTJ. ESTJs like traditional gender roles; therefore, ESTJ female is typically in agreement that the male works and the female stays at home with children.
> 
> Yes, of female ESTJ. Male ESTJ would work and the female EII would be the homemaker.


Sounds really like you are looking for an ESFJ, not an ESTJ. Take this description for example:


> ESFJs are people persons - they love people. They are warmly interested in others. They use their Sensing and Judging characteristics to gather specific, detailed information about others, and turn this information into supportive judgments. They want to like people, and have a special skill at bringing out the best in others. They are extremely good at reading others, and understanding their point of view. The ESFJ's strong desire to be liked and for everything to be pleasant makes them highly supportive of others. People like to be around ESFJs, because the ESFJ has a special gift of invariably making people feel good about themselves.





> ESFJs incorporate many of the traits that are associated with women in our society. However, male ESFJs will usually not appear feminine at all. On the contrary, ESFJs are typically quite conscious about gender roles and will be most comfortable playing a role that suits their gender in our society. Male ESFJs will be quite masculine (albeit sensitive when you get to know them), and female ESFJs will be very feminine.


Portrait of an ESFJ

You have this as well for ESE:


> their kinesthetic expertise is commonly directed towards evaluating whether others are comfortable and whether the needs of others are being met, and much of the energy they devote to aesthetics, cooking, etc. is intended primarily for the benefit of others, or to sustain the emotional mood of a particular occasion. They may fuss extensively over the health and well-being of others, looking for signs of noticeable satisfaction or improvement and becoming impatient and pushy if none are observed, yet simultaneously neglect their own ailments - See more at: Socionics Types: ESE-ESFj


Socionics - the16types.info - ESFj description by Filatova



> She quickly answers to any request for help, in such cases she’ll even abandon her work, deemed less important. By helping others she’s compensated with the reward of knowing she did a good deed.
> 
> ESE willingly participates in the nonformal organization of different events – of birthdays, anniversaries, christmas for the children of coworkers, holiday expeditions, excursions; so long as she’s around interesting people she considers such her pleasure.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> I didn't agree with your slap statement. I said it's an ESTJ. ESTJs like traditional gender roles; therefore, ESTJ female is typically in agreement that the male works and the female stays at home with children.
> 
> Yes, of female ESTJ. Male ESTJ would work and the female EII would be the homemaker.


I misunderstood you then. Not for the first time though

Also, gender roles is yet another form of inefficiency. People should take care of what they're best at, and not of what gender roles prescribe to them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> I misunderstood you then. Not for the first time though
> 
> Also, gender roles is yet another form of inefficiency. People should take care of what they're best at, and not of what gender roles prescribe to them.


It is efficiency, if you understand the pair and their desires.

Do you know if valuing traditional gender roles is a part of SLI?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Sounds really like you are looking for an ESFJ, not an ESTJ. Take this description for example:
> 
> 
> 
> Portrait of an ESFJ
> 
> You have this as well for ESE:
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - ESFj description by Filatova


Nah. I don't care for ESE.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nah. I don't care for ESE.


ESTJs don't pick up after you; they will tell you to that yourself. How do I know? I lived with one during most of my adolescent life. And yes, she is female. The ESFJ though? She did exactly that. How do I know? I lived with her during most of my early childhood.

LSEs have weak ethics, so they are not naturally interested in making people feel good by picking up after them like ESEs can. They will tell people to pick up after themselves in order to make them more efficient. It is not efficient to run around and do other people's work for them if they are well capable to do it themselves because all that time I'm spending picking up after you could really be spent on something much more important. Efficiency is accomplished when all cogs in the machine are running seamlessly together in order to accomplish something. If only one cog is running on over-drive, you get nothing done in the long-term because that cog will be so over-worked it's going to wear down and become non-functional. Then what do you do? You can't accomplish anything, then, which is even more inefficient.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> It is efficiency, if you understand the pair and their desires.


Apparently it is not.

I am female, hence my supposed gender role tells me I must be good at cooking and keeping the house, and, well, it is objective fact that I'm not. I'm much better at working and earning a crust. Then again, this is objectively true from what I know of myself.



> Do you know if valuing traditional gender roles is a part of SLI?


I guess if you ask then it supposed to be the case.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> ESTJs don't pick up after you; they will tell you to that yourself. How do I know? I lived with one during most of my adolescent life. And yes, she is female. The ESFJ though? She did exactly that. How do I know? I lived with her during most of my early childhood.
> 
> LSEs have weak ethics, so they are not naturally interested in making people feel good by picking up after them like ESEs can. They will tell people to pick up after themselves and in order to make them more efficient. It is not efficient to run around and do other people's work for them if they are well capable to do it themselves.


That's not a romantic relationship. The LSE was teaching you to be responsible and conscientious. The ESE just enabled you being lazy lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Apparently it is not.
> 
> I am female, hence my supposed gender role tells me I must be good at cooking and keeping the house, and, well, it is objective fact that I'm not. I'm much better at working and earning a crust. Then again, this is objectively true from what I know of myself.
> 
> 
> I guess if you ask then it supposed to be the case.


Nah. I don't remember, so it was actually a question lol. Kinda sleepy and at work, was hoping you knew off-hand lol. I'll look it up later.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's not a romantic relationship. The LSE was teaching you to be responsible and conscientious. The ESE just enabled you being lazy lol.


Which, if you read the descriptions I just copied, is exactly what they state? Those descriptions weren't written with any particular relationship in mind, by the way, but just how these types come across in general. The ESE enables people to be lazy because LIIs are lazy types. Te is devalued and they have Ti leading, so they operate the best in a vacuum where they can come up with their ideas of how reality is like and being fed by the external environment to keep them going like that. I exaggerate, of course, but that's kind of the gist of it. You yourself admitted to being a slob and seeking someone to pick up after you, which doesn't sound like you really look for someone to help you become conscientious, since you actually already implicitly seem to know how to be that. Instead it sounds like you want someone to do all the work for you which is more in line with ESE than LSE.


----------



## To_august

Zamyatin said:


> Jeremy is LSI. Basically everybody in this thread is in agreement about that, including I believe To_august, with whom he should have activity relations but instead they're clashing again.


Funny thing is that I believe Jeremy thinks it's me who is LSI here - it's something he suggested on several occasions - and that's why we clash, because ISTJ = ISTj :frustrating:



Jeremy8419 said:


> I have recent quotes from Bukalov, Gulenko, and Russian socionics sites that ALL place J=j and P=p.


How many of them treat MBTI as a system with a stack of cognitive functions?


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Then you've squished my reply lol.
> 
> If she was INFP, then she would be IEI and your frame of reference would be bad. This would also open up that they are duals, not conflictors, and that both unconsciously expect the other to say exactly as they did. This then opens up the fact that I am primarily interacting with Captain in here. That then gives you Fi.


Their relationship has always been painful to watch, and their values differ in nearly every way. I don't care if she's an INFP or INFJ or whatever, all I know is that she embodies both Delta-values and Fi-base very well.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Funny thing is that I believe Jeremy thinks it's me who is LSI here - it's something he suggested on several occasions - and that's why we clash, because ISTJ = ISTj :frustrating:
> 
> How many of them treat MBTI as a system with a stack of cognitive functions?


Uhhhhh... Did you read the thread? They all know of the function stacking in MBTI.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uhhhhh... Did you read the thread? They all know of the function stacking in MBTI.


What thread?


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> What thread?



* *




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator section on correlations with other instruments. Extraversion name doesn't change. Agreeableness is Feeling. Conscientiousness is Judging. Openness is Intuition.





* *




Socionics - the16types.info - Victor Gulenko Video Interview and Transcript Gulenko: "The basic scale of The Big 5 can relate to socionics, as there are a lot of similiarities. The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling. The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but Gulenko discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally."





* *




Besides my long Model B threads quoting Bukalov as INFP=IEI, there's a table in bottom right SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships




My thread is Socionics, Myers Briggs, and Jung or something like that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Their relationship has always been painful to watch, and their values differ in nearly every way. I don't care if she's an INFP or INFJ or whatever, all I know is that she embodies both Delta-values and Fi-base very well.


Ah gotcha. Are you aware of who SLE is supervisor of?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Well, Socionics does characterize Si-ego types as Caregivers, but according to the quadra-specific descriptions, Delta STs are Teachers I believe. That's sort of different from the housewife image. (And it makes sense their Te would make them more teacher-like.)


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator section on correlations with other instruments. Extraversion name doesn't change. Agreeableness is Feeling. Conscientiousness is Judging. Openness is Intuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Victor Gulenko Video Interview and Transcript Gulenko: "The basic scale of The Big 5 can relate to socionics, as there are a lot of similiarities. The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling. The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but Gulenko discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides my long Model B threads quoting Bukalov as INFP=IEI, there's a table in bottom right SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thread is Socionics, Myers Briggs, and Jung or something like that.


And where's there anything written about cognitive functions stack? You provided links to MBTI general info, Gulenko's musings on how Socionics may relate to Big 5 and the latter lists differences between MBTI and Socionics. I asked for info on how Socionics treat MBTI typing through stack of cognitive functions.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> And where's there anything written about cognitive functions stack? You provided links to MBTI general info, Gulenko's musings on how Socionics may relate to Big 5 and the latter lists differences between MBTI and Socionics. I asked for info on how Socionics treat MBTI typing through stack of cognitive functions.


Last says that Socionics considers J/P equal to Rationality/Irrationality.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/602346-socionics-typology-jung-myers-briggs-model-b.html


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah gotcha. Are you aware of who SLE is supervisor of?


Yes, why?


----------



## Captain Mclain

@Jeremy8419 Have you done a questionnaire or video typing?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Well, Socionics does characterize Si-ego types as Caregivers, but according to the quadra-specific descriptions, Delta STs are Teachers I believe. That's sort of different from the housewife image. (And it makes sense their Te would make them more teacher-like.)


I liken ESTJ to be like an efficient machine with built-in preventative maintenance. In traditional female gender role, this has the same effect on "home life."


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Yes, why?


So... If I can operate in my mental ring via automated processes and then "emulate the dual" (or vice-versa), I could tap into the awesome powers of the SLE, dualize the OP, activate any LSIs in thread, and shut down any LII's that may aggravate me... Yup, no Fi there...

As a congratulations for your correct observations, I award you 5 Furry Dollars, usable at 4chan and affiliates.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> @Jeremy8419 Have you done a questionnaire or video typing?


Nope.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nope.


Then it is quite advanced typing done here based on forum reply posts. 


@Zamyatin Would you say you are qualified of advanced typing?


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> So... If I can operate in my mental ring via automated processes and then "emulate the dual" (or vice-versa), I could tap into the awesome powers of the SLE, dualize the OP, activate any LSIs in thread, and shut down any LII's that may aggravate me... Yup, no Fi there...
> 
> As a congratulations for your correct observations, I award you 5 Furry Dollars, usable at 4chan and affiliates.


I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. To me it seems like you're acting more like my SLE brother than my EII sister. That's one of the reasons why I lean towards agreeing with @Zamyatin that LSI seems more probable than EII.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Last says that Socionics considers J/P equal to Rationality/Irrationality.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/602346-socionics-typology-jung-myers-briggs-model-b.html


I'm not arguing if J/P is the same as rationality/irrationality or not. I'm asking about _cognitive functions stack_.

Don't even want to return to that model B stuff. It's basically about ILE having another enlightening idea, trying to promote his model and diminishing someone else's typology, while before he supported the exact opposite of that. Again, article doesn't deal with current MBTI function stack, it only touches upon Jung's and Myer's models which both differed from MBTI stack as we know it now.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. To me it seems like you're acting more like my SLE brother than my EII sister. That's one of the reasons why I lean towards agreeing with @Zamyatin that LSI seems more probable than EII.


Fi is psychological distance in Socionics. Captain is IEI. I consider zamyatin and entropic to be LII. I consider August to be LSI. By behaving as an SLE, I solve 3 different things at once. That doesn't seem very Fi to you? My parents are LSI and IEI, as are my siblings. My childhood best friend is SLE. My extended family is fairly scattered. I am everyone's favorite. Why? Because as EII, I know how to match their duals. This was going on for throughout my life, not since discovering socionics.

The round-a-bout way of answering was to offer you information. Socionics is a dynamic model, unlike MBTI, and, as such, it gives us all access to relations with the various relations types. Fi is present in all types, and as such, we are all capable of operating in different functions and blocks of the psyche to psychologically connect with others as the need arises.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> I'm not arguing if J/P is the same as rationality/irrationality or not. I'm asking about _cognitive functions stack_.
> 
> Don't even want to return to that model B stuff. It's basically about ILE having another enlightening idea, trying to promote his model and diminishing someone else's typology, while before he supported the exact opposite of that. Again, article doesn't deal with current MBTI function stack, it only touches upon Jung's and Myer's models which both differed from MBTI stack as we know it now.


It deals with Dom/Aux. You're looking for resources on all 4 and the 4 shadows as well?


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Fi is psychological distance in Socionics. Captain is IEI. I consider zamyatin and entropic to be LII. I consider August to be LSI. By behaving as an SLE, I solve 3 different things at once. That doesn't seem very Fi to you? My parents are LSI and IEI, as are my siblings. My childhood best friend is SLE. My extended family is fairly scattered. I am everyone's favorite. Why? Because as EII, I know how to match their duals. This was going on for throughout my life, not since discovering socionics.
> 
> The round-a-bout way of answering was to offer you information. Socionics is a dynamic model, unlike MBTI, and, as such, it gives us all access to relations with the various relations types. Fi is present in all types, and as such, we are all capable of operating in different functions and blocks of the psyche to psychologically connect with others as the need arises.


I'm a fan of Occam's Razor. If you outwardly behave like a beta ST, I will assume you are one. I don't find your arguments palpable because I see no typical Fi-behavior in what you actually write.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I'm a fan of Occam's Razor. If you outwardly behave like a beta ST, I will assume you are one. I don't find your arguments palpable because I see no typical Fi-behavior in what you actually write.


Well, let me ask you a question... Your siblings clash endlessly. If one is on autopilot, that is, operating in their Vital Ring and not putting conscious thought into their actions, they will be operating together as duals and have no conflict. So, how do you know which it is? And how do you know that their conflicts are not one of the Aggressor/Victim romance style pairs' features, with the push-pull Se being valued?

From what you are suggesting, it appears as though you are speaking of Fe and not Fi, as Fi has no objective traits on it's own.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> I am everyone's favorite. Why? Because as EII, I know how to match their duals. This was going on for throughout my life, not since discovering socionics.


That reminds me more of something I read about IEI actually.

Somehow I'm finding it hard to imagine you really being everyone's favorite though.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> That reminds me more of something I read about IEI actually.
> 
> Somehow I'm finding it hard to imagine you really being everyone's favorite though.


Oh, my IEI sibling and mother like to think they are the favorites for sure lol. I'm the only one that makes the effort to close psychological distance, and I am good at it. It means I can be what they need when they need it. What's not to like, when the definition is knowing and connecting likes and dislikes?


----------



## Zamyatin

Captain Mclain said:


> Then it is quite advanced typing done here based on forum reply posts.
> 
> 
> @Zamyatin Would you say you are qualified of advanced typing?


I'd say I'm competent. Certainly more competent than some.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, my IEI sibling and mother like to think they are the favorites for sure lol. I'm the only one that makes the effort to close psychological distance, and I am good at it. It means I can be what they need when they need it. What's not to like, when the definition is knowing and connecting likes and dislikes?


For someone who is supposedly good at making people like you, how come literally nobody on PerC likes you?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Lies. A few like me lol.

I'm not trying to make you like me. I'm trying to make you like others.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Lies. A few like me lol.


Lol really? Like who? I'm curious now. Name one person that likes you, Mr. "4d in relationships". Not even Tellus or FearAndTrembling can stand you -- Tellus finds you abrasive and FAT says you're "annoying". You supposedly have this magical power to become everybody's dual, yet half the people here detest you and the other half try to ignore you.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Lol really? Like who? I'm curious now. Name one person that likes you, Mr. "4d in relationships". Not even Tellus or FearAndTrembling can stand you -- Tellus finds you abrasive and FAT says you're "annoying". You supposedly have this magical power to become everybody's dual, yet half the people here detest you and the other half try to ignore you.


Tellus, Abraxas, Word Dispenser, Night Huntress, FAT, The Wanderer. How would you even know? You're 2D Fi. Oh... Face value stuff, Ti, that's right...

Anyways, still not about people liking me. It's about you not liking people.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, let me ask you a question... Your siblings clash endlessly. If one is on autopilot, that is, operating in their Vital Ring and not putting conscious thought into their actions, they will be operating together as duals and have no conflict. So, how do you know which it is? And how do you know that their conflicts are not one of the Aggressor/Victim romance style pairs' features, with the push-pull Se being valued?
> 
> From what you are suggesting, it appears as though you are speaking of Fe and not Fi, as Fi has no objective traits on it's own.


What? I see Fi because she seems to value Te(but she's not good at using it), and she doesn't seem to value Fe.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Tellus, Abraxas, Word Dispenser, Night Huntress, FAT, The Wanderer. How would you even know? You're 2D Fi. Oh... Face value stuff, Ti, that's right...


Want to test that?

@Tellus
@Abraxas
@Word Dispenser
@Night Huntress
@FearAndTrembling
@The_Wanderer

Hey guys, honest yes/no question. Do you like Jeremy?


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> Tellus, Abraxas, Word Dispenser, Night Huntress, FAT, The Wanderer. How would you even know? You're 2D Fi. Oh... Face value stuff, Ti, that's right...
> 
> Anyways, still not about people liking me. It's about you not liking people.


Leave me out of this rubbish, thanks.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Want to test that?
> 
> @Tellus
> @Abraxas
> @Word Dispenser
> @Night Huntress
> @FearAndTrembling
> @The Wanderer
> 
> Hey guys, honest yes/no question. Do you like Jeremy?


Omg... That's Ti LMAO
You have no form of verification as to if they are even telling you how they really feel lmao


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> What? I see Fi because she seems to value Te(but she's not good at using it), and she doesn't seem to value Fe.


So you think they gravitate towards confrontation primarily due to being conflictors?


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> It deals with Dom/Aux. You're looking for resources on all 4 and the 4 shadows as well?


Jung and Myers didn't even have the same idea about dominant and auxiliary. I believe Jung thought they both were of the same orientation, while Myers' model had one orientation for dominant and three other functions had an opposite orientation.

No, I'm asking for Socionics source that deals with MBTI's standard function stacking - four functions - dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> So you think they gravitate towards confrontation primarily due to being conflictors?


I think it's pretty likely that they are conflictors since they display opposing values on nearly everything. But I wouldn't type someone based on their interaction with another type.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Jung and Myers didn't even have the same idea about dominant and auxiliary. I believe Jung thought they both were of the same orientation, while Myers' model had one orientation for dominant and three other functions had an opposite orientation.
> 
> No, I'm asking for Socionics source that deals with MBTI's standard function stacking - four functions - dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior.


Ah, no. Don't have that. There isn't even one of those in favor of J/P switch.

We could phone-a-friend and ask reckful about the MBTI stack history?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I think it's pretty likely that they are conflictors since they display opposing values on nearly everything. But I wouldn't type someone based on their interaction with another type.


Well, you didn't quite answer that as I had hoped, but... If they are gravitating towards conflict, they are still _gravitating towards each other_. This implies attraction. In the case of gamma/delta, this attraction is one that includes attraction for conflict. Which is why I began the set of questions.

All types exist relative to other types. You have to compare their interactions to correctly place them compared to society at large.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Zamyatin said:


> Want to test that?
> 
> @_Tellus_
> @_Abraxas_
> @_Word Dispenser_
> @_Night Huntress_
> @_FearAndTrembling_
> @_The_Wanderer_
> 
> Hey guys, honest yes/no question. Do you like Jeremy?


Well, I don't _dislike _him. Uhm.. I don't know if I _like _him. Uh...

I'm not that good at this. 

I mean, I don't really know him. 

He's okay! :kitteh:


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, you didn't quite answer that as I had hoped, but... If they are gravitating towards conflict, they are still _gravitating towards each other_. This implies attraction. In the case of gamma/delta, this attraction is one that includes attraction for conflict. Which is why I began the set of questions.
> 
> All types exist relative to other types. You have to compare their interactions to correctly place them compared to society at large.


It's not like they're at each other's heels so to say. They've just never seemed to understand or respect each other.

Yes, of course you can't type in a vacuum, but if you type solely based on interaction you also run the risk of a fallacy.

Now I will leave this conversation since I don't see this leading anywhere for me.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah, no. Don't have that. There isn't even one of those in favor of J/P switch.


I guess there's none. Because honestly socionists don't give a damn about MBTI and consider it to be an obsolete system. The best of what I saw from Socionics in relation to MBTI is related to dichotomies and 16 archetype descriptions. That's about it. No one cares for MBTI function stacking because they think little of MBTI abilities to accurately test people, much less discern elements in people. J may equal j and P equal p only at the level of dichotomies, but majority of people here typed themselves according to cognitive functions, and not by dichotomies or descriptions.

Also, why not just type people in Socionics subforum according to Socionics? Why drag MBTI into this? Socionics is self-sufficient system and it doesn't need MBTI or any other typology so as to be explained. 



> We could phone-a-friend and ask reckful about the MBTI stack history?


Please, don't. I don't have to be Ni dom to predict what they'll say.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> It's not like they're at each other's heels so to say. They've just never seemed to understand or respect each other.
> 
> Yes, of course you can't type in a vacuum, but if you type solely based on interaction you also run the risk of a fallacy.
> 
> Now I will leave this conversation since I don't see this leading anywhere for me.


Ah okay. Well come back anytime lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I don't _dislike _him. Uhm.. I don't know if I _like _him. Uh...
> 
> I'm not that good at this.
> 
> I mean, I don't really know him.
> 
> He's okay! :kitteh:


It's probably because ILE can have an argument without getting bent about it lol

Still waiting on you to "bite" on my last SpongeBob post lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> I guess there's none. Because honestly socionists don't give a damn about MBTI and consider it to be an obsolete system. The best of what I saw from Socionics in relation to MBTI is related to dichotomies and 16 archetype descriptions. That's about it. No one cares for MBTI function stacking because they think little of MBTI abilities to accurately test people, much less discern elements in people. J may equal j and P equal p only at the level of dichotomies, but majority of people here typed themselves according to cognitive functions, and not by dichotomies or descriptions.


Yes, and that's not the definition of MBTI type.



> , why not just type people in Socionics subforum according to Socionics? Why drag MBTI into this? Socionics is self-sufficient system and it doesn't need MBTI or any other typology so as to be explained.
> .


Because most of the information on here is modified socionics under the assumption of J/P switch. I am typing via Socionics. Others are not


----------



## AdInfinitum

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I don't _dislike _him. Uhm.. I don't know if I _like _him. Uh...
> 
> I'm not that good at this.
> 
> I mean, I don't really know him.
> 
> He's okay! :kitteh:


Flippin' Fi PoLR and Fe. :tongue:


----------



## The_Wanderer

Zamyatin said:


> Hey guys, honest yes/no question. Do you like Jeremy?


Nope.

I like you though, you're pretty cool.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Nope.
> 
> I like you though, you're pretty cool.


Butthole lol. Now you're not my partner in crime no mo.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Now you're not my partner in crime no mo.


Good. Now stop being an asshole.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Good. Now stop being an asshole.


You're the pirate on a motorcycle, not me.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because most of the information on here is modified socionics under the assumption of J/P switch.


Which is also your assumption.


> I am typing via Socionics. Others are not


If you did, you'd give reasoning on why someone is Ti-Se ego or Ni-Fe ego type instead of telling "you're MBTI INFP which is equal to IEI. You're IEI then".


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Which is also your assumption.
> 
> If you did, you'd give reasoning on why someone is Ti-Se ego or Ni-Fe ego type instead of telling "you're MBTI INFP which is equal to IEI. You're IEI then".


It's not an assumption at all. The usage of information elements are not correct. They are modified to be similar to their MBTI counterparts and have the extroverted and introverted elements partially combined to maintain duplicity to allow the false typings to exist. Similarly, explicit functions such as Role and Ignoring are ignored, and the alignment of mental and vital tracks to conscious effort and automated processes are ignored.

The reasons are such and fairly simple. You give authentic definitions of elements, have people align to their correct type, then show them the resulting personality, have them be offended at the "politically incorrect" definitions, then have them say that the elements definitions are incorrect, and then they adopt duplicitous definitions.


----------



## westlose

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not an assumption at all. The usage of information elements are not correct. They are modified to be similar to their MBTI counterparts and have the extroverted and introverted elements partially combined to maintain duplicity to allow the false typings to exist. Similarly, explicit functions such as Role and Ignoring are ignored, and the alignment of mental and vital tracks to conscious effort and automated processes are ignored.
> 
> The reasons are such and fairly simple. You give authentic definitions of elements, have people align to their correct type, then show them the resulting personality, have them be offended at the "politically incorrect" definitions, then have them say that the elements definitions are incorrect, and then they adopt duplicitous definitions.


I must admit that I didn't understood how you typed me as an ESI. You asked me one question, which I suppose was aristocracy vs democracy. What about the rest? Don't you use IEs? Like how could you assume that I am Se-ego. Or did you typed me that way based on my posts?

I'm really wondering how you proceed. What I've understood from this post, is that you interact with people and see how they react (Like if they get offended or something?). So you are typing people with ITRs?


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> I must admit that I didn't understood how you typed me as an ESI. You asked me one question, which I suppose was aristocracy vs democracy. What about the rest? Don't you use IEs? Like how could you assume that I am Se-ego. Or did you typed me that way based on my posts?
> 
> I'm really wondering how you proceed. What I've understood from this post, is that you interact with people and see how they react (Like if they get offended or something?). So you are typing people with ITRs?


Don't know what ITRs mean.


----------



## westlose

Jeremy8419 said:


> Don't know what ITRs mean.


Sorry for that. ITR = Intertype Relations.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not an assumption at all. The usage of information elements are not correct. They are modified to be similar to their MBTI counterparts and have the extroverted and introverted elements partially combined to maintain duplicity to allow the false typings to exist. Similarly, explicit functions such as Role and Ignoring are ignored, and the alignment of mental and vital tracks to conscious effort and automated processes are ignored.
> 
> The reasons are such and fairly simple. You give authentic definitions of elements, have people align to their correct type, then show them the resulting personality, have them be offended at the "politically incorrect" definitions, then have them say that the elements definitions are incorrect, and then they adopt duplicitous definitions.


How they are modified? I believe majority here uses definitions from available sources, that are mostly wikisocion and the like. You think those sites departed from Socionics basics?

What do you mean by being "offended at the "politically incorrect" definitions"? I can disagree with something descriptions say, because obviously each person is a unique individual and cannot perfectly align with everything descriptions say. I haven't seen any basic Socionics descriptions that I'd found offensive, MBTI ones are far worse in bias regard.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> Sorry for that. ITR = Intertype Relations.


Ah okay.



> I must admit that I didn't understood how you typed me as an ESI. You asked me one question, which I suppose was aristocracy vs democracy. What about the rest? Don't you use IEs? Like how could you assume that I am Se-ego. Or did you typed me that way based on my posts?
> 
> I'm really wondering how you proceed. What I've understood from this post, is that you interact with people and see how they react (Like if they get offended or something?). So you are typing people with ITRs?


Riddle me this... Is the above quote indicative of your primary thoughts in life?


----------



## westlose

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this... Is the above quote indicative of your primary thoughts in life?


Are you talking about this part?


> I'm really wondering how you proceed. What I've understood from this post, is that you interact with people and see how they react (Like if they get offended or something?). So you are typing people with ITRs?


Yes, I would say that my first goal or thoughts in life if you prefer, is to understand the meaning of things around me, why they exist, and how they are related with each other. It's more or less like a puzzle that I have to solve.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> How they are modified? I believe majority here uses definitions from available sources, that are mostly wikisocion and the like. You think those sites departed from Socionics basics?


Wikisocion, in general, no. Some of the other sites and groups give their interpretations of socionics that aren't in-line with Socionics. They don't use these anyways. There is zero emotion in Fi. None. There's no internal emotions to it. None. However; people use Fi in ways that entail primarily emotions, or say there are no emotions but instead "feelings," but when you ask them to expand on "feelings," they are actually using the term as a placeholder for emotions. When you return to definitions and descriptors that do not entail emotions, they divert to saying they are emotions, the descriptors aren't explicitly true, a contradicting quote outside the current scope of application is correct, or attack issues or logic rather than deal with the reality that their personal definition contradicts Socionics'.



> What do you mean by being "offended at the "politically incorrect" definitions"? I can disagree with something descriptions say, because obviously each person is a unique individual and cannot perfectly align with everything descriptions say. I haven't seen any basic Socionics descriptions that I'd found offensive, MBTI ones are far worse in bias regard.


Supposedly, LII's is offensive to some people. MBTI doesn't go into weaknesses much. Socionics basically tells you that aspects of your personality are equivalent to an inept child's from another type. MBTI typically shows people's positives, in an attempt to reconcile viewpoints (Fi). Socionics shows all aspects without regards for capabilities of reconciliation. Ashura developed Socionics to show how she was right, and how her husband was wrong.


----------



## Captain Mclain

I find it very risky to type from ITR. For me it is good when confirm type.


----------



## Jeremy8419

westlose said:


> Are you talking about this part?
> 
> 
> Yes, I would say that my first goal or thoughts in life if you prefer, is to understand the meaning of things around me, why they exist, and how they are related with each other. It's more or less like a puzzle that I have to solve.


That's Fi in socionics. Because it is your primary conscious thought, that makes you Fi base.



> I must admit that I didn't understood how you typed me as an ESI. You asked me one question, which I suppose was aristocracy vs democracy. What about the rest? Don't you use IEs? Like how could you assume that I am Se-ego. Or did you typed me that way based on my posts?
> 
> I'm really wondering how you proceed. What I've understood from this post, is that you interact with people and see how they react (Like if they get offended or something?). So you are typing people with ITRs?


You think I am trying to type people?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> I find it very risky to type from ITR. For me it is good when confirm type.


If I do a science experiment and try and make a magnet via a piece of iron, some wounded copper wire, and a battery, how do I know if I have succeeded?


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> If I do a science experiment and try and make a magnet via a piece of iron, some wounded copper wire, and a battery, how do I know if I have succeeded?


You test it out?


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Omg... That's Ti LMAO
> You have no form of verification as to if they are even telling you how they really feel lmao


Man, you're out of touch, and the only way you're ever going to realize that is if you get a cold dose of reality. The only reason I made that post is because I knew the only response would be either silence from people who are unwilling to defend you because they don't like you or responses from people who dislike you and aren't afraid to say it. I've always been good at understanding people, and I know all of those people. For you to think that they actually _like_ you is quite frankly sad. I can predict how each of them will react to my question, which is why I asked it of them.

Tellus: He tolerates you because you pay attention to his stuff, which basically everybody else ignores. However, he finds you abrasive. He also finds me abrasive for that matter, but I never said he liked me. He avoids confrontation whenever possible (very Se PoLR) and hates asserting himself, so I'd be somewhat shocked if he ever posts here, but he doesn't like you.

Abraxas: He won't respond because he retired his account recently. However, he never liked you. Abraxas isn't straightforward when he dislikes people, instead he becomes snarky and passive aggressive and patronizing. You can see that behavior in the way he interacted with Entropic. It's also how he interacted with you, although you are too clueless to recognize that.

Word Dispenser: She won't admit it either (she's an alpha) and she doesn't hold grudges, but she was very annoyed with your behavior in the 32/80q thread. She's basically in that half of the board that tries to ignore you.

Night Huntress: I spoke to her on Skype moments after I made that post. She probably won't respond anytime soon because she doesn't want to descend to your level and she said, in her own words, "I care for doing what's right and I don't want to be just as nasty as him" but she feels nothing but a combination of dislike and pity for you. I'm not going to quote the exact words she used to describe you in the rest of the conversation because frankly it would get me an infraction for personal insults. You'll notice she thanked that post of mine, though, so don't take her silence for liking you.

FearAndTrembling: In his own words, you're "annoying". I suspect he sees a bit too much of his own past in you, which he's trying hard to reject by trying to emulate his dual by becoming "fluid" and "detached". Both you and he are attempting to live up to some ideal which doesn't actually match who you actually are as individuals, with him basically trying to be EIE and you trying to make up for past failings by imagining yourself someone everybody loves.

The_Wanderer: Well, you already heard from him yourself, so no need to summarize what he thinks of you.


The bottom line is you're terrible at reading social situations and you don't understand people. Again, _nobody_ here likes you. I'm just the person direct enough and unafraid of confrontation enough to actually say that. I mean lol, you can't even get thanks on your posts, a ratio as low as yours is basically reserved for trolls. And thanks aren't exactly hard to get, lol, I'm abrasive and rude as fuck and I get a ton of them, so basically it's just a matter of being likable to some part of the member base. And you're not likable to any of it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Man, you're out of touch, and the only way you're ever going to realize that is if you get a cold dose of reality. The only reason I made that post is because I knew the only response would be either silence from people who are unwilling to defend you because they don't like you or responses from people who dislike you and aren't afraid to say it. I've always been good at understanding people, and I know all of those people. For you to think that they actually _like_ you is quite frankly sad. I can predict how each of them will react to my question, which is why I asked it of them.
> 
> Tellus: He tolerates you because you pay attention to his stuff, which basically everybody else ignores. However, he finds you abrasive. He also finds me abrasive for that matter, but I never said he liked me. He avoids confrontation whenever possible (very Se PoLR) and hates asserting himself, so I'd be somewhat shocked if he ever posts here, but he doesn't like you.
> 
> Abraxas: He won't respond because he retired his account recently. However, he never liked you. Abraxas isn't straightforward when he dislikes people, instead he becomes snarky and passive aggressive and patronizing. You can see that behavior in the way he interacted with Entropic. It's also how he interacted with you, although you are too clueless to recognize that.
> 
> Word Dispenser: She won't admit it either (she's an alpha) and she doesn't hold grudges, but she was very annoyed with your behavior in the 32/80q thread. She's basically in that half of the board that tries to ignore you.
> 
> Night Huntress: I spoke to her on Skype moments after I made that post. She probably won't respond anytime soon because she doesn't want to descend to your level and she said, in her own words, "I care for doing what's right and I don't want to be just as nasty as him" but she feels nothing but a combination of dislike and pity for you. I'm not going to quote the exact words she used to describe you in the rest of the conversation because frankly it would get me an infraction for personal insults. You'll notice she thanked that post of mine, though, so don't take her silence for liking you.
> 
> FearAndTrembling: In his own words, you're "annoying". I suspect he sees a bit too much of his own past in you, which he's trying hard to reject by trying to emulate his dual by becoming "fluid" and "detached". Both you and he are attempting to live up to some ideal which doesn't actually match who you actually are as individuals, with him basically trying to be EIE and you trying to make up for past failings by imagining yourself someone everybody loves.
> 
> The_Wanderer: Well, you already heard from him yourself, so no need to summarize what he thinks of you.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is you're terrible at reading social situations and you don't understand people. Again, _nobody_ here likes you. I'm just the person direct enough and unafraid of confrontation enough to actually say that. I mean lol, you can't even get thanks on your posts, a ratio as low as yours is basically reserved for trolls. And thanks aren't exactly hard to get, lol, I'm abrasive and rude as fuck and I get a ton of them, so basically it's just a matter of being likable to some part of the member base. And you're not likable to any of it.


I skipped basically all of this. I saw Thanks towards the end. It reminded me of how y'all circle-jerk with thanks.

You're aware that posting stuff from PMs is a violation of privacy and the rules, correct?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> You test it out?


By doing what?


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're aware that posting stuff from PMs is a violation of privacy and the rules, correct?


I thought you didn't read the post?

And the quote wasn't private, lol. She said she doesn't mind if I mention it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Man, you're out of touch, and the only way you're ever going to realize that is if you get a cold dose of reality. The only reason I made that post is because I knew the only response would be either silence from people who are unwilling to defend you because they don't like you or responses from people who dislike you and aren't afraid to say it. I've always been good at understanding people, and I know all of those people. For you to think that they actually _like_ you is quite frankly sad. I can predict how each of them will react to my question, which is why I asked it of them.
> 
> Tellus: He tolerates you because you pay attention to his stuff, which basically everybody else ignores. However, he finds you abrasive. He also finds me abrasive for that matter, but I never said he liked me. He avoids confrontation whenever possible (very Se PoLR) and hates asserting himself, so I'd be somewhat shocked if he ever posts here, but he doesn't like you.
> 
> Abraxas: He won't respond because he retired his account recently. However, he never liked you. Abraxas isn't straightforward when he dislikes people, instead he becomes snarky and passive aggressive and patronizing. You can see that behavior in the way he interacted with Entropic. It's also how he interacted with you, although you are too clueless to recognize that.
> 
> Word Dispenser: She won't admit it either (she's an alpha) and she doesn't hold grudges, but she was very annoyed with your behavior in the 32/80q thread. She's basically in that half of the board that tries to ignore you.
> 
> Night Huntress: I spoke to her on Skype moments after I made that post. She probably won't respond anytime soon because she doesn't want to descend to your level and she said, in her own words, "I care for doing what's right and I don't want to be just as nasty as him" but she feels nothing but a combination of dislike and pity for you. I'm not going to quote the exact words she used to describe you in the rest of the conversation because frankly it would get me an infraction for personal insults. You'll notice she thanked that post of mine, though, so don't take her silence for liking you.
> 
> FearAndTrembling: In his own words, you're "annoying". I suspect he sees a bit too much of his own past in you, which he's trying hard to reject by trying to emulate his dual by becoming "fluid" and "detached". Both you and he are attempting to live up to some ideal which doesn't actually match who you actually are as individuals, with him basically trying to be EIE and you trying to make up for past failings by imagining yourself someone everybody loves.
> 
> The_Wanderer: Well, you already heard from him yourself, so no need to summarize what he thinks of you.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is you're terrible at reading social situations and you don't understand people. Again, _nobody_ here likes you. I'm just the person direct enough and unafraid of confrontation enough to actually say that. I mean lol, you can't even get thanks on your posts, a ratio as low as yours is basically reserved for trolls. And thanks aren't exactly hard to get, lol, I'm abrasive and rude as fuck and I get a ton of them, so basically it's just a matter of being likable to some part of the member base. And you're not likable to any of it.


Meh, guess I will bite.

Tellus: Supervisee.
You suggest, by my typing of him, that he is my supervisor. Your total take of us being comparatives.
Of course he likes that I talk to him about his stuff. That's just common decency. You see a guy alone on a forum and you just dgaf enough to "be there"?

Abraxas: Benefactor.
You think I am his benefactor. He must have a high opinion of me.

Word Dispenser: Supervisee.
You think she is my Supervisor.

Night Huntress: Supervisor.
You think she is my Supervisee.
What she doesn't like is what I know she doesn't like: me mind-effing yall non-stop, her boyfriend included. She's only one that ever gets me to stop.

FAT: Identical.
You think he, August, and myself are identicals. There must be no other Betas on forum besides IEI.

The Wanderer: Supervisee.
You think I am his Supervisor, so not much different there.

You: Business.
You think FAT, August, myself, and all the IEIs on here are your Benefactor. You have a high opinion of us.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> I thought you didn't read the post?
> 
> And the quote wasn't private, lol. She said she doesn't mind if I mention it.


It's a rule, you goober. You can't legally murder someone.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> By doing what?


You test if it magnetic. In this perticullar case. Does it stick you your fridge


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Meh, guess I will bite.
> 
> Tellus: Supervisee.
> You suggest, by my typing of him, that he is my supervisor. Your total take of us being comparatives.
> Of course he likes that I talk to him about his stuff. That's just common decency. You see a guy alone on a forum and you just dgaf enough to "be there"?
> 
> Abraxas: Benefactor.
> You think I am his benefactor. He must have a high opinion of me.
> 
> Word Dispenser: Supervisee.
> You think she is my Supervisor.
> 
> Night Huntress: Supervisor.
> You think she is my Supervisee.
> What she doesn't like is what I know she doesn't like: me mind-effing yall non-stop, her boyfriend included. She's only one that ever gets me to stop.
> 
> FAT: Identical.
> You think he, August, and myself are identicals. There must be no other Betas on forum besides IEI.
> 
> The Wanderer: Supervisee.
> You think I am his Supervisor, so not much different there.
> 
> You: Business.
> You think FAT, August, myself, and all the IEIs on here are your Benefactor. You have a high opinion of us.


Ok, so you've just admitted that NH doesn't like you. You know for a fact that The_wanderer doesn't like you. I and Entropic obviously don't like you. To_august, who you claim is LSI, doesn't like you. Let's review what you just said yesterday.



> My parents are LSI and IEI, as are my siblings. My childhood best friend is SLE. My extended family is fairly scattered. I am everyone's favorite. Why? Because as EII, I know how to match their duals. This was going on for throughout my life, not since discovering socionics.


You specifically claim to be able to make everybody like you by mimicking their duals. You also specifically mentioned LSI as a type you've managed to get along with by imitating their dual.

Show some proof of this "match their duals" ability. Because I'm not seeing any. You don't get along with the two people I've seen you type as LSI, To_august and Fried Eggz. By your own claim, you not only are able to get along with LSI, you have a lot of experience getting along with LSI. Yet somehow, the people you claim are LSIs don't like you.

You don't get along with me, or Entropic. You don't get along with the SEEs. The person you type as ILI, Abraxas, doesn't like you. The ILEs try to ignore you and find you mean and abrasive. 

Where's your proof, big guy? Because you don't have any. Literally _none_ of the people you said like you actually like you. You're aware of that, which is why you tried to rationalize it away by talking about ITR.



Jeremy8419 said:


> It's a rule, you goober. You can't legally murder someone.


You might try reading it, it says it's ok to reveal the contents of conversations if everybody involved agrees.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Ok, so you've just admitted that NH doesn't like you. You know for a fact that The_wanderer doesn't like you. I and Entropic obviously don't like you. To_august, who you claim is LSI, doesn't like you. Let's review what you just said yesterday.
> 
> You specifically claim to be able to make everybody like you by mimicking their duals. You also specifically mentioned LSI as a type you've managed to get along with by imitating their dual.
> 
> Show some proof of this "match their duals" ability. Because I'm not seeing any. You don't get along with the two people I've seen you type as LSI, To_august and Fried Eggz. By your own claim, you not only are able to get along with LSI, you have a lot of experience getting along with LSI. Yet somehow, the people you claim are LSIs don't like you.
> 
> You don't get along with me, or Entropic. You don't get along with the SEEs. The person you type as ILI, Abraxas, doesn't like you. The ILEs try to ignore you and find you mean and abrasive.
> 
> Where's your proof, big guy? Because you don't have any. Literally _none_ of the people you said like you actually like you. You're aware of that, which is why you tried to rationalize it away by talking about ITR..


Rationalize it away? It's Socionics. Derp.

It's funny that you put words in Abraxas' mouth.
@To_august Just fyi, this is probably a better "in practice" version of my attempts to explain the "divert." Notice, while he is diverting from my 2D Ti of socionics intertype relations and quadra definitions, I am simultaneously diverting from his 2D Fi "relationships" definitions. Both, due to unvalued Se, fail to address the glaring issue that some people gravitate ( @Verity ) towards conflict. This is also a contradiction within itself.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Considering the time of night here, I might have misread what you said, if this is the case feel free to ignore. Nevertheless, @_Jeremy8419_, did you imply that @Word Dispenser and I are the same type?


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Considering the time of night here, I might have misread what you said, if this is the case feel free to ignore. Nevertheless, @Jeremy8419, did you imply that Word Dispenser and I are the same type?


So go to sleep LOL

I think y'all are, yes. The interactions strike me as male/female counterparts.


----------



## The_Wanderer

And that type is?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Ima take some liberties with this quote.



> You can stick it to something and see if it is easy to move apart. You can see if they try and stay together. You can see if the thing moves with the magnet when you move the magnet around.


