# Derail here to your heart's content



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

As the title says.. heh. I've seen the Jeremy/FAT retyping stuff come up enough. Take those thread derails here. 

PS: Do note I'm not inviting any ad hominem crap here. The thread title isn't meant to imply that either. Just simply a place for those recurring off topic thingies.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

You're clearly an ILE, @myst91.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> You're clearly an ILE, @myst91.


Lol, and you may go back to EIE. ;p

Anyway, I was serious. (Idk how much this is against the rules but I assumed it's fine as long as it's not personal attacks blahblah)


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

So jeremy fella is banned for some more weeks/months so not sure it is fair to discuss him. I say this, haters are hating. I am not sure but I have only seen ILI say that he is Ti-lead. Which is interesting. People are typing on association and in emotional content it seem. 

FAT is clearly not Ti-base. He is a poet writer guy who back in the days spend load of time in INFJ-forum from what I remember. I think people have a thing agains Ti until they read what some real Ti-lead type write and start to chill down a bit. 

Very interesting and weird ways of typing have been presented in these cases. And most of all people get sick of being 'typed' from others based on little to no information. Do ILI have a thing when they try to protect their precious duals' PoLR? Ohwel, these cases of typing have mostly been use from what I see as attacks and nothing else.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I think people have a thing agains Ti until they read what some real Ti-lead type write and start to chill down a bit.


I have been suspicious of this. I see every fictional psychopath being typed as an LSI. I see Jeremy and FAT, two people who are highly disagreeable being typed as LSIs.

I also see FAT behaving in an irrational-style way; it's that 'no-absolute truths' approach that just doesn't gel with my way of thinking. Likewise, I see Jeremy's focus on being a mainstream Socionist rather than thinking for himself.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Yeah there is way many too misconceptions about Ti.

@Fried Eggz very good points. I do see the Te superid in Jeremy in how he clings to the only one objective way of thinking and then just applies that without delving deep in logical evaluation.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

myst91 said:


> *Yeah there is way many too misconceptions about Ti.*
> 
> @Fried Eggz very good points. I do see the Te superid in Jeremy in how he clings to the only one objective way of thinking and then just applies that without delving deep in logical evaluation.


it is weird. I think that function is one of the most straight forward. But there are misconceptions about all functions. Most of them I think is from people that been wrongly typed, get to learn everything of that type and just adopting that identity and then blasting away their experiences and connect that to these functions that belong to an other type. Then this information goes around in peoples minds and get spread on the internet like a virus. :/


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

How would I derail if its already a composed thread of derailing topics? o__O


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> I have been suspicious of this. I see every fictional psychopath being typed as an LSI. I see Jeremy and FAT, two people who are highly disagreeable being typed as LSIs.


Every dictator ever (who _isn't_​ Napoleon or Stalin) is an EIE, too.



Captain Mclain said:


> Do ILI have a thing when they try to protect their precious duals' PoLR? Ohwel, these cases of typing have mostly been use from what I see as attacks and nothing else.


Got any examples of this in action?



Captain Mclain said:


> FAT is clearly not Ti-base. He is a poet writer guy who back in the days spend load of time in INFJ-forum from what I remember. I think people have a thing agains Ti until they read what some real Ti-lead type write and start to chill down a bit. .


Some of that was to do with the seemingly overemphasized yet middling use of intuition; basically the argument was some form of intuition hidden agenda type because of it. Not so sure I agree, y'all IEI's are some of the most nonsensical, even disregarding FaT.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

I think there's a decent chance that @FearAndTrembling is really an IEI, his behaviour however is not congruent with a_ healthy_ IEI. No offense meant. 

Jeremy does not seem like Ne-PoLR, but I have trouble seeing Fi-lead as I've stated to him before.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Verity said:


> I think there's a decent chance that @_FearAndTrembling_ is really an IEI, his behaviour however is not congruent with a_ healthy_ IEI. No offense meant.


I've heard the MBTI kiddies use him as an example of a "Ni-Ti loop". 



Verity said:


> Jeremy does not seem like Ne-PoLR, but I have trouble seeing Fi-lead as I've stated to him before.


Overemphasis of role function?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I don't want a typing thread. 

But I will add this, which touches on an earlier point. This whole thing is based on The psychologist's fallacy. This whole subject. Jung committed that fallacy many times.

The *psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. The fallacy was named by William James in the 19th century:**
The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence.[SUP][1]



[/SUP]
"The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the 'psychologist's fallacy' par excellence. For some of the mischief, here too, language is to blame. The psychologist, as we remarked above (p. 183), stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself, meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought, which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case."*


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Every dictator ever (who _isn't_​ Napoleon or Stalin) is an EIE, too.


I can only think of hitler, who else? Many dictator are probably Te-lead also. Many true revolutionist might be EIE sure.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> I can only think of hitler, who else? Many dictator are probably Te-lead also. Many true revolutionist might be EIE sure.


Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddhafi (who totally _isn't the Arab Che_), Francisco Franco, Bin Laden. I've also seen Ivan IV used as a historical example of an EIE, but I can't remember where. Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, while not a dictator, would easily be so if he had any chance at being in charge.

Oh, sauce. Most of those guys were listed here.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I've heard the MBTI kiddies use him as an example of a "Ni-Ti loop".


I'm not going to speculate more about his person and he said he doesn't want a type thread so I won't comment on that. That loop theory seems pretty shallow though. 



> Overemphasis of role function?