"move"

*Attraction* is verified by *movement*.
Fi is verified by Te.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> And that type is?


Don't worry, you'll eventually figure everything out lol.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ima take some liberties with this quote.
> 
> 
> 
> "move"
> 
> *Attraction* is verified by *movement*.
> Fi is verified by Te.


You edited my quote. That is offensive.


----------



## Snow

Hey @Jeremy8419 I was reading back on some of the previous pages as this thread caught my eye. I read assuming you were EII which made sense at first, but then it seemed more and more that you were placing a lot of emphasis on Ti. Have you considered alpha SF or beta ST? I'd lean SEI or LSI? Namely as you've taken several statements and learned information in a very literal sense that seem unusual to me.

For instance:



Jeremy8419 said:


> ...I have enough common sense to realize that two systems describe the same empirical data (rationality/irrationality) with models that are inversed compared to each other?
> 
> Honestly, how yall can spend years on here an not grasp something so extremely simple is mind boggling. I have recent quotes from Bukalov, Gulenko, and Russian socionics sites that ALL place J=j and P=p.


You state that this was taken from here where it shows a table on the right stating:

*MBTI and its derivatives (Keirsey etc.)*:	In addition to Jungian type dimensions a new dimension called J/P (judging/perceiving) has been introduced

*Socionics*: J/P is considered to fully coincide with Jungian dimension of Rationality/Irrationality

Your interpretation of that is highly literal and against essentially the entire Socionics world's opinion (unless Gulenko has yet again changed his mind on another concept recently?). It seems heavy Ti-valued though at first glance I'd go SEI--I would think Te ignoring would be enough to put contextual accuracy in place, however I've known several LSIs who use rules like this as well.

You also wrote:



Jeremy8419 said:


> Socionics shows all aspects without regards for capabilities of reconciliation. Ashura developed Socionics to show how she was right, and how her husband was wrong.


Which is a paraphrasing of a very general and conjecture-based argument; maybe it's not weak Ti here but it's definitely valued.

From your seemingly frequent conflicting information sources, I would consider trying to gather multiple sources on a given topic and examining them for less literal interpretations--see where they all line up with each other, and don't take the one interpretation as Word of God over the others. Don't forget, most of Socionics is translated from Russian; a lot of it will appear more static and concrete than it really is simply from translation issues.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Don't worry, you'll eventually figure everything out lol.


It is far more practical (and less asshole-ish) to just say what you mean, y'know.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Better now?


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> FAT: Identical.
> You think he, August, and myself are identicals. There must be no other Betas on forum besides IEI.
> 
> The Wanderer: Supervisee.
> You think I am his Supervisor, so not much different there.
> 
> You: Business.
> You think FAT, August, myself, and all the IEIs on here are your Benefactor. You have a high opinion of us.


Lol. Since when I became identical with you and FAT? I believe Zamyatin thinks I'm correctly typed as Delta ST, therefore you misinterpret what he thinks about intertype in place.



> @_To_august__ Just fyi, this is probably a better "in practice" version of my attempts to explain the "divert." Notice, while he is diverting from my 2D Ti of socionics intertype relations and quadra definitions, I am simultaneously diverting from his 2D Fi "relationships" definitions. Both, due to unvalued Se, fail to address the glaring issue that some people gravitate ( @Verity ) towards conflict. This is also a contradiction within itself._


I'm not getting what you're trying to say. People divert from someone else's normative functions if they have unvalued Se?

Verity gravitates towards conflict?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Night Huntress said:


> On the other hand, people often thank posts full of rubbish or devoid of content just because they like the person. A lot of people rake up thanks for any sort of post whatsoever because they have a lot of friends.
> 
> While thanks may not indicate how likable you are in general, as a person, they certainly do indicate (in most cases) how liked you are on PerC.


Well, sure. In the case of Jeremy I don't think he has either going for him, so makes sense his thanks ratio wouldn't be very high indeed.

Just saying it's not just about being likable, because he made it sound like it was.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Yaaayyy, people like me. :kitteh:


Here, have a thanks. I'm feeling generous today.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Well, a low ratio probably is indicative of someone not being very popular, but thanks aren't just about being likable (sometimes I can thank a post even if I don't care for the poster much because the post itself has some value).
> 
> (I mean, it doesn't take away from your overall point, but I still felt like pointing that out because of the bolded making it sound like a high thanks ratio is all about being likable. Because from my point of view you are more likely to be thanked for being informative than because you're likable. Which is probably typical for a strong Te-user.)


Well, it would depend on your frame of reference for "liking" something. You mention two different ones. Honestly, slapping a label on something, as "liking," does for future proof, sounds very Ti to me, and this seems most similar to zamyatins usage. "Liking" something, because you find it valuable, and wish to return something that is an important part of you, your appreciation, back to the poster, sounds very Fi. However, once you enter the realm of the former being the shared labels under your own name, and vice versa, you actually start recombining the personality types back into the root "perspective."


> What if it has a male lead that makes you close your eyes?


Question my sexuality? Lol


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, it would depend on your frame of reference for "liking" something. You mention two different ones. Honestly, slapping a label on something, as "liking," does for future proof, sounds very Ti to me, and this seems most similar to zamyatins usage. "Liking" something, because you find it valuable, and wish to return something that is an important part of you, your appreciation, back to the poster, sounds very Fi. However, once you enter the realm of the former being the shared labels under your own name, and vice versa, you actually start recombining the personality types back into the root "perspective."
> 
> Question my sexuality? Lol


Your way of breaking down the information elements and when they are present or not seems very... not optimal. 
I mean, the like function could be creatively used by many 'information element's benefit and satisfaction.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Korra said:


> Not gonna lie, sometimes I make superficial judgement about users whom either have high thank ratio vs low thank ratio compared to posts.
> In my mind, if there's a high amount of posts and low amount of thanks, I tend to think this user may be posting low effort posts and/or tends to offend the majority of PerC. However, I'm not particularly proud of this myself as I look at my post history and I don't think I post really thorough posts that warrant the thanks it gets.
> 
> I'm glad this discussion is brought to light because I've been wondering how others view this dynamic and not many really talk about it, understandably.


I probably would be inclined to, but after the first time I got into a Jeremy vs ILI argument and they all took turns thanking each others posts, I thought, "yeah, I see where these 'thanks' are going."


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> Your way of breaking down the information elements and when they are present or not seems very... not optimal.
> I mean, the like function could be creatively used by many information elements benefit and satisfaction.


That's what the last sentence was about. We're all the same, just with varying perspectives.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's what the last sentence was about. We're all the same, just with varying perspectives.


The "like bottom" is a very broad topic. It might be applyed in ways you have not yet an idea of.

Just saying, using like bottom like you explained it could be moreso Te imo.


----------



## Korra

Jeremy8419 said:


> I probably would be inclined to, but after the first time I got into a Jeremy vs ILI argument and they all took turns thanking each others posts, I thought, "yeah, I see where these 'thanks' are going."


In actuality, I've never been much of a fan of thank features on past forums I've used. I am however glad that PerC does not have a displayed "Top Thanked members this Week!" list, as I feel it tends to change the environment of a forum in a negative way. Still, it does irk me to some degree that thanks can be used in a way that you described as a way to 'gang up' on someone indirectly. 

Although, I can see the other side of thanks encouraging posters to post more 'valuable' posts. Maybe not by much, but I think it helps a little. Yeah, it's a love-hate thing for me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Question my sexuality? Lol


Not really, but if a female lead not being attractive to you is such a big deal, what about unattractive male leads? 



> Well, it would depend on your frame of reference for "liking" something.


In this context, it seemed to refer to finding the person themselves likable, and how your inability to attract people is reflected in your thank ratio. Now if most people did find you likable you probably would have a higher thank ratio (regardless of how informative or whatever your posts were), but some might also thank your posts if they found you actually got your point across well, or was explaining things well, even if they didn't necessarily like you as a person. Anyway, I can thank a post for a variety of reasons, so I felt like pointing out it's not just about finding the poster likable.



> Honestly, slapping a label on something, as "liking," does for future proof, sounds very Ti to me, and this seems most similar to zamyatins usage.


How so?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Are you being typed as LSI? I wasn't here for that memo.


I think for several months now lol. A few of them said in the past that they don't really grasp the "role" function, which seems slightly odd to be running around typing people without understanding the different between your ego and the facade we maintain in public lol



> Do you think that I'm describing an LSI based on what I wrote in my observations of what your motivations could be?


Well, no, of course not. For one, I don't think that about you. And for two, all they are doing is saying they dislike me while using socionics as a ruse. They aren't _really_ saying anything of any value at all, outside of the "socionics matters" forum, other than that we have a conflict of interests. That's what it all boils down to right? A conflicting set of desires? The actual reasons for such aren't even ever listed. Zamyatin thought I was jobless, but doesn't know me irl to know that I work constantly and make 125k/year, that I've given most of it away trying to help people I had compassion for, or that I've lived in an apartment for 7 years and could have bought a mansion here by now if I simply placed value on my material interests. The entire guess at my working conditions was based on two assumptions, 1) that the amount of effort he puts into posts implies that I must do far more as he incorrectly thinks he is higher I.Q. than I, and 2) that even if #1 was true, that I wouldn't do so anyways for the sakes of others.

The two questions weren't me assuming that you think I am LSI, but rather, given both questions and the facts presented to you by what you have seen on these forums, what case would you make for each argument?



> I've observed that internet etiquette and the real world etiquette are quite disparate. It's quite possible that due to your derpy Te/Se, and on top of that, ignoring Fe, you wouldn't really be able to take account of the objective reactions/effects that you elicit. And even if you have some awareness of it, it might simply not matter enough for you to restrain yourself, if that would be the desired outcome of some folks here. "I like doing this, so I am doing this, and it makes me happy," kind of thing. That's how I understand Fi, anyway. :kitteh:


Basically, yes, but not quite in that way. You're describing comparisons of peoples internal states, their Fi, and that they may be in confliction. It's true, they are in confliction. But the question still remains, confliction for what? Confliction for me? Or confliction because I am aware of the confliction of others?



> Any type could express what you are expressing, and your motivations aren't necessarily clear to me, though they may be to some people (Based on the observations already stated.) Based on what you've _said,_ you are curious. But, welcome to humanity, amirite?


That would be related to my social role. My primary function and actual goal is quite different than such.

Back to my earlier thing about looking at intertype relationships... What you essentially have here are two sets of people attempting to determine if a planet is Saturn. One group looks at the planet, dissects it, turns it around and around, and endlessly analyzes it. One group looks around at the solar system it is in, sees it's moons, watches to see if it has the right orbit. This is Ti vs Fi. Translating over into Socionics... You have this argument, but only one group values consensus (delta quadras function of finalizing) and the other does not. The latter doesn't want consensus. The latter wants simply their way or the highway. The former attempts to speak about the planet's properties, but ultimately, at some point, knows it must bring up the solar system and heavenly movements. Stillllll doesn't matter to Ti. The Ti, in the end, will find themselves doing something they really don't want to do... Be stuck on the same, boring, tired argument forever.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Korra said:


> In actuality, I've never been much of a fan of thank features on past forums I've used. I am however glad that PerC does not have a displayed "Top Thanked members this Week!" list, as I feel it tends to change the environment of a forum in a negative way. Still, it does irk me to some degree that thanks can be used in a way that you described as a way to 'gang up' on someone indirectly.
> 
> Although, I can see the other side of thanks encouraging posters to post more 'valuable' posts. Maybe not by much, but I think it helps a little. Yeah, it's a love-hate thing for me.


I assumed those newsletters they email out are based on thanks lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> The "like bottom" is a very broad topic. It might be applyed in ways you have not yet an idea of.
> 
> Just saying, using like bottom like you explained it could be moreso Te imo.


It's just a ruse. Not everyone can be taught the same way. Some need to experience it to understand it. I understand people well enough to be able to create social situations for intended targets to witness.

I appreciate your consideration, though. Were you able to follow everything that went on in the 4D thread?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Not really, but if a female lead not being attractive to you is such a big deal, what about unattractive male leads?


Never really bothered me. Was watching a show on antenna tv yesterday, modern family, and I found a specific character to be highly attractive. I Google'd it, and all placed it as my dual. All the girls I am attracted to, I have take tests. The extroverts are all delta. Their appearance is apparently indicative of the attraction of personalities.



> In this context, it seemed to refer to finding the person themselves likable, and how your inability to attract people is reflected in your thank ratio. Now if most people did find you likable you probably would have a higher thank ratio (regardless of how informative or whatever your posts were), but some might also thank your posts if they found you actually got your point across well, or was explaining things well, even if they didn't necessarily like you as a person. Anyway, I can thank a post for a variety of reasons, so I felt like pointing out it's not just about finding the poster likable.


Well, it's like relationships. We all have different reasons, yet we all still have them, so apparently the reason is simply "we just like them." Lol




> How so?


Ti is external statics of fields. Meaning it is comparisons on concrete, readily visible, details.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Never really bothered me. Was watching a show on antenna tv yesterday, modern family, and I found a specific character to be highly attractive. I Google'd it, and all placed it as my dual. All the girls I am attracted to, I have take tests. The extroverts are all delta. Their appearance is apparently indicative of the attraction of personalities.


And I'm sure none of those typings could have been incorrect.



> Well, it's like relationships. We all have different reasons, yet we all still have them, so apparently the reason is simply "we just like them." Lol


Uhm, ok? I think there's always a reason, though. But that's besides the point.



> Ti is external statics of fields. Meaning it is comparisons on concrete, readily visible, details.


This doesn't sound right.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ti is external statics of fields. Meaning it is comparisons on concrete, readily visible, details.





Distortions said:


> This doesn't sound right.


It's taken from here: Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Primer



> Ti, introverted logic = external statics of fields


However, if we look further at the table that is listed, we get this:


(breakdown of elements)*symbol**name of element**code**description* characteristics of objects and their motion — "extraverted" elements
static, irrational elements (_objects at rest_)








Ne Extraverted intuition*potentiality intuition*internal content of objects*potentiality of objects*: inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, content, values









Se Extraverted sensing*volitional sensing*external situation of objects*outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space
 dynamic, rational elements (_objects in motion_)








Te Extraverted logic*algorithmic logic*external activity of objects*external activity of objects*: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms
 







Fe Extraverted ethics*emotive ethics*internal activity of objects*internal activity of objects*: internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content
 characteristics of fields (interaction between objects) and their motion — "introverted" elements
dynamic, irrational elements (_fields in motion_)








Ni Introverted intuition*temporal intuition*abstract processes of fields*intangible connections between processes separated in time and space*: sense of when things might happen, patterns of events, abstract representations of processes







Si Introverted sensing*experiential sensing*concrete processes of fields*tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time*: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically
 static, rational elements (_fields at rest_)








Ti Introverted logic*structural logic*objective situation of fields*logical relationships between objects*: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments 







Fi Introverted ethics*relational ethics*subjective situation of fields*subjective relationships between objects*: feelings of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, need and antipathy; morals, subjective judgments 
Essentially, the definition he offered actually fits Se better, because at least Se mentions "form, shape" "locations of objects in space" as a part of its information processing.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's just a ruse. Not everyone can be taught the same way. Some need to experience it to understand it. I understand people well enough to be able to create social situations for intended targets to witness.
> 
> I appreciate your consideration, though. Were you able to follow everything that went on in the 4D thread?


tangosthenes acted butthurt, you did not view it the Ti way it was supposed to and then I ended up kinda bored about it and I did not follow it between pages 4 something to 15+ something. Then I wrote some stuff about dichotomies because it seemed relevant. 

Something like that, why what happened?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> It's taken from here: Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Primer
> 
> 
> 
> However, if we look further at the table that is listed, we get this:
> 
> 
> (breakdown of elements)*symbol**name of element**code**description* characteristics of objects and their motion — "extraverted" elements
> static, irrational elements (_objects at rest_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ne Extraverted intuition*potentiality intuition*internal content of objects*potentiality of objects*: inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, content, values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Se Extraverted sensing*volitional sensing*external situation of objects*outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space
>  dynamic, rational elements (_objects in motion_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Te Extraverted logic*algorithmic logic*external activity of objects*external activity of objects*: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fe Extraverted ethics*emotive ethics*internal activity of objects*internal activity of objects*: internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content
>  characteristics of fields (interaction between objects) and their motion — "introverted" elements
> dynamic, irrational elements (_fields in motion_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ni Introverted intuition*temporal intuition*abstract processes of fields*intangible connections between processes separated in time and space*: sense of when things might happen, patterns of events, abstract representations of processes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si Introverted sensing*experiential sensing*concrete processes of fields*tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time*: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically
>  static, rational elements (_fields at rest_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ti Introverted logic*structural logic*objective situation of fields*logical relationships between objects*: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fi Introverted ethics*relational ethics*subjective situation of fields*subjective relationships between objects*: feelings of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, need and antipathy; morals, subjective judgments 
> Essentially, the definition he offered actually fits Se better, because at least Se mentions "form, shape" "locations of objects in space" as a part of its information processing.


I agree. However, none of that is a comparison. All comparisons are subjective.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@Entropic
Yeah, I realize "external statics of fields" is part of Socionics' definition of Ti, but... yeah. It being about concrete details sounds off.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> And I'm sure none of those typings could have been incorrect.


You do realize that the questionnaires are tests as well, right?



> Uhm, ok? I think there's always a reason, though. But that's besides the point.


The reason is that we exist, and if we were all the same, we wouldn't exist, because we would be "I."



> This doesn't sound right.


Well, Se is external and readily visible and concrete, is it not? Ne is internal and not readily visible nor concrete, is it not?
Ti is defined as external statics of fields. Se and Ne are statics. Fields are relationships (not people relationships) between things. All comparisons require a criteria. All introverted elements are subjective by definition. All criteria are subjective. Ti is defined as external statics of fields; therefore, Ti is the comparison of the visible and concrete.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> tangosthenes acted butthurt, you did not view it the Ti way it was supposed to and then I ended up kinda bored about it and I did not follow it between pages 4 something to 15+ something. Then I wrote some stuff about dichotomies because it seemed relevant.
> 
> Something like that, why what happened?


The LIIs and ILI got in an argument, in which the ILI rejected the deconstruction of logic after demonstrating it and quit the forums. The LIIs went on a long "deconstruct Jeremy's logic" spree. Maybe that happened. I take all these threads off-topic, so I may be thinking of another thread lol.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> The LIIs and ILI got in an argument, in which the ILI rejected the deconstruction of logic after demonstrating it and quit the forums. The LIIs went on a long "deconstruct Jeremy's logic" spree. Maybe that happened. I take all these threads off-topic, so I may be thinking of another thread lol.


I thought it was an awesome thread start, lol. Something I would be interested in hehe.
Ohwell. damn flame wars.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> You do realize that the questionnaires are tests as well, right?


Okay?



> The reason is that we exist, and if we were all the same, we wouldn't exist, because we would be "I."


That's not what I meant, though that's some interesting... logic. What I meant is that there's always a reason why someone likes something.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> I thought it was an awesome thread start, lol. Something I would be interested in hehe.
> Ohwell. damn flame wars.


What do you mean flame wars? The whole thread is my example to you about the difference between Leading and Demonstrative.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> What do you mean flame wars? The whole thread is my example to you about the difference between Leading and Demonstrative.


ye well it is not the same. Sure I see what you mean and that is exactly the same as the thread was about. I wanted some discussion also storys about it, not living in one.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Okay?


The point is, you disregard one type of test, but accept another. You do realize that the former is created and used by trained professionals and the latter is used by people derping on internet forums instead of contributing to society, right?



> That's not what I meant, though that's some interesting... logic. What I meant is that there's always a reason why someone likes something.


I understand what you meant, and what I am telling you is that "like" is enough. You don't have to dissect it. Someone likes something, or they don't, and you just move along. At some point, you have to say, "okay, that's enough thinking" and simply act upon it. Otherwise, we would all live in teeny itty bitty boxes that we sit in all day and think. I like "rice and gravy." Are you going to have me over and then sit in your room all day thinking about what to cook? Or, do you make me rice and gravy? It's the same thing. You aren't required to sit around mulling over it all day. You just simply ask the person, "what do you like?" And you either give it to them, or you don't. That's just life.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> The point is, you disregard one type of test, but accept another. You do realize that the former is created and used by trained professionals and the latter is used by people derping on internet forums instead of contributing to society, right?


Whatever.



> I understand what you meant, and what I am telling you is that "like" is enough. You don't have to dissect it. Someone likes something, or they don't, and you just move along.


If you don't care to understand them more in-depth, sure. Either way, I don't see my reason for liking something to be because "I exist" but because of something more internal than that. So your reasoning is fairly upside-down to me, but that's not something new. 

(This is all also rather anti-Fi of you, but I realize there's probably no use in trying to point this out to you, because you're way too stuck to see much but the insides of your own ass.)

And my original point wasn't about how people like different things anyway, so it seems like you didn't really get what I meant.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Whatever.
> 
> 
> If you don't care to understand them more in-depth, sure. Either way, I don't see my reason for liking something to be because "I exist" but because of something more internal than that. So your reasoning is fairly upside-down to me, but that's not something new.
> 
> (This is all also rather anti-Fi of you, but I realize there's probably no use in trying to point this out to you, because you're way too stuck to see much but the insides of your own ass.)
> 
> And my original point wasn't about how people like different things anyway, so it seems like you didn't really get what I meant.


Sorry, but all I heard was anti-Ti. I actually just repeated a conversation I had with an SEI female. You don't value the surface connections, you value the internal ones, which is why you were shocked about the definition of Ti, not that you cared.

If someone you knew had a house, and you knew the outside portrayed one thing, yet the inside portrayed another, and the person was very lonely, would you match them with someone who had an outside that matched well or who had an inside that matched well? Neither. Because, gosh dangit, I'm democratic, and people simply are "different"... Well... On the inside at least. Who gives a F if they're different on the outside?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> ye well it is not the same. Sure I see what you mean and that is exactly the same as the thread was about. I wanted some discussion also storys about it, not living in one.


It's cool. I'm not like you, so I only had my way of answering. Figured, what the hell, better than nothing :laughing:


----------



## Entropic

Distortions said:


> @Entropic
> Yeah, I realize "external statics of fields" is part of Socionics' definition of Ti, but... yeah. It being about concrete details sounds off.


Yes, read what I wrote further down. Maybe you didn't see:



> Essentially, the definition he offered actually fits Se better, because at least Se mentions "form, shape" "locations of objects in space" as a part of its information processing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Yes, read what I wrote further down. Maybe you didn't see:


And the comparisons of such are?....


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Sorry, but all I heard was anti-Ti. I actually just repeated a conversation I had with an SEI female. You don't value the surface connections, you value the internal ones, which is why you were shocked about the definition of Ti, not that you cared.


Well, the Ti definition sounded off to me, but I have to think about it more. I'm not quite sure what you mean about repeated conversation. You mean this conversation reminded you of her, or?



> If someone you knew had a house, and you knew the outside portrayed one thing, yet the inside portrayed another, and the person was very lonely, would you match them with someone who had an inside that matched well or who had an inside that matched well? Neither. Because, gosh dangit, I'm democratic, and people simply are "different"... Well... On the inside at least. Who gives a F if they're different on the outside?


I don't know, I'm not used to match-making.



Entropic said:


> Yes, read what I wrote further down. Maybe you didn't see:


Sure, I'm just saying.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Well, the Ti definition sounded off to me, but I have to think about it more. I'm not quite sure what you mean about repeated conversation. You mean this conversation reminded you of her, or?
> 
> I don't know, I'm not used to match-making.


I meant, it was me saying basically what I said to her. Your previous post was negative, when I attempted to please an SEI (as it is negative RIGHT NOW), because I am making face comparisons. My last post was essentially a rejection of such, which you replied more amicably to. The point is, we are all individuals with individual frames of reference, and as such, any system that appears to stuff us in a box are false (boxes are concrete, you liked the sentence until parentheses, and now, stuffing you back in a box, you abhor it).

Every question an answer, and every answer a question. You just asked me how to treat two people as individuals, completely unique, and still make them one. (damn, put you back in that box. aristocratic habits are some bullshit lol)


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> And the comparisons of such are?....


Comparison of what? If we are going to be very literal of what this table suggests, it says that for Ti:

1. static, rational elements 
> objective situation of fields
>* logical relationships between objects:* systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments

The only thing that mentions anything concerning comparison here, is that of quantifiable properties. The sentence is fairly abstract since it does not mention what properties outside that they are quantifiable i.e. they can be measured, but when put together with the rest of the context, we can infer it to suggest for example if I have 3 of X, I can compare this *number* of X i.e. 3, to my 2 of Y, i.e. 2 that I have. We can abtracize this further and say, I am comparing what 2 is vs. 3. We can then for example put this into a logical axiom e.g. 3-2, or 3+2. I mean, really, this is fundamentally pretty elementary maths. It does not at any given point suggest that I am comparing say, how a table looks compared to a chair, which is what you seem to suggest with that it is comparing "concrete, readily visible, details". Where does logic actually enter the picture, here? Or hierarchies? Or systems of rules and categories? How are any of these things "concrete" let alone visible, outside of being able to count the numbers present or missing of a thing?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Comparison of what? If we are going to be very literal of what this table suggests, it says that for Ti:
> 
> 1. static, rational elements
> > objective situation of fields
> >* logical relationships between objects:* systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments
> 
> The only thing that mentions anything concerning comparison here, is that of quantifiable properties. The sentence is fairly abstract since it does not mention what properties outside that they are quantifiable i.e. they can be measured, but when put together with the rest of the context, we can infer it to suggest for example if I have 3 of X, I can compare this *number* of X i.e. 3, to my 2 of Y, i.e. 2 that I have. We can abtracize this further and say, I am comparing what 2 is vs. 3. We can then for example put this into a logical axiom e.g. 3-2, or 3+2. I mean, really, this is fundamentally pretty elementary maths. It does not at any given point suggest that I am comparing say, how a table looks compared to a chair, which is what you seem to suggest with that it is comparing "concrete, readily visible, details". Where does logic actually enter the picture, here? Or hierarchies? Or systems of rules and categories? How are any of these things "concrete" let alone visible, outside of being able to count the numbers present or missing of a thing?


All I heard was "I cherry-picked this table to suit me."


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> All I heard was "I cherry-picked this table to suit me."


Yeah I'm fucking done.
@_Jeremy8419_

You need to fucking STOP, dude. Like, everything. All your activity on this board. Just stop. Honestly, this isn't about the entire Socionics board disliking you or anything. We don't have the right to kick someone out just because we dislike them. I'm asking you to leave because you are seriously making every thread here toxic by attacking/ignoring/hitting on whomsoever you please to.

It's sick. People spend a shitton of time writing these logical posts to you in the hope you will SEE something for a change and engage in productive discussion. I gave up on you, because I'm like hey, you can just continue being a creep, it's no consequence to me. But it's like you're fucking blindfolded to the impact you have on people here. 

You just downright *ignore* all their reasoning and force your typing onto them, because you think your self-typing of EII gives you the right to say whatever you want, as it counts as you "reading their minds". You think you can go ahead and play your shitty social manipulation games, like you have a free pass to be the little social angel of this forum. 

You literally told me to FUCK Abraxas just because he is my dual. I don't even know the guy beyond a few post exchanges, AND I'm in a relationship. You went and talked about all sorts of creepy "housewife" shit to @_To_august_ just because she is a delta ST. Do you think this is a bar? What is wrong with you??? Don't you realize how fucked up that is?

All the creepy innuendo would even have been forgiven and forgotten if you just stopped disrupting discussion so hard IN EVERY THREAD ON THIS BOARD. Literally, this forum has gone to hell, and I hope you're fucking glad about it. Don't give yourself a trophy, though. You're on a discussion forum. You're supposed to _discuss_, not keep blowing your own trumpet and only talking about your own theories. You always refuse to listen to someone else's logic on the sole grounds that they have some intertype relationship to you that you don't need to listen to. You keep ASSUMING so much about people and their types and disrupt entire debates. You only listen to them if you THINK they're some type that EIIs are supposed to listen to. 

If you can't discuss and cooperate with people on this board and their ideas, you are free to leave. Like really, show some fucking respect to everyone here who thinks things through. Respond to them with some actual thought and consideration. And you're just unabashedly going around and typing 90% of the people on this board unsolicited. If people reported you for every instance of unsolicited typing they saw, you would be on a nice long vacation from PerC right now. 

Do you even know what the Socionics board was like before you decided to stop by? People listened to each other, forgave mistakes, had a good time, DIDN'T JUMP AT PEOPLE'S THROATS SO MUCH. There was actual productive discussion going on, and so many interesting thoughts and theories. People built off each other's ideas. I really fucking liked this place, because everyone respected each other. It was perhaps one of the only subforums on PerC that was really chill and productive. People made an EFFORT to learn from each other.

When you came, it went to hell. Like, I hate saying it that way to anyone, but it's the truth. You disrupted everyone's peaceful discussions, assumed a shitton of things about them, insulted them, attempted to manipulate them, and now so many people don't even return to this fucking board because _that's how much you alienated them_. The atmosphere has been so volatile and toxic for so long.

You think all your little games are bringing people together; they've driven so many people away. How are people going to feel motivated to post if you keep poking them like a thorn in the side for so long? They're going to feel so fucking irritated and think, why should I participate in this discussion anyway? And that's how the subforum will die.

I fucking care about this subforum and the people here, which is why I'm telling you to stop. It's not funny, or cool, or acceptable. You need to get in line with everyone, or get out. Do I think you're an awful or repulsive person at heart, Jeremy? I don't, actually, even after saying all this. But you're _doing_ some pretty awful shit right now, and it's gone on for enough.


----------



## The_Wanderer

*claps* @_Night Huntress_, you deserve it for that post.



Night Huntress said:


> Do you even know what the Socionics board was like before you decided to stop by? People listened to each other, forgave mistakes, had a good time, DIDN'T JUMP AT PEOPLE'S THROATS SO MUCH. There was actual productive discussion going on, and so many interesting thoughts and theories. People built off each other's ideas. I really fucking liked this place, because everyone respected each other. It was perhaps one of the only subforums on PerC that was really chill and productive. People made an EFFORT to learn from each other.


Yeah, you're definitely on the mark here. It's been said before, but Jeremy has single-handedly caused the decay and degradation of the PerC Socionics boards. It has severely effected my interest in this board and my willingness to read what's going on, simply because there's so much stupid bullshit that has to be filtered through to find anything useful or interesting. It's made this wanderer start wandering more; there once was a time when I wrote more than two-sentence replies. 



Word Dispenser said:


> Also, @_The_Wanderer_: This would imply that he believes you to also be ILE. :kitteh:


I figured that, what's the opinion of the resident ILE? Can _you_ see it?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah I'm fucking done.
> @_Jeremy8419_
> 
> You need to fucking STOP, dude. Like, everything. All your activity on this board. Just stop. Honestly, this isn't about the entire Socionics board disliking you or anything. We don't have the right to kick someone out just because we dislike them. I'm asking you to leave because you are seriously making every thread here toxic by attacking/ignoring/hitting on whomsoever you please to.
> 
> It's sick. People spend a shitton of time writing these logical posts to you in the hope you will SEE something for a change and engage in productive discussion. I gave up on you, because I'm like hey, you can just continue being a creep, it's no consequence to me. But it's like you're fucking blindfolded to the impact you have on people here.
> 
> You just downright *ignore* all their reasoning and force your typing onto them, because you think your self-typing of EII gives you the right to say whatever you want, as it counts as you "reading their minds". You think you can go ahead and play your shitty social manipulation games, like you have a free pass to be the little social angel of this forum.
> 
> You literally told me to FUCK Abraxas just because he is my dual. I don't even know the guy beyond a few post exchanges, AND I'm in a relationship. You went and talked about all sorts of creepy "housewife" shit to @_To_august_ just because she is a delta ST. Do you think this is a bar? What is wrong with you??? Don't you realize how fucked up that is?
> 
> All the creepy innuendo would even have been forgiven and forgotten if you just stopped disrupting discussion so hard IN EVERY THREAD ON THIS BOARD. Literally, this forum has gone to hell, and I hope you're fucking glad about it. Don't give yourself a trophy, though. You're on a discussion forum. You're supposed to _discuss_, not keep blowing your own trumpet and only talking about your own theories. You always refuse to listen to someone else's logic on the sole grounds that they have some intertype relationship to you that you don't need to listen to. You keep ASSUMING so much about people and their types and disrupt entire debates. You only listen to them if you THINK they're some type that EIIs are supposed to listen to.
> 
> If you can't discuss and cooperate with people on this board and their ideas, you are free to leave. Like really, show some fucking respect to everyone here who thinks things through. Respond to them with some actual thought and consideration. And you're just unabashedly going around and typing 90% of the people on this board unsolicited. If people reported you for every instance of unsolicited typing they saw, you would be on a nice long vacation from PerC right now.
> 
> Do you even know what the Socionics board was like before you decided to stop by? People listened to each other, forgave mistakes, had a good time, DIDN'T JUMP AT PEOPLE'S THROATS SO MUCH. There was actual productive discussion going on, and so many interesting thoughts and theories. People built off each other's ideas. I really fucking liked this place, because everyone respected each other. It was perhaps one of the only subforums on PerC that was really chill and productive. People made an EFFORT to learn from each other.
> 
> When you came, it went to hell. Like, I hate saying it that way to anyone, but it's the truth. You disrupted everyone's peaceful discussions, assumed a shitton of things about them, insulted them, attempted to manipulate them, and now so many people don't even return to this fucking board because _that's how much you alienated them_. The atmosphere has been so volatile and toxic for so long.
> 
> You think all your little games are bringing people together; they've driven so many people away. How are people going to feel motivated to post if you keep poking them like a thorn in the side for so long? They're going to feel so fucking irritated and think, why should I participate in this discussion anyway? And that's how the subforum will die.
> 
> I fucking care about this subforum and the people here, which is why I'm telling you to stop. It's not funny, or cool, or acceptable. You need to get in line with everyone, or get out. Do I think you're an awful or repulsive person at heart, Jeremy? I don't, actually, even after saying all this. But you're _doing_ some pretty awful shit right now, and it's gone on for enough.


Why don't you let moderators moderate things? Who do you think you are? Seriously? 

I think you are toxic and your clique drives people away. I am not going on a paragraph after paragraph rant to explain why either. People are at each other's throats when you and your bf are around, ever notice that?

You "care" about this subforum and the people in it. No, you care about your hold on it. You care about it going your way. 

I know posters who won't come in here because you and him. Not Jeremy. They don't even want you mentioned in fear that you may appear in other parts of the forum. Want nothing to do with you. I am not petty enough to summon them to try to prove my point either.


----------



## The_Wanderer

People are _really_ intimidated by @_Entropic_ and @_Night Huntress_? I can't recall anything that they've done that is as stupid and annoying as the inane double posts, typism and crude (but more importantly, unfunny) innuendos of Jeremy.

He's kind of like you @FearAndTrembling, turned up to eleven on the inane scale, but lacking the occasional tidbits of wisdom and information that can make you endearing.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why don't you let moderators moderate things? Who do you think you are? Seriously?





FearAndTrembling said:


> I intervened. I will intervene until you shape up. As long as you act like you do, I hope Abraxas keep its up. He balances you. You deserve it.


Consistency isn't your forte, sweetheart?



> I think you are toxic and your clique drives people away. I am not going on a paragraph after paragraph rant to explain why either. People are at each other's throats when you and your bf are around, ever notice that?
> 
> You "care" about this subforum and the people in it. No, you care about your hold on it. You care about it going your way.
> 
> I know posters who won't come in here because you and him. Not Jeremy. They don't even want you mentioned in fear that you may appear in other parts of the forum. Want nothing to do with you. I am not petty enough to summon them to try to prove my point either.


Why do you feel so threatened by everything all the time? It's boring. You're more interesting when you're not jumping at every next sound. Neeeeeeeeext.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> I didn't answer cuz it seemed like he was baiting me into a Report Violation haha


Just noticed this. It was never an intention to do that bullshit, I am _genuinely __very curious_ as to your reasoning and am also interested in the opinions of others regarding the possibility of me being an ILE (especially Alphas). Arguments, when well-reasoned and not personal attacks, shouldn't be discarded simply because of disagreement.

I am not going to report anybody for anything, I don't actually think calling people out on mistypes should be an offense, but if you're paranoid about me "baiting you into a Report Violation", you could always PM me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah I'm fucking done.
> @_Jeremy8419_
> 
> You need to fucking STOP, dude. Like, everything. All your activity on this board. Just stop. Honestly, this isn't about the entire Socionics board disliking you or anything. We don't have the right to kick someone out just because we dislike them. I'm asking you to leave because you are seriously making every thread here toxic by attacking/ignoring/hitting on whomsoever you please to.
> 
> It's sick. People spend a shitton of time writing these logical posts to you in the hope you will SEE something for a change and engage in productive discussion. I gave up on you, because I'm like hey, you can just continue being a creep, it's no consequence to me. But it's like you're fucking blindfolded to the impact you have on people here.
> 
> You just downright *ignore* all their reasoning and force your typing onto them, because you think your self-typing of EII gives you the right to say whatever you want, as it counts as you "reading their minds". You think you can go ahead and play your shitty social manipulation games, like you have a free pass to be the little social angel of this forum.
> 
> You literally told me to FUCK Abraxas just because he is my dual. I don't even know the guy beyond a few post exchanges, AND I'm in a relationship. You went and talked about all sorts of creepy "housewife" shit to @_To_august_ just because she is a delta ST. Do you think this is a bar? What is wrong with you??? Don't you realize how fucked up that is?
> 
> All the creepy innuendo would even have been forgiven and forgotten if you just stopped disrupting discussion so hard IN EVERY THREAD ON THIS BOARD. Literally, this forum has gone to hell, and I hope you're fucking glad about it. Don't give yourself a trophy, though. You're on a discussion forum. You're supposed to _discuss_, not keep blowing your own trumpet and only talking about your own theories. You always refuse to listen to someone else's logic on the sole grounds that they have some intertype relationship to you that you don't need to listen to. You keep ASSUMING so much about people and their types and disrupt entire debates. You only listen to them if you THINK they're some type that EIIs are supposed to listen to.
> 
> If you can't discuss and cooperate with people on this board and their ideas, you are free to leave. Like really, show some fucking respect to everyone here who thinks things through. Respond to them with some actual thought and consideration. And you're just unabashedly going around and typing 90% of the people on this board unsolicited. If people reported you for every instance of unsolicited typing they saw, you would be on a nice long vacation from PerC right now.
> 
> Do you even know what the Socionics board was like before you decided to stop by? People listened to each other, forgave mistakes, had a good time, DIDN'T JUMP AT PEOPLE'S THROATS SO MUCH. There was actual productive discussion going on, and so many interesting thoughts and theories. People built off each other's ideas. I really fucking liked this place, because everyone respected each other. It was perhaps one of the only subforums on PerC that was really chill and productive. People made an EFFORT to learn from each other.
> 
> When you came, it went to hell. Like, I hate saying it that way to anyone, but it's the truth. You disrupted everyone's peaceful discussions, assumed a shitton of things about them, insulted them, attempted to manipulate them, and now so many people don't even return to this fucking board because _that's how much you alienated them_. The atmosphere has been so volatile and toxic for so long.
> 
> You think all your little games are bringing people together; they've driven so many people away. How are people going to feel motivated to post if you keep poking them like a thorn in the side for so long? They're going to feel so fucking irritated and think, why should I participate in this discussion anyway? And that's how the subforum will die.
> 
> I fucking care about this subforum and the people here, which is why I'm telling you to stop. It's not funny, or cool, or acceptable. You need to get in line with everyone, or get out. Do I think you're an awful or repulsive person at heart, Jeremy? I don't, actually, even after saying all this. But you're _doing_ some pretty awful shit right now, and it's gone on for enough.


Uhhhh, the housewife stuff wasn't a pickup attempt at August. Did you forget that I said I thought she wasn't delta ST? That was simply me talking. Not sure why you consider it a pickup attempt. This is the internet. I don't go around trying to have e-relationships.

You are aware that for all the "our group was getting along so well," there is another group that is in opposition which is not having a good time right?


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Just noticed this. It was never an intention to do that bullshit, I am _genuinely __very curious_ as to your reasoning and am also interested in the opinions of others regarding the possibility of me being an ILE (especially Alphas). Arguments, when well-reasoned and not personal attacks, shouldn't be discarded simply because of disagreement.
> 
> I am not going to report anybody for anything, I don't actually think calling people out on mistypes should be an offense, but if you're paranoid about me "baiting you into a Report Violation", you could always PM me.


You do realize that I don't even "believe in typology" right?


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why don't you let moderators moderate things? Who do you think you are? Seriously?
> 
> I think you are toxic and your clique drives people away. I am not going on a paragraph after paragraph rant to explain why either. People are at each other's throats when you and your bf are around, ever notice that?
> 
> You "care" about this subforum and the people in it. No, you care about your hold on it. You care about it going your way.
> 
> I know posters who won't come in here because you and him. Not Jeremy. They don't even want you mentioned in fear that you may appear in other parts of the forum. Want nothing to do with you. I am not petty enough to summon them to try to prove my point either.


Well, not really a reply at the stuff regarding specifically Night Huntress, but...

Yeah. They say "quit being an a-hole and be nice!" but from where I sit (and probably yourself) it really sounds more like "we can be a-holes as long as it is in a way that we are okay with." And the "care about others and how they feel" really just sounds like "F everyone else's feelings, only our feelings and our prerogatives matter." Maybe with enough counter "normalizing" behavior, "society" will be reintroduced to Socionics forum, and "the big picture" can allow the intended targets to find their place back in real society. I know some people may consider sitting on internet forums to be "good" and "a cure," but to others it will be exactly the opposite. Seems to me like the ones who most need to get off of here for their own well-being irl are being trapped here by people trying to shove "the cure" down their throats while really just poisoning them. Oh well, I'm not God, and I inherently can't help everyone, but re-introducing to society may let them get what they need. Socionics forum is like the fracture from the failure to find what you need in society, after the fracture to bring you to forums, after the fracture to bring you to typology, after the fracture to bring you online. Sure, for some, it really is their cure, as it is their personal way of best existing, but, hey, if we have the fortitude to be able to reach all the way down here and pull up those on the opposite best way of existing, kinda our responsibility to do so, right?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Yaaayyy, people like me. :kitteh:


Well of course people like you, you goofball lol. Some people show they like you by stuff such as "likes," kitty faces, laughs, hugs, etc., and some people show it in completely different ways that may seem to contradict the others I just mentioned. People just tend to view things through different shades of glasses, and often get caught up in arguing over what color something is, even though they will obviously be different due to the colors of the shades. Take for instance the arguments perpetuating themselves in this thread. Isn't "logic" just another object? Aren't we really just spinning our wheels arguing over the color of it? Why's the color even matter in the first place? Well, to me, it really doesn't matter at all, but then again, isn't "color" just another color in itself? Some people like getting into logical explanations of such. Didn't I say the color doesn't matter to me just a second ago? Well, it doesn't, so why do it? Because _I know it matters to some_, and *because I like you*. If you ever get too caught up on "like" or "friends," just take a step back, and realize that those words are just another color with someone trying to tell you that your shades are wrong, and at the end of the day... You're still standing right next to that person, and if they didn't actually like you, they'd just walk away and stand next to someone else... But, that last sentence was also _my_ color. People like you probably a lot more than you realize, just gotta take a step back, take off your shades, look at them, then put them back on and go back about your happy ways. We're all just people, doing the same things, in the same ways. We're all simply different, and that is perfectly okay. People love people regardless of what glasses they are wearing or if they are wearing any at all.