Not sure tbh. I have trouble seeing an Fi-lead be so dispassionate as to use their role to defend themselves when they're being called out for being insensitive, then do a 180% when it becomes apparent that that nobody likes them, only to end up doing the same thing again. Seems more like Fi-PoLR with Fe-HA to me tbh, but at the same time there are other facts which points to Te-valuing, but I haven't bothered to reflect on it much.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddhafi (who totally _isn't the Arab Che_), Francisco Franco, Bin Laden. I've also seen Ivan IV used as a historical example of an EIE, but I can't remember where. Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, while not a dictator, would easily be so if he had any chance at being in charge.
> 
> Oh, sauce. Most of those guys were listed here.


Ok, maybe you have a point. Most of those guys I have no idea what kind of person they are. Only heard that they are "bad-guys". But I do not think it is the role of EIE to be dictator but revolutionist and bringing new ideas to the masses and to the consciousness of the masses.

Why are we discussing EIE in this thread?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Verity said:


> That loop theory seems pretty shallow though.


Very. It's like a poor man's Role function.



Verity said:


> Seems more like Fi-PoLR with Fe-HA to me tbh, but at the same time there are other facts which points to Te-valuing, but I haven't bothered to reflect on it much.


Alpha NT over Delta NF? Makes sense.



Captain Mclain said:


> But I do not think it is the role of EIE to be dictator but revolutionist and bringing new ideas to the masses and to the consciousness of the masses.


Usually through the propagation of "us-vs-them" and by having an "enemy" that everybody must unite against. Willing to bet you could make such characters be either the greatest villains, or the most admirable heroes, depending on who is writing the story.

Just look at Che Guevara.



Captain Mclain said:


> Why are we discussing EIE in this thread?


Why not?



Fried Eggz said:


> The rule is against type bulling and harassment. To apply it outside of the context of personal attacks is to misapply it.





myst91 said:


> It's science once it's also a way of thinking that makes it clear what stands under what conditions. Until then, nope.


On a side note. Holy shit guise! Neither of you noticed the lightheartedness with which my "science" sentence was uttered...


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Usually through the propagation of "us-vs-them" and by having an "enemy" that everybody must unite against. Willing to bet you could make such characters be either the greatest villains, or the most admirable heroes, depending on who is writing the story.
> 
> Just look at Che Guevara.
> 
> ...


Ye. It also depend how well you are equipped to deal with that public opinion stuff. Yes EIE are a Fe type, but they are also a 4D Ne and 3D Ni type. They might use polarity to motivate but in the end I think they truly believe in a message of peace. They are basically lacking Si. The road to that goal might be just what is most effective from intuition perspective and not at all what have been establish. Thus revolutionist. Usually it is the offspring of the winners who write the history. 


*x)*


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> They might use polarity to motivate but in the end I think they truly believe in a message of peace.


Not always. Che was pretty adamant about making a nuclear crater out of the USA. Ivan the Terrible beat his own son to death. You could write a list of Betas who were peaceful (and there were many), but to assume it's either a quadra value or an EIE value is going a bit far, I think.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> On a side note. Holy shit guise! Neither of you noticed the lightheartedness with which my "science" sentence was uttered...


Err... there was a "science" sentence?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> Err... there was a "science" sentence?


In the other thread, didn't want to derail. Click the link to your quote, it's where you quoted me.

EDIT: Wait, you quoted me over the rule thing. My reaction to that was "oh yeah well whatever man". Both of you LSIs pulled me up on the rules thing. 

Want to teach me how to Ti? It could be useful seeing rules as something more than _just guidelines_.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Not always. Che was pretty adamant about making a nuclear crater out of the USA. Ivan the Terrible beat his own son to death. You could write a list of Betas who were peaceful (and there were many), but to assume it's either a quadra value or an EIE value is going a bit far, I think.


You like this picking thing do you not. Se HA I think fancy themselves as survivors. Do what is necessary. But it is way more all or nothing compare to Se-base type. 

I have to say, I have unfortunately little experience with EIE's. They seem to be a fine folk that almost like an addiction make people around them feel a bit better.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> In the other thread, didn't want to derail. Click the link to your quote, it's where you quoted me.
> 
> EDIT: Wait, you quoted me over the rule thing. My reaction to that was "oh yeah well whatever man". Want to teach me to Ti?


I'll teach everyone to Ti, whether they like it or not. That's the LSI way.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> I have to say, I have unfortunately little experience with EIE's. They seem to be a fine folk that almost like an addiction make people around them feel a bit better.


This is where quadra values conflict I think; they'll make you happy if you're on their side. It's one way they differ from ESEs, who don't really seem to do the whole side thing as much.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> I'll teach everyone to Ti, whether they like it or not. That's the LSI way.


Try me. You won't stand a chance; I eat LSIs for breakfast.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> Try me. You won't stand a chance; I eat LSIs for breakfast.


You mean like this?



Night Huntress said:


> I've argued with a TON of LSIs both on the forum and irl, and they don't give a shit about what I say or do to insult them. They just scoff and move on. Supervision OP.


Beware the ungodly memory of an egg.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> Beware the ungodly memory of an egg.


Holy shit I just noticed I said I eat LSIs for breakfast and you are LITERALLY FRIED EGGS. 

This was fucking meant to be. Omg hahahahah


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> How would I derail if its already a composed thread of derailing topics? o__O


Glad you get the idea


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I'll teach everyone to Ti, whether they like it or not. That's the LSI way.


Exactly. :ninja:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Verity said:


> Not sure tbh. I have trouble seeing an Fi-lead be so dispassionate as to use their role to defend themselves when they're being called out for being insensitive, then do a 180% when it becomes apparent that that nobody likes them, only to end up doing the same thing again. Seems more like Fi-PoLR with Fe-HA to me tbh, but at the same time there are other facts which points to Te-valuing, but I haven't bothered to reflect on it much.


I haven't seen him do a 180 just to be liked. Got an example of this?




The_Wanderer said:


> Alpha NT over Delta NF? Makes sense.


I did consider ILE for Jeremy but couldn't exclude EII so far. Anyway, Ne ego and C-D thinking style, yeah, either type works for that




> On a side note. Holy shit guise! Neither of you noticed the lightheartedness with which my "science" sentence was uttered...


Lol well.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

myst91 said:


> I haven't seen him do a 180 just to be liked. Got an example of this?


I'm not saying he necessarily did it to be liked, but check out the Delta thread. If my memory serves he basically trolled people and rationalized it as being part of his genius ability to manipulate emotions, or Fi as he calls it. He continued with the intellectual dishonesty until @Night Huntress and a few others got enough, then he writes this long wall of text about how we all just have different perspectives and apologized for his behaviour saying that he will leave the forum and wishing nothing but the best for everyone. Only to be back a few days later.

Now I'm not saying it's impossible for an EII to act that way, but it seems more like irrational Ti/Fe behaviour imho. I won't speculate more about him since he's banned and therefore can't argue for himself, but if anyone want to discuss whether that behaviour in itself is indicative of a certain type then go ahead.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Want to teach me how to Ti? It could be useful seeing rules as something more than _just guidelines_.


You edited this and it came across more serious than before. Do you genuinely want to discuss your vulnerable with me?


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Verity said:


> I'm not saying he necessarily did it to be liked, but check out the Delta thread. If my memory serves he basically trolled people and rationalized it as being part of his genius ability to manipulate emotions, or Fi as he calls it. He continued with the intellectual dishonesty until @Night Huntress and a few others got enough, then he writes this long wall of text about how we all just have different perspectives and apologized for his behaviour saying that he will leave the forum and wishing nothing but the best for everyone. Only to be back a few days later.
> 
> Now I'm not saying it's impossible for an EII to act that way, but it seems more like irrational Ti/Fe behaviour imho. I won't speculate more about him since he's banned and therefore can't argue for himself, but if anyone want to discuss whether that behaviour in itself is indicative of a certain type then go ahead.


I found it really amusing. One day he writes this profound and emotional wall of text like he's a former convict seeking enlightenment in church (with the profile picture change and all) and then the next day, you see regular Jeremy on the bridge.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Should just rename the title of this thread "Socionics Gossip" lol.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Let's make this a sticky and have it be a mistype revelation-ish thread like in the Enneagram forum. Everyone can be allowed to be honest about each other, as long as they aren't insensitive or needlessly provocative.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

So I heard people are giving me unsolicited retypings behind my back, people who think Si/Ne for me care to explain your reasonings to me directly? Because I honestly don't understand the argument nor did anyone explained to me ever.

And why do I know about it? A bunch of people came up to me asking "Selena are you an SEI" :laughing: It's not the type itself that is a problem, it's the fact that everything is done without my knowledge or approval, I myself seem to be excluded from the discussion of my own type.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

selena87 said:


> So I heard people are giving me unsolicited retypings behind my back, people who think Si/Ne for me care to explain your reasonings to me directly? Because I honestly don't understand the argument nor did anyone explained to me ever.
> 
> And why do I know about it? A bunch of people came up to me asking "Selena are you an SEI" :laughing: It's not the type itself that is a problem, it's the fact that everything is done without my knowledge or approval, I myself seem to be excluded from the discussion of my own type.


Wasn't me. I've been spreading rumours that you're an EII, not SEI. 

It is bizarre considering you have a type thread that people can freely give their opinion in.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Serpent said:


> I found it really amusing. One day he writes this profound and emotional wall of text like he's a former convict seeking enlightenment in church (with the profile picture change and all) and then the next day, you see regular Jeremy on the bridge.


What I found most amusing was that it actually was pretty touching, despite it being obvious to me he was faking it. He might have potential for acting.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

selena87 said:


> So I heard people are giving me unsolicited retypings behind my back, people who think Si/Ne for me care to explain your reasonings to me directly? Because I honestly don't understand the argument nor did anyone explained to me ever.
> 
> And why do I know about it? A bunch of people came up to me asking "Selena are you an SEI" :laughing: It's not the type itself that is a problem, it's the fact that everything is done without my knowledge or approval, I myself seem to be excluded from the discussion of my own type.


wtf who are those plebs


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> Do you genuinely want to discuss your vulnerable with me?


Rule #1 is that we do not talk about my vulnerable.



selena87 said:


> So I heard people are giving me unsolicited retypings behind my back


I'm guilty of typing you as "that chill motherfucker", I just didn't want to tell you.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> Rule #1 is that we do not talk about my vulnerable.


Do you want a cookie for that amazing use of Ti of yours?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

SOMEONE assign me another tyyyyyyyppppeeeeeeee :hampster:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> SOMEONE assign me another tyyyyyyyppppeeeeeeee :hampster:


What about DERP?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> What about DERP?