I apologize for it taking so long to get this to you. I believe (to offer you Ti) the Socionics reasons for the delay would be best explained by the lack of a strong LSI on this forums, my weakness (super-ego) at emulating such, and attempting to manage the stress of such, so that the supervision ring could be complete and I could get the appropriate information to you. This paragraph makes my brain hurt, also give me the slight shakies haha. You may or may not ever get "likes" from me, but hopefully you are able to accept my sincere gift of Fi (no, it's not inherently a bat meant to whack you) to you. Oh.... and this kitteh face :kitteh: /hugs

P.s. The kitty face reminded me of this. It's a good look at my type. It's actually a portly panda and not a kitty, though haha
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Addv2ALwPvE


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Consistency isn't your forte, sweetheart?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel so threatened by everything all the time? It's boring. You're more interesting when you're not jumping at every next sound. Neeeeeeeeext.


What is boring you is going after every person on here like a mother hen. The last time I ran into you, a few days ago, what was it about? You going on a diatribe against a person --a different person than last time -- who was doing what? Surprise Surprise, arguing with Entropic. 

I think you drive people away from this forum and make it hostile. You say Jeremy does, I say you do. I think you poison the environment more than him.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I do feel like a mark getting pulled back into this.

Jeremy is like this mouse running through the walls and floorboards. Agitating people. Night Huntress and her buddies are cats trying to take swipes at him. Can never quite get him though. Tom and Jerry like stuff. Then I show up and am like, "The problem with this house is not mice, it is the fucking cats!" 

Here is a message for both sides:

[video=dailymotion;x2n14bs]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n14bs[/video]

*Müller*: What was that story you were going to tell me?
*Heydrich*: Story?
*Müller*: Kritzinger.
*Heydrich*: Oh yes, he told me a story about a man he had known all his life, a boyhood friend. This man hated his father. Loved his mother fiercely. His mother was devoted to him, but his father used to beat him, demeaned him, disenherited him. Anyway, this friend grew to manhood and was still in his thirties when the mother died. The mother, who had nurtured and protected him, died. The man stood at her grave as they lowered the coffin, and tried to cry, but no tears came. The man's father lived to a very extended old age, and withered away and died when the son was in his fifties. At the father's funeral, much to the son's surprise, he could not control his tears. Wailing, sobbing... he was apparently inconsolable. Lost. That was the story Kritzinger told me.
*Eichmann*: I don't think I understand.
*Heydrich*: No? The man had been driven his whole life by hatred of his father. When his mother died, that was a loss, but when his father died and hate had lost its object, the man's life was empty..over.
*Müller*: _[pause]_ Interesting.
*Heydrich*: That was Kritzinger's warning.
*Eichmann*: What, that we should not hate the Israelites?
*Heydrich*: No, but that it should not fill our lives so much that, when they are gone, we have nothing left to live for. So says the story. I will not miss them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah I'm fucking done.
> @_Jeremy8419_
> 
> You need to fucking STOP, dude. Like, everything. All your activity on this board. Just stop. Honestly, this isn't about the entire Socionics board disliking you or anything. We don't have the right to kick someone out just because we dislike them. I'm asking you to leave because you are seriously making every thread here toxic by attacking/ignoring/hitting on whomsoever you please to.
> 
> It's sick. People spend a shitton of time writing these logical posts to you in the hope you will SEE something for a change and engage in productive discussion. I gave up on you, because I'm like hey, you can just continue being a creep, it's no consequence to me. But it's like you're fucking blindfolded to the impact you have on people here.
> 
> You just downright *ignore* all their reasoning and force your typing onto them, because you think your self-typing of EII gives you the right to say whatever you want, as it counts as you "reading their minds". You think you can go ahead and play your shitty social manipulation games, like you have a free pass to be the little social angel of this forum.
> 
> You literally told me to FUCK Abraxas just because he is my dual. I don't even know the guy beyond a few post exchanges, AND I'm in a relationship. You went and talked about all sorts of creepy "housewife" shit to @_To_august_ just because she is a delta ST. Do you think this is a bar? What is wrong with you??? Don't you realize how fucked up that is?
> 
> All the creepy innuendo would even have been forgiven and forgotten if you just stopped disrupting discussion so hard IN EVERY THREAD ON THIS BOARD. Literally, this forum has gone to hell, and I hope you're fucking glad about it. Don't give yourself a trophy, though. You're on a discussion forum. You're supposed to _discuss_, not keep blowing your own trumpet and only talking about your own theories. You always refuse to listen to someone else's logic on the sole grounds that they have some intertype relationship to you that you don't need to listen to. You keep ASSUMING so much about people and their types and disrupt entire debates. You only listen to them if you THINK they're some type that EIIs are supposed to listen to.
> 
> If you can't discuss and cooperate with people on this board and their ideas, you are free to leave. Like really, show some fucking respect to everyone here who thinks things through. Respond to them with some actual thought and consideration. And you're just unabashedly going around and typing 90% of the people on this board unsolicited. If people reported you for every instance of unsolicited typing they saw, you would be on a nice long vacation from PerC right now.
> 
> Do you even know what the Socionics board was like before you decided to stop by? People listened to each other, forgave mistakes, had a good time, DIDN'T JUMP AT PEOPLE'S THROATS SO MUCH. There was actual productive discussion going on, and so many interesting thoughts and theories. People built off each other's ideas. I really fucking liked this place, because everyone respected each other. It was perhaps one of the only subforums on PerC that was really chill and productive. People made an EFFORT to learn from each other.
> 
> When you came, it went to hell. Like, I hate saying it that way to anyone, but it's the truth. You disrupted everyone's peaceful discussions, assumed a shitton of things about them, insulted them, attempted to manipulate them, and now so many people don't even return to this fucking board because _that's how much you alienated them_. The atmosphere has been so volatile and toxic for so long.
> 
> You think all your little games are bringing people together; they've driven so many people away. How are people going to feel motivated to post if you keep poking them like a thorn in the side for so long? They're going to feel so fucking irritated and think, why should I participate in this discussion anyway? And that's how the subforum will die.
> 
> I fucking care about this subforum and the people here, which is why I'm telling you to stop. It's not funny, or cool, or acceptable. You need to get in line with everyone, or get out. Do I think you're an awful or repulsive person at heart, Jeremy? I don't, actually, even after saying all this. But you're _doing_ some pretty awful shit right now, and it's gone on for enough.


You don't ever have to clarify to me that you're not attacking me. I understand. You're concerned for your friends but also for myself as well. I hear your worries, and I understand. The opposing views and clashes are the manifestations of "different strokes for different folks," because we are all individuals. I have no personal issues with your friends, none. They are simply walking in a general opposite direction than me in life, and we are merely passing by. I know that at times it may seem like I am trying to rope them together and drag them as a group in my direction, but I am really not. At first, it may seem like I am worried for them, as you for I and them, and stubbornly trying to make them come my way, but such is not the case. Why? Because I know they are worried about me as well, however, my "worry" is completely opposite to their "worry." Why? Because we each have our own goals and visions of happiness in life. They are going to paradise, but their "paradise" is what I consider "hell" and vice-versa, which both are completely acceptable. Because people and the human heart are inherently good by nature, we naturally try and take people to paradise, without realizing that people are simply different. So, they are going to "individual" "paradise" and are "worried" about me going to "hell." But, what they see as such, I see as them going to "group" "hell" and are "attacking" me to keep me from "paradise." And vice-versa. Both are fine, and both are perfectly acceptable, because they are individuals each with their own inherently good hearts. I am not here to stop such. I am simply here, looking around, peering into people's hearts and minds, to see what it is they individually truly want. The clashes are simply me, seeing people whose individual paradise is in a different direction than others', seeing others being worried for those walking in an opposing direction and telling them that paradise is the other way, and me stepping in, taking the individual by the hand, and explaining to them that "paradise" is just a word, that others are using it to describe something completely different than the individual was thinking, and telling the that I have seen the individual's "paradise" and that it is "over there" /points, and that I don't mind walking with them for a while, but that, as a guide, I eventually must go guide others as well. Why? Because, "I have seen the truth; I have seen and I know that people can be beautiful and happy," and because guiding people to their paradise is _my_ individual paradise.

Entropic and company are perfectly fine and I have no issues in the slightest with them. 

If someone doesn't care for me, then they most likely aren't the one that I am currently walking with. I have no problems with such, because I am aware that the feelings expressed are really nothing more than worry for the direction the person I am walking with is going, and simply don't understand that the person I am walking with is their own, unique, and beautiful person who must walk his own direction, his own path in life. It doesn't bother me when people seem to attack, because attacking is just a part of their own path, their own self, and I love that one too.

Don't ever think that you have to clarify that you aren't attacking me or apologize. I can assure you that you do not. Your friendship and concern for both myself and others is already a debt that I can never possibly hope to repay.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I do feel like a mark getting pulled back into this.
> 
> Jeremy is like this mouse running through the walls and floorboards. Agitating people. Night Huntress and her buddies are cats trying to take swipes at him. Can never quite get him though. Tom and Jerry like stuff. Then I show up and am like, "The problem with this house is not mice, it is the fucking cats!"
> 
> Here is a message for both sides:
> 
> [video=dailymotion;x2n14bs]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n14bs[/video]
> 
> *Müller*: What was that story you were going to tell me?*Heydrich*: Story?*Müller*: Kritzinger.*Heydrich*: Oh yes, he told me a story about a man he had known all his life, a boyhood friend. This man hated his father. Loved his mother fiercely. His mother was devoted to him, but his father used to beat him, demeaned him, disenherited him. Anyway, this friend grew to manhood and was still in his thirties when the mother died. The mother, who had nurtured and protected him, died. The man stood at her grave as they lowered the coffin, and tried to cry, but no tears came. The man's father lived to a very extended old age, and withered away and died when the son was in his fifties. At the father's funeral, much to the son's surprise, he could not control his tears. Wailing, sobbing... he was apparently inconsolable. Lost. That was the story Kritzinger told me.*Eichmann*: I don't think I understand.*Heydrich*: No? The man had been driven his whole life by hatred of his father. When his mother died, that was a loss, but when his father died and hate had lost its object, the man's life was empty..over.*Müller*: _[pause]_ Interesting.*Heydrich*: That was Kritzinger's warning.*Eichmann*: What, that we should not hate the Israelites?*Heydrich*: No, but that it should not fill our lives so much that, when they are gone, we have nothing left to live for. So says the story. I will not miss them.


Well, cats get hungry lol. Just kinda on opposing ends of "ability to live." Lol.

People ask why I am skinny sometimes lol. They rarely see eye-to-eye with me that I hate eating, because something else must die for me to live. Sometimes they do, but usually only to the degree of them saying "be vegan." But meat vs no meat just goes back to the cat and mouse too lol. Hell, if I was some kinda weird walking plant, I'd probably go sit on the concrete in the shade so I'm not drinking up all the water and taking the pretty sunlight lol.

Well, you don't have to feel pulled back in, lol. I'm perfectly fine and dandy. May be more effort than I would like to spend, but I am trying to help others, not myself. The various views and feelings expressed are just indicators of who my attempts to help are currently directed at.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> What is boring you is going after every person on here like a mother hen. The last time I ran into you, a few days ago, what was it about? You going on a diatribe against a person --a different person than last time -- who was doing what? Surprise Surprise, arguing with Entropic.
> 
> I think you drive people away from this forum and make it hostile. You say Jeremy does, I say you do. I think you poison the environment more than him.


One person's poison is another man's cure.

Entropic wants to endlessly recede into what we consider the shadows, as, to him, we appear to be doing. Bringing him "back to society" would be a terrible, and intrinsically wrong, endeavor.

She loves him, and so she is assisting him in his path that is intrinsically opposing ours. No harm, no foul. Amiright?


----------



## Verity

@Jeremy8419 @FearAndTrembling
Could you give some clear examples of them being hostile without reason? I dislike colouring my perspective too much, but I don't recall any instances of that happening from the time that I've spent here.

As for Jeremy, I'd like to tell the jury that I am fascinated by you, simply for going against the grain while putting some thought behind it. From our brief interaction I got decent vibe from you, but looking at your interactions with other people, you really do need to do something about your haughtiness, in my opinion. Replying to valid arguments by saying things like "you're cherrypicking lol" is intellectually dishonest. And it's not only against "the ILIs", but against anyone who questions your way of reading Socionics, or your behaviour in general.
Put your _literal_ Messiah Complex away for a second, and look at what you are actually doing and question if it's even pertinent to your supposed goal.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well of course people like you, you goofball lol. Some people show they like you by stuff such as "likes," kitty faces, laughs, hugs, etc., and some people show it in completely different ways that may seem to contradict the others I just mentioned. People just tend to view things through different shades of glasses, and often get caught up in arguing over what color something is, even though they will obviously be different due to the colors of the shades. Take for instance the arguments perpetuating themselves in this thread. Isn't "logic" just another object? Aren't we really just spinning our wheels arguing over the color of it? Why's the color even matter in the first place? Well, to me, it really doesn't matter at all, but then again, isn't "color" just another color in itself? Some people like getting into logical explanations of such. Didn't I say the color doesn't matter to me just a second ago? Well, it doesn't, so why do it? Because _I know it matters to some_, and *because I like you*. If you ever get too caught up on "like" or "friends," just take a step back, and realize that those words are just another color with someone trying to tell you that your shades are wrong, and at the end of the day... You're still standing right next to that person, and if they didn't actually like you, they'd just walk away and stand next to someone else... But, that last sentence was also _my_ color. People like you probably a lot more than you realize, just gotta take a step back, take off your shades, look at them, then put them back on and go back about your happy ways. We're all just people, doing the same things, in the same ways. We're all simply different, and that is perfectly okay. People love people regardless of what glasses they are wearing or if they are wearing any at all.
> 
> I apologize for it taking so long to get this to you. I believe (to offer you Ti) the Socionics reasons for the delay would be best explained by the lack of a strong LSI on this forums, my weakness (super-ego) at emulating such, and attempting to manage the stress of such, so that the supervision ring could be complete and I could get the appropriate information to you. This paragraph makes my brain hurt, also give me the slight shakies haha. You may or may not ever get "likes" from me, but hopefully you are able to accept my sincere gift of Fi (no, it's not inherently a bat meant to whack you) to you. Oh.... and this kitteh face :kitteh: /hugs
> 
> P.s. The kitty face reminded me of this. It's a good look at my type. It's actually a portly panda and not a kitty, though haha
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Addv2ALwPvE


Oh dear. You sound _just _like my mom.

Although, she's an ESI, and a bit more nutty, believe it or not.


----------



## Word Dispenser

The_Wanderer said:


> I figured that, what's the opinion of the resident ILE? Can _you_ see it?


Oh, cool. I get to be the example of ILE to which all ILEs refer? :kitteh:

Can I see it? Hm. Well, I don't know. People seem to expect that type is an obvious affair. Like it's as clear as red = colour. But, it's not. At least not to me. The issue with me is that I _could _see a _lot _of possibilities. But, I haven't really taken the time to actually try to read you, as an individual.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> @Jeremy8419 @FearAndTrembling
> Could you give some clear examples of them being hostile without reason? I dislike colouring my perspective too much, but I don't recall any instances of that happening from the time that I've spent here.
> 
> As for Jeremy, I'd like to tell the jury that I am fascinated by you, simply for going against the grain while putting some thought behind it. From our brief interaction I got decent vibe from you, but looking at your interactions with other people, you really do need to do something about your haughtiness, in my opinion. Replying to valid arguments by saying things like "you're cherrypicking lol" is intellectually dishonest. And it's not only against "the ILIs", but against anyone who questions your way of reading Socionics, or your behaviour in general.
> Put your _literal_ Messiah Complex away for a second, and look at what you are actually doing and question if it's even pertinent to your supposed goal.


The "hostile" would be Ti- in socionics. I quote it, because I don't really consider anything to be hostile, rather just an opposing viewpoint.

Is that a literal messiah complex? From my POV, it's me just being my regular human self, no different than everyone else being their own human self. "Messiah complex" as a term seems like something used to describe someone who is walking at 180 degrees to the other.

Well, it's not my cup of tea, but, I suppose I could describe it as such... Someone asked, in way opposing manys definition of "ask," for help. If I do not have the means to do so, then I will put in the effort "stress" to attempt to find such. In the general population, this occurs organically, as all walks and talks of people are present, and I sit there, like this :| and watch and wait, and when someone eventually asks for help, because they do not have the means, then again I put in the effort to assisting them in finding what they seek. Sometimes it's one thing, sometimes its another. Sometimes I put on shades. Sometimes I walk barefoot. Does it strike you as odd that we are all doing the same? Eventually, they say, you don't have to wear the shades anymore, or you may put your shoes back on, and in doing so, I see my own reflection, and they...theirs, and so... Love.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> You do realize that I don't even "believe in typology" right?


Explains why you're on a forum centred around typology then, but it also sounds like a lazy way of not backing up what you say. Either way, if you spend some time on reddit, I'm sure you'll find something that you believe in that is interesting to talk about. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Oh dear. You sound _just _like my mom.
> 
> Although, she's an ESI, and a bit more nutty, believe it or not.


Ah. Do you speak to her regularly?


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Explains why you're on a forum centred around typology then, but it also sounds like a lazy way of not backing up what you say. Either way, if you spend some time on reddit, I'm sure you'll find something that you believe in that is interesting to talk about. :kitteh:


You don't necessarily need a topic to talk to people lol. Most discussions on this subforum aren't even about typology lol


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think for several months now lol. A few of them said in the past that they don't really grasp the "role" function, which seems slightly odd to be running around typing people without understanding the different between your ego and the facade we maintain in public lol


This is interesting. @FearAndTrembling told me the same thing. He was being typed as an LSI as well. Bizarre. I don't really know enough to say I'd disagree or not, but... Hm. Well, it doesn't appear to fit, to me, at least. For either of you. It's possible, of course, but Ne-PoLR just seems... Completely unlikely. Especially for Fear. He utilizes Ne to a _possibly_ unusual degree for an IEI, but there's no question of his Te-PoLR. 

This is the kind of thing I've been talking about-- You put an IEI and an EII next to each other, and you are going to see some similarities in cognition, certainly. It's clear that you value Te, even if you're derpy at it, and he doesn't value it, is derpy at it, and doesn't really care, cognitively. This is why, even if you can ramble, you don't ramble nearly as much as he has a tendency to.

I'm still trying to see how you're Se-PoLR though. It's not something that could be seen easily online, but you don't appear to have that quality. Possibly because EII-Ne. But, what do you think?



> The two questions weren't me assuming that you think I am LSI, but rather, given both questions and the facts presented to you by what you have seen on these forums, what case would you make for each argument?


I don't remember what the arguments were, and I'm too lazy to go back and check. 



> Basically, yes, but not quite in that way. You're describing comparisons of peoples internal states, their Fi, and that they may be in confliction. It's true, they are in confliction. But the question still remains, confliction for what? Confliction for me? Or confliction because I am aware of the confliction of others?


Hmm.. Well, they appear to think negatively of you, and your opinions, and seem to want to argue whatever you're saying. People are defensive not because you are attacking them and hitting something home, but because they see you as a troll. 

Even if you may be saying something which could be true, it doesn't matter, because they won't read it and keep an open mind about it, because there is a large consensus of people who are against you, and they're concerned about fitting in. And the excuse, the cop out, is that you're crying wolf.

The real issue, I think, is that a lot of people generally hang off of the individual/subjective opinions from others, and don't really come up with their own point of view or theories, too afraid to conflict or cause relation issues, or something. Quite a lot of people here are afraid of being shot down and hurt. It's quite a pecking order, I think. There are tentative approaches, but nothing that directly conflicts with anyone else.



> That would be related to my social role. My primary function and actual goal is quite different than such.
> 
> Back to my earlier thing about looking at intertype relationships... What you essentially have here are two sets of people attempting to determine if a planet is Saturn. One group looks at the planet, dissects it, turns it around and around, and endlessly analyzes it. One group looks around at the solar system it is in, sees it's moons, watches to see if it has the right orbit. This is Ti vs Fi. Translating over into Socionics... You have this argument, but only one group values consensus (delta quadras function of finalizing) and the other does not. The latter doesn't want consensus. The latter wants simply their way or the highway. The former attempts to speak about the planet's properties, but ultimately, at some point, knows it must bring up the solar system and heavenly movements. Stillllll doesn't matter to Ti. The Ti, in the end, will find themselves doing something they really don't want to do... Be stuck on the same, boring, tired argument forever.


I think that you could be missing the entire point. You may think that this is what is happening, but I don't see this. In fact, what I see is that you are being drowned out, and no true interaction is allowed to happen. There is no true capability of analyzing interaction between Ti vs. Fi, because you are being deflected so often, and/or ignored. 

People are even saying that you've diminished the quality of the Socionics forums, which is rather unfair, I think.

I think that you appear confident/arrogant and even rather surly with your knowledge of Socionics, which makes you seem unapproachable, and appear unwilling to be open to other's viewpoints.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah. Do you speak to her regularly?


I have no issues with her online. It's when we're together in the real world that things simply don't work.

Ever since I was a teenager, we've not been able to get along. When I was quite young, though, I saw her as wise, and knowledgeable, etc.

Luckily, usually if I'm with her, my dual SEI sister is also with me, and she protects me from evil conflict relations. :kitteh: 

Although, then my mom thinks we're both against her and then DRAMA.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Word Dispenser said:


> This is interesting. @_FearAndTrembling_ told me the same thing. He was being typed as an LSI as well. Bizarre. I don't really know enough to say I'd disagree or not, but... Hm. Well, it doesn't appear to fit, to me, at least. For either of you. It's possible, of course, but Ne-PoLR just seems... Completely unlikely. Especially for Fear. He utilizes Ne to a _possibly_ unusual degree for an IEI, but there's no question of his Te-PoLR.
> 
> This is the kind of thing I've been talking about-- You put an IEI and an EII next to each other, and you are going to see some similarities in cognition, certainly. It's clear that you value Te, even if you're derpy at it, and he doesn't value it, is derpy at it, and doesn't really care, cognitively. This is why, even if you can ramble, you don't ramble nearly as much as he has a tendency to.
> 
> I'm still trying to see how you're Se-PoLR though. It's not something that could be seen easily online, but you don't appear to have that quality. Possibly because EII-Ne. But, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember what the arguments were, and I'm too lazy to go back and check.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. Well, they appear to think negatively of you, and your opinions, and seem to want to argue whatever you're saying. People are defensive not because you are attacking them and hitting something home, but because they see you as a troll.
> 
> Even if you may be saying something which could be true, it doesn't matter, because they won't read it and keep an open mind about it, because there is a large consensus of people who are against you, and they're concerned about fitting in. And the excuse, the cop out, is that you're crying wolf.
> 
> The real issue, I think, is that a lot of people generally hang off of the individual/subjective opinions from others, and don't really come up with their own point of view or theories, too afraid to conflict or cause relation issues, or something. Quite a lot of people here are afraid of being shot down and hurt. It's quite a pecking order, I think. There are tentative approaches, but nothing that directly conflicts with anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you could be missing the entire point. You may think that this is what is happening, but I don't see this. In fact, what I see is that you are being drowned out, and no true interaction is allowed to happen. There is no true capability of analyzing interaction between Ti vs. Fi, because you are being deflected so often, and/or ignored.
> 
> People are even saying that you've diminished the quality of the Socionics forums, which is rather unfair, I think.
> 
> I think that you appear confident/arrogant and even rather surly with your knowledge of Socionics, which makes you seem unapproachable, and appear unwilling to be open to other's viewpoints.


I saw that Te polr dislikes "didacticism". There are a few ways of looking at that word. One is institutional or textbook knowledge. Another is "preachiness". Messages tied in facts. I hate both. lol. 

I was thinking Bruce Lee is a good example of that. Despising any "school" or institution of thought. Totally against it. Will use knowledge from many of these schools but will never represent them or be a member of them. I am an autodidact in case you couldn't tell. It pisses a lot of people off too. lol.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Your fascination with Bruce Lee borders on the unnatural. :laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Ah. Very good job. This reply displays excellent abilities of the matter at hand.



Word Dispenser said:


> This is interesting. @FearAndTrembling told me the same thing. He was being typed as an LSI as well. Bizarre. I don't really know enough to say I'd disagree or not, but... Hm. Well, it doesn't appear to fit, to me, at least. For either of you. It's possible, of course, but Ne-PoLR just seems... Completely unlikely. Especially for Fear. He utilizes Ne to a _possibly_ unusual degree for an IEI, but there's no question of his Te-PoLR.
> 
> This is the kind of thing I've been talking about-- You put an IEI and an EII next to each other, and you are going to see some similarities in cognition, certainly. It's clear that you value Te, even if you're derpy at it, and he doesn't value it, is derpy at it, and doesn't really care, cognitively. This is why, even if you can ramble, you don't ramble nearly as much as he has a tendency to.
> 
> I'm still trying to see how you're Se-PoLR though. It's not something that could be seen easily online, but you don't appear to have that quality. Possibly because EII-Ne. But, what do you think?


My PoLR is Se-. Se- supposedly is the "attack" Se. People attacking me left and right and seemingly no care? If I am indeed very strongly Fi'ing, wouldn't the attacks against me keep going up and up and up? At what point would it lead to my loss of everything? Oh well lol. Heck, even when I myself attack, there's seemingly no ability at it's control, like I'm Se-tarded and take a sledgehammer to crack an egg, and I certainly don't sit awake at night thinking about breaking eggs.



> I don't remember what the arguments were, and I'm too lazy to go back and check.
> 
> Hmm.. Well, they appear to think negatively of you, and your opinions, and seem to want to argue whatever you're saying. People are defensive not because you are attacking them and hitting something home, but because they see you as a troll.
> 
> Even if you may be saying something which could be true, it doesn't matter, because they won't read it and keep an open mind about it, because there is a large consensus of people who are against you, and they're concerned about fitting in. And the excuse, the cop out, is that you're crying wolf.
> 
> The real issue, I think, is that a lot of people generally hang off of the individual/subjective opinions from others, and don't really come up with their own point of view or theories, too afraid to conflict or cause relation issues, or something. Quite a lot of people here are afraid of being shot down and hurt. It's quite a pecking order, I think. There are tentative approaches, but nothing that directly conflicts with anyone else.
> 
> I think that you could be missing the entire point. You may think that this is what is happening, but I don't see this. In fact, what I see is that you are being drowned out, and no true interaction is allowed to happen. There is no true capability of analyzing interaction between Ti vs. Fi, because you are being deflected so often, and/or ignored.


Yup to all. Neither is interested in the other's POV, because their POV places theirs as "best." Hell, they may not even be in the same universe, and are talking about completely different planets lol.



> People are even saying that you've diminished the quality of the Socionics forums, which is rather unfair, I think.
> 
> I think that you appear confident/arrogant and even rather surly with your knowledge of Socionics, which makes you seem unapproachable, and appear unwilling to be open to other's viewpoints.


Well, you can't wear yellow and red lenses at the same time to please two different people, because then you'd end up pleasing the guy with orange lenses sitting over in the corner lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I think that Te polr is actually defined right. Jung defined Te as the "tireless crusader" type. The type who must lay down the "world law". Give a voice to it. It seems on its surface that a Fe type would be the tireless crusader type and believe in "world laws". 

I also saw somebody mention that it isn't Te that Fe polr necessarily has a problem with. It is the subjective Fi judgement tied to it that acts as its rudder. Te polr feels oppressed by its subjective value judgement. Sam Harris's position on ethics is a good example of this Te-Fi combo.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> I have no issues with her online. It's when we're together in the real world that things simply don't work.
> 
> Ever since I was a teenager, we've not been able to get along. When I was quite young, though, I saw her as wise, and knowledgeable, etc.
> 
> Luckily, usually if I'm with her, my dual SEI sister is also with me, and she protects me from evil conflict relations. :kitteh:
> 
> Although, then my mom thinks we're both against her and then DRAMA.


Well, socionics really does point out and explain the schisms between people based on Jungs stuff. It's really just drawing a line down a group of people and then explaining the differences between them. Come to think of it, if your understanding of socionics was like the people on here in opposition to me and my current understanding of socionics is as it is now, then wouldn't your mom be your conflictor in yours and your dual in mine? Surely both your mother and your sister love you, even if the POV's are different? If I am EII, and Fi is my base, and I am currently operating in my ego, why would my "closing psychological distance" place my earlier post as being just like your mom? If this entire forum in the grand design of all things existed to have me talk to you, and I sound like your mother, what exactly is the point of all of that?


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think that Te polr is actually defined right. Jung defined Te as the "tireless crusader" type. The type who must lay down the "world law". Give a voice to it. It seems on its surface that a Fe type would be the tireless crusader type and believe in "world laws".
> 
> I also saw somebody mention that it isn't Te that Fe polr necessarily has a problem with. It is the subjective Fi judgement tied to it that acts as its rudder. Fe polr feels oppressed by its subjective value judgement.


Well, if you endlessly do it, then you must value it, right? Lol


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> Sam Harris's position on ethics is a good example of this Te-Fi combo.


Ever typed the other New Atheism horsemen?

I've read a Dawkins book and quite a lot of Hitchens work, the latter in particular was a highly interesting person to me.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, socionics really does point out and explain the schisms between people based on Jungs stuff. It's really just drawing a line down a group of people and then explaining the differences between them. Come to think of it, if your understanding of socionics was like the people on here in opposition to me and my current understanding of socionics is as it is now, then wouldn't your mom be your conflictor in yours and your dual in mine? Surely both your mother and your sister love you, even if the POV's are different? If I am EII, and Fi is my base, and I am currently operating in my ego, why would my "closing psychological distance" place my earlier post as being just like your mom? If this entire forum in the grand design of all things existed to have me talk to you, and I sound like your mother, what exactly is the point of all of that?


Well, of course my mom and sister both love me. 

I was just commenting on your comparing things to colours and trying to give me a lecture about how people like me, basically. It wasn't meant to be negative, or anything, just reminded me of her. 

Of course I _know_ people like me. I'm awesome. I mean, come on, who wouldn't like _me_? :kitteh:


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> The "hostile" would be Ti- in socionics. I quote it, because I don't really consider anything to be hostile, rather just an opposing viewpoint.


Then start behaving like you do.



> Is that a literal messiah complex? From my POV, it's me just being my regular human self, no different than everyone else being their own human self. "Messiah complex" as a term seems like something used to describe someone who is walking at 180 degrees to the other.
> 
> Well, it's not my cup of tea, but, I suppose I could describe it as such... Someone asked, in way opposing manys definition of "ask," for help. If I do not have the means to do so, then I will put in the effort "stress" to attempt to find such. In the general population, this occurs organically, as all walks and talks of people are present, and I sit there, like this :| and watch and wait, and when someone eventually asks for help, because they do not have the means, then again I put in the effort to assisting them in finding what they seek. Sometimes it's one thing, sometimes its another. Sometimes I put on shades. Sometimes I walk barefoot. Does it strike you as odd that we are all doing the same? Eventually, they say, you don't have to wear the shades anymore, or you may put your shoes back on, and in doing so, I see my own reflection, and they...theirs, and so... Love.


Yes, you seem to fit the criteria for having a Messiah Complex, a Messiah Complex isn't even necessarily something bad. But that was not my point.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Ever typed the other New Atheism horsemen?
> 
> I've read a Dawkins book and quite a lot of Hitchens work, the latter in particular was a highly interesting person to me.


No, I don't like them though. These guys made me into a self-hating atheist. I have seen Harris typed as an INFJ and I don't agree with that. One way I think Harris is different though, is that the realizes the power of spirituality/belief. Like I remember he was getting grilled at a conference because he mentioned that some paranormal cases were interesting and he sees value in some spiritual concepts. Lawrence Krauss attacked him on this. Krauss said that this stuff is nonsense and Harris needs to stop talking about it. That is literally how he defined Eastern philosophy/spirituality, "nonsense". That is what he reduced it to. lol. He's like, "We need to tell people what things like Buddhism are. They are nonsense." I doubt Krauss knows much about these subjects, but they are all thrown in the "nonsense" pile to him. 

A guy like Krauss or Dawkins could never truly lead a movement. Harris could. He knows that science is nowhere near enough, it isn't even the main strength in their cause, and the world is more complex than Dawkins and Krauss make it out to be. That actually makes him more dangerous than guys like Dawkins and Krauss. lol. They are clowns. Harris could build something that actually lasts.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Just a thought, @Jeremy8419 is a socionics viral, trying to prove how lnter-type relations work as intended irl. 

He bows down to SEE because thats his ass kicker in socionics; on the other than he troll-responses one liners to other's well thought long posts. Hmm :distrust::rolleyes-new:


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> No, I don't like them though. These guys made me into a self-hating atheist. I have seen Harris typed as an INFJ and I don't agree with that. One way I think Harris is different though, is that the realizes the power of spirituality/belief. Like I remember he was getting grilled at a conference because he mentioned that some paranormal cases were interesting and he sees value in some spiritual concepts. Lawrence Krauss attacked him on this. Krauss said that this stuff is nonsense and Harris needs to stop talking about it. That is literally how he defined Eastern philosophy/spirituality, "nonsense". That is what he reduced it to. lol. He's like, "We need to tell people what things like Buddhism are. They are nonsense." I doubt Krauss knows much about these subjects, but they are all thrown in the "nonsense" pile to him.
> 
> A guy like Krauss or Dawkins could never truly lead a movement. Harris could. He knows that science is nowhere near enough, it isn't even the main strength in their cause, and the world is more complex than Dawkins and Krauss make it out to be. That actually makes him more dangerous than guys like Dawkins and Krauss. lol. They are clowns. Harris could build something that actually lasts.


Amusingly, despite being in agreement with the so-called New Atheists quite often, I don't find any of them particularly interesting (excepting Hitchens) and I've never felt any particular adherence to that "movement". Or any movement actually, as a general rule movements are something to question and hold in suspicion and not to follow. I've never read anything of Harris, nor have I watched enough of him to know whether or not I truthfully like or dislike him.

I don't think any of them are ethicals/feelers, perhaps Hitchens is an ESI (certainly Te and Se valuing), but that is just a possibility.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Amusingly, despite being in agreement with the so-called New Atheists quite often, I don't find any of them particularly interesting (excepting Hitchens) and I've never felt any particular adherence to that "movement". Or any movement actually, as a general rule movements are something to question and hold in suspicion and not to follow. I've never read anything of Harris, nor have I watched enough of him to know whether or not I truthfully like or dislike him.
> 
> I don't think any of them are ethicals/feelers, perhaps Hitchens is an ESI (certainly Te and Se valuing), but that is just a possibility.


One thing I like about Hitchens is that he is a one man army. He's getting his licks in. Doesn't matter the odds. He never goes down without a fight. This one time on Bill Maher, Hitchens went off on Maher's crowd. lol. He said that Maher makes jokes that stupid people can laugh at to feel smart.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Yeah, I think he has as many arguments with people within ​his "movement" as he did with people on the other side. Never much got the impression that he was a hater though, simply somebody who called bullshit when he saw it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Then start behaving like you do.


And if "behaving like you do" is of an opposing POV? Adopt the POV? I'm not able to do that at the moment. Perhaps, if I have time in the future, and you would like, I may return to walk and talk with you.



> Yes, you seem to fit the criteria for having a Messiah Complex, a Messiah Complex isn't even necessarily something bad. But that was not my point.


Well, I'm a person, not God, so it seems to me to be inherently an insult, unless your frame of reference is that God exists within us all, then, I would tend to agree.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, of course my mom and sister both love me.
> 
> I was just commenting on your comparing things to colours and trying to give me a lecture about how people like me, basically. It wasn't meant to be negative, or anything, just reminded me of her.
> 
> Of course I _know_ people like me. I'm awesome. I mean, come on, who wouldn't like _me_? :kitteh:


Yeah, I know what you mean. I love my parents as well, despite how seemingly different they are at times, but rarely see them, because they live a few hours from here, and I tend to spend my spare time with people near here. Does your mother live nearby?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, I'm a person, not God, so it seems to me to be inherently an insult, unless your frame of reference is that God exists within us all, then, I would tend to agree.


It's just a fancy way of saying you show occasional traits of narcissism and delusions of grandeur, like you are a prophet for the cause of typology or something.

Aside from your tendency to start dancing around direct inquiries and statements, it's really the only other thing that grinds me about you; sometimes a lot of what you say just seems to be pointless self-importance.

Whether that's an insult or an observation is really one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I think @Verity was trying to offer advice, more than anything.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> It's just a fancy way of saying you show occasional traits of narcissism and delusions of grandeur, like you are a prophet for the cause of typology or something.
> 
> Aside from your tendency to start dancing around direct inquiries and statements, it's really the only other thing that grinds me about you; sometimes a lot of what you say just seems to be pointless self-importance.
> 
> Whether that's an insult or an observation is really one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I think @Verity was trying to offer advice, more than anything.


*shrug* none of you really bother me in the least. I've never really paid attention to such sorts of things, to be honest with you.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> *shrug* none of you really bother me in the least.


Mhm, I question the mental health of anybody who takes _anything_ on the internet a little too seriously. 

But there comes a point when you've got to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy if you're interested in any form of discussion. For an Fi-valuer you really don't seem to place any importance on goodwill or civility, it's just strange and more importantly it's counterproductive... unless you're just on a forum to talk to yourself, sometimes it does seem like you're talking to yourself a lot.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> And if "behaving like you do" is of an opposing POV? Adopt the POV? I'm not able to do that at the moment. Perhaps, if I have time in the future, and you would like, I may return to walk and talk with you.


I'm not asking you to change your opinion or POV when it comes to the theory. I'm asking you to show some intellectual decency and respect when arguing for what you believe, because right now, whenever you've pushed people's buttons enough to stop ignoring you and actually provide arguments for you, you usually seem to respond with some broad-sweeping one-liner that fails to adress the argument. Don't expect people to take you seriously if you act like that, for I at least, will not.



> Well, I'm a person, not God, so it seems to me to be inherently an insult, unless your frame of reference is that God exists within us all, then, I would tend to agree.


From observing your behavior it seems to me like you have what is called a Messianic Complex. If by insult you imply that I'm trying to hurt your feelings by saying so, that's not the case. 

Btw, I don't think the root of the problem with the hostile atmosphere on this forum can be blamed solely on @Jeremy8419, the problem is that there's too much unsolicited typings and typism going around. Critique directed towards people based on their personality type inevitably seems to lead into Ad Hominem attacks, because people are not being scientifically conscientious when discussing these things. And maybe it's the inevitable conclusion of a a forum based on personality-type, but unless we all actually try not to do so, the purpose of this forum seems lost.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Mhm, I question the mental health of anybody who takes _anything_ on the internet a little too seriously.
> 
> But there comes a point when you've got to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy if you're interested in any form of discussion. For an Fi-valuer you really don't seem to place any importance on goodwill or civility, it's just strange and more importantly it's counterproductive... unless you're just on a forum to talk to yourself, sometimes it does seem like you're talking to yourself a lot.


I'd say it's more like being at an amusement park and trying to yell something to someone across a group of people that are trying to talk to each other. Sometimes what needs to be said is important, so you do it, and sometimes it isn't, so you don't.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I'm not asking you to change your opinion or POV when it comes to the theory. I'm asking you to show some intellectual decency and respect when arguing for what you believe, because right now, whenever you've pushed people's buttons enough to stop ignoring you and actually provide arguments for you, you usually seem to respond with some broad-sweeping one-liner that fails to adress the argument. Don't expect people to take you seriously if you act like that, for I at least, will not.
> 
> 
> 
> From observing your behavior it seems to me like you have what is called a Messianic Complex. If by insult you imply that I'm trying to hurt your feelings by saying so, that's not the case.
> 
> Btw, I don't think the root of the problem with the hostile atmosphere on this forum can be blamed solely on @Jeremy8419, the problem is that there's too much unsolicited typings and typism going around. Critique directed towards people based on their personality type inevitably seems to lead into Ad Hominem attacks, because people are not being scientifically conscientious when discussing these things. And maybe it's the inevitable conclusion of a a forum based on personality-type, but unless we all actually try not to do so, the purpose of this forum seems lost.


So then, what determines whether we adhere to letting others maintain their POV on socionics? A POV?


----------



## Word Dispenser

FearAndTrembling said:


> Or you could be the meanest motherfucker in the valley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking, I generally don't trust overly nice people. People without shadows. Where is your shadow, girl?
> 
> "Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."
> 
> *Captain Jean-Luc Picard*: Mister Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
> 
> 
> 
> :wink:
> 
> I'll be watching you.


I'm probably more flawed than most... 

I may not be mean, but I make up for it by being largely incompetent, and a bit of an unfocused, scattered ne'er do well. :kitteh:

This makes me quite annoying to a lot of people. Including myself.

Of course, I wish it wasn't so, but... We all have our crosses to bear.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


> Adios.
> And in case I don't see you again... good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.


You may not get this, but... I do hope that you find the most interesting and warm conversations in your future. It was nice to share insights with you. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Word Dispenser said:


> You may not get this, but... I do hope that you find the most interesting and warm conversations in your future. It was nice to share insights with you. :kitteh:


In my life, it is very rare that I ever truly speak, and when I do, it tends to be in prose. Perhaps, it is not because I am afraid no one will really listen, but because I am afraid to really listen. Perhaps, in my own faults, I do not know how to really listen. Perhaps, in my own faults, I never loved enough to want to listen.

During the course of my life, I have always told myself that I walk amongst the unseen spiritual realm, and that others choose to walk amongst the physical realm. Because the closeness of people in one is the large distance in the other, my family, although distant in the physical realm is close to me in the spiritual realm. Late last night, thanks to the kindness of yourself and concern from others on these forums, it occurred to me that it was my own decisions in my life that have lead to such a state of affairs. That my reasonings for my paths in life were really just that... Attempts to reason the gaps, the faults of my own heart, that I had already created. Had I remained close in the physical realm, we could have remained together. Though the distance would be large in the spiritual realm, we would still be close here and now. And should one ever pass from this world, and go to distances in the physical realm unknown? Then they would be infinitely close to us, all of us, together, at once, in the spiritual realm. Perhaps the distances I have created in this world, and the closing of space within the spiritual realm, exist due to the passing of a piece of my own heart within this world. 

Ashura, Bukalov, ILEs in general apparently came to Socionics to explain, similar to Ashuras spouse, the relationships that exist within this world, and the distances that remain between them. Perhaps, this was their love. Perhaps, this was their own attempts to really speak, and their own pressing desire to really listen in return. Perhaps they were afraid, and asking this world to please help them with the love they value so much, but cannot understand. Perhaps, the entire system is nothing more than "please help" and the awaiting of a humbled heart to act as a guiding hand.

Why, in my subjective understanding of socionics, have I placed the people in my life in the places which I do? Why have I chosen, in my own heart, to place my little girls within Delta with me, only to bear down on the "lesser" alpha mother? Why is she placed as business relation, to be counter direction to my own, to be an obstacle which is to be defeated? In so many ways, the mother reminds me of @Entropic. Perhaps, this is part of my incessant placement of him as LII. But what does he, someone seemingly so similar to her, place me as in his own subjective understanding of Socionics? An LSI. I his benefactor, and he my beneficiary. Someone who thinks highly of me, but no matter how hard they try, is met with resentment. Someone who no matter how loudly they speak, is met with a deaf ear. I realize now, that I never heard a single word they said. Entropic, I am truly sorry, and from the deepest bottoms of my heart... Thank you. 

I wonder, should my little girls or the mother ever learn Socionics, would they be the ones in the same Quadra? Would they be the ones looking up to me, asking why I do not hear the love in their hearts? Asking why I do not love them in return? I know not. Why have I chosen to place my own self at "the top" of the Quadras and my family as opposing below? Is this the evidence of my pride? Of my own choice of distance from them? I wonder if they should ever learn Socionics, if they, in their subjective understanding, would place me as orthogonal and so far away? The most painful knowledge is that although in my heart, they are so very distant, that I know, regardless of Quadra, I would be right there beside them in there's.