This is Socionics you uneducated pleb, we don't do four-letter types here. Gtfo with that shit


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> This is Socionics you uneducated pleb, we don't do four-letter types here. Gtfo with that shit


Ok, so what about NUT?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Verity said:


> I'm not saying he necessarily did it to be liked, but check out the Delta thread. If my memory serves he basically trolled people and rationalized it as being part of his genius ability to manipulate emotions, or Fi as he calls it. He continued with the intellectual dishonesty until @Night Huntress and a few others got enough, then he writes this long wall of text about how we all just have different perspectives and apologized for his behaviour saying that he will leave the forum and wishing nothing but the best for everyone. Only to be back a few days later.
> 
> Now I'm not saying it's impossible for an EII to act that way, but it seems more like irrational Ti/Fe behaviour imho. I won't speculate more about him since he's banned and therefore can't argue for himself, but if anyone want to discuss whether that behaviour in itself is indicative of a certain type then go ahead.


Hm well I've seen EIIs being all over the place like that. Hard to tell type just from this.




Serpent said:


> I found it really amusing. One day he writes this profound and emotional wall of text like he's a former convict seeking enlightenment in church (with the profile picture change and all) and then the next day, you see regular Jeremy on the bridge.


Lol do you have the link to the post btw?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

selena87 said:


> So I heard people are giving me unsolicited retypings behind my back, people who think Si/Ne for me care to explain your reasonings to me directly? Because I honestly don't understand the argument nor did anyone explained to me ever.
> 
> And why do I know about it? A bunch of people came up to me asking "Selena are you an SEI" :laughing: It's not the type itself that is a problem, it's the fact that everything is done without my knowledge or approval, I myself seem to be excluded from the discussion of my own type.


Yeah I hate that sort of shit too. Happened to me too at the other forum (the16types). I got those people to explain the reasoning publicly in the end tho. =)

And yeah, it shouldn't be done with you being excluded like that, that's the main problem with this.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> Yeah I hate that sort of shit too. Happened to me too at the other forum (the16types). I got those people to explain the reasoning publicly in the end tho. =)
> 
> And yeah, it shouldn't be done with you being excluded like that, that's the main problem with this.


Tbh, the people over at 16types are also trash at typing, but that's me.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> SOMEONE assign me another tyyyyyyyppppeeeeeeee :hampster:


obviously chaotic good hufflepuff


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Verity said:


> obviously chaotic good hufflepuff


Verity I will destroy you. Behold my special weapon: Fe overload.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Tbh, the people over at 16types are also trash at typing, but that's me.


Yeah a lot of them suck at it.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> Verity I will destroy you. Behold my special weapon: Fe overload.


No. But Kantian ethics will destroy you.





(And yes, I specifically picked a video without sound)


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I'm guilty of typing you as "that chill motherfucker", I just didn't want to tell you.


My retyping of you

* *

















Night Huntress said:


> SOMEONE assign me another tyyyyyyyppppeeeeeeee :hampster:



* *


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Verity I've been curious and been meaning to ask though, how come you type as a 4? What made you arrive at that typing?


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @Verity I've been curious and been meaning to ask though, how come you type as a 4? What made you arrive at that typing?


I just wrote to Huntress about that: "Pretty much just analyzing my behaviour, it's not set in stone tbh. I'm moody as fuck, so much that it rules everything I do and it's kinda like a defensive strategy for me in the sense that I will have an extremely bad feeling about doing something, then pride myself on being idealistic instead of practical when I'm met with resistance. I also have all the stereotypical artistic ambitions of a 4 as well as the constant feeling of rejection towards doing/saying what is expected or banal." This of course doesn't manifest itself externally much here, but if you check out my old 21Q it's pretty apparent imo


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lol so I decided to finally make these pictures I've been meaning to in order to illustrate the differences in locus of attention for introversion/extroversion:



Extroverts project their attention outwards and repress their sense of inner reality at some level; their focus is on what you can do out there and how to manipulate the external world outside of the self. 



Introverts observe external information and reflect over its meaning in relation to the subject or the self; so in a sense it kind of bounces back at them. 

Both introverts and extroverts begin with looking outwards and outside themselves, but whereas extroverts stay in the area outside of themselves, introverts are more interested in their own subjective reactions based on their observations of the object world. 

Something like that.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Verity said:


> No. But Kantian ethics will destroy you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still alive~ So how about you? Ears still ringing? I'm sorry if I caused lifelong trauma... but that's what you get for calling me a Hufflepuff.

*edit*: actually I don't know even know why I reacted like??? Hufflepuffs are pretty badass... I mean, while Gryffindors are out beating their chests and tripping over themselves, Slytherins are being slimy and conniving, and Ravenclaws are being useless nerds, Hufflepuffs are always loyal, steadfast, and hardworking. And they really genuinely CARE about other people, not just themselves or their "causes". They're brave and they try to maintain harmony.

Wow, they actually seem like the most emotionally *mature* out of them all. This entire reaction was pointless.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

selena87 said:


> * *


WOW it's pretty <3 <3 <3 And it sounds super badass too. This is the best retyping I received here.



> Suicune is a slim, quadruped, blue, mammalian Pokémon with white, diamond-shaped spots. Its face and underside are white as well. Suicune has a thick, purple mane that resembles the aurora borealis and two white, streamer-like tails that wave forward. It has a long, white snout. Suicune has a large, hexagonal, cerulean blue crest on its forehead that resembles the antlers of a Qilin with two prongs on either side of the base. It has red eyes, a protrusion under its chin, and small paws with white paw pads.Suicune has the power to walk across water and purify dirty water with one touch. It travels across grasslands in search of water to purify. Northern winds always seem to blow stronger in its presence. In Pokémon Crystal, Suicune is said to be the closest of the legendary beasts to Ho-Oh. It is also said to have a link to the Unown. In the anime, Suicune is shown to be heroic, serious, and calm during dangerous situations.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

selena87 said:


> My retyping of you
> 
> * *


... Blastoise was always my favourite Anti-Charizard cannon (and _everybody_ had Charizard), but I was always a Dragonite guy myself.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

My favorite Pokemon were Scyther and Arcanine.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity said:


> Is it possible to be a Swedish Fi-user and seriously not like Kent? lol


I am not very fond of them but I do like some songs and lol, Portishead, I was about to link them before:


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Verity said:


> Is it possible to be a Swedish Fi-user and seriously not like Kent? lol


rephrased. Is it possible to be an Fi-user and seriously not like Kent? lol


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I am not very fond of them


Yep, you're LII alright


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Verity said:


> Yep, you're LII alright


No he's just a liar


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Turns out I confused an iei for an iee at the beginning. *disappointment cry*

Her idea of romance and adventure is pure beta. Though i blame her enneagram for the confusion. I attributed dramatic, push-pull romance style to 4 sx but that is just beta, i guess..


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

crashbandicoot said:


> Turns out I confused an iei for an iee at the beginning. *disappointment cry*
> 
> Her idea of romance and adventure is pure beta. Though i blame her enneagram for the confusion. I attributed dramatic, push-pull romance style to 4 sx but that is just beta, i guess..


And so you changed into SLE for her?


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

myst91 said:


> And so you changed into SLE for her?


:laughing: lol no it wasn't related. 

We exchanged types with selena87 before I noticed this. 

I dont fancy the romance style I described, btw, not even one bit. :exterminate:

My disappointment was my mistyping her at first. Its a stain on my perfect record. :crying:


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

@Entropic


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Recede said:


> Hey, I've heard of them. I only know of this song though.


They've come a REALLY long way since then :^) Currently the most successful act in Korea.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Night Huntress said:


> They've come a REALLY long way since then :^) Currently the most successful act in Korea.


Which song is your favorite?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Recede said:


> Which song is your favorite?


ROFL are you really expecting me to pick one?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Akinator, the Web Genius

I tried to add INFJ into it. Or well I did, noone have added type before it seems. Can it be done to use the same motor as akinator but for type. Think of a person, akinator ask questions and the buildup for what type that person is.


* *




Look for that one weirdo who is semi-well dressed, yet who has a hint of awkwardness in manner. They'll probably occasionally say things that make you think, "Man, I never thought of it like that!" While they are usually somewhat talkative and social, at least with select people, you still get the impression that they aren't the #1 most popular/social person in the room. In my experience, the INFJ is usually that innocuous person who seems relatively normal or socially acceptable on the surface, yet your gut tells you that SOMETHING is off. There is something different about them. They are the one listening particularly attentively when someone talks; they have a certain quietness or stillness at times when nobody else does. You get the feeling that somehow, this one knows what the hell is going on. You might get the undying urge to ask them questions, yet are unsure of which questions to ask (the thing is, they KNOW stuff that even they cannot explain). You can physically sense that there is some kind of expanse of a depth or emotional heavyness in the air around them. Like some void that society cannot penetrate or fill. That is Ni.


----------



## sss_guy (Dec 12, 2015)

Post number fifteen. Sorry.


----------



## willowglass (Aug 6, 2015)

GnothiSeauton said:


> Would you say this Jeremy guy is representative?
> He kind of reminds me of a user named Maritsa on 16types, who was completely nuts and used to type the same.


No. If they are EII, they are not good representatives. I thought they reminded me of each other too. I have them both on ignore and they are actually the only people I have ever put on ignore.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

goldberry3 said:


> No. If they are EII, they are not good representatives. I thought they reminded me of each other too. I have them both on ignore and they are actually the only people I have ever put on ignore.


All people of a type is good representatives. Everything else is being elitist. 
@GnothiSeauton Better people being nuts than being a total bore and useless. ;p


----------



## willowglass (Aug 6, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> All people of a type is good representatives. Everything else is being elitist.
> @GnothiSeauton Better people being nuts than being a total bore and useless. ;p


I would say everyone of a certain type is a representative of a type. I wouldn't say everyone of a certain type is a good representative of a type. Especially the unhealthy versions. I suppose you could say they could be a good representation of a type being unhealthy. As in Hitler being EIE. It depends how you define what is 'good'. People like that can confuse others about a type or their type, unless they are unhealthy too, possibly. Personally I prefer boring over that kind of nuts, but that's just me.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

goldberry3 said:


> Especially the unhealthy versions.


Define _unhealthy versions_.

Hitler wasn't really emphasizing his Super-Ego very much. Unless you're talking about use of functions as _unhealthy_ then it's entirely irrelevant to Socionics.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

> Err... there was a "science" sentence?


There was a science sentence sitting silently inside a silhouette on second page, sir.


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> All people of a type is good representatives. Everything else is being elitist.
> @_GnothiSeauton_ Better people being nuts than being a total bore and useless. ;p


Uh, I never said being nuts was a bad thing. Maybe I came across as dismissive, but I actually find both the people I mentioned pretty interesting, if a bit hard to relate to.