Word dispenser, if this system is indeed a metaphor for the distances between those in our lives, of the truth within our hearts, why is your mother so far away? Is it because, similar to my own family, that I cannot hear them? Is it because you unconsciously place her higher than you think you can reach? And most importantly, should she ever learn socionics, in her subjective understanding, would the three of you all be Gamma? And should she hear your subjective understandings, would she be pained to know that your heart places you so far away? I know not these answers, nor should I ever, as it is the love that exists between the three of you. Why not walk and talk in Beta, or in Gamma, and be a bridge for your heart between your sister and mother? Should you do so, to walk equally hand-in-hand with the both of them, would not this gap close over time? Would not your heart slowly close them into the same Quadra within you? I know not these answers, nor should I ever, as it is the love that exists between the three of you. 

Perhaps, should I ever open my heart enough to really listen to those I know hold me dear in their hearts, I may walk between alpha and beta, and slowly, over time, close the gaps in my heart between them, and finally return the love which I am so very lucky to have had for such a very long time. I do not know. But I believe... I would like to try.

/hugs word dispenser deeply

Thank you, and everyone else on here, again for allowing me to walk, sit, and talk with you. I can never repay what you have given me. 

Though I may no longer be on here, or see you again in this world, you will walk together... with me... in my heart... always.

Goodbye.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

omg, this is creepy and emotional. :disillusionment:

anyway good bye jeremy :woof:


edit: and also my 1000th post. :cower:


----------



## Entropic

AlwaysWithMe said:


> Why, in my subjective understanding of socionics, have I placed the people in my life in the places which I do? Why have I chosen, in my own heart, to place my little girls within Delta with me, only to bear down on the "lesser" alpha mother? Why is she placed as business relation, to be counter direction to my own, to be an obstacle which is to be defeated? In so many ways, the mother reminds me of @Entropic. Perhaps, this is part of my incessant placement of him as LII. But what does he, someone seemingly so similar to her, place me as in his own subjective understanding of Socionics? An LSI. I his benefactor, and he my beneficiary. Someone who thinks highly of me, but no matter how hard they try, is met with resentment. Someone who no matter how loudly they speak, is met with a deaf ear. I realize now, that I never heard a single word they said. Entropic, I am truly sorry, and from the deepest bottoms of my heart... Thank you.


1. I do not think my understanding of socionics is nearly as subjective as yours. The reason for this is because my understanding of socionics largely overlaps with that of other people around me. 

2. I highly doubt that I am the same type as your ex-wife. Just because I resemble your ex-wife, it does not mean I am anything remotely similar or close to your ex-wife. Part of why I feel you do not listen to me is because of your inability to treat me as my own person and individual without always comparing me to something else that you know, may that be another person, concept or system to fit me into. 

I think you should seriously consider why I think you are an LSI and why I myself type as an ILI. What is my reasoning, why that understanding? You never bothered to ask me that, or understand why. Only people who dislike me tend to default to thinking I'm an LII, more usually as a kind of insult, rather than because it's an accurate representation of who I am and my thinking style. Please see me as my own person, my own individual and treat me as such, instead of another person to be fit into a schema.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Also, when I showed my mom the quadras eons ago, she felt that she most related to the Alpha quadra.. That doesn't seem to be unusual for ESI, for some reason. :kitteh:


----------



## Verity

So in lack of better alternatives, I've now decided to type myself as an EII-Fi. Feel free to provide arguments if this seems off. Oh, and hello quadra!

(I'll probably do the 80q to see if it's accurate when my inertia allows me.)


----------



## Word Dispenser

Verity said:


> So in lack of better alternatives, I've now decided to type myself as an EII-Fi. Feel free to provide arguments if this seems off. Oh, and hello quadra!
> 
> (I'll probably do the 80q to see if it's accurate when my inertia allows me.)


Hmm, really?

Have you maybe considered LII? I was thinking that.


----------



## Verity

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, really?
> 
> Have you maybe considered LII? I was thinking that.


No, I don't relate to alpha quadra at all, and I don't relate much to Ti, or Fe-DS, and looking back at how I've acted throughout my life I just don't see it. 

Fi, Te, and to a lesser extent Ni, are the IE's I relate the most to. Could you elaborate on why you think LII?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> No, I don't relate to alpha quadra at all, and I don't relate much to Ti, or Fe-DS, and looking back at how I've acted throughout my life I just don't see it.
> 
> Fi, Te, and to a lesser extent Ni, are the IE's I relate the most to. Could you elaborate on why you think LII?


Ð*Ð˜Ð˜ (Â«Ð´Ð¾Ñ�Ñ‚Ð¾ÐµÐ²Ñ�ÐºÐ¸Ð¹Â») | School of System Socionics
This is how I am irl from observation standpoint.

Also, male EII description on the16types.info my family and friends would mistake for being written specifically about me


----------



## Word Dispenser

Verity said:


> No, I don't relate to alpha quadra at all, and I don't relate much to Ti, or Fe-DS, and looking back at how I've acted throughout my life I just don't see it.
> 
> Fi, Te, and to a lesser extent Ni, are the IE's I relate the most to. Could you elaborate on why you think LII?


Well, I wasn't really going to say something until I saw you bringing it up, really. But, you just come across as a few other LIIs I've seen around here. You seem like a logical type, though, at the very least.

I wouldn't have pegged you as Fi-base, and, indeed, your thinking so surprised me enough to pipe up. But, then, I guess I just haven't really seen much evidence of it, is all.

I don't really have anything specific in which to hold up and say, "Voila," though.

Also-- I'm of the opinion that you probably shouldn't look to your childhood and teen years for typing. It's mostly when you're in your 20s that your ego starts to blossom. At least based on what I know, and have experienced.


----------



## Verity

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I wasn't really going to say something until I saw you bringing it up, really. But, you just come across as a few other LIIs I've seen around here. You seem like a logical type, though, at the very least.
> 
> I wouldn't have pegged you as Fi-base, and, indeed, your thinking so surprised me enough to pipe up. But, then, I guess I just haven't really seen much evidence of it, is all.
> 
> I don't really have anything specific in which to hold up and say, "Voila," though.
> 
> Also-- I'm of the opinion that you probably shouldn't look to your childhood and teen years for typing. It's mostly when you're in your 20s that your ego starts to blossom. At least based on what I know, and have experienced.


This reminded me that you actually wrote that I seemed like an EII in my 21Q some time ago.
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/620682-veritys-21q.html

But really, finding out my demonstrative IE was actually the thing I needed in order to find my own type out, seeing as I've always had an easy time grasping Ni-concepts, whether reading the works of Joseph Cambpell(IEI) or Nietzsche(ILI) for example, alot of the observations about reality that they describe have always felt pretty obvious to me. I've also found that I easily become absorbed in planning and analyzing, and ultimately getting lost in the future and the past when I'm not consciously focusing on something, and I often get this gut-feeling of what is the right action to take, conjuring up an inner image of how A will lead to B, or how the waves will nudge away at the sand if you will. The thing that I think separates me from Ni-base types is that *I just don't trust that feeling*, even though it often turns out that I'm right, because *it just doesn't make sense* to me. And that's exactly how I know I lead with a rational IE, because Ni-doms are comfortable with things not making sense, so that they can then use their rational creative IE to create some external semblance of order, while my default mode is to make sense of things by sorting them into possible/impossible or "that's stupid/good" or whatever dichotomy you prefer in order to get ideas, in order to see potential. 

I think I'm Te-DS because I want realistic, external and physical results out of whatever I commit to, and I often find that I become too emotionally invested in things, so much that I can't even do the easiest tasks if I don't feel right. It's the same when arguing, I have this strong sense of what I want to say, and I know intuitively what is the right thing to say, but when I try to express myself I find that I often can't divorce myself from my feelings in order to only look at the facts. I get this feeling that I've missed something, one little detail that will kill me, every single fucking time. 

And lastly, my relationship to Fe. Observing my SLI father has taught me a few things. I do not have Fe-PoLR, I just avoid using Fe until it becomes absolutely necessary for me to do so. My father wouldn't say things to people that he didn't mean in order to manipulate their emotions,* it would literally never cross his mind*. I, on the other hand, am able to do so, but only as a kind of last resort. For example.

I hope this provided some context for my decision.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Verity need me to put the SSS type descriptions through a translater for you? I can do ILI, LII, and EII.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Verity need me to put the SSS type descriptions through a translater for you? I can do ILI, LII, and EII.


I understood the EII one pretty easily by using google translate, but I guess it wouldn't hurt. Someone else might also find it useful, so if it's not a problem, feel free to do so.

I must say I'm kind of skeptical towards descriptions though.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I understood the EII one pretty easily by using google translate, but I guess it wouldn't hurt. Someone else might also find it useful, so if it's not a problem, feel free to do so.
> 
> I must say I'm kind of skeptical towards descriptions though.


Ah okay. On my phone, google translate broke when trying to translate the whole page.

The longer the descriptions, the more specific/individual it is lol.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Verity said:


> This reminded me that you actually wrote that I seemed like an EII in my 21Q some time ago.
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/620682-veritys-21q.html
> 
> But really, finding out my demonstrative IE was actually the thing I needed in order to find my own type out, seeing as I've always had an easy time grasping Ni-concepts, whether reading the works of Joseph Cambpell(IEI) or Nietzsche(ILI) for example, alot of the observations about reality that they describe have always felt pretty obvious to me. I've also found that I easily become absorbed in planning and analyzing, and ultimately getting lost in the future and the past when I'm not consciously focusing on something, and I often get this gut-feeling of what is the right action to take, conjuring up an inner image of how A will lead to B, or how the waves will nudge away at the sand if you will. The thing that I think separates me from Ni-base types is that *I just don't trust that feeling*, even though it often turns out that I'm right, because *it just doesn't make sense* to me. And that's exactly how I know I lead with a rational IE, because Ni-doms are comfortable with things not making sense, so that they can then use their rational creative IE to create some external semblance of order, while my default mode is to make sense of things by sorting them into possible/impossible or "that's stupid/good" or whatever dichotomy you prefer in order to get ideas, in order to see potential.
> 
> I think I'm Te-DS because I want realistic, external and physical results out of whatever I commit to, and I often find that I become too emotionally invested in things, so much that I can't even do the easiest tasks if I don't feel right. It's the same when arguing, I have this strong sense of what I want to say, and I know intuitively what is the right thing to say, but when I try to express myself I find that I often can't divorce myself from my feelings in order to only look at the facts. I get this feeling that I've missed something, one little detail that will kill me, every single fucking time.
> 
> And lastly, my relationship to Fe. Observing my SLI father has taught me a few things. I do not have Fe-PoLR, I just avoid using Fe until it becomes absolutely necessary for me to do so. My father wouldn't say things to people that he didn't mean in order to manipulate their emotions,* it would literally never cross his mind*. I, on the other hand, am able to do so, but only as a kind of last resort. For example.
> 
> I hope this provided some context for my decision.


Well, I have the memory of a gold fish, or something close to it. :kitteh:

Anyway, you make some valid points, and I contend that, in the end, the best typer is the self. As long as you're willing to be honest, open, and introspective. 

So, good on ya!


----------



## Verity

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I have the memory of a gold fish, or something close to it. :kitteh:
> 
> Anyway, you make some valid points, and I contend that, in the end, the best typer is the self. As long as you're willing to be honest, open, and introspective.
> 
> So, good on ya!


I wouldn't hold it against you. Things change. 

But yeah, I figured it was time to actually try to find my type, since it might help me understand my relationship to other people. And I mean, there's several dichotomies I don't relate to when it comes to EII such as being a positivist or aristocrat, but that seems pretty common. I think being Fi subtype and probably an 8w9 makes me way less zany than most Ne-egos though. I'd like to think that introspectivity and honesty is a part of my natural state. Lazyness and inability to organize my thoughts are my problems.


----------



## Valtire

Word Dispenser said:


> Also-- I'm of the opinion that you probably shouldn't look to your childhood and teen years for typing. It's mostly when you're in your 20s that your ego starts to blossom. At least based on what I know, and have experienced.


But you're a Ne-dom. You don't observe reality 

But seriously, I deal with children a lot, and I would say that they show functional preferences. One such example being a nine year old girl who is asocial, extremely blunt, straightforward, accidentally rude and talks about logic all the time. She is a massive contrast to the other girls.

Personally, I can absolutely see myself as an LSI when I was a child. I had exactly the same strengths/weaknesses as I do now.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Fried Eggz said:


> But you're a Ne-dom. You don't observe reality
> 
> But seriously, I deal with children a lot, and I would say that they show functional preferences. One such example being a nine year old girl who is asocial, extremely blunt, straightforward, accidentally rude and talks about logic all the time.
> 
> Personally, I can absolutely see myself as an LSI when I was a child. I had exactly the same strengths/weaknesses as I do now.


Of course they show functional preferences. In the functions that they happen to be developing at the time.

This is just based off of To_august's account of cognitive functions in development, but from what I understand reflecting back on my own experiences, and from what I've heard of others-- Most people make a pretty drastic transformation from teenage years to adulthood, and that's when they seem to develop their ego functions (around 21 years of age is when it tends to start, with one reaching full cognitive development at around 28.)

If your experience is different, that's awesome. Then I have some contradictory evidence to my understanding to explore. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I wouldn't hold it against you. Things change.
> 
> But yeah, I figured it was time to actually try to find my type, since it might help me understand my relationship to other people. And I mean, there's several dichotomies I don't relate to when it comes to EII such as being a positivist or aristocrat, but that seems pretty common. I think being Fi subtype and probably an 8w9 makes me way less zany than most Ne-egos though. I'd like to think that introspectivity and honesty is a part of my natural state. Lazyness and inability to organize my thoughts are my problems.


Perhaps, you may find answers in your fascination (maybe it was a different word) of me? In whichever type you saw me as, at that point in time, there may be a relation to describe such. The world view of the self is largely affected by the views of others who occupy yours. Loved ones types, as perceived by you, may help you place yourself. Small groups, other than Quadra, and the one you find most significance in, may also be of assistance. Quadras are your group of comfort, lack of conflict, and generally feeling good, but this small group concept is largely Alpha, in my eyes; whereas, supervision ring, one generally of work for society, is more important to myself. I imagine Communication Styles would be of significance to a type like EIE. Etc.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> I did observe it, though. You're in an internet clique on this forum. I personally don't care if you are, because that's your prerogative. You can hang out with people irl, online, or be the biggest loner in the world. It's your life. It is your choice. If it makes you feel happy, and doesn't violate the rights of others, then go for it. What I factually observe are people like tellus, myself, FAT, and a couple others that do not look like a clique. What I factually observe are you and several others seemingly being in a clique. Is that a accurate representation of you irl? I have no idea, because I don't know you. But, that is the impression you give off on here. You have a forum largely composed of self-claimed extrovert alphas and introvert gammas. These are orthogonal and will gravitate away from each other. However, this is the opposite of the case. The two groups gravitate together. Is this accurate of you irl? I have no idea, but it is observed on here.


Yeah, but you could well argue that's just a quadra dynamic in and of itself. Not necessarily alpha though, because if you look at the people who are _not_ a part of this supposed clique which is primarily based on personal relationships to each other as in being friends, I think none of us experience it that way. It's more a sense of loyalty to the individual, frankly, than a group or having a group identity. This is why you see the self-identified Fe types on this forum to _not_ be a part of it, because they don't value that kind of socialization and social interaction. Individual loyalty does not precede who you socialize with, which is true for Fi-valuing types. People like Abraxas that you agree with is an ILI was for example a part of it, but fell out because of his relationships with several people on this forum, changed. 

This is exactly why people repeatedly tell you that if you want to become accepted by it, you also need to begin to nurture those personal relationships with the people in here, because this forum is primarily composed of gammas and the gamma quadra values will therefore set a tone of how social interaction works. Unfair to other non-Fi valuing types? Perhaps. But that's how it goes, either way. 



> I didn't build anything. I read, and I paid attention to the sources I was reading from. CD does place framework to the existing, as it is cause and effect formal logic. Socionics was created and developed with this mindset. Dialetical has it's place, as do others. However, the core is CD. Again, it's not my system. The only thing that could be considered my system is the union between MBTI and Socionics, which isn't even mine, it is Bukalovs.


The systems in themselves? No. How you interpret and understand them? Yes. The system in this case, that we primarily argue, is model A. You choose to interpret it in a way that suggests CD cognition is at the core of how the system works; Zamyatin and I and undoubtly others, do not agree with that _interpretation_. 

Do you understand why we don't?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> Yeah, but you could well argue that's just a quadra dynamic in and of itself. Not necessarily alpha though, because if you look at the people who are _not_ a part of this supposed clique which is primarily based on personal relationships to each other as in being friends, I think none of us experience it that way. It's more a sense of loyalty to the individual, frankly, than a group or having a group identity. This is why you see the self-identified Fe types on this forum to _not_ be a part of it, because they don't value that kind of socialization and social interaction. Individual loyalty does not precede who you socialize with, which is true for Fi-valuing types. People like Abraxas that you agree with is an ILI was for example a part of it, but fell out because of his relationships with several people on this forum, changed.
> 
> This is exactly why people repeatedly tell you that if you want to become accepted by it, you also need to begin to nurture those personal relationships with the people in here,* because this forum is primarily composed of gammas and the gamma quadra values will therefore set a tone of how social interaction works.* Unfair to other non-Fi valuing types? Perhaps. But that's how it goes, either way.
> 
> 
> 
> The systems in themselves? No. How you interpret and understand them? Yes. The system in this case, that we primarily argue, is model A. You choose to interpret it in a way that suggests CD cognition is at the core of how the system works; Zamyatin and I and undoubtly others, do not agree with that _interpretation_.
> 
> Do you understand why we don't?


And that can change, but it hasn't because of the weight of your clique that comes down on anyone who goes against it. 


You are vindicating the critique. You run this place and everybody should fall in line. 

You don't make the rules here. Your clique doesn't either.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> And that can change, but it hasn't because of the weight of your clique that comes down on anyone who goes against it.
> 
> 
> You are vindicating the critique. You run this place and everybody should fall in line. You don't make the rules here. Your clique doesn't either.


I never made the rules, though, so trying to suggest I'm the pack leader frankly doesn't make much sense. I think you think that I exert much more power and influence from behind the scenes that I do, but whatever you say, Prophet. I do think people need to develop a baseline level of respect in how they interact with each other, something you personally shy away from as well, quite often, fwiw, but that has nothing to do with quadra values but is a basic level of decency and respect that is true for everyone involved. Follow that and you and I are good. You don't want to, though, which is a different problem though not mine to solve. You personally enjoy being on the sidelines to begin with, where you can sit in the shadows and have your commentary, so you'll naturally develop relationships with people around you that propagate that. Your pejorative, but don't suggest it's other people's faults that you do.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> I never made the rules, though, so trying to suggest I'm the pack leader frankly doesn't make much sense. I think you think that I exert much more power and influence from behind the scenes that I do, but whatever you say, Prophet. I do think people need to develop a baseline level of respect in how they interact with each other, something you personally shy away from as well, quite often, fwiw, but that has nothing to do with quadra values but is a basic level of decency and respect that is true for everyone involved. Follow that and you and I are good. You don't want to, though, which is a different problem though not mine to solve. You personally enjoy being on the sidelines to begin with, where you can sit in the shadows and have your commentary, so you'll naturally develop relationships with people around that propagate that. Your pejorative, but don't suggest it's other people's faults that you do.



But you constantly appeal to said rules. 

Basic level of decency that has gotten you in so many conflicts and banned so many times? 

Wait, you said you don't sugarcoat things remember? You admitted that. Don't lecture people about respecting other points of view. You show none of it, and you should get it in return.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> But you constantly appeal to said rules.
> 
> Basic level of decency that has gotten you in so many conflicts and banned so many times?
> 
> Wait, you said you don't sugarcoat things remember? You admitted that. Don't lecture people about respecting other points of view. You show none of it, and you should get it in return.


Why shouldn't I appeal to them lol? I agree with them, even though I may not always be the best at applying them myself because I can easily get carried away in an argument. It doesn't mean that I don't try, though. I'm a flawed human being like everyone else in here, so trying to blame me for that isn't going to get you anywhere, because compared to you, I own up to my actions. Suggesting I shirk away from responsibility is simply disingenuous. 

And your pejorative, really. Frankly, I don't care what you think of me anyway, because I don't care for you in the first place since as I said, I don't like you. Shrug. You're the one being lecturing here, not I. What I did to Jeremy was to explain the situation to him. What he does with that information is ultimately up to him to decide. You don't, either, fyi.


----------



## Verity

FearAndTrembling said:


> And that can change, but it hasn't because of the weight of your clique that comes down on anyone who goes against it.
> 
> 
> You are vindicating the critique. You run this place and everybody should fall in line.
> 
> You don't make the rules here. Your clique doesn't either.


I asked you before to bring up concrete proof for this statement, since I haven't seen any evidence of this being true. Can you do so?

I'm trying to not take sides here, which becomes harder and harder.


----------



## Immolate

Verity said:


> I asked you before to bring up concrete proof for this statement, since I haven't seen any evidence of this being true. Can you do so?
> 
> I'm trying to not take sides here, which becomes harder and harder.


I believe he's referring to the way Entropic and Huntress have clashed with "groups" outside of the socionics sub-forum, to the point where the groups are discouraged from engaging each other. It's more to do with a difference in communication styles and a serious vs non-serious approach to typing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Man, trying to talk to you is like bouncing a rubber ball off a brick wall. It really bothers you that people might actually perceive objective truths as existing, doesn't it? The idea that people can approach something real and solid outside of subjectivity annoys the hell out of you for some reason. Is it so hard for you to imagine that there can be one correct way to solve a problem, independent of any subjectivity we introduce from personal bias? Do you really believe everything is relative? If so, why the fuck do you type as a member of a serious quadra?
> 
> You keep saying I hang out with "self-claimed extrovert alphas" but the truth is, the only self-professed alpha I talk to is Word Dispenser, and I only talk to her occasionally because while she's nice, she's almost _too nice_ in a way that completely lacks an edge or any consistency in like/dislike towards others. She holds no firm opinions of her own, and something about that bugs me. Don't get me wrong, WD and I are friendly and there's no hostility between us, but there's a distance there we'll never cross because of radically different values and worldviews. You get along with her far better than I ever will.
> 
> You were making 20+ posts a day on this board, making what _you yourself_ admitted was only a semblance of logic. By sheer post quantity you choked out this forum and stifled discussion because every time someone tried to contribute something you'd butt in with your own views, turning everything into an argument between you and them. As several other people have pointed out, you ignored _everybody_, and in your own words you "never heard a word they said". A few days ago you seemed to come to some sort of self-awareness about that, but now you've basically reverted by un-retiring your account and essentially reneging all those supposedly heartfelt posts you made about moving on. Were you lying?


You are not supporting objective truths, though. What you are doing is Ti-'ing, and only Ti-'ing every viewpoint that is not your own, and with adamancy. The large majority of this post is, "but we agree in here," which equates to the viewpoints being similar to your own, and you criticizing the existence of a discussion outside of this. You can engage in these sorts of discussion all you want, but they only end with the same clique chilling alone in this forum, which is counter-productive to any sort of objective truth. The objective truth seeks the accommodation of all viewpoints, including other systems. The forum is the way it is, because you are not placing value in other viewpoints, and you are not attempting to reconcile them. You are simply trying to eliminate them. Until you can recognize the validity of 4D functions outside your own, as having their own way of validly coming to typing and understanding of such, you will only be bullying people into not being able to use this forum.

Well, my mask broke, so can't exactly go back lol. Piece of junk /chunks in a river


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I asked you before to bring up concrete proof for this statement, since I haven't seen any evidence of this being true. Can you do so?
> 
> I'm trying to not take sides here, which becomes harder and harder.


He isn't sitting there writing down post numbers and such. He is observing how they move in relation to each other, and stating how the relationships are.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> You are not supporting objective truths, though. What you are doing is Ti-'ing, and only Ti-'ing every viewpoint that is not your own, and with adamancy. The large majority of this post is, "but we agree in here," which equates to the viewpoints being similar to your own, and you criticizing the existence of a discussion outside of this. You can engage in these sorts of discussion all you want, but they only end with the same clique chilling alone in this forum, which is counter-productive to any sort of objective truth. The objective truth seeks the accommodation of all viewpoints, including other systems. The forum is the way it is, because you are not placing value in other viewpoints, *and you are not attempting to reconcile them. You are simply trying to eliminate them.* Until you can recognize the validity of 4D functions outside your own, as having their own way of validly coming to typing and understanding of such, you will only be bullying people into not being able to use this forum.
> 
> Well, my mask broke, so can't exactly go back lol. Piece of junk /chunks in a river


Precisely. Precisely. Viewpoints are simply swatted away, never incorporated. That is neither Ni or Te.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> He isn't sitting there writing down post numbers and such. He is observing how they move in relation to each other, and stating how the relationships are.


Stating how_ he percieves the relationships to be._ I'm asking because I recognize that feeling, but it runs contrary to my perception of what's going on. That's why I'm genuinely interested in what he's basing those observations on.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Stating how_ he percieves the relationships to be._ I'm asking because I recognize that feeling, but it runs contrary to my perception of what's going on. That's why I'm genuinely interested in what he's basing those observations on.


It's based upon time parameter and globality. What he is referring to is repeated Ti- of posts about disagreement and criticism of Ti ability of others, critical control of Te stating to provide "evidence" but not offering it unless it is a minority quote hand-picked and locked away as a weapon, rejection of others experience on here outside of those in the clique, entering discussions simply to criticize (non-constructively), group-think, engaging in turning one-on-one disagreements to one-vs-group affairs in which the group criticizes the one and "like"s each other's posts while saying they are doing this because they "are correct" with group-think as primary evidence of accuracy, etc.

Of course, I am not FAT, so I may be wrong lol.

Fact is... Regardless of reasoning, people obviously don't like being here, or this wouldn't be the deadest part of forums lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's based upon time parameter and globality. What he is referring to is repeated Ti- of posts about disagreement and criticism of Ti ability of others, critical control of Te stating to provide "evidence" but not offering it unless it is a minority quote hand-picked and locked away as a weapon, rejection of others experience on here outside of those in the clique, entering discussions simply to criticize (non-constructively), group-think, engaging in turning one-on-one disagreements to one-vs-group affairs in which the group criticizes the one and "like"s each other's posts while saying they are doing this because they "are correct" with group-think as primary evidence of accuracy, etc.
> 
> Of course, I am not FAT, so I may be wrong lol.
> 
> Fact is... Regardless of reasoning, people obviously don't like being here, or this wouldn't be the deadest part of forums lol


I think you pretty much got it. Many people think of the world as like a static board. Like a Monopoly board or something. That I can just go back to reference pieces from previous turns. lol. It isn't that defined. 

And exactly. It is an inward spinning logic that excludes all things except those within it. It doesn't need or want outside input.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think you pretty much got it. Many people think of the world as like a static board. Like a Monopoly board or something. That I can just go back to reference pieces from previous turns. lol. It isn't that defined.
> 
> And exactly. It is an inward spinning logic that excludes all things except those within it. It doesn't need or want outside input.


Well, if it was objective typing on here, I mean _actually_ objective, I'd probably sit back, watch my dual work that algorithmic magic, and clap my hand like 

Did you read the thread I made this morning with type descriptions?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Yeah, but you could well argue that's just a quadra dynamic in and of itself. Not necessarily alpha though, because if you look at the people who are _not_ a part of this supposed clique which is primarily based on personal relationships to each other as in being friends, I think none of us experience it that way. It's more a sense of loyalty to the individual, frankly, than a group or having a group identity. This is why you see the self-identified Fe types on this forum to _not_ be a part of it, because they don't value that kind of socialization and social interaction. Individual loyalty does not precede who you socialize with, which is true for Fi-valuing types.


It is not a Quadra, though. It is an individual type. What you are describing does not sound like Gamma Democratic. It sounds like Alpha democratic. "Quadra" in itself is based on Alpha Values. Here, in this quote, you place value in your subjective experiences of your interactions; however, the objective reality is that you are in a clique to the independent outside observer.



> People like Abraxas that you agree with is an ILI was for example a part of it, but fell out because of his relationships with several people on this forum, changed.


I agree that Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul are ILI; however, I also do not agree that their personalities on here are the same as the other ILIs. As an outside observer, I see one group primarily talking about X, and rarely talking about Y, while I see an individual primarily talking about Y, and rarely talking about X. The group likes the occasional, friendly directed, X from the individual. The individual likes the occasional, friendly directed, Y from the group. Eventually, the individual realizes this, that he dislikes the primary X and moves on. Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul all objectively appear to be focused on Ni+, perceiving the ongoing trends and witnessing creation of more, while occasionally pointing out Te movements of bodies and then returning to Ni+. Eventually, they get bored of the logic focus on here and move on. On the other hand, almost every post from the remainder of of the ILIs are observed as being deconstruction of others logic, without any real value into understanding others viewpoints. Sometimes others viewpoints are expressed as being in consideration, but then it reverts back to it's main form, which is deconstructing this person's logic. I don't get off to picking apart peoples views and breaking them down in favor of my own. I don't like Ti- and I don't like imposing myself into their internal world to violate it. When I peek around in their heads, I do it to be able to help them connect with others who are internally the same, not to dissect their inner world for the validation of my external world. Again, is this how your mind works? I don't know, but this is how it comes across based on objective observations, and regardless of who is right or who is wrong, the fact remains that people don't like this. This forum was not "thriving" before I arrived here. Was it thriving _for you_? Probably. However, from an outside observer, it comes across as a clique that is holding onto the Socionics forum without letting others partake of it in a way that is not your own. Apparently, you find at least some truth in Socionics over MBTI, so why isn't this forum thriving? It's not "no thriving" because Socionics "is hard." It's actually really easy. It's "not thriving," because your clique doesn't want to merge viewpoints with others. You simply want to tear down their viewpoints until they must accept yours. Again, is this the inside of your mind? I have no idea, but what I do know, is this is how it looks from an independent and objective observer.



> This is exactly why people repeatedly tell you that if you want to become accepted by it, you also need to begin to nurture those personal relationships with the people in here, because this forum is primarily composed of gammas and the gamma quadra values will therefore set a tone of how social interaction works. Unfair to other non-Fi valuing types? Perhaps. But that's how it goes, either way.


This may be how you think, but it's not how you come across. When I read this, I hear, emotional atmosphere and fitting in. When you criticize others for not fitting in with you and a handful of your friends, and criticize them damaging the emotional atmosphere... How are objective observations supposed to say this is NOT alpha behavior?

The primary concern you and others have with my typing is considering me an LSI, yet over and over again, I reference strong vs weak, super-ego relations, nature of the social control block. You yourself have previously stated, well after I first referenced it, that you do not have a firm grasp on Role function. I have told you directly, you are looking at my role function. You have not investigated this, even though this function is critical to your hobby of typing others. I have told you directly that I am considered one of the most kind and gentle people around irl, and again, you do not investigate, yet you repeatedly criticize me not "taking your word" for your own type. I have told you directly, that I, objectively, match EII descriptions, infantile, and all other small groups. Rather than investigate why mainstream socionics is on-board with these things as factual, and why it is that you can't see how they are accurate, you dismiss them. I tell you that I can see the bridges between Model A, B, MBTI, etc., but rather than attempt to see these bridges, you dismiss them, because they build a framework that is counter to your own prerogatives. Do I blame you? No, of course not. Socionics states we will have different worldviews and goals. To each his own. However, you, from objective observations, have displayed no desire to "try and merge viewpoints." Most surely, there must be an underlying objective truth to how both of our counter viewpoints align and are explained. But you are not observed as desiring to give up any of your individual viewpoint in sake of a greater congruence of societal viewpoints as a whole, and in this sense, I really don't feel like you care about Fi at all.





> The systems in themselves? No. How you interpret and understand them? Yes. The system in this case, that we primarily argue, is model A. You choose to interpret it in a way that suggests CD cognition is at the core of how the system works; Zamyatin and I and undoubtly others, do not agree with that _interpretation_.
> 
> Do you understand why we don't?


This is not "your system." Do the other styles have value in the development of this system? Yes, of course. However, it is the development of another's ability to account for the weaknesses of their PoLR. The goal is to assist in this, to better it. The goal is NOT to do as Gulenko has been doing in recent years and attempt to completely alter it into something unusable by the originator, and then advertise it as a triumph in the face of the person who is already aware of their PoLR and asking for help.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> It is not a Quadra, though. It is an individual type. What you are describing does not sound like Gamma Democratic. It sounds like Alpha democratic. "Quadra" in itself is based on Alpha Values. Here, in this quote, you place value in your subjective experiences of your interactions; however, the objective reality is that you are in a clique to the independent outside observer.


Thanks for not listening at all, and over-writing my own personal experiences in favor of your personal observations. You are not privy to my inner states and you are frankly shit at reading them, so don't even bother thinking you can or you are and doing so with any semblance of accuracy, because you are not. People are disagreeing not to be smug, but because they frankly experience that the way you make assertions about who they are is bullshit and does not fit their actual sense of selves. In this case, you are doing exactly that. AGAIN. 



> I agree that Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul are ILI; however, I also do not agree that their personalities on here are the same as the other ILIs. As an outside observer, I see one group primarily talking about X, and rarely talking about Y, while I see an individual primarily talking about Y, and rarely talking about X. The group likes the occasional, friendly directed, X from the individual. The individual likes the occasional, friendly directed, Y from the group. Eventually, the individual realizes this, that he dislikes the primary X and moves on. Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul all objectively appear to be focused on Ni+, perceiving the ongoing trends and witnessing creation of more, while occasionally pointing out Te movements of bodies and then returning to Ni+. Eventually, they get bored of the logic focus on here and move on. On the other hand, almost every post from the remainder of of the ILIs are observed as being deconstruction of others logic, without any real value into understanding others viewpoints. Sometimes others viewpoints are expressed as being in consideration, but then it reverts back to it's main form, which is deconstructing this person's logic. I don't get off to picking apart peoples views and breaking them down in favor of my own. I don't like Ti- and I don't like imposing myself into their internal world to violate it. When I peek around in their heads, I do it to be able to help them connect with others who are internally the same, not to dissect their inner world for the validation of my external world. Again, is this how your mind works? I don't know, but this is how it comes across based on objective observations, and regardless of who is right or who is wrong, the fact remains that people don't like this. This forum was not "thriving" before I arrived here. Was it thriving _for you_? Probably. However, from an outside observer, it comes across as a clique that is holding onto the Socionics forum without letting others partake of it in a way that is not your own. Apparently, you find at least some truth in Socionics over MBTI, so why isn't this forum thriving? It's not "no thriving" because Socionics "is hard." It's actually really easy. It's "not thriving," because your clique doesn't want to merge viewpoints with others. You simply want to tear down their viewpoints until they must accept yours. Again, is this the inside of your mind? I have no idea, but what I do know, is this is how it looks from an independent and objective observer.
> 
> 
> *This may be how you think, but it's not how you come across. When I read this, I hear, emotional atmosphere and fitting in. When you criticize others for not fitting in with you and a handful of your friends, and criticize them damaging the emotional atmosphere... How are objective observations supposed to say this is NOT alpha behavior?*


Stop project your own assertions about *MY* reality and sense of how I experience it by enforcing your perception onto my own experiences. Question yourself since when I ever brought up emotional atmospheres or even quoted or thought about it. I haven't once. You _are_ the one noticing and paying attention to it. I frankly don't care. Remember that post I wrote to you about my upbringing and how I grew up in a very Fe-driven family? Yes, that. Now stop fucking bothering me and quoting me and mentioning me if you cannot at any level take my own experiences and what they are seriously and treat them objectively in and of themselves without conjecturing what you think it is without actually asking me wtf it is. I've told you numerously; you gotta stop because you are now seriously crossing a line.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> It is not a Quadra, though. It is an individual type. What you are describing does not sound like Gamma Democratic. It sounds like Alpha democratic. "Quadra" in itself is based on Alpha Values. Here, in this quote, you place value in your subjective experiences of your interactions; however, the objective reality is that you are in a clique to the independent outside observer.
> 
> 
> I agree that Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul are ILI; however, I also do not agree that their personalities on here are the same as the other ILIs. As an outside observer, I see one group primarily talking about X, and rarely talking about Y, while I see an individual primarily talking about Y, and rarely talking about X. The group likes the occasional, friendly directed, X from the individual. The individual likes the occasional, friendly directed, Y from the group. Eventually, the individual realizes this, that he dislikes the primary X and moves on. Abraxas, Emberfly, and Blue Soul all objectively appear to be focused on Ni+, perceiving the ongoing trends and witnessing creation of more, while occasionally pointing out Te movements of bodies and then returning to Ni+. Eventually, they get bored of the logic focus on here and move on. On the other hand, almost every post from the remainder of of the ILIs are observed as being deconstruction of others logic, without any real value into understanding others viewpoints. Sometimes others viewpoints are expressed as being in consideration, but then it reverts back to it's main form, which is deconstructing this person's logic. I don't get off to picking apart peoples views and breaking them down in favor of my own. I don't like Ti- and I don't like imposing myself into their internal world to violate it. When I peek around in their heads, I do it to be able to help them connect with others who are internally the same, not to dissect their inner world for the validation of my external world. Again, is this how your mind works? I don't know, but this is how it comes across based on objective observations, and regardless of who is right or who is wrong, the fact remains that people don't like this. This forum was not "thriving" before I arrived here. Was it thriving _for you_? Probably. However, from an outside observer, it comes across as a clique that is holding onto the Socionics forum without letting others partake of it in a way that is not your own. Apparently, you find at least some truth in Socionics over MBTI, so why isn't this forum thriving? It's not "no thriving" because Socionics "is hard." It's actually really easy. It's "not thriving," because your clique doesn't want to merge viewpoints with others. You simply want to tear down their viewpoints until they must accept yours. Again, is this the inside of your mind? I have no idea, but what I do know, is this is how it looks from an independent and objective observer.
> 
> 
> This may be how you think, but it's not how you come across. When I read this, I hear, emotional atmosphere and fitting in. When you criticize others for not fitting in with you and a handful of your friends, and criticize them damaging the emotional atmosphere... How are objective observations supposed to say this is NOT alpha behavior?
> 
> The primary concern you and others have with my typing is considering me an LSI, yet over and over again, I reference strong vs weak, super-ego relations, nature of the social control block. You yourself have previously stated, well after I first referenced it, that you do not have a firm grasp on Role function. I have told you directly, you are looking at my role function. You have not investigated this, even though this function is critical to your hobby of typing others. I have told you directly that I am considered one of the most kind and gentle people around irl, and again, you do not investigate, yet you repeatedly criticize me not "taking your word" for your own type. I have told you directly, that I, objectively, match EII descriptions, infantile, and all other small groups. Rather than investigate why mainstream socionics is on-board with these things as factual, and why it is that you can't see how they are accurate, you dismiss them. I tell you that I can see the bridges between Model A, B, MBTI, etc., but rather than attempt to see these bridges, you dismiss them, because they build a framework that is counter to your own prerogatives. Do I blame you? No, of course not. Socionics states we will have different worldviews and goals. To each his own. However, you, from objective observations, have displayed no desire to "try and merge viewpoints." Most surely, there must be an underlying objective truth to how both of our counter viewpoints align and are explained. But you are not observed as desiring to give up any of your individual viewpoint in sake of a greater congruence of societal viewpoints as a whole, and in this sense, I really don't feel like you care about Fi at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not "your system." Do the other styles have value in the development of this system? Yes, of course. However, it is the development of another's ability to account for the weaknesses of their PoLR. The goal is to assist in this, to better it. The goal is NOT to do as Gulenko has been doing in recent years and attempt to completely alter it into something unusable by the originator, and then advertise it as a triumph in the face of the person who is already aware of their PoLR and asking for help.


Exactly. In other words. They don't need this shit, only the systemizers do. 

I agree with your typings.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Thanks for not listening at all, and over-writing my own personal experiences in favor of your personal observations. You are not privy to my inner states and you are frankly shit at reading them, so don't even bother thinking you can or you are and doing so with any semblance of accuracy, because you are not. People are disagreeing not to be smug, but because they frankly experience that the way you make assertions about who they are is bullshit and does not fit their actual sense of selves. In this case, you are doing exactly that. AGAIN.


I'm sorry, but what you suggest is not the intent. You state you want objectivity, but you reference your personal experience and views of the self instead of referencing how you are objectively seen by others. I am not disregarding your experiences, rather I am saying that what you describe of yourself is observed to be counter to what you claim, as you say I am doing as well. So, how is this explainable? From my perspective, you and some others are saying, "because that's not how I feel." This is understandable, but objective feeling is Fe, whereas watching movements is objective logic which is Te. So again, wherein exactly is this difference? If you are calling white "black" and I am calling black "white?" If this is within Socionics, then where so is it? And how does it fit into your views and typing?





> Stop project your own assertions about *MY* reality and sense of how I experience it by enforcing your perception onto my own experiences. Question yourself since when I ever brought up emotional atmospheres or even quoted or thought about it. I haven't once. You _are_ the one noticing and paying attention to it. I frankly don't care. Remember that post I wrote to you about my upbringing and how I grew up in a very Fe-driven family? Yes, that. Now fuck off if you cannot at any level take my own experiences and what they are seriously and treat them objectively in and of themselves without conjecturing what you think it is without actually asking me wtf it is. I've told you numerously; you gotta stop because you are now seriously crossing a line.


Again, I am not forcing anything. I stated observations of an objective nature which I have. You have criticized me for wrecking people enjoying themselves on here, which seems like criticism of damaging people's Fe. Are you? Is it your intent? I am saying neither, simply that it seems like it.



> What Si is? No. I do not. You think I should identify with it as a HA? lol. Preposterous and makes no sense. I should have an easier time grasping and understanding HA than I should role, for obvious reasons because one is valued, the other is not.


No. Role function in general. Also, HA is not a mainstream concept. It is only referenced in that one source. It never "took off" so to speak.





> A role function isn't on all the time and it certainly does not drive people to the point it's driving you, here, because the role function cannot be on while the base is and the base, compared to the role, is *always* on.


It is on in-so-much as it is deemed necessary for social control. If you feel the need for it, then it is on. Although I use terms such as "on" or "off" myself, the reality is that they are all always on, in varying degrees. I would consider "on" for the role function to be when it is >50% compared to base.




> I have spent years reading on this so suggesting I have not investigated this is offensive as hell. I have most likely investigated this more than you, seeing how you showed up here a couple of months ago and I have been here for over a year and spent time discussing this system during that time.


Discussing isn't reading. Also, most of what you express seem to come from sources that are not congruent with mainstream Socionics. No need to reply here about it. I will start a thread on resources here sometime tonight or tomorrow and we can critique them on there.



> But you never said _how_, did you? It does not show in your behavior here. Why would your personality be so distinctly different that you are suddenly another person IRL than you are online? I don't believe in that, unless you suffer from a personality disorder.


I am introverted, yet I speak a lot on the forums. Do you speak as much in long trains of thought, in real life? I don't. When I do speak, it may be declaring, but I certainly don't speak very much. There are memes of this nature, saying the internet is where introverts blab a lot.



> How are they accurate? Tell me. You have not made any claims that actually supports your argument.


Because the entire premise is backwards compared to mine. If I say "wow, look how victim this IEI is," then you will say the romance styles are bs and that the person is an EII. When speaking of "behaviors" of people, you and several others reference ones that descriptively are near identical to romance style ones, yet attribute it to Quadras or individual types that are never written to have these behaviors, but rather are ascribed by personal observations on the presumptions that the original typings are true. On one typing thread, I point blank asked someone, which IEs do you value, do you like this romance style or the other one, is this your liked Quadra behavior, and had IEI to all; however, this is met with resentment, because of the super-id of IEI, which occasionally seeks false power and stature in the absence of the dual to do it for them. All signs point to "yes," but the individual then says "no." Why? 



> Your supposed bridges make no sense; when asked to explain how they make sense, they still make no sense and you even make claims that are not in line with actual authorities on the subject though you claim to represent them. You twist everything within your interpretation. That is exactly what Zamyatin wrote to you, earlier and I've already criticized you for, this subjective framework of yours.


I twist nothing. I simply use different sources. This can be carried over to resource thread I will post.



> I can't merge a viewpoint that makes no sense to me, and when prompted of how to make sense of it, shows no validity in that it's not even grounded in the system as it is.