As for your point about being a good representative, keep in mind that human cognition is extremely complex and type is bound to be only a part of it. So trying to understand a type, as an abstract category, by observing people is quite a task, because there is a lot of information that simply isn't in the domain of Socionics and needs to be filtered.

Being a "good representative" as I intended it is a concept limited to your own experience of a certain type with all the bias that it carries. I was simply asking whether you guys found him easy to identify as EII, or he was not consistent with your observations of such type, and in what ways.

Nothing elitist about it. If Jeremy actually is EII, then he just is, no matter how distant from a supposed "average".


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

GnothiSeauton said:


> Uh, I never said being nuts was a bad thing. Maybe I came across as dismissive, but I actually find both the people I mentioned pretty interesting, if a bit hard to relate to.


Duality works 




> Being a "good representative" as I intended it is a concept limited to your own experience of a certain type with all the bias that it carries. I was simply asking whether you guys found him easy to identify as EII, or he was not consistent with your observations of such type, and in what ways.


I have no problem with his EII typing.

He's Ne in ego alright.

I've seen him post some quite Fi statements too (not when discussing socionics theory, but in other posts of his on this forum and elsewhere).

My experiences with him match my experiences with a couple other EIIs.




> Nothing elitist about it. If Jeremy actually is EII, then he just is, no matter how distant from a supposed "average".


I agree.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

GnothiSeauton said:


> Does it bother anyone that PerC lists "demisexual" as an option for "sex preference"? I mean, depending on what is intended by sex preference, it might work, but then the other options are male, female etc. As I understand it, demisexuality is about _how _the sexual preference becomes established, not towards _who_. But then again, how do you call it? Sex _modality_ (I hope not, that sounds terrible)? Is there an "official" term?
> 
> Which reminds me, I don't know why the text editor can't handle when you hit backspace if you have previously typed something in italics. It's a pity, because italics is _cool _- when you read it, _it sends shivers down your spine._


As a demisexual I'm fine with having it there because it says how I'm attracted to someone and what conditions are required to be so. I prefer demisexual over bisexual because my attraction isn't based on the notion of body but personality even though I can date anyone regardless of sex and some use bisexual similar to pansexual. I just don't feel pansexual fits because I'm not a very sexual person in this regard. Demisexual feels more private than pansexual. I would also consider myself panromantic because I don't care so much about the personality either as long I like you, but I lean towards more effeminate and feelsy personalities so overall I'd say hetero on the basis that I'm not these things. At some level it begins to break down though because there's no real way to even know how you classify these categories eg hetero/****.

Ergo for ease and efficiency demisexual suffices just fine because it says all the things I want to say anyway.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

@GnothiSeauton Sorry, my comment about the romantic orientation was a separate point, that I think it should be there also. I didn't mean to insinuate that demisexuality is a romantic orientation, since yeah, it's not! FWIW I also consider myself panromantic and identify with that more than I do with any sexual orientation.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

GnothiSeauton said:


> Yes, but "demisexuality" isn't a romantic orientation (there's "demiromantic" for that). So how do you classify it? What's confusing is that demisexual is supposedly part of a spectrum which ranges from sexual to asexual, but as far as I know, there's no shared-upon way to call this spectrum, because what it indicates is actually fairly ambiguous - it could refer to intensity, frequency, or, as in this case, modality of sexual attraction.
> 
> Maybe distinguish it from "sex preference", name it "sexual spectrum" (including sexual, asexual, demisexual and gray-A) and call it a day. And do the same thing with romantic attraction as well, I suppose.


I like your use of "sex modality". It has some coherence and is illustrative enough when you understand what the word "modality" can encompass. Made my Ti kokoro go Dokidoki <3

　


Noctis said:


> And thus a single category became four. Should simplicity and efficiency be preferred over clarity of definition? Such is my dilemma.


Sexuality/sensuality can be composed of Sex Orientation spectrum, Sex Modality spectrum, Romantic Orientation spectrum, and Romantic Modality spectrum. I made an "ironic psuedo-unironic Tumblr description" for myself that was something like:

"Androphilic" (sex orientation that makes no regard to _my_ sex/gender)
"Demisexual" (sex modality)
"Homoromantic" (romantic gender-to-gender orientation)
"Sensualist" (romantic modality perhaps?), though I'd now simply go with "Romantic" to mirror what is the "opposite of Aromantic" on that spectrum.

I implicitly got the hunch that "Gay and Demi" were oversimplifications, and came to the same four-pronged thingy that you did here. Hunchy-logical affirmation of your logical-hunchy'do'ness. Beta collab [bro-fist].


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

kitsu said:


> I can think of lots of reasons to have your sex preference on the forum, like if you have the hots for another forum member and want to know if they're oriented towards your sex, or in the case of a debate about discrimination or LGBT threads it can be good to know who's speaking from a point of experience and who is not...
> 
> @_GnothiSeauton_ might just be easier to have it be something like demi-heterosexual, demi-homosexuel, demi-pansexual etc. etc. ?


Not really. I'm demisexual but completey romantic while some people are demisexual and gray romantic. Demiromantic doesn't make sense, because demisexuality hinges on romantic-attraction-first. Meaning it's dependent on your romantic orientation. Meaning the romantic orientation in and of itself must be independent.

You can't anchor demisexuality-- by definition-- to some kind of demiromanticism. A dependent sexuality can't be anchored to a dependent romanticism unless the dependent romanticism has an independent anchor of its own.

Demisexual: "If I'm romantically attracted, I get sexually attracted."
Demiromantic: "If I'm *[what's-the-'if'???]*, I get romantically attracted."
*
[What's-The-If?]-ism:* What is it? Without this factor being identified, "demiromantic" is meaningless. And if romantic preference isn't clear, then calling yourself demisexual makes no sense, either.

　

That was a tangent.
Yeah, anyway, demisexual is dependent on full- or gray-romantic orientation, so romantic orientation must be defined to be more exact.

And, in the cases of people like me who are "gay" but have also been sexually attracted to testosterone-masculinized + post-op _and pre-op_ trans people, the line between romanticism and sexuality is pretty skewed.

I like dudes.
I like cis males who act like the masculine gender ("dudes", "men").
I like trans males who act like the masculine gender ("dudes", men").

But I don't care about whether or not they call themselves a man/dude as their gender label. Likewise, I don't give a shit about pronouns.

I'm romantically/sensually attracted to masculinity. And as a masculine person, that makes my romanticism ****.

But, let's say the trans male is pre-op in the genital department: Part of my "homosexuality" isn't going to fit the definition. I won't be attracted sexually to their genitals, but I will be attracted sensually to their body if it contains enough secondary androgen features by a combination of genetic and HRT factors (and reconstructive plastic surgery, too, depending).

　
So.... "Andro-sexual" (people with penises regardless of their original genetic morphology)
and "Demisexual" (only in cases of romantic attraction)

In cases of romantic attraction, I can go for: Dude-;ike people, aesthetically-dude-'ish even if they don't identify as dudes, even if they don't have teh peen0rx. (homoromantic, unless you want to make another split for gender-label)....

.... and I can be romantically attracted at any time, unless emotionally compromised or ill. (Romantic)

_*I suppose, we could combine the two and say I'm "Full-****-romantic" *while someone else might be "****-Gray-Romantic" or "Pan-Gray-Romantic" or "Bi-A-romantic". So many options!_

It's actually kinda fun~~~~


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Kerik_S said:


> Demisexual: "If I'm romantically attracted, I get sexually attracted."
> Demiromantic: "If I'm *[what's-the-'if'???]*, I get romantically attracted."
> *
> [What's-The-If?]-ism:* What is it? Without this factor being identified, "demiromantic" is meaningless. And if romantic preference isn't clear, then calling yourself demisexual makes no sense, either.


Generally, I've seen the IF as a close relationship, i.e. "If I'm in a close relationship with someone, such as a close friendship, I (have the potential to) get romantically attracted."

But, as with other patterns of attraction, it's not an if --> then entailment.
i.e. Close relationship does not entail romantic attraction,
BUT is necessary for romantic attraction;
i.e. A close relationship is necessary but not sufficient for romantic attraction to occur.

So one could be both demisexual and demiromantic, but, for sure, they are not the same thing.

Disclaimer: I don't identify as demiromantic but I do kinda relate to it in this particular sense. I've never experienced romantic feelings, not even the slightest crush, towards someone who was not already a close friend. *shrug*


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Ergo for ease and efficiency demisexual suffices just fine because it says all the things I want to say anyway.


And that's what matter because it's your story to tell, or not tell, at your discretion.

Thanks for letting us know about the other aspects of your preferences for the sake of making your points, too.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

I identify with all the hypothetical "spectrums" outlined or insinuated here, but it's probably more of a reflection not of my private'ness or discretion or a desire to label myself in particular. And more just that I like to smack Producing-Fe-Ti labels on _everything_.

DERAIL: And I hate it when people who are anti--divisive-labels get onto me about using descriptive labels like it's some kind of affront to humanity. It's a preference. It's what you do with labels that are problematic, and if I ascribe them to things-- it's done in a social-constructionist fashion, which means you don't have to buy into my definitions.

"I hate labels! OMG, you're so obsessed with labels!"

No. You have poor social-construction reasoning (1D Fe, most likely) and hate anything that is _labelled a *"label"*_ even if one is derisve/divisive and the other is simply descriptive.

Bullshit, I say! Bullshit!


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

coagulate said:


> Generally, I've seen the IF as a close relationship, i.e. "If I'm in a close relationship with someone, such as a close friendship, I (have the potential to) get romantically attracted."
> 
> But, as with other patterns of attraction, it's not an if --> then entailment.
> i.e. Close relationship does not entail romantic attraction,
> ...


Hmm... I think romance without familiarity isn't really romance. It's affectionate sensuality. Romance, in my book, requires closeness enough to get to understand the person.

I understand the butterflies for people you don't know, but crushes like that don't qualify as romance for me. Romance is both affective and intellectual in my book: The intellect has to be attached to the person. Crushes are strictly irrational. Romance has an irrational and a rational aspect to them.

And I don't want to have sex with people I have crushes on. I may be more sensual with them and like to touch them more, but the act of engaging in deliberate arousal and sexual pleasure with them makes my mind want to die and kills the sensual vibe along with the romantic vibe and can even jeapordize the crush or destroy it.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Kerik_S said:


> I identify with all the hypothetical "spectrums" outlined or insinuated here, but it's probably more of a reflection not of my private'ness or discretion or a desire to label myself in particular. And more just that I like to smack Producing-Fe-Ti labels on _everything_.
> 
> DERAIL: And I hate it when people who are anti--divisive-labels get onto me about using descriptive labels like it's some kind of affront to humanity. It's a preference. It's what you do with labels that are problematic, and if I ascribe them to things-- it's done in a social-constructionist fashion, which means you don't have to buy into my definitions.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. Especially since most of these anti-label people are of the default group, like heteroromantic heterosexuals going "Don't label yourself!!!" Lol, easy for you to say. You ARE the unlabeled.