I think this will carry over as well.



> And exactly how is this Fi? Seeking to understand another is not what Fi is intrinsically about.


It is intrinsically about an internal, not external, connection. The descriptions on wikisocion are fairly accurate. When you and I speak of Fi/Fe, it doesn't appear to me that you have very clear distinctions or individual descriptions for either. I have been offering some for a long time now, which fit into the socionics framework. I imagine if I talk about Ti/Te, you see my usage similarly.



> So then please tell me, what are YOU doing with the system? Because you are doing like Gulenko, pretty much, except with Gulenko, he's not reintepreting the core. You *are*.


Again, I am not. The core is in another hemisphere. Most of what we read is in this hemisphere.

Just for clarification... If I am coming across as "violent," then I apologize. I mean you no harm, and I am having a calm discussion with you on my end.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly. In other words. They don't need this shit, only the systemizers do.
> 
> I agree with your typings.


Well, thank you, I appreciate the sentiment, but I would prefer to see a lively inter-type forum on socionics. On wikisocion, they list the types of a lot of socionists, yet none is an LSI. Knowing my father, and he self-typing as both LSI and ISTJ, I think it is because if an LSI got a crack at the system, it wouldn't exist anymore. My father listened to me blab about typology, and was amicable about me wanting to talk about it; however, I'm pretty sure, to someone else, he would say "this sounds like some bullshit made for people who are afraid to go outside and try and get a real relationship." From his perspective, I can see how a system made to explain existing relationships, by people who aren't good at them, and without offering creation of relationships, would be met with the criticality of ignoring Te.


----------



## Pavel

Oh, shit. And I thought this was delta thread.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're welcome. Just think of it like a pie split 16 different ways. You may be in the IEI piece, but you're speck is very close to the EII piece. If the person who cut the pie had cut it a little more to the left or right, you'd be something else lol.


Beautiful metaphor.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Beautiful metaphor.


The opposing view would be thinking we, as people, are a Lego store full of 16 different Lego characters lol. Legos are badass because there are an infinite number of Lego people you can make. You don't just take a 16-pack of premade ones and call it reality lol.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Link?


Apologies for the late reply, it took a bit of research to find out the sources. 

The descriptions themselves are taken from here, which are illustrations to the point made in this article (link doesn't work, for some reason PerC doesn't like the word "soc ion ika", which should be written without spaces and pasted instead of the %2A%2A% thing in the address bar), which in its turn is based on this. The original publication was made in some Socionics journal, but its full text isn't available online for free. 

The main idea is formation of the TIM "supervalue" formula with the help of Model A. (Not sure what the best word to choose here, literally it is "supervalue", with "super-" being used in its original Latin meaning "above", like in "supersonic" for example). Anyway, the said formula draws from two 4D functions, which are base and demonstrative, and states that: _regardless of any specific conditions on the aspect of demonstrative function, base function should provide results of the highest quality and quantity. T__he result of the said activity of the base function should be c__hange (improvement) of conditions on the aspect of demonstrative function._

I believe all the statements are phrased in such a way so as to illustrate the formula. 
For example for SEI: 
Harmony of the world (Si) doesn't depend on our attitudes and estimations (Fi) -> Si doesn't depend on Fi conditions. 
Good relationships (Fi) should contribute to the comfort and pleasures (Si) -> Fi should serve Si purposes.
...and so on.

Below are the descriptions for all quadras, which, as authors noted, shouldn't be taken literally, i.e. "law and order" doesn't necessarily imply law enforcement authorities.

Alpha

_SEI_ - Harmony, pleasure, comfort, aesthetics, benevolence, friendliness, diplomacy, peace, agreement, humor.
- Harmony of the world doesn't depend on our attitudes and estimations.
- Good relationships should contribute to the comfort and pleasures.
- Bad relationships shouldn't affect comfort.

_ILE_ - Creation, creativity, ideas, freedom, interest, prospects, new possibilities, ingenuity, knowledge.
- There's always room for creativity in any work.
- Any work should open up new possibilities.
- No activity should hinder or limit my freedom.

_ESE _- Happiness, joy of life, celebration, optimism, energy, emotion, passion, zest for life, virtuosity, hospitality, domesticity, thrift.
- No matter what hardships we face, life is worth living!
- Efforts should be focused on increasing happiness and pleasures.
- Lack of purposes shouldn't affect joy and happiness.

_LII _- Truth, learning, reason, reflection, laws of nature, laws of the universe, abstractedness, meaning, objectivity, justice, philosophy.
- Events should help to comprehend the laws of the universe.
- Availability of time should be focused on addressing gaps in the knowledge.
- Absence of events shouldn't hinder comprehension of the truth.


Beta

_EIE _- Destiny, serving, mission, higher purpose, impact, fate, triumph, glory, drama, power of emotions, enthusiasm, mood, belief, patience, predestination.
- Availability of skills and talents should make people happy and create a good mood.
- Absence of talents shouldn't affect the mood.
- Ideas of other people shouldn't influence my beliefs.

_LSI _- Order, system, rules, law, power, control, hierarchy, systematization, perseverance, demand, stability, coherence.
- Order should be always followed, regardless of available conditions. Law must be of paramount importance in the environment.
- Discomfort shouldn't affect compliance with law and order.
- Comfort should encourage compliance with law and order.

_IEI _- Events, dreams, belief in the reality of miracles, fantasy, romance, life in the current of time, mood volatility, emotionality, shifting away from the problems, destiny.
- People (relationships) shouldn't cause problems, regardless of their relation to me.
- Relationships with people should be focused on resolution of problems.
- Lack of good relationships (love) shouldn't change the situation of the relationships.

_SLE _- Victory, strength, goal, struggle, power, will, control, system, organization, uncompromising attitude, conquest, achievement, leadership.
- Victory at any cost.
- Concrete actions should contribute to assumption of (rise to) power.
- Absence of actions shouldn't affect the power.


Gamma

_LIE _- Work, luck, success, agility, moment, timescales, result, profitability, speed, promptness, calculation, risk.
- Possibilities and chances should be pursued/used on the path to success.
- One has to use opportunities/possibilities in order to reap the benefits.
- Lack of opportunities in profit-making shouldn't interfere with taking care of business.

_ILI _- Time, wisdom, prudence, contemplation, calmness, past-future, foresight, logic of events, censoriousness, self-irony.
- Course (logic) of events doesn't depend on our knowledge: whatever is going to happen will happen.
- Understanding of the logic of events contributes to the correct forecast of the situation.
- Unfamiliarity with the laws has no effect on the situation.

_ESI _- Duty, morality, goodness, struggle against evil, perseverance, work, will, rigor, independence, tradition, style.
- Relation to the person shouldn't depend on their appearance.
- Comfort and pleasures should promote good relationships (elimination of antipathy and conflicts).
- Lack of comfort and pleasures shouldn't hinder good relationships.

_SEE _- Leadership, sense of purpose, initiative, independence, recognition, credibility, success, fame, sociability.
- Goal must be achieved regardless of the mood.
- Strong emotions should help to set goals.
- Moods of other people should contribute to my authority.
- Emotions of other people can't affect my desires.


Delta

_LSE _- Work, benefits, professionalism, quality, reliability, stability, process, comfort, care.
- Efforts should be focused on gaining benefits and quality results.
- No obstacles should hinder work efficiency.
- Goals of other people shouldn't interfere with my work.
- Absence of other people's efforts shouldn't affect my working process (I can do everything myself).

_EII _- Morality, conscience, sincerity, humanity, honesty, ethics, love, moral courage, mutual understanding, inner essence of an individual, estimation of deeds and emotions, talents, relationship forecast, human capabilities.
- People should receive humane treatment at all accounts.
- Time contributes to the strengthening of relationships.
- Existing problems shouldn't affect people's relationships and estimations.
- Attitude to problems shows the inner essence of an individual.

_SLI _- Comfort, benefits, quality, mastery, perfection, aesthetics, peace, independence, freedom.
- Spatial comfort shouldn't depend on the order in the environment.
- Knowledge and rules should be focused on elimination of spatial discomfort.
- Lack of information shouldn't interfere with comfort.

_IEE _- Freedom, originality, ingenuity, potential, talents, meanings, perspectives and opportunities of relationships, love, mutual understanding, psychologism, humor.
- Good mood should promote mutual understanding.
- Absence of joy shouldn't interfere with mutual understanding.


----------



## Entropic

@To_august, these are great, thanks! I really and strongly agree with this:



> - Course (logic) of events doesn't depend on our knowledge: whatever is going to happen will happen.
> - Understanding of the logic of events contributes to the correct forecast of the situation.
> - Unfamiliarity with the laws has no effect on the situation.


----------



## To_august

Entropic said:


> @_To_august_, these are great, thanks! I really and strongly agree with this:


My pleasure roud:


----------



## Jeremy8419

@To_august No worries. I figured it must have been time intensive.

Curiously enough, LII seems to match some descriptions both for INTJ and INFJ 5's. For instance, Michael Pierce's videos.

You should start a resource thread for your post.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

> - Lack of purposes shouldn't affect joy and happiness.


I think I have an infraction from one thread in which I defended the quote above. lol :laughing:

f..k u Se egos. :dry: 

*j/k*


@To_august
That's one of the most enlighting things I've read about Socionics, I think. 
Thank you for translation ! roud:


----------



## Verity

Anyone here watch Fargo? The show oozes Delta imho.


----------



## Lunatics

Entropic said:


> I would look into understanding model A, whether you think and value Ti-Fe over say, Fi-Te, over relying on type descriptions. Type descriptions are usually faulty. You can only be an IEI or EII, not both.


*sigh* Sadly I still cannot decide on this. If I have to pick just one... (ugh)

Reading both profiles, I align more with the IEI profile below but if things get bad/serious I act like the EII profile below. Basically behind my positive and seemingly fun personality I seek stability, reassurance and honesty. Moreover, I have difficulty understanding that Model A. Maybe because I do not know myself as much yet or my true self is repressed due to self-doubt.

IEI male and female - Wikisocion Certainly not as defenseless and flirtatious. Some people think I'm quite strong, stronger than I appear (mentally). Others think I worry too much and need more reassurance/help. I often refuse when a male friend wants to carry something for me. 

EII male and female - Wikisocion Definitely not as quite and well-behaved. I have quarreled with teachers/lecturers before in class discussions when I thought my point of view is worth of consideration.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Lunatics said:


> *sigh* Sadly I still cannot decide on this. If I have to pick just one... (ugh)
> 
> Reading both profiles, I align more with the IEI profile below but if things get bad/serious I act like the EII profile below. Basically behind my positive and seemingly fun personality I seek stability, reassurance and honesty. Moreover, I have difficulty understanding that Model A. Maybe because I do not know myself as much yet or my true self is repressed due to self-doubt.
> 
> IEI male and female - Wikisocion Certainly not as defenseless and flirtatious. Some people think I'm quite strong, stronger than I appear (mentally). Others think I worry too much and need more reassurance/help. I often refuse when a male friend wants to carry something for me.
> 
> EII male and female - Wikisocion Definitely not as quite and well-behaved. I have quarreled with teachers/lecturers before in class discussions when I thought my point of view is worth of consideration.


These are descriptions over the course of life. For accuracy, you should match one at the various timeframes of your life up to the point in it where you currently are; I.e., you won't match any of the marriage or kids parts yet, because you haven't gotten there.

Socionics - the16types.info - Dostoyevsky, Male portrait, INFj by Beskova

Socionics - the16types.info - Esenin, Female portrait, INFP by Beskova

Socionics - the16types.info - EIE - ENFj

Socionics - the16types.info - IEE - ENFp


----------



## Lunatics

Jeremy8419 said:


> These are descriptions over the course of life. For accuracy, you should match one at the various timeframes of your life up to the point in it where you currently are; I.e., you won't match any of the marriage or kids parts yet, because you haven't gotten there.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dostoyevsky, Male portrait, INFj by Beskova
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Esenin, Female portrait, INFP by Beskova
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - EIE - ENFj
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - IEE - ENFp


Oh no, hahaha. I can find something that I have in every single profile, how's that possible?? However, I definitely cannot assign one of each to each stage of my life... Who can even do that? 

I find that I align the most with the INFp (IEI) profile so I shall leave it here for now. Thank you for your help and for bearing with me!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Lunatics said:


> Oh no, hahaha. I can find something that I have in every single profile, how's that possible?? However, I definitely cannot assign one of each to each stage of my life... Who can even do that?
> 
> I find that I align the most with the INFp (IEI) profile so I shall leave it here for now. Thank you for your help and for bearing with me!


Doh! Lol!

No worries. You may be in a sort of middle-ground, but the delineation and focus on beta just means you can get along with the other three quadras better! Yay! IEI for house-party visits! ^.^

Yw. Hollar if you need anything.


----------



## Lunatics

Jeremy8419 said:


> Doh! Lol!
> 
> No worries. You may be in a sort of middle-ground, but the delineation and focus on beta just means you can get along with the other three quadras better! Yay! IEI for house-party visits! ^.^
> 
> Yw. Hollar if you need anything.


Bwuahaha. Thanks, you're a star! ^_^ 

I remember the time when me and my back then flatmate organised a flat party. Out of 12 confirmed guests only 2 came. What an embarrassment, haha. Well we still had lots of fun. But we had group games prepared which we couldn't utilize due to the small number of people.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Lunatics said:


> Bwuahaha. Thanks, you're a star! ^_^
> 
> I remember the time when me and my back then flatmate organised a flat party. Out of 12 confirmed guests only 2 came. What an embarrassment, haha. Well we still had lots of fun. But we had group games prepared which we couldn't utilize due to the small number of people.


Awww, you could have gotten a video camera, filmed the party, taken turns pretending to be overexagerated and asinine versions of the people who didn't show, played the games switching characters, and then sent copies to the people who didn't show with a note that said, "so glad you came! We had such a great time! I can't believe you <insert something asinine you did on the video while pretending to be them>! Can't wait to do it again!"


----------



## Lunatics

Jeremy8419 said:


> Awww, you could have gotten a video camera, filmed the party, taken turns pretending to be overexagerated and asinine versions of the people who didn't show, played the games switching characters, and then sent copies to the people who didn't show with a note that said, "so glad you came! We had such a great time! I can't believe you <insert something asinine you did on the video while pretending to be them>! Can't wait to do it again!"


Agh, see! Neither of us was that creative to think of this but it was going to be a hilarious thing to do. Well, I did say to all the 'friends' I feel offended they didn't come afterwards. At least they apologized for it in the end.


----------



## To_august

I can't fucking stand irresponsible, lazy people, who care about nobody but their own asses, crap on everybody else and don't recognize consequences of their action and inaction.

*letting off steam*


----------



## Zeit

*snoops around*


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zeit said:


> *snoops around*


*quietly snoops around behind you*


----------



## LibertyPrime

^^ shit...double post


----------



## LibertyPrime

Jeremy8419 said:


> Doh! Lol!
> 
> No worries. You may be in a sort of middle-ground, but the delineation and focus on beta just means you can get along with the other three quadras better! Yay! IEI for house-party visits! ^.^
> 
> Yw. Hollar if you need anything.


I think the MBTI J-P spectrum has little to do with one's actual type. Its a completely separate preference from how one's cognition functions.

It might be the best explanation as to why we find IEIs and EIIs spread in both INFJ and INFP camps. To MBTI they are just INF with different behavioral preferences.

For example despite this: Open to New Experiences / Disorganized / Introverted / Disagreeable / Nervous ... I still can't deny that socionics EII is how I function cognitively. I may dislike TJs, but that is mostly because of my Fi agenda as someone who finds himself to be institutionally ODD, chaotic and anarchistic in nature.

I think making the difference is easier when ione looks at Ti vs Te and Se vs Si in both types. EIIs will in general be more concerned about their own physical health and objective factual information which supports their Fi agenda. EIIs are also more likely to employ force (Se) if it does not conflict with their Fi agenda. This can be specifically noted when someone breaks a value. Its like stepping on a land mine where the EII will become rather merciless and confrontational.

While I don't understand IEIs enough I assume the above is not a priority for them.

Where EIIs get complicated is their FI agenda. I amy not have the same one as you, so our outlooks and approaches to life may differ wildly, but the cognition stays the same.




To_august said:


> I can't fucking stand irresponsible, lazy people, who care about nobody but their own asses, crap on everybody else and don't recognize consequences of their action and inaction.
> 
> *letting off steam*


This is interesting and a reason I find that duality may not actually work depending on individual values, upbringing and life experience. 

I find myself proactive, ambitious and care a lot about tearing down society and the status quo, in order to rebuild it according to my Fi agenda, while being highly aware of the consequences of my own actions, but it may conflict with what you value. Hell it may conflict with another EIIs agenda.

 or it may not.

Very interesting.

^^; hehehe, here is to stirring up shit, throwing the dice and orchestrating change.


----------



## To_august

FreeBeer said:


> This is interesting and a reason I find that duality may not actually work depending on individual values, upbringing and life experience.
> 
> I find myself proactive, ambitious and care a lot about tearing down society and the status quo, in order to rebuild it according to my Fi agenda, while being highly aware of the consequences of my own actions, but it may conflict with what you value. Hell it may conflict with another EIIs agenda.
> 
> or it may not.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> ^^; hehehe, here is to stirring up shit, throwing the dice and orchestrating change.


Sure, we may have different values and all, but I doubt it has much to do if duality works or not.

I wrote that post after listening to a story by someone's life situation with a husband. He's been really dumb and she's been too submissive. I just couldn't figure out how they handle each other. The gist of it: she works, takes care of two children and the household chores, while he has occasional work, doesn't give attention to children, doesn't help with chores and mostly just sleeps or hangs out and drinks with his friends. At some point she supposed to be away from home for some time, and left him in charge. He was supposed to look after children, you know, usual stuff - feed them, take care of clothes, take them to kindergarten/school and back home after classes etc. On the very first day he barely cared to cook them anything, they were significantly late for both school and kindergarten and after that he just forgot about them, chilling, drinking and having fun with friends until late night.

I doubt you'd like the guy. Lol.


----------



## LibertyPrime

To_august said:


> Sure, we may have different values and all, but I doubt it has much to do if duality works or not.
> 
> I wrote that post after listening to a story by someone's life situation with a husband. He's been really dumb and she's been too submissive. I just couldn't figure out how they handle each other. The gist of it: she works, takes care of two children and the household chores, while he has occasional work, doesn't give attention to children, doesn't help with chores and mostly just sleeps or hangs out and drinks with his friends. At some point she supposed to be away from home for some time, and left him in charge. He was supposed to look after children, you know, usual stuff - feed them, take care of clothes, take them to kindergarten/school and back home after classes etc. On the very first day he barely cared to cook them anything, they were significantly late for both school and kindergarten and after that he just forgot about them, chilling, drinking and having fun with friends until late night.
> 
> I doubt you'd like the guy. Lol.


You are right, I don't. There is no way I can. :/ terrible situation to be stuck in. Can't stand ppl like that..


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> Sure, we may have different values and all, but I doubt it has much to do if duality works or not.
> 
> I wrote that post after listening to a story by someone's life situation with a husband. He's been really dumb and she's been too submissive. I just couldn't figure out how they handle each other. The gist of it: she works, takes care of two children and the household chores, while he has occasional work, doesn't give attention to children, doesn't help with chores and mostly just sleeps or hangs out and drinks with his friends. At some point she supposed to be away from home for some time, and left him in charge. He was supposed to look after children, you know, usual stuff - feed them, take care of clothes, take them to kindergarten/school and back home after classes etc. On the very first day he barely cared to cook them anything, they were significantly late for both school and kindergarten and after that he just forgot about them, chilling, drinking and having fun with friends until late night.
> 
> I doubt you'd like the guy. Lol.


Honestly, who would, in their right mind, like the guy?


----------



## To_august

Entropic said:


> Honestly, who would, in their right mind, like the guy?


Yes, that irked me so much, but love is blind, or something.

The only reason she gives (she thinks it's an excuse, at least) is that the guy is handsome, and she isn't pretty. As if it gives him the right to treat her the way he does. She isn't happy about it of course, but it appears she's ready to endure it even longer:frustrating:. 

This is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> Yes, that irked me so much, but love is blind, or something.
> 
> The only reason she gives (she thinks it's an excuse, at least) is that the guy is handsome, and she isn't pretty. As if it gives him the right to treat her the way he does. She isn't happy about it of course, but it appears she's ready to endure it even longer:frustrating:.
> 
> This is beyond my comprehension.


She should rebalance her standards. Too much on looks, not enough on sanity. I often encounter females who try and date guys that are very clearly out of their leagues in looks, then are surprised when the guy treats them as less than them. Base your relationships on a single scale, and you get the same in return.


----------



## To_august

That weird feeling when stumbling across older writings of yours, you can't recognize them as being written by yourself.


----------



## Captain Mclain

So Jeremy8419 got banned for 2 months. He did put a lot of energy into this forum and it will probably be noticed the lack of that energy. He was like 5 people posting at the same time.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Captain Mclain said:


> So Jeremy8419 got banned for 2 months. He did put a lot of energy into this forum and it will probably be noticed the lack of that energy. He was like 5 people posting at the same time.


Indeed, this sub forum will be like fallout universe. Not to say his entitled view on socionics is ok. Wonder why he is banned though. 
Btw, i ve found myself an alternative type because i had honework i need to slack off. Its lii, any thoughts ?
Also, can te polr manifest itself sth.like avoiding jobs, business settings etc. ? I cant relate other te polr descriptions. Especially not those when it says they dont know how to use things or buy quality stuff.


----------



## beth x

*Thread warning;*

Please stop the speculation about other members (especially if they are not here to defend themselves). Continue hanging out enjoy yourselves but not at anyone else's expense. 

http://personalitycafe.com/announcements/594529-personality-cafe-rules.html



> 1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
> Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame users annihilate the quality of discussion. Do not make personal attacks. You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves. Do not troll or purposefully attempt to disrupt discussion in threads. Do not harass or bully other members, which includes the following:
> - "type-bullying," which we define as the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed such an interest.
> - purposefully misgendering other members from the identification they have chosen on their profile.


----------



## Valtire

@To_august

What happened to your type? Why are you unknown?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Fried Eggz said:


> @To_august
> 
> What happened to your type? Why are you unknown?


Myst 91 happened. Check her typing thread, she updated it.

I still remember like it was yesterday. We were little ISTJ's becoming SLI. 
No one is SLI anymore. :sad:


----------



## To_august

Fried Eggz said:


> @_To_august_
> 
> What happened to your type? Why are you unknown?


Yep. PMing with myst happened.
It was timely though, its been long since I got tired of fitting into something that doesn't quite fit and ignoring the obvious by finding yet more excuses. Trying to get a bit different perspective now.
Maybe I'll end where I started. Maybe not.


----------



## myst91

@crashbandicoot lol
@To_august hope something good will come out of it.


----------



## Valtire

To_august said:


> Yep. PMing with myst happened.
> It was timely though, its been long since I got tired of fitting into something that doesn't quite fit and ignoring the obvious by finding yet more excuses. Trying to get a bit different perspective now.
> Maybe I'll end where I started. Maybe not.


I'm really interested to see your conclusion. I went through something similar to this; Ti-lead with no obvious auxiliary. I settled on LSI because I started to see my force of will.


----------



## Freelancepoliceman

So how is everyone doing?


----------



## Liligirl

Hi everyone. I'm new here and only completed the Socionics test yesterday.
My results were EII with the predominant quadrant of Delta.
I have no idea what that means, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
Thanks for having me


----------



## Booksnob

Hi, I am new here too. I've known I was INFJ for years but not thought much about it. I only dove into Socionics recently but one test typed me as ELL and Delta Quadrant looks like it fits. I'm not sure what this means to me but may as well dive in and see. What do we do when we hang out in Delta Quadrant? Hopefully we are checking for deep space anomalies as those are usually fun.


----------



## Booksnob

I find the description of the female/wife of this type as unquestioningly obedient to the husband a very disturbing idea. 
Socionics - the16types.info - Dostoyevsky, Male portrait, INFj by Beskova


----------



## Jeremy8419




----------



## Word Dispenser

Jeremy8419 said:


>


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy is so SLE, lol. Protecting group or sth.
Very dumb and unnecessary. Go back to beta and establish your circle of influence IRL, instead of being a wise-ass bitch on internet .


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Jeremy is so SLE, lol. Protecting group or sth.
> Very dumb and unnecessary. Go back to beta and establish your circle of influence IRL, instead of being a wise-ass bitch on internet .


You're _still_ not Deltax crash lol


----------



## myst91

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hmm...So, my first post attempted to change the subject from a needless argument, which is indeed passive aggressive in that sense.


I know your first post was about that and I went along with it. That's not passive aggression however as you were not targeting anyone with bad intentions.

I don't think Jeremy deserves your good intentions, however.

He was trying to fuck around with you and spewing random bullshit. You are not to take any word of his seriously or you will just waste your time.

You wondered why other people got so aggressive at him? You can see the reason for it now.




> Also...yeah, I have seen that happen with Jeremy. I feel the same way about him. Sometimes people are just being insanely aggressive towards him and it is really obvious and irritating - and I mean, like, needlessly aggressive. Usually it is a result of arguments from other threads, which means those folk need to confront their real reasons for their behavior and not keep letting it crop up later.


Let me explain further if you do not get it yet. Jeremy is a troll. Of course he will irritate people with that. There is no "real reason" for "those folks" to confront. It's as simple as him being a troll, no need to overcomplicate this. Jeremy is asking for such aggressive treatment, it's well deserved consequences towards him and when he actually complains about that, he's not able to own up to his own responsibility in these matters.

Hope you understand this phenomenon better now.




> Thank you very much for the vote of confidence. I didn't think I was being passive aggressive, but I am open to the idea. I certainly know I am capable of it! We all have weaknesses and bad days.


No, you weren't passive aggressive. That was Jeremy.




gritglossandrainbows said:


> normally, I'm all for conflict resolution, but in this case... just don't talk to him and feel free to hang out here  Every time you quote him to explain yourself, he'll respond by telling you to not quote him. It will go for pages. It's quite funny to watch, but I'm sure it's frustrating to experience. This is why I'm not quoting him at all.


Yeah.

It's completely pointless to waste time talking to him. roud:


----------



## myst91

crashbandicoot said:


> Jeremy is so SLE, lol. Protecting group or sth.
> Very dumb and unnecessary. Go back to beta and establish your circle of influence IRL, instead of being a wise-ass bitch on internet .


Not SLE, SLE would be direct and not twist bs.


----------



## Santa Gloss

@crashandicoot

your enneagram (in your signature)... :rolling: Clearly, your personality is so overwhelmingly huge that you just had to get a bigger number just to house it. 

I've been waiting to use ennea 0 as a part of a joke, but everyone is so serious. I doubt they'll get it. I think I'll call 0 "the elite squad for personality-free humans and robots."


----------



## Mr inappropriate

gritglossandrainbows said:


> @crashandicoot
> 
> your enneagram (in your signature)... :rolling: Clearly, your personality is so overwhelmingly huge that you just had to get a bigger number just to house it.
> 
> I've been waiting to use ennea 0 as a part of a joke, but everyone is so serious. I doubt they'll get it. I think I'll call 0 "the elite squad for personality-free humans and robots."


haha... I'm larger than life as my avatars suggests (that's me, btw:kitteh so its only logical my enneagram type being as such.

About joking about Enneagram, well... I dont advice you to joke around with that. Shitz REAL, man. You can get into trouble.:th_Jttesur:

Btw, 10w11 is real  It has been theorized here that Enneagram can be extended to 12 types, before. :tongue:


----------



## birdsintrees

*Thread warning: Quit sniping each other and quit your bickering. This place is a hang-out so leave your hostility, passive agressiveness and micro agressions at the door before you enter. 

If you don't wish to interact with someone; Don't. Stop and disengage. There's an ignore list, use it if you need to.*


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

The 12 type Enneagram is confusing, yo. It isn't clear how it analogues on the site I went to.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

myst91 said:


> Not SLE, SLE would be direct and not twist bs.


Oo, then. Maybe a LSI ? :shocked:

I want to kick him to beta. :exterminate:

My enneagram typing and answer supposed to be ironic, btw. I made that 12 types thing up, lol, just remembered when replying to @gritglossandrainbows, i saw such theory being talked in here by some weird dude.

@gritglossandrainbows see where joking bout enneagram gets you ?


----------



## myst91

crashbandicoot said:


> Oo, then. Maybe a LSI ? :shocked:
> 
> I want to kick him to beta. :exterminate:


He's full of Ne bs, so no. IEI, if you must put him in Beta but I don't think he's a Fe valuer, EII works fine.




> I made that 12 types thing up, lol, just remembering a year ago, i saw such theory being talked in here, by some weird dude.


Gotcha.


----------



## Santa Gloss

crashbandicoot said:


> My enneagram typing and answer supposed to be ironic, btw. I made that 12 types thing up, lol, just remembered when replying to @gritglossandrainbows, i saw such theory being talked in here by some weird dude.
> 
> @gritglossandrainbows see where joking bout enneagram gets you ?


Lol. Yes, I became enlightened to that today. I googled the new E12 theory, figured out my type, the types of men I prefer, the type that I encounter but don't like to date, my friends' types, the type of my favorite author, and other answers I never needed to have. Thoroughly sucked in :spacecraft-1: But while going through the theory, I realized you weren't serious because it doesn't really use a number system the way the traditional enneagram theory does. So you're safe! For now


----------



## birdsintrees

This thread is going to get a 24hr timeout.


----------



## birdsintrees

Thread is reopened. 

Please be mindful of the forum rules.
Please keep this place friendly and welcoming
Please leave your animosity at the door


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Wassup G's ! 







I'm afraid liking this video and song could get me banned from Delta quadra ? Is it normal?


----------



## Kyusaku

Hey ! New Delta here !


----------



## Klaude

Hello! New to Socionics but I have been into MBTI for a couple years. I am an EII (so INFj) but I am told that this does not quite exactly correspond to MBTI INFP (which is what I identify with in the MBTI). Can anyone tell me why it is said that MBTI types and Socionics types correspond roughly but not exactly? Seems like they should be the same. If anyone has any insight on that question, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Klaude said:


> Hello! New to Socionics but I have been into MBTI for a couple years. I am an EII (so INFj) but I am told that this does not quite exactly correspond to MBTI INFP (which is what I identify with in the MBTI). Can anyone tell me why it is said that MBTI types and Socionics types correspond roughly but not exactly? Seems like they should be the same. If anyone has any insight on that question, I'd love to hear it.


Well, basically, names don't necessarily mean the two named things are the same. Take Pete and Pete. Same parents, same name, yet totally different. "Fi" is basically a name. Emotions, emotional expression, and emotional atmosphere are Fe in Socionics. Relationships, good/bad, human condition are Fi in Socionics. Not only that, but in MBTI, your type is how you are, but in Socionics, your first two functions are what you consciously think about. You could be thinking of something completely different than what you're actually doing. For myself, Socionics Fi is basically all I think about, and Ni is kinda just what I am automatically doing without paying attention to it. I can be walking around and moving like I have some pseudo-psychic ability to know what's coming, but in my head I'm really just thinking about relationships of people around me.


----------



## Klaude

Thanks for the reply! Guess the similarity in terms is what threw me. Any good resources or literature on breaking down the differences between MBTI and Socionics further? I'd love to look into that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Klaude said:


> Thanks for the reply! Guess the similarity in terms is what threw me. Any good resources or literature on breaking down the differences between MBTI and Socionics further? I'd love to look into that.


"The differences between" will vary from person-to-person. Each person will have their own subjectivity on the matter determined by which parts they keep, reject, compare, and contrast. It is best to learn each system independently, then compare systems and develop your own viewpoint on the matter which is most conducive to your own goals.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Delta is dead. *begins funeral rites* *delivers heartwarming eulogy of the good that Delta has done humanity*


----------



## To_august

Funeral rites and eulogies?

Finally something pleasing to the ear comes. "Funeral" melodies are the best...


----------



## Jeremy8419

Not dead. Have a headache. Lol


----------



## Santa Gloss




----------



## Jeremy8419

What's that from?


----------



## AdInfinitum

To_august said:


> Funeral rites and eulogies?
> 
> Finally something pleasing to the ear comes. "Funeral" melodies are the best...



That is actually so good and powerful...Thanks, I need more of these.


----------



## Verity




----------



## Jeremy8419

Ooooo I like The Fountain. Wish I had it in 3D.

Verity, did you ever reach a conclusion on how other people mistyped you? I was curious to see what your thoughts were after some time had passed.


----------



## To_august

More emotional bliss...


----------



## Jeremy8419

The videos seem nice, but I don't have time to watch them all. Why don't you come back to Delta? Your old avatars seemed happier too.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Wassup G's !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid liking this video and song could get me banned from Delta quadra ? Is it normal?


LOL that video is funny.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Apparently it takes a funeral to imbue Delta with life? *recalls the eulogy*
Dark, Delta. Very dark.


----------



## The Capture of Time




----------



## The Capture of Time




----------



## d e c a d e n t

>_>


----------



## Wisteria

Funeral Music?
Bring Delta back to life!:ghost2:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Wisteria said:


> Funeral Music?
> Bring Delta back to life!:ghost2:


----------



## Santa Gloss

Wisteria said:


> Bring Delta back to life!:ghost2:


There's been a complication in Delta's rebirth. 










But then everything worked out!


----------



## Verity

It Awoke - Existential Comics


----------



## To_august




----------



## AdInfinitum

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Apparently it takes a funeral to imbue Delta with life? *recalls the eulogy*
> Dark, Delta. Very dark.


Only in the darkness you can find the true guiding light. :tongue:

I love this song on so many levels:


----------



## Mr inappropriate

gritglossandrainbows said:


> Hmm. everyone disappeared. Is this where you're all stuck?


I've became a tomato. Dont know about others.


----------



## SheWolf

I don't think I have ever posted in here. O.O

Hey there, Deltas!
@crashbandicoot

I don't think I've said this prior, but, Crash Bandicoot is a kickass game.  I grew up on it lol.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

QueenOfNight said:


> I don't think I have ever posted in here. O.O
> 
> Hey there, Deltas!
> @crashbandicoot
> 
> I don't think I've said this prior, but, Crash Bandicoot is a kickass game.  I grew up on it lol.


I grew up on PS One, ah those times :crying:

welcome to delta. you can take your cup of coffee *shows coffee machine* and chill in some corner :happy:


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> I grew up on PS One, ah those times :crying:


Oh, me too. Crash Bandicoot and Spyro were some of my very first games. 

You don't get games like Crash Bandicoot anymore. No, I'm not an elitist, but Crash was a game that posed a challenge and literally never got boring to replay. 



> welcome to delta. you can take your cup of coffee *shows coffee machine* and chill in some corner :happy:


That sounds perfect.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

QueenOfNight said:


> Oh, me too. Crash Bandicoot and Spyro were some of my very first games.
> 
> You don't get games like Crash Bandicoot anymore. No, I'm not an elitist, but Crash was a game that posed a challenge and literally never got boring to replay.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds perfect.


You seen Uncharted 4 ? Those guys still pop out incredible games. To be an elitist, most of the today's games suck. But storytelling also get better with age and character animations/graphics. TLoU is the perfect example.

I sometimes wish I live in that kinda world, you know. Pff

Anyway, glad that you liked here. I hope we can satisfy your Se. :crazy:


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> QueenOfNight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, me too. Crash Bandicoot and Spyro were some of my very first games.
> 
> You don't get games like Crash Bandicoot anymore. No, I'm not an elitist, but Crash was a game that posed a challenge and literally never got boring to replay.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> You seen Uncharted 4 ? Those guys still pop out incredible games. To be an elitist, most of the today's games suck. But storytelling also get better with age and character animations/graphics. TLoU is the perfect example.
> 
> I sometimes wish I live in that kinda world, you know. Pff
> 
> Anyway, glad that you liked here. I hope we can satisfy your Se.
Click to expand...

The Last of Us and Assassin's Creed are great modern games. I think today though we need games that focus more on story and less on multiplayer/online shit. I've seen some Uncharted 4 stuff and it is badass.

Oh, I most definitely wish I could live in video game world's too


----------



## Mr inappropriate

QueenOfNight said:


> Oh, I most definitely wish I could live in video game world's too


Which one would you prefer ? TLoU world really intrigues me, I can also join Nathan's crew too on an island adventure. I'm not into fantasy - RPG stuff though.

I can also do horror games stuff, like Silent Hill, Evil Within, god damn. I'd have tons of panic attacks but all for good reason so its enjoyable ahhah :tongue:


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> Which one would you prefer ? TLoU world really intrigues me, I can also join Nathan's crew too on an island adventure. I'm not into fantasy - RPG stuff though.


I am into fantasy RPG stuff though. :laughing: So, my game of choice to enter would be the Elder Scrolls. I love those games! Or as an Assassin in AC.
But out of those choices... I don't know. Uncharted, probably. Though I think I could survive in TLoU. 



> I can also do horror games stuff, like Silent Hill, Evil Within, god damn. I'd have tons of panic attacks but all for good reason so its enjoyable ahhah :tongue:


I like horror games, too! Though, I didn't care for The Evil Within. A lot of things in it felt ripped off from others games.  Like for example, Reborn Laura reminded me of Witch's design in Left 4 Dead. Just... with an extra set of arms lol.

Kinda felt like it was a bit overdone at times as well. I went through a phase where I was obsessed with Amnesia. Lol. Psychological Horror is my personal favorite.

I've also been getting more into Steam indie games lately as well. I just finished with the two biggest ones I knew of, Undertale and Life is Strange. Though LiS is now on consoles.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@QueenOfNight

Ah, does that mean we belong to different worlds ? :sad:

Yeah it was kinda cheezy i guess, it wasnt my example of a perfect game or anything. Just that surviving in that sorta world would be awesome challange. I'm just too bored with everyday life. Good thing I will be in a different country for a year in a few months. 

I dunno what Amnesia is but psycological horror makes me think of Stephen King books. Which reminds me how I haven't read a book in ages. 

Life is Strange was awesome ! Ok wasnt a fan of the ending but still quite an adventure. What do you type Chloe as ? SLE or SEE ? I think she is SEE. And Max, i think she is EII (even though its shaped by your choices, her diary gives clues).

Btw, how would you react if someone tells you that he is gonna buy some friends when he gets rich enough ? Other people are also welcomed to comment


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> @_QueenOfNight_
> 
> Ah, does that mean we belong to different worlds ? :sad:


Aw, why so glum, chum? LOL!



> Yeah it was kinda cheezy i guess, it wasnt my example of a perfect game or anything. Just that surviving in that sorta world would be awesome challange. I'm just too bored with everyday life. Good thing I will be in a different country for a year in a few months.


Exact same. I'm an adventurous sort. I want action. Truth be told, if I had the option, I would become a superhuman in Marvel or DC Universe or something. 



> I dunno what Amnesia is but psycological horror makes me think of Stephen King books. Which reminds how I haven't read a book in ages.


Just think about a Stephen King book in a video game form and that is Psychological Horror. Lol. I love Stephen King. ♥



> Life is Strange was awesome ! Ok wasnt a fan of the ending but still quite an adventure. What do you type Chloe as ? SLE or SEE ? I think she is SEE. And Max, i think she is EII (even though its shaped by your choices, her diary gives clues).


Chloe is SEE, imo. She tries to act like an SLE, but she's got too much Fi sentimentality with her relationships. I think Max is actually an IEI. I don't see Chloe being her conflictor or supervisor. They're very different, but they get along in an odd way. 

*PUTTING THIS PART IN SPOILERS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T PLAYED LIFE IS STRANGE BE WARNED.*


* *




The ending was a huge disappointment to me. It was like all the choices you made in the game meant shit. Becuase it all came down to two choices where your previous actions didn't affect anything at all. Save Chloe, or Arcadia Bay. I ended up saving Arcadia Bay. Glad I did, too. I went on Youtube and watched the ending if you saved Chloe. It was so unsatisfactory. Everyone they were close to in Arcadia Bay were likely killed, missing, injured, etc. and not a single damn word was said about it? They just drive off into the sunset together. What the hell? And not to mention Chloe herself went on a rant about how her mother and all those people didn't deserve to die because of her "stupid ass." Guess that meant nothing, huh? Psht.






> Btw, how would you react if someone tells you that he is gonna buy some friends when he gets rich enough ? Other people are also welcomed to comment


Wrinkle my nose a bit. Psht. You can't buy friends, bro. Good luck with that.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@QueenOfNight

Hmmm... from the comics, i think my fav was The Punisher, such an anti hero, hero. I was always frustrated by good guys merciying criminals, punisher just destroys them.

Intesresting, Max seemed Delta to me. She is more rule bound than ip tenparement imo, ij vibe. 
You know, i dont even remember what I chose at the end because it was so ridicilous. I might have just did heads or tails, lol. As soon as i watched the ending, i went back and played the other ending. Both were unsatisfactory. 

If you liked these type of games, i heavily recommend wolf among us :wink:


----------



## Immolate

crashbandicoot said:


> If you liked these type of games, i heavily recommend wolf among us :wink:


Not part of the conversation, but I really liked The Wolf Among Us and it's a shame it hasn't gone anywhere. 






^That atmosphere. Any thoughts on quadra and/or character types?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Atmosphere was very Gamma, imo. I'm inclined to type Wolf as LSI, though. He needs some serious Fe; but maybe alternatively Te leading type can be considered.


----------



## Immolate

crashbandicoot said:


> Atmosphere was very Gamma, imo. I'm inclined to type Wolf as LSI, though. Needs some serious Fe; alternatively Te leading type.


I was thinking Delta/Gamma and possibly SLI for Bigby.


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> ]
> 
> Intesresting, Max seemed Delta to me. She is more rule bound than ip tenparement imo, ij vibe.


Eh, maybe.... I think an Ij would have "put their foot down" against Chloe's shit though. I know I would have. There wasn't a whole lot of that Fi boundary setting with Max.
Max was very Victim style imo. Wherever Chloe went/whatever Chloe did, she followed. Sure, she was more rule bound on her own, but I think it's common for Ip temperaments not to rock the boat much on their own accord.



> If you liked these type of games, i heavily recommend wolf among us


Ooo, I'll check it out.


----------



## Entropic

QueenOfNight said:


> Eh, maybe.... I think an Ij would have "put their foot down" against Chloe's shit though. I know I would have. There wasn't a whole lot of that Fi boundary setting with Max.
> )


EIIs and LIIs are Se PoLR, so "putting their foot down" isn't really something that comes natural to them at all. Being able to express boundaries isn't type related anyway, but is more related to ergo permeability and how conflict-averse you are. 

There are plenty of conflict-averse Se egos out there.


----------



## SheWolf

Entropic said:


> EIIs and LIIs are Se PoLR, so "putting their foot down" isn't really something that comes natural to them at all. Being able to express boundaries isn't type related anyway, but is more related to ergo permeability and how conflict-averse you are.
> 
> There are plenty of conflict-averse Se egos out there.


Alright.


----------



## SheWolf

@crashbandicoot

I just looked into The Wolf Among Us.

Yes.

I need this game.


----------



## SheWolf

lets mosey said:


>


I can relate to this. Lmao.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

lets mosey said:


> I was thinking Delta/Gamma and possibly SLI for Bigby.


Haha, he can be SLI i guess. I feel like this too, btw. Its not like i can imagine LSI being good with children anyway.

Im curious about the concencus on BigB's type. Habe you played it @Entropic ?

I think max& chole may resemble supervision bevause Max always looks up to her. Also max's problem is she's too "normal" in a way, which relates more to Delta.


----------



## To_august

Night Huntress said:


> I have issues seeing Ron as a logician simply because he is doubtful and insecure and his ethical judgments aren't so great.
> 
> Firstly, it is important to remember that he is a teenage boy through the whole series, and that demographic isn't exactly the best at understanding relationships and emotions, at least compared to girls. They tend to be impulsive and reckless at some times, and sulky/withdrawn at others -- their behavior can be rather unbalanced. (I mean, we've all heard of the fuckboy stories everywhere IRL.)
> 
> In addition to that, I think you made a good point with Rowling being slightly biased towards girls, because she often makes guys look like total dolts, regardless of type. I mean, Harry has undergone his own share of relationship awkwardness, and often doesn't understand how people truly feel towards him, choosing instead to react angrily against them. And yet he's a clear ESI. I mean, being emotionally intelligent isn't linked explicitly to type.
> 
> Also... I'm pretty good at programming, science, math, logical debate and all that -- I've won awards. But that doesn't make me any less Ti PoLR. So I think he can be an ethician and still be good at chess and the like. Didn't he say he's practiced with his brothers since he was a child?
> 
> Even you agree that Hermione is an LSE, with 1D Fi. And yet she's always the one providing the practical relationship advice and she's tons better at it than any of the guys -- even Harry, who has 4D Fi. Conversely, it could be possible Ron's witticisms and occasional bursts of strategic thinking could be a byproduct of low logic itself. Especially if it's his HA, which sometimes can seem powerful enough to be mistaken as an egoic function.
> 
> The rest of my reasoning for his type is in this post (would be redundant to paste all that over again): http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153995-delta-quadra-hangout-thread-40.html#post28037226


I agree that he _could be_ an ethician, but I don't think he leads with eather logic or ethics so that aspect would be less seen in him anyway. With Harry we luckily have more insight into his cognition because books are written... not from the first person perspective of course, but at least from Harry's point of view, so we have more material to work with.

Yes, teenagers tend to be relationships awkward and Rowling has a bias, but it's not enough to support ethical ego. I'm not saying that liking chess is enough to support a logical one, but I simply go with what I recall which is: his struggles with understanding relationships were pretty much emphasized throughout the series, probably more than for any other character even, his comments on lack of understanding that people can have a wide range of internal feelings, his comments on usefulness of a relationship guidebook that could have turn his situation with girls around if only he knew about its existence and advices written in it before. Then again, sure, it could be author's bias and him an insecure teen, but I'd like to have some examples that actually _support _ethical ego, and not only dwell on possibility that ethicians can be like that too, because, Merlin is my witness, of course they can. 

@*AdInfinitum* mentioned something about him seeing hidden locks and possibilities about people (it would be interesting if she feels like elaborating on that). My memory isn't the best, so I might have missed on information. I could also argue that being emotionally explosive at times or blurting out opinions in an emotional way that may not always fit the situation is the result of weak Fe, exactly because the IE is weak and person doesn't have a nuanced way of dealing with it, but I think this might be nitpicking, since with characters it is better to focus on more simple things like ego and valued/devalued IEs, I think, as figuring out PoLR or HA isn't always possible.


----------



## Vermillion

To_august said:


> I agree that he _could be_ an ethician, but I don't think he leads with eather logic or ethics so that aspect would be less seen in him anyway. With Harry we luckily have more insight into his cognition because books are written... not from the first person perspective of course, but at least from Harry's point of view, so we have more material to work with.
> 
> Yes, teenagers tend to be relationships awkward and Rowling has a bias, but it's not enough to support ethical ego. I'm not saying that liking chess is enough to support a logical one, but I simply go with what I recall which is: his struggles with understanding relationships were pretty much emphasized throughout the series, probably more than for any other character even, his comments on lack of understanding that people can have a wide range of internal feelings, his comments on usefulness of a relationship guidebook that could have turn his situation with girls around if only he knew about its existence and advices written in it before. Then again, sure, it could be author's bias and him an insecure teen, but I'd like to have some examples that actually _support _ethical ego, and not only dwell on possibility that ethicians can be like that too, because, Merlin is my witness, of course they can.
> 
> @*AdInfinitum* mentioned something about him seeing hidden locks and possibilities about people (it would be interesting if she feels like elaborating on that). My memory isn't the best, so I might have missed on information. I could also argue that being emotionally explosive at times or blurting out opinions in an emotional way that may not always fit the situation is the result of weak Fe, exactly because the IE is weak and person doesn't have a nuanced way of dealing with it, but I think this might be nitpicking, since with characters it is better to focus on more simple things like ego and valued/devalued IEs, I think, as figuring out PoLR or HA isn't always possible.


I've said more in the earlier post as to why xEE makes good sense for him -- stuff about how he is expressive, desirous, explosive, and whatnot. It's not merely that there isn't sufficient evidence for logic ego, but that there's also sufficient evidence for ethical ego. As for specific instances -- I don't have all of them on hand right now and I'm going through the books right now, so I will add more to this discussion later, but some I remember are how he stormed out of the tent in the last book and went to Shell Cottage purely on an emotional impulse -- no real rationality involved, and even why he came back was because of his emotional bonds with his friends, and not because it was the most rational or efficient decision to make. It's true that 4D Fe types prioritize their self-expression strongly, even if that need is unconsciously pursued in Fe demonstrative types. Sometimes they even do it at the expense of their personal relationships and moral code, because their Fi is still creative and fluid. 

As for needing a guidebook to understanding relationships and life, that's something 6s often experience in general and it's a part of existential anxiety. It causes them to constantly feel like they haven't prepared enough to face the world and tackle all its obstacles, and that's why they keep anticipating danger, looking for hidden possibilities, and readying themselves for confronting the world.


----------



## To_august

Night Huntress said:


> I've said more in the earlier post as to why xEE makes good sense for him -- stuff about how he is expressive, desirous, explosive, and whatnot. It's not merely that there isn't sufficient evidence for logic ego, but that there's also sufficient evidence for ethical ego. As for specific instances -- I don't have all of them on hand right now and I'm going through the books right now, so I will add more to this discussion later, but some I remember are how he stormed out of the tent in the last book and went to Shell Cottage purely on an emotional impulse -- no real rationality involved, and even why he came back was because of his emotional bonds with his friends, and not because it was the most rational or efficient decision to make. It's true that 4D Fe types prioritize their self-expression strongly, even if that need is unconsciously pursued in Fe demonstrative types. Sometimes they even do it at the expense of their personal relationships and moral code, because their Fi is still creative and fluid.
> 
> As for needing a guidebook to understanding relationships and life, that's something 6s often experience in general and it's a part of existential anxiety. It causes them to constantly feel like they haven't prepared enough to face the world and tackle all its obstacles, and that's why they keep anticipating danger, looking for hidden possibilities, and readying themselves for confronting the world.


Shell Cottage scene can't be a good example as this was the result of Riddle's locket that Ron wore atm, once locket let go off him he understood how stupid he was. If it weren't for the locket, I'd say that this shows pretty poor ethics, because it was like - 'you ether with me or with him', no other choice, no options, totally black and white vision, nothing fluid or creative about it. But, as I said, that was the locket, so I retain the possibility of ethical ego for Ron (I'm not against it itfp, but simply see the possibility of him being a logician; not leading with logic, but a creative "back up" instead). 

I can't really argue against 6 as I don't have enough knowledge on enneagram, but with that guidebook episode - Ron didn't wanted to be prepared for a relationship thingie, but it was a statement he made in retrospect after the twins gifted him that book. He mentioned that if he read it before, he would know how to get rid of Lavender and get things going with Hermione, so it doesn't seem like he was interested in relationships nuances or thought much about how to get himself ready for it.


----------



## To_august

Halfway through Life is Strange. Couldn't have thought that I can survive interactive-movie sort of game with lots of talks and relatively less action, but totally love it this far.

I think Chloe is SEE. For Max I'm between xLI and EII. She usually slows down Chloe's impulses, talks about being more cautious and needing to find more clues and proofs in order to figure out what is happening and I associate these traits with Pi lead. She is also okay with taking role of a logical planner that Chloe seems to accept and follow. At the same time it's true that she has strong attunement to understanding people's feelings and interpersonal bonds.

The most creepy dude so far is Samuel, who with his dreamy-softy manner rambles about destiny and hidden paths of life and is a pretty stereotypical IEI, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly conducts bloody squirrel sacrifices near the Tobanga Totem. He would be too obvious for a villain, so I'm suspecting someone else is the real troublemaker.


----------



## Coburn

For Delta Fi users: apparently I have a tendency to clash with Delta Fi. Is that common between Delta Fi types or is it more indicative I'm in another quadra?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Coburn said:


> For Delta Fi users: apparently I have a tendency to clash with Delta Fi. Is that common between Delta Fi types or is it more indicative I'm in another quadra?


I don't think Deltas usually go around clashing with each other all the time. :/

Your type entry reads ILE. NeTi isn't a Delta. Is that a mistake?


----------



## Coburn

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I don't think Deltas usually go around clashing with each other all the time. :/
> 
> Your type entry reads ILE. NeTi isn't a Delta. Is that a mistake?


It's what I was typed as briefly but it seems to be in question. Just didn't bother to change it to unknown because meh.

Hmm...which quadra clashes most with Delta?


----------



## To_august

Coburn said:


> It's what I was typed as briefly but it seems to be in question. Just didn't bother to change it to unknown because meh.
> 
> Hmm...which quadra clashes most with Delta?


In general opposite quadras clash most naturally due to devaluing each others IEs: Beta|Delta and Alpha|Gamma. 
In what ways exactly Delta Fi grates on you?


----------



## Coburn

To_august said:


> In general opposite quadras clash most naturally due to devaluing each others IEs: Beta|Delta and Alpha|Gamma.
> In what ways exactly Delta Fi grates on you?


Hmm. I think I find it intrusive. It comes in and sprawls out and assumes itself as a standard.


----------



## Angina Jolie

Coburn said:


> For Delta Fi users: apparently I have a tendency to clash with Delta Fi. Is that common between Delta Fi types or is it more indicative I'm in another quadra?


In my experience Fi per se clashes with other Fi's quite a lot. I can get very annoyed with the stubborness of other Fi's while being stubborn myself. Especially dom. Fi's, including other EIIs. But there is however a natural understanding of why these people are being so stubborn and I can respect that and even find it cute.
With Beta however, the grudge that I get, when I get it is far deeper, beyond annoyance. Our thinking is upside-down and I can feel it. And if the differences are not deeply and honestly discussed my relationships with Beta people would definitely not succeed, they would naturally go to poopooo soon.


----------



## To_august

Coburn said:


> Hmm. I think I find it intrusive. It comes in and sprawls out and assumes itself as a standard.


That's strange. Delta Fi is actually pretty nonintrusive and accepting as it looks to people's qualities, sees the underlying potential being concerned with finding ways for its fulfillment. There's also Si softness to it, as they aim to make it in a humane manner and an unstrained environment. Compared to Gammas at least, who have Fi blocked with Se and are more likely to be openly moralistic and setting their ways, defining distinct boundaries.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Coburn said:


> It's what I was typed as briefly but it seems to be in question. Just didn't bother to change it to unknown because meh.
> 
> Hmm...which quadra clashes most with Delta?


Beta, I think.


----------



## Coburn

To_august said:


> That's strange. Delta Fi is actually pretty nonintrusive and accepting as it looks to people's qualities, sees the underlying potential being concerned with finding ways for its fulfillment. There's also Si softness to it, as they aim to make it in a humane manner and an unstrained environment. Compared to Gammas at least, who have Fi blocked with Se and are more likely to be openly moralistic and setting their ways, defining distinct boundaries.


Hmm, I wonder if I've been reacting to Gamma Fi instead then.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Coburn said:


> Hmm, I wonder if I've been reacting to Gamma Fi instead then.


ILE is Alpha, Alpha gets along not so well with Gamma for the same reason Beta and Delta are opposed.

So if you are having issues with Gamma's Fi with Ni-Se valuing, it means you probably have issues both with Fi *and* with Ni-Se's spin on how Fi works. In other words, yes, you would have issues with Gamma Fi but not as much Delta Fi.

How do you get along with the other Quadra representatives? How do you perceive groups of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas?


----------



## Typhon

To_august said:


> That's strange. Delta Fi is actually pretty nonintrusive and accepting as it looks to people's qualities, sees the underlying potential being concerned with finding ways for its fulfillment. There's also Si softness to it, as they aim to make it in a humane manner and an unstrained environment. Compared to Gammas at least, who have Fi blocked with Se and are more likely to be openly moralistic and setting their ways, defining distinct boundaries.


Here's the thing. With EII, they are less aware of "boundries" so they may intrude with their Fi due to weak Se. I realize this isn't done purposefully, and its rare that its really that bad, but when it becomes a problem its really annoying. I have had a bad reaction to unhealthy EIIs in the past, whereas ESIs have less of this effect because they are aware who is "theirs" and "not theirs"; they may impose their standards in a close relationship, but unlike EIIs will not intrude upon strangers, IME. Te-LSEs can be intrusive and get into your business, as can certain Te-SLIs on occasion. 

So I think Deltas can be quiet obtrusive at times, though obviosuly not all Deltas, I do think there may be some reasons why this is the case. Most of my conflicts with Gamma and Beta come from them being aggressive at times, me feeling like I have to repel a personal attack, and less about moralising and getting into people's business which seems to sum up the problems I've had with Delta. With Alpha my problems come from the fact they always want to focus on positive emotion, which gets grating. Actually Alphas don't like conflict, so they tend to avoid them, but that doesn't mean there aren't any problems and many things with alphas are left unsaid, which bugs me.


----------



## To_august

Typhon said:


> Here's the thing. With EII, they are less aware of "boundries" so they may intrude with their Fi due to weak Se. I realize this isn't done purposefully, and its rare that its really that bad, but when it becomes a problem its really annoying. I have had a bad reaction to unhealthy EIIs in the past, whereas ESIs have less of this effect because they are aware who is "theirs" and "not theirs"; they may impose their standards in a close relationship, but unlike EIIs will not intrude upon strangers, IME. Te-LSEs can be intrusive and get into your business, as can certain Te-SLIs on occasion.
> 
> So I think Deltas can be quiet obtrusive at times, though obviosuly not all Deltas, I do think there may be some reasons why this is the case. Most of my conflicts with Gamma and Beta come from them being aggressive at times, me feeling like I have to repel a personal attack, and less about moralising and getting into people's business which seems to sum up the problems I've had with Delta. With Alpha my problems come from the fact they always want to focus on positive emotion, which gets grating. Actually Alphas don't like conflict, so they tend to avoid them, but that doesn't mean there aren't any problems and many things with alphas are left unsaid, which bugs me.


It can be more the case with IEE and their creative Fi then. I just can't picture EII going around intruding into other people's businesses and jumping at strangers to force-feed their ideas. I mean, of course they can behave this way, but it doesn't seem to be typical for an EII in particular. I think it can be more common for extraverted types and in case of weaker IEs this usually seems rather unrefined, immature and weird at times.

I don't tend to have many conflicts with people in general, and don't think I ever had a conflict with Gamma or Alpha, but I had a few ones with Betas and Deltas and those were related mostly to people being too rigidly fixated on their worldview and thinking they are the sole repository of truth or forcing me into behaving certain way. Tbh these seem like general things many people wouldn't like independently of their quadra.


----------



## Typhon

To_august said:


> It can be more the case with IEE and their creative Fi then. I just can't picture EII going around intruding into other people's businesses and jumping at strangers to force-feed their ideas. I mean, of course they can behave this way, but it doesn't seem to be typical for an EII in particular. I think it can be more common for extraverted types and in case of weaker IEs this usually seems rather unrefined, immature and weird at times.


What I've noticed is that IEEs tend to like giving advice (at least to people younger than themselves), EIIs generally don't give advice, I was thinking of one perosn who I had known who I had typed as Ne-EII, at first she was cool, then after a while se would start berating me with criticism about how I wasn't working on our prject enough, how I should do my work, what I should do and even how I should cut my hair etc. It was super annoying though I guess I could understand it when we had to work together on a project and I wasn't working enough (I admit I can be lazy) but she would do this even after we stopped working together and it was none of her business. Most EIIs aeren't like this, though they tend to be be rather chill and receptive to people, so maybe I have her mistyped, but what could she be? EIE seems unlikely, as I almost always have smooth relations with them on the surface and conflicts are extremely rare, IEE also but they usally aeren't rigid. IEE I find are more "open-minded" than rationals, I just think this woman was EII with a strong Ne subtype which caused her to reach out to others more than your average EII. She was also a 1w2, so we have to factor enneagram into the equation. 



> I don't tend to have many conflicts with people in general, and don't think I ever had a conflict with Gamma or Alpha, but I had a few ones with Betas and Deltas and those were related mostly to people being too rigidly fixated on their worldview and thinking they are the sole repository of truth or forcing me into behaving certain way. Tbh these seem like general things many people wouldn't like independently of their quadra.


I totally agree with the last sentence. 

I personally have had conficts with all the types, I used to have alot of conflicts with people but now I've become more even-tempered as a person which is part of what caused me to change my self-typing from EIE to LIE. I'm back to hesitating between the two though people on here tend to lean gamma in their typing of me (people I've talked to on this forum), which is fine by me, I see where they're coming from, but sometimes I still have doubts about being EIE, since emotional expression comes naturally to me and I can be qiuet the peformer type if I'm ina good mood around people. Then again, I've had an IEI once tell me that my emotions seem to be always the same, so I dunno. I'd imagine an EIE would have a wide emotional range. I asked my mom who knows me well if she felt I had a wide emotional range, but she says she doesn't know, shes not good at answering questions like that since it involves making a decision, and shes bad at making decisions being EII six or nine.


----------



## To_august

Typhon said:


> What I've noticed is that IEEs tend to like giving advice (at least to people younger than themselves), EIIs generally don't give advice, I was thinking of one perosn who I had known who I had typed as Ne-EII, at first she was cool, then after a while se would start berating me with criticism about how I wasn't working on our prject enough, how I should do my work, what I should do and even how I should cut my hair etc. It was super annoying though I guess I could understand it when we had to work together on a project and I wasn't working enough (I admit I can be lazy) but she would do this even after we stopped working together and it was none of her business. Most EIIs aeren't like this, though they tend to be be rather chill and receptive to people, so maybe I have her mistyped, but what could she be? EIE seems unlikely, as I almost always have smooth relations with them on the surface and conflicts are extremely rare, IEE also but they usally aeren't rigid. IEE I find are more "open-minded" than rationals, I just think this woman was EII with a strong Ne subtype which caused her to reach out to others more than your average EII. She was also a 1w2, so we have to factor enneagram into the equation.
> 
> I totally agree with the last sentence.
> 
> I personally have had conficts with all the types, I used to have alot of conflicts with people but now I've become more even-tempered as a person which is part of what caused me to change my self-typing from EIE to LIE. I'm back to hesitating between the two though people on here tend to lean gamma in their typing of me (people I've talked to on this forum), which is fine by me, I see where they're coming from, but sometimes I still have doubts about being EIE, since emotional expression comes naturally to me and I can be qiuet the peformer type if I'm ina good mood around people. Then again, I've had an IEI once tell me that my emotions seem to be always the same, so I dunno. I'd imagine an EIE would have a wide emotional range. I asked my mom who knows me well if she felt I had a wide emotional range, but she says she doesn't know, shes not good at answering questions like that since it involves making a decision, and shes bad at making decisions being EII six or nine.


Ooh, that's really annoying. I hate when people act this way. I'm pretty demanding when it concerns people doing their job, but intruding in personal spaces is an absolute no-no. I don't even know how to react when people make suggestions on "improvement" of my appearance. It's such a weird mixture of annoyance, shame, failure to grasp the meaning, wondering if they are utterly rude or it's an okay thing to do from their part, desire to counter an "attack".

Of course you know that person better and I'm not going to doubt her typing, since I don't know her  But you weren't a stranger to her, so I guess she might feel the right to stretch her Fi tentacles over you, since Fi is more person-to-person as in contrast with Fe that usually works on larger groups.

If you can't evaluate your emotional range by yourself and need to ask others, it doesn't sound like a very strong conscious Fe tbh. From what I heard from several Fe base types, they quite easily associate themselves with emotional experience and I recall someone told once that emotions are the basis of their life and without experiencing them they don't exist.

It's also true that wide emotional range isn't exactly the thing to look for while deciding on Fe base. You may show just several emotions on the surface, but if you internally and consciously process this element in 4D that would mean Fe base. I'm not the best person to lecture on Fe though, since I'm so blind to it myself.


----------



## AdInfinitum

To_august said:


> Halfway through Life is Strange. Couldn't have thought that I can survive interactive-movie sort of game with lots of talks and relatively less action, but totally love it this far.
> 
> I think Chloe is SEE. For Max I'm between xLI and EII. She usually slows down Chloe's impulses, talks about being more cautious and needing to find more clues and proofs in order to figure out what is happening and I associate these traits with Pi lead. She is also okay with taking role of a logical planner that Chloe seems to accept and follow. At the same time it's true that she has strong attunement to understanding people's feelings and interpersonal bonds.
> 
> The most creepy dude so far is Samuel, who with his dreamy-softy manner rambles about destiny and hidden paths of life and is a pretty stereotypical IEI, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly conducts bloody squirrel sacrifices near the Tobanga Totem. He would be too obvious for a villain, so I'm suspecting someone else is the real troublemaker.


May I ask why do you think Chloe is SEE? I saw a bit more arguments towards the ESE gate, however a more unconventional typing imo. I loved this game towards infinity and its eyes therefore I adore discussing it.


----------



## To_august

AdInfinitum said:


> May I ask why do you think Chloe is SEE? I saw a bit more arguments towards the ESE gate, however a more unconventional typing imo. I loved this game towards infinity and its eyes therefore I adore discussing it.


What's the argument for ESE? I mean, where does Chloe show Fe and Si? I don't recall Chloe being focused on emotional expression or initiating some sensory relaxing activities. She dared people, pushed them into action (predominantly Max of course), asserted oneself and didn't hesitate to press personal judgements buttons. Let's go to the junk yard and shoot bottles or better all those barrels and scrap cars at different angles and see what will happen, let's get out tonight and get into the Principal's office, let's take revenge on that motherfucker, however impulsive her actions may seem. Chloe is direct with stating her attitudes to people and at the same time has no difficulties with changing opinion on someone if provided with factual information. Like when she changed her mind on her stepdad in an instant after she learned that he helped Max. Pretty fluid and adaptable Fi it seems.

If there's any factual support for Chloe being ESE I'm really curious to hear it.

Just recently finished the game and loved, _loved_, LOVED it!
This, because I can't resist:


----------



## Angina Jolie

Entropic said:


> Well, Jon, I think he's a 4 and an ILI. Eddard is an SLI and I think 9w1. Robb no idea, he struck me as an LSE perhaps, no idea about the enneagram but possibly 3 or 2? Catelyn, I thought of her as an SEI. No idea what enneagram I think she is. Theon is an Fe ego type, couldn't figure out what kind of though. EIE maybe? Seems like a heart type in the enneagram, I'd wager at type 3.


I agree with your socionics typings. Hadn't thought of Jon as ILI though. Why ILI and not IEI?

What I meant is not that everyone of them is actually a delta type. But Ned is most definitely, and Robb too to me seems like an LSE. Eddards values have rubbed off on most of the family too. It's not just clear in what the characters do, they themselves talk about their fathers values, the stark values!

I also compare them to other houses and characters and to me none of the Starks have a desire to conquer, to expand. Only Robb, but the motivation is much different than a status quo. The Starks care about maintaining what is with honor.


----------



## Entropic

oh the irony said:


> I agree with your socionics typings. Hadn't thought of Jon as ILI though. Why ILI and not IEI?
> 
> What I meant is not that everyone of them is actually a delta type. But Ned is most definitely, and Robb too to me seems like an LSE. Eddards values have rubbed off on most of the family too. It's not just clear in what the characters do, they themselves talk about their fathers values, the stark values!
> 
> I also compare them to other houses and characters and to me none of the Starks have a desire to conquer, to expand. Only Robb, but the motivation is much different than a status quo. The Starks care about maintaining what is with honor.


Because he is Fi-valuing and a logician who just happened to be more feelsy. This is based on the TV series and not the books, but in the TV series, he definitely seems like an ILI-Ni type to me, with pronounced Fi. When Jon meets Ygritte, he explains a lot of things, but it seems more based on Te-valuing than Ti, referring to common standards:






Also, he is gamma snarky. I think this clip showcases Te-Fi valuing from him quite well in general, and the way he's aggressive is definitely not the way IEIs approach relationships. IEIs use Fe to get reactions out of their partners, so when Ygritte mimicked swooning into Jon's arms, I think an IEI would react more emotionally to that, trying to copy the expression or change its direction. Jon doesn't give a shit and doesn't seem to take it overly seriously at all.

Compare Varys to Jon to see the difference:


----------



## Serpent

@Entropic What do you think is Tyrion's type? I recall you were vacillating between IEE and ILI.


----------



## Entropic

Serpent said:


> @Entropic What do you think is Tyrion's type? I recall you were vacillating between IEE and ILI.


I still think IEE is more plausible than ILI.


----------



## avs2night

Kanerou said:


> That said, I've heard MBTI Fi itself described as being kind of laid-back and open and understanding so long as certain buttons are not pushed. So... *shrug*


Yeah, but when we're in Delta groups, that's when we can calmly talk about those _buttons_ in detail and reach some conclusions about them. That's not so easy in Alpha groups, I find. They tend to keep it light on the typically Fi topics of interest.


----------



## To_august

Recently had a bit of experience with VI, which was very shaky and lacking in any solid basis.
I couldn't get more than "you look like X type" and "these are my intuitive hunches from your nonverbal behaviour" from people who base their typing purely on non-verbal cues. No wonder it was less than satisfactory experience that seemed to be similar to simple laziness of mind on the part of the typer :/


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

To_august said:


> Recently had a bit of experience with VI, which was very shaky and lacking in any solid basis.
> I couldn't get more than "you look like X type" and "these are my intuitive hunches from your nonverbal behaviour" from people who base their typing purely on non-verbal cues. No wonder it was less than satisfactory experience that seemed to be similar to simple laziness of mind on the part of the typer :/


Heh. What result did they get for you, if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## To_august

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. What result did they get for you, if you don't mind my asking?


I don't mind at all. 
One person said LSE because... I just look like one and in order to figure it out I have to check their gallery and see it for myself. I did so, but didn't get how that sort of visual comparison works. I may see some visual similarities, _I guess_, but nothing definitive. The other one was set on ILI. I was really curious for the reasoning behind it, but much to my dismay I couldn't get anything of substance.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

To_august said:


> I don't mind at all.
> One person said LSE because... I just look like one and in order to figure it out I have to check their gallery and see it for myself. I did so, but didn't get how that sort of visual comparison works. I may see some visual similarities, _I guess_, but nothing definitive. The other one was set on ILI. I was really curious for the reasoning behind it, but much to my dismay I couldn't get anything of substance.


It is always intriguing when one person gets it right with nothing but VI. It is a fascinating yet oh so frustrating topic. :/

Why would you seem so emphatically ILI I wonder? Hm.


----------



## To_august

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> It is always intriguing when one person gets it right with nothing but VI. It is a fascinating yet oh so frustrating topic. :/
> 
> Why would you seem so emphatically ILI I wonder? Hm.


The typer finds it impossible to describe the process and the way they came to the conclusion because of the hazy nature of it. I'd like to know the answer myself, but unfortunately for the lack of explanation... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## AdInfinitum

To_august said:


> What's the argument for ESE? I mean, where does Chloe show Fe and Si? I don't recall Chloe being focused on emotional expression or initiating some sensory relaxing activities. She dared people, pushed them into action (predominantly Max of course), asserted oneself and didn't hesitate to press personal judgements buttons. Let's go to the junk yard and shoot bottles or better all those barrels and scrap cars at different angles and see what will happen, let's get out tonight and get into the Principal's office, let's take revenge on that motherfucker, however impulsive her actions may seem. Chloe is direct with stating her attitudes to people and at the same time has no difficulties with changing opinion on someone if provided with factual information. Like when she changed her mind on her stepdad in an instant after she learned that he helped Max. Pretty fluid and adaptable Fi it seems.
> 
> If there's any factual support for Chloe being ESE I'm really curious to hear it.
> 
> Just recently finished the game and loved, _loved_, LOVED it!
> This, because I can't resist:



I apologize for my lack of impulse towards replying earlier, overall crippling anxiety is difficult to swim through and not get your lungs filled with it.

Anyway, looking through your glass-clear analysis I have to reconsider my assumption, I considered that her tough appearance, need to mobilize others and sharp character to be a product of her years of suffering, trying to survive the jungle she had been thrown in without any true explanation as to why the events in her life never aligned towards her self realization. I guess I put too much emphasis on the effects of time and heart-breaking events which in my view hid her true self. I found her to be really focused on the unique relationship between her and Max and the expressiveness which kinda brought in Fe vibes but now that I look at it from another light, it was based on a Fi environment as in the deep feelings they both had for one another. One thing that moved me around Fe was the way she pushed around Max into expressing herself and most of the times did not seem to understand her need for personal space, she tried involving Matt into past activities and a series of memories which would have strengthened their relationship however that is still Fi and her impulsiveness is still a huge pointer at Se. I declare myself defeated but enlightened.

I often noticed her make flashing assumptions about the ethical objectivity of the outside, as in judging Frank for his poorly drawn choices in life without putting herself truly in his place and analyze him, considers her step-father a threat to others and overall pretty shallow assumptions about people but the fast paced rhythm of the game doesn't truly allow her to bloom in terms of change except for the ending scene where she discovers her place in the puzzle. I didn't see the Si in her either but I have issues noticing Se in people because I tend to look too much into things and miss the truth on the outside. Delusional maybe and a poor "typer" but in love with the concept overall.

I did love her character profoundly though, the way she was guided blindly by a light she saw in the concept she created around her friend, as in her stationary element in a continuously shifting world only to be shattered in time. Her adaptability to life was absolutely frightening and her determination even more, a piece more colourful than others would like to admit.


----------



## To_august

AdInfinitum said:


> I apologize for my lack of impulse towards replying earlier, overall crippling anxiety is difficult to swim through and not get your lungs filled with it.
> 
> Anyway, looking through your glass-clear analysis I have to reconsider my assumption, I considered that her tough appearance, need to mobilize others and sharp character to be a product of her years of suffering, trying to survive the jungle she had been thrown in without any true explanation as to why the events in her life never aligned towards her self realization. I guess I put too much emphasis on the effects of time and heart-breaking events which in my view hid her true self. I found her to be really focused on the unique relationship between her and Max and the expressiveness which kinda brought in Fe vibes but now that I look at it from another light, it was based on a Fi environment as in the deep feelings they both had for one another. One thing that moved me around Fe was the way she pushed around Max into expressing herself and most of the times did not seem to understand her need for personal space, she tried involving Matt into past activities and a series of memories which would have strengthened their relationship however that is still Fi and her impulsiveness is still a huge pointer at Se. I declare myself defeated but enlightened.
> 
> I often noticed her make flashing assumptions about the ethical objectivity of the outside, as in judging Frank for his poorly drawn choices in life without putting herself truly in his place and analyze him, considers her step-father a threat to others and overall pretty shallow assumptions about people but the fast paced rhythm of the game doesn't truly allow her to bloom in terms of change except for the ending scene where she discovers her place in the puzzle. I didn't see the Si in her either but I have issues noticing Se in people because I tend to look too much into things and miss the truth on the outside. Delusional maybe and a poor "typer" but in love with the concept overall.
> 
> I did love her character profoundly though, the way she was guided blindly by a light she saw in the concept she created around her friend, as in her stationary element in a continuously shifting world only to be shattered in time. Her adaptability to life was absolutely frightening and her determination even more, a piece more colourful than others would like to admit.


No worries.

No, you have good points. Her flashing assumptions have more to do with weak or devalued Ne, I think. Chloe sees people more in terms of how they act and what sort of behaviour they actually demonstrate as opposed to Delta NF approach that is build more around people's qualities and potential they _could _show, which is the place from where comes more acceptance of people's flaws, their rights and wrongs, since anybody have both and can potentially show/be both. I still see her as a Fi-Te valuer rather than Fe-Ti, but ESE is an interesting perspective to consider anyways. 

I totally liked her character too. She may seem self-absorbed or mindless of other people's problems, which is all true, but at the same time she has such a refreshing attitude. You don't need to worry that she might play some mind tricks on you or that she spins intrigues behind your back. If she's up to something, she's direct about it and you'll know it first-hand. This is something I always admired.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Paul Van Dyk - SLI-Si ? Guy has out of world rhythm and comes off as Fe-Polr in his performances.


----------



## Nehtaro

Hi friends I'm new here!

(Am I doing this right?)


----------



## To_august

Nehtaro said:


> Hi friends I'm new here!
> 
> (Am I doing this right?)


Hello and


----------



## Mr Oops

Umm... what's up oldies? [Old SLIs are actually very interesting people to talk to. There is a bit blend among them and EIIs at older stages in their life.]

How does it feel to be born one foot in a grave? 


(If we believe in quadra progression... btw you are welcome to change my diapers any day.)


----------



## AdInfinitum

Mr Oops said:


> Umm... what's up oldies? [Old SLIs are actually very interesting people to talk to. There is a bit blend among them and EIIs at older stages in their life.]
> 
> How does it feel to be born one foot in a grave?
> 
> 
> (If we believe in quadra progression... btw you are welcome to change my diapers any day.)


You could call it "development of the weaker elements", everyone gains insight during their lives, their whole existence becomes a frame decorated with unseen/unheard-of colours.

At least having one foot in the grave means I will not be so scared about falling in completely.


----------



## Mr Oops

Interesting viewpoint on that one foot in a grave thing.

I know that I'm becoming more and more like ESE and it's bit confusing. I'm not still in a stage with my Si where I nostalgically talk about popsicle sticks (one ILE in his 50's).


----------



## Mr Oops

myst91 said:


> If you mean EII finds it hard to hate too...


I can feel fear but... I can not hate people. I talked to this a person and she thought that fear and hate is nearly the same thing. I couldn't wrap my head around it. Humanity as large concept however seems not so "lovable". Too much pattern of destruction. 

I think it is pretty similar on individual basis how we can not hate.


----------



## To_august

Mr Oops said:


> How does it feel to be born one foot in a grave?


Feels alright if I don't lean too much, but being levelheaded helps with keeping the balance most of the time.


----------



## pwowq

So I ended up here. What... to... do... what... to... do.

From a SLI-description. How this line is under "problem area" I don't understand. 
_"Knows how to put a person back in their place. Being ordered around as a form of communication for him does not exist: he will do as he sees fit."_


----------



## Rose for a Heart

Any other EII-Ne?


----------



## snar.k.alee

*Shiny new penny*

So, I'm new to *aaaallll* this _'*stuff*'_....

I've found out I am a delta, ENFP , type 2w1 and I think that's all... (Am I missing anything big??) and I'm really enjoying *trying * to learn from everyone! Out of all three deltas description is oddly the most relatable for me, in turn, I'm pretty stoked hang around here when possible!

All the members of this site seem intimidatingly intelligent :typingneko: how do you all know *SO* much about all of it!! I feel like I missed something big, an important required course somewhere or like my parents failed me by not filling my childhood with stories of the mythical mbti bunny :words: regardless, I don't know if I could ever be as knowledgable about this stuff nor would I know where to start! But if any of you _personality savants _have any suggestions, experience or tips then I'd be super grateful!


----------



## Nehtaro

@snar.k.alee this forum is a good place to start. Just be wary--a lot of people speak really confidently as if their word is canon, while they actually have no idea what they're talking about. But welcome, Deltas are great and it's always nice to see another ENFP


----------



## LibertyPrime

Sooo I finally finished my  idk what to call it work/personal room. <.< whut you guys think? Does it please your Si?

Muh workdesk:










Lightbulb bookshelf eagerly awaiting my copies of Immanuel Kant from Austria:










This is where I make deals and have coffee:










Muh furniture. I reconditioned some old furniture which was falling apart:










The door there leads to my bathroom, which is connected at a right-angle to the "Ludmilla" pub ..which is sort of a guest room. I can upload pics from there too. Its mainly designed to look like a pub, ell sort of.


----------



## LibertyPrime

This is what you see from the windows, its made from europalets:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Your images seem to be broken? @LibertyPrime


----------



## LibertyPrime

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your images seem to be broken? @LibertyPrime


Tell me if they are fixed now.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

They are fixed @LibertyPrime


----------



## LibertyPrime

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> They are fixed @LibertyPrime


<.< hmm I should have shot it with a camera and edited for warmer light, the coldness takes away the comfortable-ness of it no? also thinking of changing the light bulbs, thought initially that 6200K (kelvin) was ok since 3200K would have too much of an impact if I need the lights at night to focus properly on photography subjects, but the 6200K ;/ just makes the room rather cold... and it sucks.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

LibertyPrime said:


> <.< hmm I should have shot it with a camera and edited for warmer light, the coldness takes away the comfortable-ness of it no? also thinking of changing the light bulbs, thought initially that 6200K (kelvin) was ok since 3200K would have too much of an impact if I need the lights at night to focus properly on photography subjects, but the 6200K ;/ just makes the room rather cold... and it sucks.


Erm...I guess? I don't really think it was cold, but then I don't pay much attention to that sort of thing.


----------



## Nehtaro

@LibertyPrime I love it! Very beautifully done. Thanks for sharing the pics


----------



## To_august

Rant: Been sitting for twenty minutes feeling dumb not knowing should I use smileys and exclamation marks in a reply to a client if they used those in their initial letter. What is appropriate anyway? Wouldn't it feel too dry or hostile if I'd use just plain text? Was the client's usage of smileys inappropriate itfp since they've been writing a letter to a person they've never met before? Ugh.

Rave: I'm behind the times. Didn't knew Garbage had a new album this year, but it's still rave 'cause I'm so damn excited to hear new tracks.


----------



## Nehtaro

To_august said:


> Rant: Been sitting for twenty minutes feeling dumb not knowing should I use smileys and exclamation marks in a reply to a client if they used those in their initial letter. What is appropriate anyway? Wouldn't it feel too dry or hostile if I'd use just plain text? Was the client's usage of smileys inappropriate itfp since they've been writing a letter to a person they've never met before? Ugh.


My LSE sister struggles with this as well. My suggestion is to use at most one smiley, except for rare circumstances. Exclamation points are fine but don't overuse. Smileys are not 'inappropriate' per se, but are not completely professional. They are indicating discomfort with formality basically, which is fine.


----------



## To_august

Nehtaro said:


> My LSE sister struggles with this as well. My suggestion is to use at most one smiley, except for rare circumstances. Exclamation points are fine but don't overuse. Smileys are not 'inappropriate' per se, but are not completely professional. They are indicating discomfort with formality basically, which is fine.


Yeah, I usually use formal style without any smileys or exclamation points, since senders use the same and it's the most comfortable way for me. It's just this one sender style was out of the ordinary with using three smileys and eight exclamation points in a single letter so it threw me out of the balance and into an unknown area, so I didn't know what the appropriate tone of response should be. Overall I noticed that I tend to mimic people's tones but the line is not clear to me how much is too much and how little is too little. Maybe they were inappropriate in the first place because of using too many "emphasizers" for a formal style letter. 
I ended up with using just one exclamation mark and zero smileys. Fingers crossed it's okay with them.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

To_august said:


> Rant: Been sitting for twenty minutes feeling dumb not knowing should I use smileys and exclamation marks in a reply to a client if they used those in their initial letter. What is appropriate anyway? Wouldn't it feel too dry or hostile if I'd use just plain text? Was the client's usage of smileys inappropriate itfp since they've been writing a letter to a person they've never met before? Ugh.


To use smiley or not to use smiley. It's a real struggle.

>_<


----------



## To_august

Although we don't have big Halloween celebrations, except for the increased amount of spooky movies on TV and occasional ads, I managed to get infected by the mood enough to make this guy


----------



## PumpkinSpice

Hi I'm the most exciting Delta ever to be seen. 

Though if I am actually Alpha somehow... then I'm the most irresponsive and boring Alpha.

I'll never find out. ;w;

Anyways, I type EII. Hello. ^-^


----------



## Scoobyscoob

PumpkinSpice said:


> Hi I'm the most exciting Delta ever to be seen.
> 
> Though if I am actually Alpha somehow... then I'm the most irresponsive and boring Alpha.
> 
> I'll never find out. ;w;
> 
> Anyways, I type EII. Hello. ^-^


If you're the most Delta ever, then you're likely Gamma. We're meaner and edgier but we're also more exciting and the movers and shakers of the Te/Fi world. 

I get a strong Gamma vibe from you, not Ne/Si; but if you type as EII then more powa to ya.


----------



## Vermillion

Scoobyscoob said:


> If you're the most Delta ever, then you're likely Gamma.


ok.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Night Huntress said:


> ok.


Ah sorry, I meant if she's the most exciting Delta ever. lol Deltas are very peaceful and stable as a group but exciting, Deltas are not. The more aggressive 8 versions can seem exciting but that's just one acting in their nature.

Deltas tend to view Gammas as exciting people due to Se valuing and also intriguing due to Ni valuing. Gammas and Deltas identify with one another through Te and Fi.


----------



## Vermillion

Scoobyscoob said:


> Ah sorry, I meant if she's the most exciting Delta ever. lol Deltas are very peaceful and stable as a group but exciting, Deltas are not. The more aggressive 8 versions can seem exciting but that's just one acting in their nature.
> 
> Deltas tend to view Gammas as exciting people due to Se valuing and also intriguing due to Ni valuing. Gammas and Deltas identify with one another through Te and Fi.


a) Rampant stereotyping
b) Too little information to type someone off of

That's all.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Night Huntress said:


> a) Rampant stereotyping
> b) Too little information to type someone off of
> 
> That's all.


a) You do know that's written in the Quadra descriptions, don't you? Or do you just post here to socialize without knowing much?
b) No shit. I said it only half seriously to which you're taking it way too seriously.

That is all with me.


----------



## Vermillion

Scoobyscoob said:


> a) You do know that's written in the Quadra descriptions, don't you? Or do you just post here to socialize without knowing much?
> b) No shit. I said it only half seriously to which you're taking it way too seriously.
> 
> That is all with me.


If you seriously believe that deltas are incapable of being exciting that means you're misinterpreting the quadra description. The quadra description implies that deltas *generally* prefer subdued and peaceful environments, not that they're never exciting. And I'm sure there are plenty of gammas who are less exciting than deltas. 

I wouldn't give a shit if you were doing this with someone already having experience in Socionics, but that's a new member you're dealing with, and I'd rather nip the misinformation in the bud. Especially because you have a history of forcing unsolicited typings onto people. Good day to you.


----------



## To_august

Scoobyscoob said:


> Deltas tend to view Gammas as exciting people due to Se valuing and also intriguing due to Ni valuing. Gammas and Deltas identify with one another through Te and Fi.


Nah. More like driven, ambitious and more demanding but with a shared practical and interpersonal focus. 
I see nothing exciting about Se tbh. It’s Ni (or Se valuing quadras in general) that may find Se exciting. Beta’s Ni is more intriguing, while Gamma’s Ni being blocked with Te is more on the factual and efficient side.

Someone being exciting is such an Fe vocabulary though. I don’t find neither myself nor anybody else exciting. I can be excit*ed*, some*thing* can cause excite*ment* within myself, and some*thing* can be exciting, but I can’t call any*body* exciting. Guess, I just don’t think in such terminology when it comes to people.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I find the above post irritating for an unexplainable, ineffable reason. I am bothered by the idea that some*body* cannot *be* exciting. What I don't understand is why that bothers me.

It bothered me enough that I felt it a good idea to share it, in case it is typologically relevant, even though I have no idea how to articulate at this time exactly what bothers me about it. No personal offense is intended her @To_august. And it doesn't mean I think you are less of a cool person


----------



## Nehtaro

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I find the above post irritating for an unexplainable, ineffable reason. I am bothered by the idea that some*body* cannot *be* exciting. What I don't understand is why that bothers me.
> 
> It bothered me enough that I felt it a good idea to share it, in case it is typologically relevant, even though I have no idea how to articulate at this time exactly what bothers me about it. No personal offense is intended her @To_august. And it doesn't mean I think you are less of a cool person


Well you are each other's conflictor. Someone being exciting is sexy and beautiful and full of possibilities and it all is tied to and a part of what makes life worth living, am I right? And saying that people can't be exciting is kinda just raining on your parade.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Yes, it is sort of raining on my parade if you will. If there are no exciting people its almost like there is nothing to look forward to. I conceptualize the people around me in part by how exciting (or not) that they are. There are plenty of people who are not exciting that can still be fairly cool. Usually these people are kind or loving or loyal or faithful. Like, there are other positive qualities than just being exciting, and being exciting is correlated with other positive traits and stuff. But trying to conceptualize a world wherein a person on their own is not exciting - CANnot be exciting - makes my head hurt a bit.

Again, no offense is intended! I know this is the Delta hangout and I am spouting decidedly non-Delta stoofs. Bear with me! 

Also, you are quite understanding. Your skill at rephrasing to show understanding is showing @Nehtaro


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Night Huntress said:


> If you seriously believe that deltas are incapable of being exciting that means you're misinterpreting the quadra description. The quadra description implies that deltas *generally* prefer subdued and peaceful environments, not that they're never exciting. And I'm sure there are plenty of gammas who are less exciting than deltas.
> 
> I wouldn't give a shit if you were doing this with someone already having experience in Socionics, but that's a new member you're dealing with, and I'd rather nip the misinformation in the bud. Especially because you have a history of forcing unsolicited typings onto people. Good day to you.


Once again, I was partially joking. Sheesh.

Also, PumpkinSpice, the person in question has already demonstrated working knowledge in Socionics and actually holds aspects of MBTI in disdain. So it's not like I was "hazing the new person". Said person already knew I was being cheeky. At any rate, good day to you too.



To_august said:


> Nah. More like driven, ambitious and more demanding but with a shared practical and interpersonal focus.
> I see nothing exciting about Se tbh. It’s Ni (or Se valuing quadras in general) that may find Se exciting. Beta’s Ni is more intriguing, while Gamma’s Ni being blocked with Te is more on the factual and efficient side.
> 
> Someone being exciting is such an Fe vocabulary though. I don’t find neither myself nor anybody else exciting. I can be excit*ed*, some*thing* can cause excite*ment* within myself, and some*thing* can be exciting, but I can’t call any*body* exciting. Guess, I just don’t think in such terminology when it comes to people.


Well, I suppose intriguing would've been a better word to use. A lot of Deltas think I'm rather mysterious when I self-perceive myself as being pretty much an open-book. I know my wife (LSE) thought I was purposely being mysterious and intriguing to her on purpose. When she confessed that to me one night I was like, "wtf? I've been trying to be extremely open this entire time. :shocked:". There is a chance I have her mistyped though so please keep that in mind.


----------



## To_august

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes, it is sort of raining on my parade if you will. If there are no exciting people its almost like there is nothing to look forward to. I conceptualize the people around me in part by how exciting (or not) that they are. There are plenty of people who are not exciting that can still be fairly cool. Usually these people are kind or loving or loyal or faithful. Like, there are other positive qualities than just being exciting, and being exciting is correlated with other positive traits and stuff. But trying to conceptualize a world wherein a person on their own is not exciting - CANnot be exciting - makes my head hurt a bit.
> 
> Again, no offense is intended! I know this is the Delta hangout and I am spouting decidedly non-Delta stoofs. Bear with me!


Enter the bleakness and the non-excitement










"Exciting" doesn't seem to be the right word since I don't conceptualize people this way. I experience sort of separation between people as personalities and what they actually do. So it's like idea someone came up with can be exciting, but it doesn't make the person who came up with the idea exciting. In the same vein, movie/song/book/game can be exciting but this perception does not translate to people who made it by the very fact of them being responsible for making it.

Bear with me as well. How do you decide whether someone is exciting?


----------



## To_august

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, I suppose intriguing would've been a better word to use. A lot of Deltas think I'm rather mysterious when I self-perceive myself as being pretty much an open-book. I know my wife (LSE) thought I was purposely being mysterious and intriguing to her on purpose. When she confessed that to me one night I was like, "wtf? I've been trying to be extremely open this entire time. :shocked:". There is a chance I have her mistyped though so please keep that in mind.


I doubt it's strongly quadra related. We had little project once - to write a couple lines about each other in our class to summarize what we perceive each other to be all about (it was supposed to be used lately during graduation ceremony) and people decided to call me "a mystery with a poetic soul". Lol, I had no idea that I may come off like that. I experience myself being pretty simple and non-mysterious. People's ideas of my personality baffle me at times, which I attribute to my low Ne.


----------



## Immolate

To_august said:


> I doubt it's strongly quadra related. We had little project once - to write a couple lines about each other in our class to summarize what we perceive each other to be all about (it was supposed to be used lately during graduation ceremony) and people decided to call me *"a mystery with a poetic soul"*. Lol, I had no idea that I may come off like that. I experience myself being pretty simple and non-mysterious. People's ideas of my personality baffle me at times, which I attribute to my low Ne.


Doesn't seem far off


----------



## Scoobyscoob

To_august said:


> I doubt it's strongly quadra related. We had little project once - to write a couple lines about each other in our class to summarize what we perceive each other to be all about (it was supposed to be used lately during graduation ceremony) and people decided to call me "a mystery with a poetic soul". Lol, I had no idea that I may come off like that. I experience myself being pretty simple and non-mysterious. People's ideas of my personality baffle me at times, which I attribute to my low Ne.


It sounded like a complimentary statement more than anything else. Perhaps an IEI or EIE trying to speak well of you? 

As for me, being told once I'm mysterious to the woman I'm married to is kind of... :topsy_turvy:.  Her thinking so did make me re-evaluate what I share with her and what I don't though, so something did come of it.


----------



## Jakuri

To_august said:


> I doubt it's strongly quadra related. We had little project once - to write a couple lines about each other in our class to summarize what we perceive each other to be all about (it was supposed to be used lately during graduation ceremony) and people decided to call me "a mystery with a poetic soul". Lol, I had no idea that I may come off like that. I experience myself being pretty simple and non-mysterious. People's ideas of my personality baffle me at times, which I attribute to my low Ne.





lets mosey said:


> Doesn't seem far off


Based on what I have seen in the socionics visual typing thread, I concur with what lets mosey said here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

To_august said:


> Enter the bleakness and the non-excitement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Exciting" doesn't seem to be the right word since I don't conceptualize people this way. I experience sort of separation between people as personalities and what they actually do. So it's like idea someone came up with can be exciting, but it doesn't make the person who came up with the idea exciting. In the same vein, movie/song/book/game can be exciting but this perception does not translate to people who made it by the very fact of them being responsible for making it.
> 
> Bear with me as well. How do you decide whether someone is exciting?


My own reaction to whatever it is they bring to the table. If they come up with exciting ideas and do so regularly, they are an exciting person to me. If their ideas excite me and not Joseph, then that person is exciting to me and not Joseph. Joseph would presumably find some other type of person exciting.

If someone who I find to be dull comes up with something exciting, then that person is exciting for this moment and then may or may not return to being dull in my eyes depending on how things develop. That person, by doing/saying what they did, had an immediate impact on what is happening and in doing so affected the level of excitement. Whether I am affected by what they do or not is up to me; if I am determined to be melancholy, for example, then a person who is normally exciting to be around could be dull or irritating that day.

If I read about something exciting on the internet or something and don't know who made it, I still get excited. The things are just as capable of being exciting, so it isn't just people or anything. Any kind of idea, person, action, substance, etc. can be exciting or not as the case may be, depending on the situation, mood, time of day, etc, etc.

Someone not finding anyone at all exciting is what I find weird, ya dig? I don't think that my exciting and your exciting are the same, but the idea that there is some sort of separation between what can and cannot be exciting is hard for me to comprehend. Like, a person literally cannot find someone to be exciting no matter who they are or what they do?

I think this is just Fe vs. Fi. To me, excitement is something that can be spread around, pushed away (AKA rejected), created, destroyed, etc. Its an object.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Also: Yes, @To_august, I would also say you seem fairly mysterious and there is some poetry there


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Accidental extra post


----------



## To_august

lets mosey said:


> Doesn't seem far off





Jakuri said:


> Based on what I have seen in the socionics visual typing thread, I concur with what lets mosey said here.





Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also: Yes, @*To_august*, I would also say you seem fairly mysterious and there is some poetry there


Guys, you all are meanies for shattering my stoic self-perception and supporting fluffy nonsense


----------



## To_august

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> My own reaction to whatever it is they bring to the table. If they come up with exciting ideas and do so regularly, they are an exciting person to me. If their ideas excite me and not Joseph, then that person is exciting to me and not Joseph. Joseph would presumably find some other type of person exciting.
> 
> If someone who I find to be dull comes up with something exciting, then that person is exciting for this moment and then may or may not return to being dull in my eyes depending on how things develop. That person, by doing/saying what they did, had an immediate impact on what is happening and in doing so affected the level of excitement. Whether I am affected by what they do or not is up to me; if I am determined to be melancholy, for example, then a person who is normally exciting to be around could be dull or irritating that day.
> 
> If I read about something exciting on the internet or something and don't know who made it, I still get excited. The things are just as capable of being exciting, so it isn't just people or anything. Any kind of idea, person, action, substance, etc. can be exciting or not as the case may be, depending on the situation, mood, time of day, etc, etc.
> 
> Someone not finding anyone at all exciting is what I find weird, ya dig? I don't think that my exciting and your exciting are the same, but the idea that there is some sort of separation between what can and cannot be exciting is hard for me to comprehend. Like, a person literally cannot find someone to be exciting no matter who they are or what they do?
> 
> I think this is just Fe vs. Fi. To me, excitement is something that can be spread around, pushed away (AKA rejected), created, destroyed, etc. Its an object.


Yeah, it's so very different for me. You seem to have such a good grasp of and a focus on emotional energy people produce.

I think it's theoretically possible to find someone exciting, but... I thought again and nope, I don't know anybody whom to call exciting and for the lack of experiencing it I can't really say if it's possible or not. Dunno if it's my experience that is so limited or I'm just incapable of harboring such feelings, lol.


----------



## Jakuri

To_august said:


> Guys, you all are meanies for shattering my stoic self-perception and supporting fluffy nonsense


Aww that is endearing~ (I am aware this isn't "helping" you, but I had to say it~)


----------



## 6007

SLI too dead as fuck in this thread tho


----------



## 6007

I want a manicure pedicure and a massage and a haircut


----------



## Santa Gloss

ripley said:


> I want a manicure pedicure and a massage and a haircut


This forum doesn't offer any of those services :bwink:


----------



## 6007

gritglossandrainbows said:


> This forum doesn't offer any of those services :bwink:


You cannot stop me from getting services! I can get them anywhere! ANYWHERE I SAY! 

for real tho, I bet I could get them here. I don't WANT to, but I bet I COULD


----------



## Santa Gloss

ripley said:


> You cannot stop me from getting services! I can get them anywhere! ANYWHERE I SAY!
> 
> for real tho, I bet I could get them here. I don't WANT to, but I bet I COULD


Sure. I mean, people have gotten married on PerC, held charity auctions on PerC and held parties and after-parties on PerC. This is where the impossible can happen if you're willing to keep an open mind. 


Nails can be polished with photoshopped pics. Want "dynamic" nails? We got GIFs!
Waxing? Sure. People wax eloquent BS about their type all the time.
A quick trip to the ban sauna will chill out anyone's mind.
Anti-aging treatment? Talk to enough teenagers and they'll embed your mind with the latest, high quality youthful slang.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ripley said:


> I want a manicure pedicure and a massage and a haircut


I know a guy, offers those services. I give you the number to call, then he comes to you in a white unmarked van.


----------



## 6007

Oh good I do so love white unmarked vans. Makes it easier to see the blood when I disembowel the drivers of them.  There is a fun technique I have developed that involves being strapped to the exterior of the van.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I prefer red vans myself. I dislike having to clean them and/or replace them, and I'm fairly proactive about using them. If I make them red to begin with I can focus on what I am up to and less on resource gathering bulljizz.


----------



## 6007

So a dark humour is ok with Deltas. Cool. 

Tbh I took a test and ended up here, I have more to learn about socionics


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ripley said:


> So a dark humour is ok with Deltas. Cool.
> 
> Tbh I took a test and ended up here, I have more to learn about socionics


Well, yeah, I think it is. That said I am not a Delta. I just like stalking them


----------



## 6007

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Well, yeah, I think it is. That said I am not a Delta. I just like stalking them


bahahahaaaa

I wish I found other people interesting enough to stalk them. I personally have been stalked by three infj's, so I get it happens. But they are like that. Hungry little vampires.


----------



## To_august

lets mosey said:


> Yeah, I can find that *instances of body horror are less intrusive to me because they simply don't reach me. The horror is so far removed from everyday experience that I can't translate it to (ghost) pain or discomfort.* I liken it to the way children scoff at an adult's concerns only to reach adulthood themselves and realize, "They were right." The significance doesn't always reach me in the moment.


Bold is very interesting. When I read something imagination simultaneously works its way. Experience reaches me easily and it's _very_ real, not removed at all. When I'm reading something like the excerpt of body horror you provided, I can almost smell the stink of the place and sense other disgusting things described. It happens automatically. This ability, of course, depends on how picturesque the description is, and it was quite a "treat" in this case. 



> I don't have a problem with the sound of rain or things like that. It can help me relax because it serves as a distraction, a means to disassociate, which is what I think a lot of people experience and why they choose to listen to things like ocean waves or wind chimes when they want to relieve anxiety. I understand that aspect of ASMR. The difference is that there's no direct or conscious focus on bodily processes and interactions. Videos like this are unsettling to me, for example:
> 
> The sound of skin coming into contact with objects, the sudden awareness or remembrance of my skin and how it sticks to things, how it scratches on things, just the very fact that I have fleshy fingers and they interact with the world this way, etc. My initial impression of the video was "Disgusting!" but I'm sure lots of people would find it unsettling, in the same way they'd find someone pushing their hand into a bowl of mashed potatoes unsettling. It could come down to a matter of messiness or wastefulness for some people.
> 
> This video is different because it's just sand being pushed around for the most part and I don't have much of a response to it:


I didn't like the first video eather much tbh. Sticky fingers in a shaving cream... well, I think, some people would find it revolting, others would like it. Seems like a matter of preference, if anything. I don't experience sudden hyperawareness of my skin and fingers existence or anything like that. It's just not a pleasant video or something I'd choose to watch. I guess it's all the video does to me. 

The second one is much better with its precise (if I can use this term in relation to a sound) dry sounds.

I wonder if you'd find a video like this unsettling. Beware, there's quite a bit of binaural touching in the video!








> With someone speaking softly, I've actually found that it can go either way. I can be very shy or uncomfortable with bodily presence, making myself known or projecting myself onto the environment, even the sound of my own voice and how that sound came to be, the necessary and bodily mechanics behind it.


I never thought about bodily mechanics behind the voice. Guess, I experience it as a natural part of me so that I don't even think about it, the same way I don't spend an ounce of time thinking about the mechanics of breathing. Sure, I think, as with anything sensory, it's a personal thing, and the same stimulus will vary in terms of the effect it has for different people. For example, I find this man absolutely great for the content he provides and for having the kind of a calm voice I previously mentioned.






I also think of myself as a shy person and not comfortable at putting myself out there, but you seem to have very different issue with sensory input specifically.



> We could be experiencing this in the same way but expressing ourselves differently, so I apologize for any misunderstandings. I'm not sure if I've made much sense


I don't think there's been misunderstanding this far. You've been making sense to me. It's very interesting to read your experiences and compare them to what I know about myself


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ripley said:


> bahahahaaaa
> 
> I wish I found other people interesting enough to stalk them. I personally have been stalked by three infj's, so I get it happens. But they are like that. Hungry little vampires.


I vant to suck your...blood...

By the way don't mind the camera in your room. It isn't mine or anything.


----------



## 6007

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I vant to suck your...blood...
> 
> By the way don't mind the camera in your room. It isn't mine or anything.


Oh well, I mean, it isnt like I INTENTIONALLY walked around naked all day.


----------



## Immolate

Sorry for the bit of delay.



To_august said:


> Bold is very interesting. When I read something imagination simultaneously works its way. Experience reaches me easily and it's _very_ real, not removed at all. When I'm reading something like the excerpt of body horror you provided, I can almost smell the stink of the place and sense other disgusting things described. It happens automatically. *This ability, of course, depends on how picturesque the description is, and it was quite a "treat" in this case.*


Haha, I'm sorry!

I didn't know how strongly the passage would affect you or if it would affect you at all. I like the point about your imagination working simultaneously to create a very real experience in the moment. That's something I've found myself struggling with when I read fiction, for example. If certain details are left up to the reader (if the writing is rather sparse in terms of taste, touch, sight, and so on) I'll be left wandering in and out of blank spaces and moments because my mind doesn't tend to fill in those details. I feel rather uncreative in that regard, which is why I can be drawn to very "lush" or "explicit" descriptions, but even then I'm not sure what will reach me.

In some ways it reminds me of the attention to detail in Studio Ghibli films:



















I can really appreciate this.



> I didn't like the first video eather much tbh. Sticky fingers in a shaving cream... well, I think, some people would find it revolting, others would like it. Seems like a matter of preference, if anything. I don't experience sudden hyperawareness of my skin and fingers existence or anything like that. It's just not a pleasant video or something I'd choose to watch. I guess it's all the video does to me.


Yeah, I would say I find it revolting. It makes me wish I could experience myself through, perhaps, a mechanical body that doesn't interact with the world in such ways, if I have to interact with the world at all.



> The second one is much better with its precise (if I can use this term in relation to a sound) dry sounds.


I agree here (and I also like the precision and discipline of the action itself).



> I wonder if you'd find a video like this unsettling. Beware, there's quite a bit of binaural touching in the video!


I'm not as unsettled by this video, but the sound of the hair and the awareness of the scalp and how it scratches against the fingers, etc... I'd just rather not become aware of these things, although it tends to be a different experience when I'm caught up in the action, because then there isn't a lot of room to think about the strangeness of it.



> I never thought about bodily mechanics behind the voice. Guess, I experience it as a natural part of me so that I don't even think about it, the same way I don't spend an ounce of time thinking about the mechanics of breathing. Sure, I think, as with anything sensory, it's a personal thing, and the same stimulus will vary in terms of the effect it has for different people. For example, I find this man absolutely great for the content he provides and for having the kind of a calm voice I previously mentioned.


Sometimes I feel quite foreign in my body, so even the simple act of speaking can catch me off-guard and I overthink my movements and actions. I become very aware of the fact that I have to manipulate my body in very specific ways to make proper contact with the outside. I can be wooden as hell 

I actually like this video. He's speaking in a very calm manner and relaying an interesting idea/scenario, whereas I've come across "whispering" videos that hyper-focus on the sound of the voice and the interaction of the lips and tongue, etc.



> I also think of myself as a shy person and not comfortable at putting myself out there, but you seem to have very different issue with sensory input specifically.


I don't entirely understand it. Just recently someone asked me if I'd be willing to engage in physical activities like rock climbing or some manner of self-defense, because they'd noticed that I was very shy about demonstrating a physical presence. I said it wasn't a matter of disliking the idea of these things, but that I was very incompetent and didn't believe my body could ever have that kind of ability.

"What would you do if I suddenly decided to punch you?"
"I'd die."
"No, you're supposed to say you'd fight back or react defensively!"



> I don't think there's been misunderstanding this far. You've been making sense to me. It's very interesting to read your experiences and compare them to what I know about myself


That's good to know because I quite like where this conversation went.


----------



## To_august

lets mosey said:


> Sorry for the bit of delay.


No worries. I'm in no right to complain, since it can take me dayzzzz to answer sometimes >_>



> Haha, I'm sorry!
> 
> I didn't know how strongly the passage would affect you or if it would affect you at all. I like the point about your imagination working simultaneously to create a very real experience in the moment. That's something I've found myself struggling with when I read fiction, for example. If certain details are left up to the reader (if the writing is rather sparse in terms of taste, touch, sight, and so on) I'll be left wandering in and out of blank spaces and moments because my mind doesn't tend to fill in those details. I feel rather uncreative in that regard, which is why I can be drawn to very "lush" or "explicit" descriptions, but even then I'm not sure what will reach me.
> 
> In some ways it reminds me of the attention to detail in Studio Ghibli films:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can really appreciate this.


Yeah, it makes sense. Seems like you need more intense stimulation for the sensory world to reach you. 

I really like the second picture. Is it from the movie? When it comes to attention to details I tend to have a liking to hyper-detailed images, the ones consisting of many little details you can waste lots of time on examining:























> I'm not as unsettled by this video, but the sound of the hair and the awareness of the scalp and how it scratches against the fingers, etc... I'd just rather not become aware of these things, although it tends to be a different experience when I'm caught up in the action, because then there isn't a lot of room to think about the strangeness of it.
> 
> Sometimes I feel quite foreign in my body, so even the simple act of speaking can catch me off-guard and I overthink my movements and actions. I become very aware of the fact that I have to manipulate my body in very specific ways to make proper contact with the outside. I can be wooden as hell


Sorry if it made you uncomfortable! Just wanted to compare your reaction to something... less dubious, I guess.



> I actually like this video. He's speaking in a very calm manner and relaying an interesting idea/scenario, whereas I've come across "whispering" videos that hyper-focus on the sound of the voice and the interaction of the lips and tongue, etc.


I understand. Stuff like soft lip-smacking or sounds of mouth organs interaction can be irritating.



> I don't entirely understand it. Just recently someone asked me if I'd be willing to engage in physical activities like rock climbing or some manner of self-defense, because they'd noticed that I was very shy about demonstrating a physical presence. I said it wasn't a matter of disliking the idea of these things, but that I was very incompetent and didn't believe my body could ever have that kind of ability.
> 
> "What would you do if I suddenly decided to punch you?"
> "I'd die."
> "No, you're supposed to say you'd fight back or react defensively!"


Haha. That's pretty extreme response, lol. 

Would you mind if they'd engage you in activities mentioned or you wouldn't like experiencing your body altogether? I wouldn't go for those things on my own, but if someone would drag me from home and take along, think I wouldn't mind it at all. Learning self-defense sounds cool.


----------



## Immolate

To_august said:


> Yeah, it makes sense. Seems like you need more intense stimulation for the sensory world to reach you.


That's a very succinct way of putting it. It can take herculean effort to reach me, and it's been an inconvenience in certain spheres of my life, especially because even emotional responses require a strong stimulus.



> I really like the second picture. Is it from the movie? When it comes to attention to details I tend to have a liking to hyper-detailed images, the ones consisting of many little details you can waste lots of time on examining:


Yep, same movie, Howl's Moving Castle. 

I especially like that first image, and it reminds me of the images @owlet and @Jakuri tend to like (although the softness usually takes precedence over the detail). I'm pretty sure @Greyhart has said she prefers images that cram as many things as possible into the same space.

In terms of detail, I recently came across these images and found myself liking them (a bit of warning for body weirdness):





























* *













(source)



> Sorry if it made you uncomfortable! Just wanted to compare your reaction to something... less dubious, I guess.
> 
> I understand. Stuff like soft lip-smacking or sounds of mouth organs interaction can be irritating.


No worries!



> Haha. That's pretty extreme response, lol.
> 
> Would you mind if they'd engage you in activities mentioned or you *wouldn't like experiencing your body altogether*? I wouldn't go for those things on my own, but if someone would drag me from home and take along, think I wouldn't mind it at all. Learning self-defense sounds cool.


It seemed very rational to me at the time, simply stating the "reality" of the matter 

I'd say it depends, because despite my preference to remove myself from experience, I don't like to feel controlled or "beaten" by my body. In that sense, I can be attracted to experiences that test limits, but it's one thing to be attracted to such things from a safe perch and another thing to subject yourself physically. I do want to work towards having confidence or comfort in that area, so I'd appreciate the dragging from someone who is competent and patient.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

lets mosey said:


> In some ways it reminds me of the attention to detail in Studio Ghibli films:


I like this, though I think it's because of the colors. Makes it look like an interesting place but I'm not sure how to explain the vibe. 

Also, I feel like I don't picture things much in my mind, though there are some details or sensory stuff I focus on. But for example, I remember someone telling me that while writing they would imagine the scene, as if they were watching a movie and they would be describing that, and I don't have that, unless I put a lot of effort into imagining things. I don't have much patience for reading descriptions either. Can be hit or miss, I guess.


----------



## Immolate

Distortions said:


> I like this, though I think it's because of the colors. Makes it look like an interesting place but I'm not sure how to explain the vibe.
> 
> Also, *I feel like I don't picture things much in my mind*, though there are some details or sensory stuff I focus on. But for example, I remember someone telling me that *while writing they would imagine the scene, as if they were watching a movie and they would be describing that, and I don't have that*, unless I put a lot of effort into imagining things. I don't have much patience for reading descriptions either. Can be hit or miss, I guess.


Yep, I can relate. I wonder how common of a struggle it is.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

lets mosey said:


> Yep, I can relate. I wonder how common of a struggle it is.


Yeah I'm not sure. Although I imagine some things, but it's a bit... for example, I have a character I've been daydreaming about a lot, and I'm like "I know exactly what they look like... I just don't know what that looks like," lol. So it can be hard to depict them even though I like drawing and such.


----------



## owlet

Distortions said:


> I like this, though I think it's because of the colors. Makes it look like an interesting place but I'm not sure how to explain the vibe.


(Sorry for butting in..) I always thought Ghibli films (well, Miyazaki ones mostly) were done to look like 'fairy tales' in a way, with quite heavy, 'rich' tones. This mostly showed up later on, as films like Castle in the Sky were quite a lot lighter visually, but after Princess Mononoke, he seemed to really go down this route (it might be that the introduction of computer technology in the making of Princess Mononoke led to him being able to make the films look more detailed and 'real' in a storybook kind of way, which would have been far too time consuming for the studio to do purely by hand, I'm not sure). If you have the time (and want to) you could have a watch through his older films and compare them to the newer ones in visual tone. They get a _lot_ more detailed. (Even Ponyo, despite it using a much more 'simplistic' style overall.)



> Also, I feel like I don't picture things much in my mind, though there are some details or sensory stuff I focus on. But for example, I remember someone telling me that while writing they would imagine the scene, as if they were watching a movie and they would be describing that, and I don't have that, unless I put a lot of effort into imagining things. I don't have much patience for reading descriptions either. Can be hit or miss, I guess.


I find this very interesting, as I tend to automatically go into 'viewing' thoughts as images - I heard a while back about different ways people thought, some with a voice, some with text, some with images (usually a combination of the three, but with a preference for one). Do you favour one of the other two?


----------



## To_august

lets mosey said:


> That's a very succinct way of putting it. It can take herculean effort to reach me, and it's been an inconvenience in certain spheres of my life, especially because even emotional responses require a strong stimulus.
> 
> Yep, same movie, Howl's Moving Castle.
> 
> I especially like that first image, and it reminds me of the images @*owlet* and @*Jakuri* tend to like (although the softness usually takes precedence over the detail). I'm pretty sure @*Greyhart* has said she prefers images that cram as many things as possible into the same space.


I would go for precision with less blurriness and more distinct lines style. Too much dreamy, softness and fragility can be excessive. I probably wouldn't like just any "cram as many things together as possible" image. Some I've seen were rather garish and loud, and it seems bland to me at times. Depends on the image, of course.



> In terms of detail, I recently came across these images and found myself liking them (a bit of warning for body weirdness):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (source)


These images are rather lush, but they don't cause any discomfort. They are too obviously meant to depict certain kinds of ideas rather than exercise any sort of focus on realistic sensations, so there's no response from the body in that sense. I don't have it, at least. I like the first and the last one (under the spoiler) the best.



> It seemed very rational to me at the time, simply stating the "reality" of the matter
> 
> I'd say it depends, because despite my preference to remove myself from experience, I don't like to feel controlled or "beaten" by my body. In that sense, I can be attracted to experiences that test limits, but it's one thing to be attracted to such things from a safe perch and another thing to subject yourself physically. I do want to work towards having confidence or comfort in that area, so I'd appreciate the dragging from someone who is competent and patient.


You describe it as if it were a pretty scary, intense experience, lol.
Learning self-defense or rock climbing seem rather ordinary to me. Not that I'm an active participator in such activities on daily basis. Quite the contrary. But they don't have to be limit-testing in a sense. Just knowing your abilities and trying bit by bit here and there makes it work. One doesn't have to climb the top of Everest right from the start, or something  



Distortions said:


> Also, I feel like I don't picture things much in my mind, though there are some details or sensory stuff I focus on. But for example, I remember someone telling me that while writing *they would imagine the scene, as if they were watching a movie* and they would be describing that, and I don't have that, unless I put a lot of effort into imagining things. I don't have much patience for reading descriptions either. Can be hit or miss, I guess.


Yes. It's exactly this. Watching a movie in the head is the automatic way of experiencing things when I read or imagine something, or just listen to a song.

I'm not a fan of descriptions myself, unless they are meaningful in some way, but oftentimes they are just redundant. Mind easily fills the gaps and it can be particularly irritating when author decides to describe something that was mentioned on multiple occasions before, and I already constructed an image in my head, and then it appears that author's idea doesn't match with mine.


----------



## Immolate

To_august said:


> You describe it as if it were a pretty scary, intense experience, lol.
> Learning self-defense or rock climbing seem rather ordinary to me. Not that I'm an active participator in such activities on daily basis. Quite the contrary. But they don't have to be limit-testing in a sense. Just knowing your abilities and trying bit by bit here and there makes it work. One doesn't have to climb the top of Everest right from the start, or something


Goddamn. I suddenly imagine myself as a little blob of ink hovering over the ink pot, not wanting to slip in because the thought of integrating and losing shape is just too scary, lol.

Thanks for all this food for thought


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Huna said:


> Oh well, I mean, it isnt like I INTENTIONALLY walked around naked all day.


Intention don't mean a thang, baby.


----------



## 6007

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Intention don't mean a thang, baby.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Huna said:


>


Meee-yow


----------



## 6007

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Meee-yow


----------



## d e c a d e n t

owlet said:


> (Sorry for butting in..) I always thought Ghibli films (well, Miyazaki ones mostly) were done to look like 'fairy tales' in a way, with quite heavy, 'rich' tones. This mostly showed up later on, as films like Castle in the Sky were quite a lot lighter visually, but after Princess Mononoke, he seemed to really go down this route (it might be that the introduction of computer technology in the making of Princess Mononoke led to him being able to make the films look more detailed and 'real' in a storybook kind of way, which would have been far too time consuming for the studio to do purely by hand, I'm not sure). If you have the time (and want to) you could have a watch through his older films and compare them to the newer ones in visual tone. They get a _lot_ more detailed. (Even Ponyo, despite it using a much more 'simplistic' style overall.)


Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not sure if I necessarily prefer detail for the sake of it, but... I do like some "heaviness." Also, I mentioned the picture to a friend and they commented that it looked fanciful, and I think that's a decent word to describe it. So I like something to be a mix of heavy and fanciful, basically. When the mix of that is done just right, the picture can actually do something for me. Otherwise it might be either too bland, or too... airy, I guess. 



> I find this very interesting, as I tend to automatically go into 'viewing' thoughts as images - I heard a while back about different ways people thought, some with a voice, some with text, some with images (usually a combination of the three, but with a preference for one). Do you favour one of the other two?


Hm, I think it can be a mix of all three, but maybe voice.

I can imagine expressions "vividly" though, even if everything else is mostly vague. One thing that made me wonder about being Fe.



To_august said:


> Yes. It's exactly this. Watching a movie in the head is the automatic way of experiencing things when I read or imagine something, or just listen to a song.
> 
> I'm not a fan of descriptions myself, unless they are meaningful in some way, but oftentimes they are just redundant. Mind easily fills the gaps and it can be particularly irritating when author decides to describe something that was mentioned on multiple occasions before, and I already constructed an image in my head, and then it appears that author's idea doesn't match with mine.


Well, I can get some scenes in my head from listening to music I really like, at least. Although it might not be so easy to describe. But that's one reason I try to listen to music while writing, for example, to make it feel less detached. (Although lately I've been writing stuff based on... stuff from my sim game *cough* so I use screenshots for inspiration. And then I don't really need to describe stuff much either.^^)

But yeah, some descriptions are better than others too. One thing I remember liking about Harry Potter was the way she described things. Don't think her descriptions were awfully long, but they painted a picture rather effectively.


----------



## clarity22

I'm an SLI because I have taken many Socionics proving this.


----------



## To_august

^sounds pretty intimidating @[email protected]


----------



## 6007

clarity22 said:


> I'm an SLI because I have taken many Socionics proving this.


I am too, wanna fight to the death and see who wins?


----------



## Greyhart

lets mosey said:


> I'm pretty sure @Greyhart has said she prefers images that cram as many things as possible into the same space.


Hmm, "things" as in specific things that can give new ideas thus making one image more valuable rather than just "add more lines". More of "this image asks more questions" than "it's a really visually busy image". So out of two To_august's images, I like the first one since it asks questions about the world it would take place in, while the second one is pretty obviously meant to convey artist's views, probably on environmentalism and course of society.


----------



## Immolate

Greyhart said:


> Hmm, "things" as in specific things that can give new ideas thus making one image more valuable rather than just "add more lines". More of "this image asks more questions" than "it's a really visually busy image". So out of two To_august's images, I like the first one since it asks questions about the world it would take place in, while the second one is pretty obviously meant to convey artist's views, probably on environmentalism and course of society.


You actually showed up, Grey.

Show us some pictures. I remember you liked one that was full of cultural references.


----------



## Greyhart

lets mosey said:


> You actually showed up, Grey.
> 
> Show us some pictures. I remember you liked one that was full of cultural references.


this one? Welcome to Robo-City 16 (Color Version) by f1x-2 on DeviantArt Oooh, it's crazy. I'm probably missing like 70% of references here. I only just noticed the Legend of Zelda poster.


----------



## To_august

^That's super cool. Need more stuff like this, even though I'm getting, like, ten references or so.


----------



## NewBeginning

I'm an EII who is single, a young female, a hastini, a Christian-baptised agnostic, a lover, and without a car. Any LSE willing to be my tall, handsome knight in shining armor and save me from the misery of primitive civilization?


----------



## ShuttleRun

To_august said:


> Someone being exciting is such an Fe vocabulary though. I don’t find neither myself nor anybody else exciting. I can be excit*ed*, some*thing* can cause excite*ment* within myself, and some*thing* can be exciting, but I can’t call any*body* exciting. Guess, I just don’t think in such terminology when it comes to people.





Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I find the above post irritating for an unexplainable, ineffable reason. I am bothered by the idea that some*body* cannot *be* exciting. What I don't understand is why that bothers me.


I didn't find it to be particularly irritating, but that has got to be the most opposite thing (to myself) that I've ever heard, which is interesting.

I think there's some truth to that, but I don't particularly think that it's ONLY Fe. Gammas may not exactly say that others are exciting per se, but they certainly split people into either "boring" or "not boring", which seems to be Se. Also, Gammas generally tend to be lively and animated, and yes ILIs can be lively too.


----------



## Kito

ShuttleRun said:


> I think there's some truth to that, but I don't particularly think that it's ONLY Fe. Gammas may not exactly say that others are exciting per se, but they certainly split people into either "boring" or "not boring", which seems to be Se. Also, Gammas generally tend to be lively and animated, and yes ILIs can be lively too.


I'm Gamma and others can 'be' exciting or boring, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the person as a whole. But yeah, I pretty quickly judge whether someone is gonna be fun or about as exciting as a dead fish.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

I tend to be quite bothered by things being boring. Don't think they necessarily have to be exciting in order to not be boring, though. But I mean, they do have to be interesting.


----------



## ShuttleRun

I definitely think that there's truth to what @To_august said, which is probably why I thought that it was the exact opposite of how I think. I'm just thinking, "How can someone not be either exciting or not exciting"?

Separating the exciting "act" and the "person" might be the split of Ti and Te, the subjective and the objective. It is as if the Te-Fi types are "objectifying" the person's actions.

To a Fe-Ti type, if a person is doing exciting things, then the person IS exciting. It reflects him/her as a person. If a person is wearing colorful, vivid, exciting clothings, then it is considered to be an expression of him/herself. But a Te type may consider it to be simply a matter of practicality.


----------



## To_august

@ShuttleRun, dunno if it's a matter of objectivity. Probably it's not. I'm capable of assigning subjective characteristics to people just fine, calling them interesting, not interesting, funny, gloomy, lovely, easygoing, reserved, friendly, hostile, responsible, irresponsible and so on, it's just exciting/boring is somehow absent form my vocabulary when I think about people. It seems a useless characteristic to attribute.


----------



## ShuttleRun

Hmm ok... I wonder if this is common with Te, or Delta. But now I think about it... perhaps Fe-Ti types are more likely to say that someone or something is "boring", and they're also sensitive to being perceived as such. Being "boring" is like not giving off enough Fe energy. What are the adjectives that usually describe "boring" (or "exciting")? You know... like "deadpan" "flat" "droning" "bland" "unemotional" "(the emotions) don't go up and down" "tepid" "dispassionate" etc. I think they are mostly Fe. Fe is what makes us feel more lively and alive.

But what I found interesting was that the attribute separated them from the person. I was taking it for granted that perhaps it was separate from the person as a whole.


----------



## To_august

ShuttleRun said:


> Hmm ok... I wonder if this is common with Te, or Delta. But now I think about it... perhaps Fe-Ti types are more likely to say that someone or something is "boring", and they're also sensitive to being perceived as such. Being "boring" is like not giving off enough Fe energy. What are the adjectives that usually describe "boring" (or "exciting")? You know... like "deadpan" "flat" "droning" "bland" "unemotional" "(the emotions) don't go up and down" "tepid" "dispassionate" etc. I think they are mostly Fe. Fe is what makes us feel more lively and alive.
> 
> But what I found interesting was that the attribute separated them from the person. I was taking it for granted that perhaps it was separate from the person as a whole.


I also wouldn't like to be perceived as boring. If someone would call me boring I'd be offended, but wouldn't stuck on it for long, since it's just their subjective opinion with which they were trying to objectify my personality in a negative way. 

I do think boring/exciting are characteristics of a person - think I understand/substitute them with not interesting/interesting for the most part - while deadpan, unemotional, dispassionate describe not a person but a situational emotional expression of a person. So there is a difference.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Well yeah. "Being deadpan" is an action. The thing is, if a person is habitually one of these things, you can describe the person as deadpan as an adjective as well.

If you really boil it down, all emotional expressions of any kind are situational. Its just that different people choose to act in different ways, and patterns emerge over time. So when you say a person "is boring", you are saying that the person acts in a way you find boring in your presence more often than they act interesting. So when I say I find someone interesting, I mean to say that something occurs which interests me with some regularity, often caused by individual actions taken by that person, and so I can describe a person as being interesting to me because of these actions, while acknowledging that other individuals may not see that person as interesting or even see them as boring. All of these feelings and evaluations are subjective. They are based on your perspective.

That's why it confuses me to have the perspective that a person is never interesting/boring. Because to me that seems like you are denying having a view on people in the first place, which implies that your view must be The View if you will. Like there is only one view of a person's interestingness/boringness, and you don't feel like you can see it so you just don't think about that scale at all rather than think about it and then be "wrong" by incorrectly evaluating it or something? Its like the words interesting and boring describe the totality of a person rather than your view of the person, like it is an objective evaluation rather than your subjective experience of it.

I don't really believe it possible to objectively evaluate someone on this sort of scale because each person's view will differ far too much. There will be no consensus. And achieving a consensus isn't necessary. I guess you could say I have a pragmatic view of a person's traits and how the person's actions affect me and influence my choices.


----------



## To_august

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Well yeah. "Being deadpan" is an action. The thing is, if a person is habitually one of these things, you can describe the person as deadpan as an adjective as well.
> 
> If you really boil it down, all emotional expressions of any kind are situational. Its just that different people choose to act in different ways, and patterns emerge over time. So when you say a person "is boring", you are saying that the person acts in a way you find boring in your presence more often than they act interesting. So when I say I find someone interesting, I mean to say that something occurs which interests me with some regularity, often caused by individual actions taken by that person, and so I can describe a person as being interesting to me because of these actions, while acknowledging that other individuals may not see that person as interesting or even see them as boring. All of these feelings and evaluations are subjective. They are based on your perspective.
> 
> That's why it confuses me to have the perspective that a person is never interesting/boring. Because to me that seems like you are denying having a view on people in the first place, which implies that your view must be The View if you will. Like there is only one view of a person's interestingness/boringness, and you don't feel like you can see it so you just don't think about that scale at all rather than think about it and then be "wrong" by incorrectly evaluating it or something? Its like the words interesting and boring describe the totality of a person rather than your view of the person, like it is an objective evaluation rather than your subjective experience of it.
> 
> I don't really believe it possible to objectively evaluate someone on this sort of scale because each person's view will differ far too much. There will be no consensus. And achieving a consensus isn't necessary. I guess you could say I have a pragmatic view of a person's traits and how the person's actions affect me and influence my choices.


Well. This begins to resemble semantics nitpicking. As I mentioned earlier, I have a problem only with "exciting" not with "interesting". Now you use them interchangeably. Sure enough if I find the person interesting more often than not I'd describe them as interesting. It's a matter of evolving pattern. But if I find a person exciting... well, nope. I don't know what people should do so that I'd call them exciting. You may say that exciting and interesting are synonymous, but this is not the case for me when I think about people in these terms.

___

What irritates me now is that why people don't quote or mention the person they reply to. Is it a form of avoidance or not wanting to draw attention to themselves, or not wanting a reply, or they don't intend to reply to that person specifically at all while the context of their post suggests otherwise? This is confusing.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

To_august said:


> Well. This begins to resemble semantics nitpicking. As I mentioned earlier, I have a problem only with "exciting" not with "interesting". Now you use them interchangeably. Sure enough if I find the person interesting more often than not I'd describe them as interesting. It's a matter of evolving pattern. But if I find a person exciting... well, nope. I don't know what people should do so that I'd call them exciting. You may say that exciting and interesting are synonymous, but this is not the case for me when I think about people in these terms.
> 
> ___
> 
> What irritates me now is that why people don't quote or mention the person they reply to. Is it a form of avoidance or not wanting to draw attention to themselves, or not wanting a reply, or they don't intend to reply to that person specifically at all while the context of their post suggests otherwise? This is confusing.


I was addressing the conversation at large. Only the first two lines were in response to you, and that only mildly in that it was a more a general comment on something you had said. It was more using your word as an example to illustrate my subject.

You are correct, I see exciting and interesting as pretty much the same thing. I don't see how something could evoke interest without being at least somewhat exciting.

I don't think it is semantics nitpicking, but then I don't see the words as being different at all in this context so there was no semantic difference in my intended use of them.


----------



## orbit

I've only gotten what I think the gist of the conversation is by skimming and making assumptions so excuse me if I'm not actually addressing anything anyone said. 

It sometimes irritates me when people focus on boring vs interesting. Sensationalization can cause misplaced prioritization. Some people say, "The world is much more interesting because we have problems, therefore we should not have a perfect world. A perfect world would be boring." That attitude bothers me because it seems to me that they are willing to allow or accept so much unnecessary and unfair suffering for their own feeling of excitement. 

I know someone who can be prone to setting goals for growth towards being an interesting type of person and avoiding being the boring type of person. And looking at her description of boring people they don't seem bad in regard to other characteristics. And I can see where the interesting people look like they get into drama/trouble quite a bit. Hm. Interesting people appear to cause instability (which might be good because it can lead to growth). 

Anyway, I don't think people should focus on boring vs. interesting too much. Seems to cause trouble for them in the end.


----------



## NewBeginning

Whatsup other delta peoples, who's up for a meetup group?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

So I've been writing lately, and some of it feels pretty good, but I can worry if my writing is too... fragmented/choppy, not flowing too well. Wondered if that has to do with being Static, but maybe it's unrelated. I mean, I'm also using pictures (screencaps) to write to so that probably influences things, though in general I feel it can be awkward to make the events flow smoothly.


----------



## mjn_the_enfp

um hey guys! o/


----------



## Kajada

Hello Delta folks.

So I'm having a look at EII as an alternative to the ESI I get on the Socionics test. I've actually gotten a number of results on the Socionics test, including the above and others, though I get ESI with the most consistency. I honestly haven't explored the Quadras much but I relate to aspects of both Gamma and Delta and thought I'd hang out with you all for a bit and see what there is to see. Miyazaki films being discussed above, already a great start. X3 I don't understand Socionics very well so if I sound quite n00bish, apologies. For those into visual typing, here you go: 

Le click 

That look is very typical of me. No makeup, a t-shirt of something I love as an expression of myself and you can't see them but almost always blue jeans. I rarely if ever do anything with my hair except put it up in a ponytail (too thick). It's been years since my last hair cut, even. I'm a little overweight but not grossly, unless you think any amount of overweight is gross. My smile rarely gets flashier than that. Ta da? XD


----------



## orbit

This doesn't have to deal with Delta per say but this was the last Hangout thread I posted in so oh well! I don't want to make a new thread about it and I'm probably a delta sort of person. (I have a right to post here!)

Anyway. I want to confirm an old mindset of mine is an example of the static side of the reinin dichotomy: 

When I was younger I resolved my issues with procrastination by making myself indifferent to time in general.
Back then, I saw each activity as a block of time (I know logically that the activity's length depends on the context and circumstance. IDK if I knew that back then, but maybe I did see that but just assumed it was an estimate and whether it fluctuated slightly based on the circumstance didn't matter. Whatever) that I could rearrange at will. I didn't care about the connection between events and how they could impact each other (with fatigue and brainstorming). Structure and order didn't matter as long as I got it done. The blocks of time each activity consumed just seemed like unchanging (static) index cards I could place on a timeline and swap (assuming it wasn't scheduled). 

Is this an example of static thinking? 

As a tangent, I was indifferent to when things happened as well as how it happened. I felt that the present and the future (future meaning the time between now and the end of the day) were relatively equal and present; now and the future overlapped. Instead of time being vertically (like the Apple calendar where the line marker goes down as each hour passes by), I sort of felt the line cut through the entire day's worth of time (time was horizontal). 
So since both the future and the now felt present (ha) to me, I didn't care when I did things. I couldn't put things off because it wasn't putting it off, I still felt it (until it was in the past). And being slightly logical, I figured if, all things being equal and present, I should probably do it now instead of doing in the future. 
^This is probably an example (of whatever) which doesn't have much to do with static vs dynamic but it's related so might as well include it. Thinking back on it, some of it seems like muddled thinking (though it helped my procrastination issues), but eh, I was younger.


----------



## To_august

orbit said:


> This doesn't have to deal with Delta per say but this was the last Hangout thread I posted in so oh well! I don't want to make a new thread about it and I'm probably a delta sort of person. (I have a right to post here!)
> 
> Anyway. I want to confirm an old mindset of mine is an example of the static side of the reinin dichotomy:
> 
> When I was younger I resolved my issues with procrastination by making myself indifferent to time in general.
> Back then, I saw each activity as a block of time (I know logically that the activity's length depends on the context and circumstance. IDK if I knew that back then, but maybe I did see that but just assumed it was an estimate and whether it fluctuated slightly based on the circumstance didn't matter. Whatever) that I could rearrange at will. I didn't care about the connection between events and how they could impact each other (with fatigue and brainstorming). Structure and order didn't matter as long as I got it done. The blocks of time each activity consumed just seemed like unchanging (static) index cards I could place on a timeline and swap (assuming it wasn't scheduled).
> 
> Is this an example of static thinking?
> 
> As a tangent, I was indifferent to when things happened as well as how it happened. I felt that the *present and the future* (future meaning the time between now and the end of the day) *were relatively equal and present; now and the future overlapped*. Instead of time being vertically (like the Apple calendar where the line marker goes down as each hour passes by), I sort of felt the line cut through the entire day's worth of time (time was horizontal).
> *So since both the future and the now felt present (ha) to me, I didn't care when I did things. I couldn't put things off because it wasn't putting it off, I still felt it (until it was in the past). And being slightly logical, I figured if, all things being equal and present, I should probably do it now instead of doing in the future. *
> ^This is probably an example (of whatever) which doesn't have much to do with static vs dynamic but it's related so might as well include it. Thinking back on it, some of it seems like muddled thinking (though it helped my procrastination issues), but eh, I was younger.


Can't comment on static/ dynamic, as I don't think this dichotomy has much credibility (it's contradictory to some other parts of Socionics theory), but the second part of your post reminded me of the way Si egos access weak Ni.


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Introverted_Intuition said:


> He perceives time in an undifferentiated manner: *the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present*. When talking about the future, especially one's longer-term plan), the individual treats it *as if it were accessible today* and often is not aware of all the developments that must happen first.


----------



## crumlic

ok


----------



## Pinina

To_august said:


> Can't comment on static/ dynamic, as I don't think this dichotomy has much credibility (it's contradictory to some other parts of Socionics theory), but the second part of your post reminded me of the way Si egos access weak Ni.


What is it that contradicts static/dynamic? It's a good one imo.


----------



## To_august

Pinina said:


> What is it that contradicts static/dynamic? It's a good one imo.


It contradicts dimensionality theory, for example. Particularly that 4D processes IE development and the way it changes, while the quality of information processing for situational 3D is similar to snapshots.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Speaking of dichotomies, I remember relating to the constructivism one, because I'm so mood-dependent, but then I wonder if that's Fe? Because moods are associated with Fe in socionics... and for example, there was this song which when I first heard it, I was like "damn, that's so sad" and felt like I had an "epiphany" about something, but I tried listening to it now and I'm not in that state (like, depressed I guess) atm so instead I'm just like... I guess? And can't quite "remember" why I thought it was so sad because now it doesn't move me anymore.


----------



## Wisteria

Can anyone explain the difference between ESI and EII? 
Based on Gulenko's descriptions particularly (I find them easiest to understand) I can't tell which one is my socionics type, they're both too relatable!

I find value in both Se and Ne based on what I read. I was thinking of filing out both the Se and Ne blocks just to see what I make of it


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Distortions said:


> Speaking of dichotomies, I remember relating to the constructivism one, because I'm so mood-dependent, but then I wonder if that's Fe? Because moods are associated with Fe in socionics... and for example, there was this song which when I first heard it, I was like "damn, that's so sad" and felt like I had an "epiphany" about something, but I tried listening to it now and I'm not in that state (like, depressed I guess) atm so instead I'm just like... I guess? And can't quite "remember" why I thought it was so sad because now it doesn't move me anymore.


A constructivist would hold onto that feeling, and memory, and relive it as they relive its source. Or so I am given to understand.

IMO When feelings are ephemeral and lead to new thoughts and inklings, that's Fe and something else with it, depending on what it leads to. If it were more held onto, made part of the self, made to "endure" more, that'd be more Fi. Assuming you put as much stock in Static versus Dynamic as I do.


----------



## navi__x3

I'm really glad I decided to look into the four quadras and learn more about socionics, it solidified my MBTI preference. (EII - INFP)
(By the way, the number of times I looked up the term "quadrants" on accident was way too high hahaha.)

What really stood out to me in certain descriptions is this:
1) although we don't come off that way, most deltas are actually confident in their people skills. We just want to do productive things while hanging out.. XD 
And
2) we value being right/correct (at least deep down) over almost everything else.
Which totally explains why after speaking to certain alphas (an ESFJ actually haha) they wonder why I'm so "sensitive" when really I just correct them when they are wrong.. It always perplexed me because I never felt sensitive or a true "emotional" response to... Most things muahaha. Seems like some projection was going on...
I think they view it as attempting to fight when I literally am just correcting them. And explaining this would be even more satisfying as it's another thing to correct them on. :laughing: it also explains why I do love debates!

*sigh* good stuff.
It also explains why I'm so comfortable in job interviews.. And all work related situations actually. Since there is a productive goal coupled with the social interaction. And why I love inviting people to interactive events with me. 

Feels so goo0o0od to be understo0o0od


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> A constructivist would hold onto that feeling, and memory, and relive it as they relive its source. Or so I am given to understand.
> 
> IMO When feelings are ephemeral and lead to new thoughts and inklings, that's Fe and something else with it, depending on what it leads to. If it were more held onto, made part of the self, made to "endure" more, that'd be more Fi. Assuming you put as much stock in Static versus Dynamic as I do.


Yeah, I was thinking of this, I think: "Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety."

Or similar.

Anyway, one thing which I wonder if it's type related is how some people rate things. Like my aunt will always ask how would I rate a movie from 1 to 5, and then there's people who, when they talk about someone's attractiveness, will rate them as a high or low number depending. Because this kind of thing is honestly weird to me, like my brain just doesn't work that way.


----------



## To_august

Yay, I'm on vacation! 
So much stuff to do that I didn't have time for otherwise. Will have the chance to get my hands on After Effects and continue a long awaited project, _finally!_

Feels like I haven't been here in ages.


----------



## Wisteria

:fall: hi
...
where is everyone?


----------



## navi__x3

navi__x3 said:


> I'm really glad I decided to look into the four quadras and learn more about socionics, it solidified my MBTI preference. (EII - INFP)
> (By the way, the number of times I looked up the term "quadrants" on accident was way too high hahaha.)
> 
> What really stood out to me in certain descriptions is this:
> 1) although we don't come off that way, most deltas are actually confident in their people skills. We just want to do productive things while hanging out.. XD
> And
> 2) we value being right/correct (at least deep down) over almost everything else.
> Which totally explains why after speaking to certain alphas (an ESFJ actually haha) they wonder why I'm so "sensitive" when really I just correct them when they are wrong.. It always perplexed me because I never felt sensitive or a true "emotional" response to... Most things muahaha. Seems like some projection was going on...
> I think they view it as attempting to fight when I literally am just correcting them. And explaining this would be even more satisfying as it's another thing to correct them on. :laughing: it also explains why I do love debates!
> 
> *sigh* good stuff.
> It also explains why I'm so comfortable in job interviews.. And all work related situations actually. Since there is a productive goal coupled with the social interaction. And why I love inviting people to interactive events with me.
> 
> Feels so goo0o0od to be understo0o0od


I think i'm actually an ENFP and not an INFP after re-reading my post


----------



## mushr00m

What is a eii? Is is a piece of anti-virus software? Or a dating term?


----------



## Wisteria

EII = ethical intuitive introvert

introverted ethics - Fi
(extroverted) intuition - Ne

:skellie:


----------



## mrrrmaid

No posts since 2017?? Is this because hang out threads are dead or because there are no deltas? 

(Or because deltas hate hanging out?)


----------



## DavidH

mrrrmaid said:


> No posts since 2017?? Is this because hang out threads are dead or because there are no deltas?
> 
> (Or because deltas hate hanging out?)


Yes.


----------



## mrrrmaid

DavidH said:


> Yes.


trust my conflictor to bust into the delta thread and undermine my post!


----------



## DavidH

mrrrmaid said:


> trust my conflictor to bust into the delta thread and undermine my post!


I’m not undermining it. Deltas like Te, not Fe, so there is little reason for them to be on this website. From history, what few Deltas existed were removed. The hangout threads in general have died out, due to people slowly realizing they were using Socionics’ name to discuss MBTI, and subsequently lost the ability to casually chat about Socionics.


----------



## Wisteria

mrrrmaid said:


> No posts since 2017?? Is this because hang out threads are dead or because there are no deltas?
> 
> (Or because deltas hate hanging out?)


Both! Most members have been on the forum for a long time, longer than I have been on here, so they probably got bored or went elsewhere (like discord). The socionics forum was always quiet so the forum kinda died out :/ 

There weren't many deltas before either actually.


----------



## mrrrmaid

Wisteria said:


> Both! Most members have been on the forum for a long time, longer than I have been on here, so they probably got bored or went elsewhere (like discord). The socionics forum was always quiet so the forum kinda died out :/
> 
> There weren't many deltas before either actually.


Aah okay. That's a shame. Socionics is my favourite and the one I want to learn more about so it's a shame it's the quiet forum


----------



## To_august

Yeah, I basically got bored too. With typology in general as well. 
But I visit discord.


----------



## mrrrmaid

socionics needs more memes


----------



## Wisteria

Yeah it's unfortunate, but the forum isn't competently dead yet so if you want to learn or discuss socionics you still can. There were some active threads here recently but there was a lot of chit chat going on and the mods didn't like that :tennis:

I can totally understand getting bored of typology. Can't be interested in something forever. I've only been on this forum for a couple of years and even then I was inactive from perC for months at a time.

There is a thread for memes here; https://www.personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/149875-socionics-memes.html

Has the really old memes like this;










Awkward penguin memes are always my favourate xD


----------



## DavidH

You basically got two sets of people. Those who talk on here just because they like talking, and those who talk on here so they can get practical information. Delta is generally in the former group, so if there’s no practical information after a while, they’ll get bored and move on.


----------



## mrrrmaid

aw socionics already has memes and still can't generate attraction. 

Well I'm still fairly new to socionics so I'll have loads of questions on my journey and I'll try to bring them up for discussion instead of just keeping them to myself. 

(maybe if we advertise as a duality dating service it'll seem like a more fun place to be? The sexiest subforum on all of PerC)


----------



## Wisteria

You forgot the type that goes on here because they're bored out of their mind  As you get older your interests become more sophisticated though. When I first joined perC I found MBTI discussion weirdly interesting. Now most thread topics are just same old thing.

A socionics dating site could work  (even though my life would become even more of an awkward penguin meme) It could also offer free unsolicited advice from your supervisor!


----------



## Guajiro

Ok. So, this is the Quadra that (supposedly) likes to have intellectual conversations while drinking tea and listening to classical music. And where different oppinions are wellcome.








I can't like/understand Socionics. It always gives me the impression that the people who created it want to rule the world* :winetime: (imagine that is tea)



_*and, convenently, the creator says *Se* is the ability to use power and typed himself as IEI that has *Se* as an inferior function. So convenient, after creating an entire system that dictates what people can and can't do and who they should date based on mathematics_ :thinking:


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

Well, this says I'm equal in Beta and Delta and equal in Alpha & Quadra. 
[/ATTACH=CONFIG]808681[/ATTACH]


----------



## Wisteria

To_august said:


> Yeah, I basically got bored too. With typology in general as well.
> But I visit discord.


Hey I forgot to ask, do you and/or sociotronics still update the SoSS channel on Entropic's server? I left the server because it was too much of a distraction at the time, but considering rejoining it if there's still socionics discussion going on there


----------



## To_august

Wisteria said:


> Hey I forgot to ask, do you and/or sociotronics still update the SoSS channel on Entropic's server? I left the server because it was too much of a distraction at the time, but considering rejoining it if there's still socionics discussion going on there


It died out pretty much, unfortunately. I think sociotronics had to focus on real life and I also drifted away from typology. Second exercise was basically ready back then, but I don't think it'll happen and there's been no updates in the channel.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Hi, I think I have to be in Delta Quadra, but I also think I have to be ILI at the same time. Anyone have similar problems with your quadra not fitting your best fit type?

I guess SLI could be my second best fit, however a lot just doesn't work.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Since for whatever reason you wanted to move this topic to this thread @Wisteria :


Wisteria said:


> You think a it's your Ego because it's what you do a lot? lol
> You can use elements from any of the blocks. *A person can live without using their or developing Ego functions at all.*


From Functions - Wikisocion


> The first row of Model A (functions 1 and 2) is called the Ego block. These functions describe the aspects of reality that a person perceives with the greatest depth and clarity and verbalizes with the greatest ease. The Ego block also describes the most natural and common states of mind and behavior styles used when interacting with other people, and also a certain perspective that a person injects into the things he says.


You say one thing, this says another. I have read through the various descriptions, taken various tests, and I can say:
A) This resembles "dimensionality" with regards to depth, except for the part about "most natural and common states of mind".
B) I would think that this fits best Ni for myself and I don't know what else. I would say Ti too, although I think it fits better in the 4D model because it isn't as much of my "natural mode" but I feel like I am strong at analyzing systems even if I don't analyze systematically.


> What is the socioverse..


Basically the Socionics canon if such a thing were to be definable. I don't claim to be the biggest expert but I do believe I have some sort of finger on the pulse of the consensus viewpoints.


> You're talking about vital then probably. Not that you have a clue what that is I suppose.


Based on what I read I am not opposed to the idea of vital Ti, as it's something that I use more as support than as a basis. However, I also believe it's something which I perceive with depth (hence it fitting as a 4D vital, which is both in ILI and SLI).


> You're basically saying you to have your own thinking methods so much that you don't like to use what other people have created for everyone to use. These "thinking methods" you speak of are Ti probably, rather than Te, and this just shows that you are not Ti ego. Ti ego is the opposite of what you've just described, they don't struggle to use the external systems that are already established, and have a talent for it. Also you're thinking about what is valueble to you personally, so this is probably not the Ego of your sociotype.


The thing is though, that I don't "struggle" to use these methods per se, as much as struggling the motivation to find the energy and motivation to learn them, and once I learn them still having more of an imperative drive to see what can exist outside of them. I guess I also feel sort of like they lead to some sort of claustrophobia of the mind in feeling boxed in. Can't you say this is because I find them fairly constraining on my perception, and that this would be a strike in the favor of me being a Socionics irrational?


----------



## Wisteria

Ocean Helm said:


> Since for whatever reason you wanted to move this topic to this thread


What do you mean? The other thread was being derailed and it's annoying typing people above at the same time.



> From Functions - Wikisocion
> 
> You say one thing, this says another. I have read through the various descriptions, taken various tests, and I can say:


Ok just stop a second xD Note that this Wiki description says "The Ego block also describes the most natural and common states of mind and behavior styles used _when interacting with other people_". It's not in all situations though. Do you think you are just born an LII or ILI? Of course not, because how can you? Read the Age Development and Mistyping thread. The Ego is based around how you are with the public, not when you're on a personalityforum or social media website using a theory for fun. 

The Age development thing will clarify it. If you chose to ignore it, then there's not much else I can tell you. Socionics is NOT MBTI, where the dominant and auxiliary functions are thought to be your most natural, instinctual functions. Socionics, as the name itself suggests, has a societal focus. 

"Taken various tests" Really? Do you think that a test can determine your psychological type?

Wikisocion isn't the only website source for learning socionics. I've given you other sources before. Use a better source, because wikisocion is written up by forum members. It's almost the equivalent to an MBTI tumblr page.



> A) This resembles "dimensionality" with regards to depth, except for the part about "most natural and common states of mind".
> B) I would think that this fits best Ni for myself and I don't know what else. I would say Ti too, although I think it fits better in the 4D model because it isn't as much of my "natural mode" but I feel like I am strong at analyzing systems even if I don't analyze systematically.


Analysing the systems when? On the internet? At work? With your close friends/family or when dealing with strangers?



> Based on what I read I am not opposed to the idea of vital Ti, as it's something that I use more as support than as a basis. However, I also believe it's something which I perceive with depth (hence it fitting as a 4D vital, which is both in ILI and SLI).
> 
> The thing is though, that I don't "struggle" to use these methods per se, as much as struggling the motivation to find the energy and motivation to learn them, and once I learn them still having more of an imperative drive to see what can exist outside of them. I guess I also feel sort of like they lead to some sort of claustrophobia of the mind in feeling boxed in. Can't you say this is because I find them fairly constraining on my perception, and that this would be a strike in the favor of me being a Socionics irrational?


If you struggle to find energy and motivation to learn those methods, why do you bother?

No, it's not irrational necessarily. Explain in what situation this is straining to you, and what type of activity it is. That is what it depends on. What type of "methods" are you speaking of, instructions and things like that?


----------



## Ocean Helm

Wisteria said:


> Ok just stop a second xD Note that this Wiki description says "The Ego block also describes the most natural and common states of mind and behavior styles used _when interacting with other people_".


While introverted IEs themselves don't seem like much of natural communicators, I naturally try to steer people away from what I feel are ill-informed pathways with an intense focus on where certain thought patterns/dogmas will take them internally, as well as externally. This to me seems like a combination of (Socionics) Ni and Ti, however I believe it leans more to Ni, as I don't do so as much through a pattern of systematic logic as ad hoc connecting things and seeing particular red flags, which can be a real tedious task to trace back to through linear logic. Although I don't know how to really differentiate this from Si except for that I am much more future-minded than present-minded.

I also relate to seeing events in "dynamic flux" or whatever, which would fit with IxxP.


> It's not in all situations though. Do you think you are just born an LII or ILI? Of course not, because how can you?


Yeah I don't believe people are One True Type, however I think based on what pathway you take in assessing yourself you can consider certain types better fits than others.


> Read the Age Development and Mistyping thread.


Do you really think most people fit into one of these timelines?


> The Ego is based around how you are with the public, not when you're on a personalityforum or social media website using a theory for fun.


And I think in this sense the "Pi + Te" ego block would make the most sense in that I tend to externalize what I see internally through logic. And how I am in groups clearly fits the base Pi stereotype, as much as you may try to say "don't use stereotypes".


> The Age development thing will clarify it. If you chose to ignore it, then there's not much else I can tell you. Socionics is NOT MBTI, where the dominant and auxiliary functions are thought to be your most natural, instinctual functions. Socionics, as the name itself suggests, has a societal focus.


This just seems like "look at *my sources*, not that other stuff". I did read it but I find all combinations unrelatable from that perspective.


> "Taken various tests" Really? Do you think that a test can determine your psychological type?


I think distinct psychological types (at least the kind we are talking about) mainly just exist in imaginations, so I don't think it can be determined. But I think that using different processes to determine it (such as looking at your sources rather than Wikisocion for example) will lead to different conclusions, however if I am to make a composite of these different methods I feel like I'd have to get ILI, as that would be the suggested "best fit type" at the end of more pathways than not. This does not believe that I think I "am" 100% "an ILI". I think this kind of distinction almost necessarily results from wrong thinking.


> Wikisocion isn't the only website source for learning socionics. I've given you other sources before. Use a better source, because wikisocion is written up by forum members. It's almost the equivalent to an MBTI tumblr page.


You are a forum member, and you referred me to a page literally written up by a forum member. Yes, all these Socionics sources are written up by individual people and what makes one perspective inherently better than another here, considering none of them can actually demonstrate a hard link to reality? I think some perspectives can be more wrong than others and those that avoid them can be "better" but other than that I don't really know how we are supposed to find The Truth in any sort of Socionics source.


> Analysing the systems when? On the internet? At work? With your close friends/family or when dealing with strangers?


When dealing with a problem which involves systems, I delve deep into the system in question and try to sort of understand why it's done that way. I tend to see my "role" as the person to expose systems for their shortcomings. In social settings, I try to generally get people off systems rather than on them.


> If you struggle to find energy and motivation to learn those methods, why do you bother?


There's multiple motivating factors like:
I personally dislike things which lead to "claustrophobia of the mind" as I feel them infringing upon me and see them in a negative light. Perhaps you can call this an Fi thing, however it's also tied to freedom to perceive.

I am very interested in the topic of bias and what clouds our minds, and how that impacts society, and I look at discussions here as sort of a microcosm of humanity as a whole since people are more open about their inner thoughts in places like this. Gaining an understanding through experience and applying it to elsewhere by matching patterns seems more like an intuitive process, although it can also be tied to Thinking maybe. In a sense you can even consider this Te, as it focuses on the structures of people.


> No, it's not irrational necessarily. Explain in what situation this is straining to you, and what type of activity it is.


Well lets say I have to work on a project at work and am given a highly efficient method of accomplishing a task. I feel like by becoming simply proficient at that I am essentially becoming a drone when I could be better using my mind to explore for new things beyond what is currently being done. I strongly dislike taking pre-determined pathways on things, but usually when I come up with a new way of doing something it isn't in the most logically coherent form. This seems more like the possibility seeing of intuition. It could be considered Ne perhaps except that I have highly subjective viewpoints on what's a superior way of doing something.


> That is what it depends on. What type of "methods" are you speaking of, instructions and things like that?


I find the act of taking in a lot of detailed instruction to both be against my specialty and also against my preference. I much prefer open-ended projects which I can steer in any direction I choose, but this could be due to having more faith in myself and my thinking over that of others. So I think this can be associated with Ti.

Also speaking of how I am in real life, I am _horrible_ at articulating my thoughts with words and I'm always losing my train of thought. I envy the people who I'd type as Lxx's who seem to be at complete ease relaying logical thought in real time because it seems more like their minds operate in a process of more directly linear thought.


----------



## Wisteria

Ocean Helm said:


> While introverted IEs themselves *don't seem like much of natural communicators*, I naturally try to steer people away from what I feel are ill-informed pathways with an intense focus on where certain thought patterns/dogmas will take them internally, as well as externally. This to me seems like a combination of (Socionics) Ni and Ti, however I believe it leans more to Ni, as I don't do so as much through a pattern of systematic logic as ad hoc connecting things and seeing particular red flags, which can be a real tedious task to trace back to through linear logic. Although I don't know how to really differentiate this from Si except for that I am much more future-minded than present-minded.


Does that mean you think the extroverted IEs are natural communicators? You're mixing up an extroverted IE with the I/E dichotomy in MBTI. It's only Fe that is about communication (i.e emotional expression)

Many people are "future minded" these days, existing in routine instead of living in the present moment. 



> I also relate to seeing events in "dynamic flux" or whatever, which would fit with IxxP.


When? Can you give an example of who you perceive events dynamically? This dichotomy is actually better for the person typing you to use, because they can observe it by looking at the way you write or talk. You are less aware of that. 



> Yeah I don't believe people are One True Type, however I think based on what pathway you take in assessing yourself you can consider certain types better fits than others.


The test indicates something, like which elements you are using, but it's likely not the Ego.



> Do you really think most people fit into one of these timelines?


Why not? It makes perfect sense. Everyone develops at their own pace, but it only makes sense that super id is development during childhood. It's ridiculous to think that a child can use their Super Ego and Ego functions.



> This just seems like "look at *my sources*, not that other stuff". I did read it but I find all combinations unrelatable from that perspective.


Wow that's a way to appreciate someone who is putting in an effort to help you with socionics. The only person I might add.
It's not _my_ source. I didn't write it. It's common sense to use a better source. If you were researching for a dissertation, would you use Wikipedia or a source that actually works in that field? Wikisocion is basically wikipedia for socionics. 




> You are a forum member, and you referred me to a page literally written up by a forum member. Yes, all these Socionics sources are written up by individual people and what makes one perspective inherently better than another here, considering none of them can actually demonstrate a hard link to reality? I think some perspectives can be more wrong than others and those that avoid them can be "better" but other than that I don't really know how we are supposed to find The Truth in any sort of Socionics source.


When did I refer you to a page written by a forum member? Are you talking about To_August's Age development thread? That forum member used the same website I gave you ages ago. She cited it in her post. She is not writing in her own words, she was translating the page which wasn't translated at the time. She never said she agreed with the theory or not. Can you please stop acting like a teenager :/



> When dealing with a problem which involves systems, I delve deep into the system in question and try to sort of understand why it's done that way. I tend to see my "role" as the person to expose systems for their shortcomings. In social settings, I try to generally get people off systems rather than on them.


That sounds like Ti, but it's too vague to be certain. What do you mean by "system?" How confident are you and other people in your ability to do this? 



> There's multiple motivating factors like:
> I personally dislike things which lead to "claustrophobia of the mind" as I feel them infringing upon me and see them in a negative light. Perhaps you can call this an Fi thing, however it's also tied to freedom to perceive.


It's hard to tell if this is even related to a low dimensional function or just you. lol
I can't imagine what would lead to a claustrophobia of the mind. What type of things cause that feeling to happen? 



> I am very interested in the topic of bias and what clouds our minds, and how that impacts society, and I look at discussions here as sort of a microcosm of humanity as a whole since people are more open about their inner thoughts in places like this. Gaining an understanding through experience and applying it to elsewhere by matching patterns seems more like an intuitive process, although it can also be tied to Thinking maybe. In a sense you can even consider this Te, as it focuses on the structures of people.


Well you have to realise that a community like this does not represent people as a whole. In fact people here probably have a lot of beliefs that are out of the ordinary. You can't compare perC to everyone who exists..

"Gaining an understanding through experience.." > You know what i'm going to say. 1D function, possibly the suggestive/dual seeking function. 

Focusing on the structures of people > No, that's not Te. I know what you mean though. Systematising and categorising. Observing people and creating your own frameworks and understanding of it. Have you always been like this when you were younger or is it something you have started to do when you got older? By the sounds of it, you do it because you find it interesting. 

How do you relate to Si? 



> Well lets say I have to work on a project at work and am given a highly efficient method of accomplishing a task. I feel like by becoming simply proficient at that I am essentially becoming a drone when I could be better using my mind to explore for new things beyond what is currently being done. I strongly dislike taking pre-determined pathways on things, but usually when I come up with a new way of doing something it isn't in the most logically coherent form. This seems more like the possibility seeing of intuition. It could be considered Ne perhaps except that I have highly subjective viewpoints on what's a superior way of doing something.


Ok so you when you have to follow established procedures you instead want to find a way to improve it? When you come up with a new way of doing it, how do you know it's not the most "logically coherent"? Does this mean you can't get other people to understand it?

Why would have highly subjective viewpoints mean Ne? Why do you think these viewpoints are highly subjective? Is it because they don't align with other people's viewpoints? (I don't mean on perC). Do people tend to disagree with your ideas? 



> I find the act of taking in a lot of detailed instruction to both be against my specialty and also against my preference. I much prefer open-ended projects which I can steer in any direction I choose, but this could be due to having more faith in myself and my thinking over that of others. So I think this can be associated with Ti.


Yes it can be associated with Ti, but it doesn't immediately determine which function it is (Ego, Normalising, PoLR, etc)



> Also speaking of how I am in real life, I am _horrible_ at articulating my thoughts with words and I'm always losing my train of thought. I envy the people who I'd type as Lxx's who seem to be at complete ease relaying logical thought in real time because it seems more like their minds operate in a process of more directly linear thought.


Struggling to articulate your thoughts into words is weak Fe. Do you mean online or actually speaking to people? I'm ok at explaining things online (I think), but in the workplace I find it hard to explain things in a way that the person immediately understands. They will often ask "what do you mean?" or just won't take it in. With close friends and family, I am the total opposite. I find it easy to get my points across. So that's why I'm asking you what situation this is.


----------



## Wisteria

So to sum up what i'm thinking so far:

- Si is possibly super id, but I haven't actually seen you talk about Si yet.

- Low dimensional or underdeveloped Fe. 

- Talking about Ti a lot (or maybe Te, hard to tell when you talk about systems without referencing what you mean) but you show a preference for creating your own methods and ignoring already established ones. Could be an Ego or Super Id function.

- Ti is probably being used with Ne. You're talking about using methods and exploring new possibilities, but I can't what the position of it is yet.


----------



## Wisteria

And to clarify why using Socionics tests won't always determine your Ego:

If depends how you're answering the questions. If you're taking the test for fun, to get to know yourself or entertain yourself, you will probably see a question that asks something along the lines of "Do you like to do this or that?". Your childlike Super id will jump out and be like "Yes I like this! This is me because I enjoy this and I like doing it myself \o/"

If you're answering based on the super ego: You aren't choosing the answers because you prefer them, but because you feel like those choices are the most obligatory and important. You think people expect this of you, you have to be good at if so you answer as your tendency. E.g. "I will chose the systematic approach because I must do this". 

Ego: You chose the answers that align with what people say you are like. You know people think you're good at that particular area, so you confidently chose that answer. 

Id: You are probably half asleep and entering lazy mode, but you are taking the test nevertheless. You think you're choosing the write answers but really you're thinking about how exhausted you are after a long working shift. Choosing the answers are really boring because you think "obviously it's this one that is like me, but why does the answer to it have to be so long?"


----------



## Ocean Helm

Wisteria said:


> Does that mean you think the extroverted IEs are natural communicators? You're mixing up an extroverted IE with the I/E dichotomy in MBTI. It's only Fe that is about communication (i.e emotional expression)


I'm talking about non-emotional expression. I rarely express myself emotionally either, especially in groups, although one of my friends pointed out that I considerably open up in one-on-one situations which potentially could be seen as being more naturally "Fi" than "Fe".

I'm talking about mainly conveying information on subjects detached from me as a person.

For instance I am good at giving math answers but laying out a sequential process to get there does not come naturally and this always bothered my teachers.


> Many people are "future minded" these days, existing in routine instead of living in the present moment.


I don't exist in routine though. I think about the future and larger things constantly but don't plan it out. Anyone can see this who observes me. I have a vague idea of what has to get done and then come up with a plan to do the things ad hoc. People such as my parents have often tried to get me on a routine but I just don't operate well within one.


> When? Can you give an example of who you perceive events dynamically? This dichotomy is actually better for the person typing you to use, because they can observe it by looking at the way you write or talk. You are less aware of that.


I just rarely think about individual events at all that much. I see all time as essentially equal and never understood the importance people place on certain milestones and stuff like that. This has resulted in me being seen as amotivated which isn't necessarily true but my perception is just focused on tracking the unfolding of events through a distant perspective.


> The test indicates something, like which elements you are using, but it's likely not the Ego.





> Why not? It makes perfect sense. Everyone develops at their own pace, but it only makes sense that super id is development during childhood. It's ridiculous to think that a child can use their Super Ego and Ego functions.


It makes sense from within the framework that you've settled on, however when you stop thinking about things in terms of Socionics and actually see development as a dynamic process things look different I promise.


> Wow that's a way to appreciate someone who is putting in an effort to help you with socionics. The only person I might add.


I have plenty of people I've talked about this stuff with which you don't seem to acknowledge as a possibility, and none of them are remotely similar to you. Are you really trying to say that only you know best with your personally preferred sources?


> It's not _my_ source. I didn't write it. It's common sense to use a better source. If you were researching for a dissertation, would you use Wikipedia or a source that actually works in that field?


I'd probably use Wikipedia to get a general idea and then check out what sources they used, because they actually cite their sources. Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be at least as accurate as closed-sourced encyclopedias at least. when we are talking about something which ultimately is defined by its text rather than by its association with reality, obviously directly consulting text would be preferred.


> Wikisocion is basically wikipedia for socionics.


Wikipedia is great, it's not stuck and can constantly be improved and updated.


> When did I refer you to a page written by a forum member? Are you talking about To_August's Age development thread? That forum member used the same website I gave you ages ago. She cited it in her post. She is not writing in her own words, she was translating the page which wasn't translated at the time. She never said she agreed with the theory or not. Can you please stop acting like a teenager :/


I missed that but Wikisocion is the same thing in a lot of its pages - translated Russian stuff written by people, translated by people. Why one specific translated Russian thing should be given precedence over another, especially when it lays out a rather specific pathway that I don't think one can reasonably expect to fit most people, is something which makes little sense to me. Maybe this is why you're a different type every month, because you jump around from source to source and then get different ideas and then rush to recategorize yourself in accordance with them.


> That sounds like Ti, but it's too vague to be certain. What do you mean by "system?" How confident are you and other people in your ability to do this?


Basically, routine ways of turning inputs into outputs, whatever it is.


> I can't imagine what would lead to a claustrophobia of the mind. What type of things cause that feeling to happen?


When I feel like I am pressured to either produce immediate results or not let my mind wander. I feel way most comfortable when I am free to wander about internally as much as I can. I've seen base Ni described as something that would lead to mental wandering, which not only fits as a preference of mine, but is what people see in me from the outside.


> Focusing on the structures of people > No, that's not Te. I know what you mean though. Systematising and categorising. Observing people and creating your own frameworks and understanding of it.
> 
> Have you always been like this when you were younger or is it something you have started to do when you got older? By the sounds of it, you do it because you find it interesting.


It seems like you're putting words in my mouth here. I resist systemizing and categorizing here. It seems like you're on this constant mission to try to shove me into some box that you've already decided on, and this is just evidence of it. I don't think my approach here is grounded in some kind of crystallized abstractions here, which I then use as a framework to systematically figure out future things. If it were I would be better able to explain how I arrive at assessments/predictions, however given the nonlinearity of my thinking process to arrive at assessments I can't do this.

Compare this to people who categorize people as a "type" in whatever system and then base things off that. I look at people mainly on an individual level whenever I can and try to see their psychology, not as something that can be categorized as much but as essentially a dynamic system which is unique to them.

As for the "age development" thing I have changed over the years but from within the realm of these IEs I don't feel like my preference for using them has changed much, except for occasionally I'll go through more F-ish phases and during those I was getting INFP on MBTI tests but it doesn't follow the "age path" plotted out on the framework that you posted.


> How do you relate to Si?


I'll post this from Discord which I typed out:


> I am almost purely focused on sensory aesthetic sort of transcendent qualities in that which if I were to be a famous musician would probably lend me the SLI typing in Russia, the focus on my internal state as brought about by sensing, but I often see things in sort of far away images and sensory pieces which fits more with an internal response to those sensations rather than something elucidated beyond the direct impression.





> Ok so you when you have to follow established procedures you instead want to find a way to improve it? When you come up with a new way of doing it, how do you know it's not the most "logically coherent"?


I do a coherency check as I'm developing it (seems like a Ti thing), and it often morphs around a lot until I am satisfied that it's good.


> Does this mean you can't get other people to understand it?


Honestly I am not all that concerned with getting other people to understand it. I usually am able to figure out who is able to get things and if they aren't one of them then it's their problem.


> Why would have highly subjective viewpoints mean Ne? Why do you think these viewpoints are highly subjective? Is it because they don't align with other people's viewpoints? (I don't mean on perC). Do people tend to disagree with your ideas?


It's a struggle getting them to agree with them and I am not satisfied with them agreeing with them unless they understand them. I want people to see why it's a good idea rather than use faulty reasoning to persuade them that it's a good idea. Generally I seek out people who are likely to follow along with where I'm coming from and rely on them to advocate for it.

I actually don't see my own viewpoints as highly subjective, it mainly comes off that way to people from the outside world who are too stubborn or stupid to see outside of the box (see: MBTI "ESxJs").

I mainly try to build up trust by proving my worth and showing that my ideas lead to good results because after that it usually ends up being a lot smoother.

I guess I was saying that the subjectivity would be a reason why it *wouldn't* be Ne, as Socionics Ne (at least in a lead position) seems to have more neutrality and doesn't prioritize being right as much above being expansive.

Side note: At some point I was arguing with this Socionics nut about how I was INTP and he was saying that I couldn't be because I have a "biased perspective" but I didn't know he was talking about Socionics (ultimately he associated this with "Ni" and insisted I was actually INTJ as a result.). I don't think I have a particularly biased perspective though, except some ideas just seem clearly wrong and once they do I can really strongly try to get people off them.

(I don't know why this would be particularly Ni, as it seems more just like Xi, and maybe even Ti, but hey it's "outside people")


> Struggling to articulate your thoughts into words is weak Fe. Do you mean online or actually speaking to people? I'm ok at explaining things online (I think), but in the workplace I find it hard to explain things in a way that the person immediately understands. They will often ask "what do you mean?" or just won't take it in. With close friends and family, I am the total opposite. I find it easy to get my points across. So that's why I'm asking you what situation this is.


In all places, I'm better when I actually have time to sort of rearrange what's going on in my mind into coherent language. I don't know why this wouldn't be in line with 4 dimensional Ti, probably in 8th position because it's something I kind of have to force myself to use and get really frustrated actually having to do it. But I think I'm pretty adept at structural logic. It's just that I have an antagonistic relationship with its overuse.


----------



## Wisteria

Ocean Helm said:


> For instance I am good at giving math answers but laying out a sequential process to get there does not come naturally and this always bothered my teachers.


Role/Creative/Ego Ti is out then. Or it's not developed yet.



> I don't exist in routine though. I think about the future and larger things constantly but don't plan it out. Anyone can see this who observes me. I have a vague idea of what has to get done and then come up with a plan to do the things ad hoc. People such as my parents have often tried to get me on a routine but I just don't operate well within one.


Sorry I'm not going to tell you this make you an Irrational.



> I just rarely think about individual events at all that much. I see all time as essentially equal and never understood the importance people place on certain milestones and stuff like that. This has resulted in me being seen as amotivated which isn't necessarily true but my perception is just focused on tracking the unfolding of events through a distant perspective.


Ni 



> It makes sense from within the framework that you've settled on, however when you stop thinking about things in terms of Socionics and actually see development as a dynamic process things look different I promise.


...The theory is dynamic. It's the idea that your sociotype changes overtime as you accumulate more experience. 



> I have plenty of people I've talked about this stuff with which you don't seem to acknowledge as a possibility, and none of them are remotely similar to you. Are you really trying to say that only you know best with your personally preferred sources?


Why don't you go talk to them about it then? You dismiss me then continue to take my time. What are you playing at?



> Wikipedia is great, it's not stuck and can constantly be improved and updated.


Here it is not an acceptable reference to use. It's hard to notice when you're not knowledgeable on the subject or haven't compared to other sources but some facts people write there are wildly inaccurate.



> I missed that but Wikisocion is the same thing in a lot of its pages - translated Russian stuff written by people, translated by people. Why one specific translated Russian thing should be given precedence over another, especially when it lays out a rather specific pathway that I don't think one can reasonably expect to fit most people, is something which makes little sense to me. Maybe this is why you're a different type every month, because you jump around from source to source and then get different ideas and then rush to recategorize yourself in accordance with them.


What? Don't assume how I type myself, you obviously don't have a clue.



> Basically, routine ways of turning inputs into outputs, whatever it is.


? 



> It seems like you're putting words in my mouth here. I resist systemizing and categorizing here. It seems like you're on this constant mission to try to shove me into some box that you've already decided on, and this is just evidence of it. I don't think my approach here is grounded in some kind of crystallized abstractions here, which I then use as a framework to systematically figure out future things. If it were I would be better able to explain how I arrive at assessments/predictions, however given the nonlinearity of my thinking process to arrive at assessments I can't do this.


Wtf no, I'm trying to interpret what you're saying. Why would I want to you be a particular type? 

You've given me no reason to continue replying to you.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

Hey deltas I'm ready for the hangout 

 :smug: :crazy:


----------



## Foxyfox

IEE here. Oh I have a question... 

Where do I find male LSE's in real life? Where do they hang out? Library? Gym?.. Tanning? Laundry? lol


----------



## L P

I just witnessed the finest example of Te PoLR i've seen yet.

My cousin who I presume is SEI, gets a bowl of cereal and goes to his room, he comes out of his room to get another bowl of cereal, but what he decides to do is leave his bowl in his room and takes the box of cereal into his room, pour himself cereal, in his room, comes back out, puts cereal back, grabs milk, goes into his room, pours milk, comes back out and puts the milk back in the fridge.

FACE.PALM!
I have NO CLUE why he didn't just leave his room with his bowl and pour both cereal and milk in his bowl while he was at the fridge. No clue. That's talent.

@Foxyfox, males LSEs hangout at work lol. Probably a supervisor.


----------



## Foxyfox

Heres a question. How do I identify an SLI? Im ready to find my dual.. I read that they can be found in the suburbs and not in the heart of the city lolll (I feel like im hunting gazelle). But really how would I pick one out of a crowd? Is there anything in particular I can look for? Are they typically athletic? Would they be at the gym? lol help me find my SLI!! 
Thank you very much in advance x


----------



## Ocean Helm

Foxyfox said:


> Heres a question. How do I identify an SLI? Im ready to find my dual.. I read that they can be found in the suburbs and not in the heart of the city lolll (I feel like im hunting gazelle). But really how would I pick one out of a crowd? Is there anything in particular I can look for? Are they typically athletic? Would they be at the gym? lol help me find my SLI!!
> Thank you very much in advance x


First of all I wouldn't go seeking people based on their Socionics type...


----------



## Foxyfox

Ocean Helm said:


> First of all I wouldn't go seeking people based on their Socionics type...


 K thanks but I didn't ask if you would or not.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

Sooo. I scored the highest on the delta quadra. Um so... what do you all talk about here?


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

Well I can say, my neck is damn sore.


----------



## bremen

same


----------