Also, haha, is that a Ti-Fe thing? I tend to seek words for all these concepts too.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

@coagulate ,

If I'm personally going to insist on labels for myself, I need to assert what they entail for me.

In my book, romanticism can't just be a crush. So "demi-romantic" as a conditional for "if I'm close to them" doesn't exist because it's redundant.

But, I guess if someone who identifies as demiromantic looks at how I "don't consider crushes romance, and therefore only consider romance a thing if I'm close".... That would make me demiromantic as well.

Hmm. Interesting.

I personally think it's either redundant or a voided dependent variable. But, if I see enough people who are (a) Never aroused without at least a crush, (B) feel sufficient sexual attraction to just-crushes, (C) without there having to be a strange "crush = sensual but =/= sexual" phase....

.... I may reconsider. Considering myself to be demiromantic with the other person in the A-B-C being full-romantic


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Kerik_S said:


> Hmm... I think *romance without familiarity isn't really romance*. It's affectionate sensuality. Romance, in my book, requires closeness enough to get to understand the person.
> 
> I understand the butterflies for people you don't know, but crushes like that don't qualify as romance for me. Romance is both affective and intellectual in my book: The intellect has to be attached to the person. Crushes are strictly irrational. Romance has an irrational and a rational aspect to them.


Hmm, ok. I guess that's pretty unusual, though. Most people experience enough romantic attraction towards near-strangers that they will, for example, date a near-stranger or try their hand at dating or something like that. They'll know within a 10 minute conversation if they want to continue dating someone. I can't really date like that because I won't even know if I like the person for years, potentially. It's a difference I've observed from most people; label or not, the difference is still going to be there.


ETA (sorry I didn't see this post)



Kerik_S said:


> If I'm personally going to insist on labels for myself, I need to assert what they entail for me.


Of course  I'm the same way, it's what they mean to me, not to other people.



> In my book, romanticism can't just be a crush. So "demi-romantic" as a conditional for "if I'm close to them" doesn't exist because it's redundant.


See, most people I know consider a crush to be romantic _attraction_. (Not romanticism per se, just romantic _attraction_.) So that is why I had observed this difference.

Edit: I did want to add though that I just go by panromatic, because romantic attraction can only exist for me after a close relationship anyway - that's just normal to me. But, it is not normal from others' perspective. It depends on the purpose of the demiromantic label; is it to identify myself with (in which case idc) or is it to differentiate myself from others (which I don't really do, either, but in this case it would be relevant).


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

coagulate said:


> Couldn't agree more. Especially since most of these anti-label people are of the default group, like heteroromantic heterosexuals going "Don't label yourself!!!" Lol, easy for you to say. You ARE the unlabeled.
> 
> Also, haha, is that a Ti-Fe thing? I tend to seek words for all these concepts too.


Yes. Particularly Producing Ti/Fe or Fe/Ti (Creative/Mobilizing).

Notice, the Ti-Lead (Accepting, rather than Producing Ti/Fe) mentioned "sex modality" but didn't bother to dissect it actively, and moved right onto their logic's initial focus?

That's because Ti was Accepting, theoretically: At least 3D + Accepting Ti-- any greater-than-2D function, in the Valued Blocks, must be 4D if it's also Accepting)--...

.... so, rather: Accepting Ti with a Situation dimension.... That kind of Ti is going to focus more on the situation and not go off the rails/free-associtate (in communication) like Producing and/or 2D or 1D Ti.

1D Ti will derail even if it's Accepting, but it will likely just derail a thought process if Ti information aspects were in play.

2D Ti, Accepting or Producing, will likely derail in communication because Mobilizing Ti has no grasp of the situation: It'll just "spout-off Ti shit" in a self-masturbatory (Super-Id or Id) kind of way.

3D Ti, Producing, will not necessarily derail, but will symbolically (in expression) be more longwinded about things like "sex modality" rather than just a brief mention.

3D (or 4D) Accepting, will be just as exhaustive as Producing Ti is longwinded, but the exhaustiveness/comprehensiveness will be internal depth rather than expressing those depths fully in speech. So, the depth is turned inward.


　
Like, this is longwinded, but it's not comprehensive. 2D Producing, Valued, and honestly just a bit more preferenced in me than the "normative" IEI. Someone with "normative" Producing 2D Valued Ti would probably be longwinded occasionally.

So, idk. I'm not a good example of regular-old-2D-Valued-(thus-Producing) Ti. Notice it's the third in terms of CF-use in my signature.

　
Anyway.

　

Yeah. The point is, really, when it comes down to it:

Producing Ti/Fe in the Valued Blocks is always going to be 3D for one of them and 2D for the other, so either way, it's going to manifest more like mine and less like GnothiSeauton who has Accepting Ti and Fe.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

coagulate said:


> Hmm, ok. I guess that's pretty unusual, though. Most people experience enough romantic attraction towards near-strangers that they will, for example, date a near-stranger or try their hand at dating or something like that. They'll know within a 10 minute conversation if they want to continue dating someone. I can't really date like that because I won't even know if I like the person for years, potentially. It's a difference I've observed from most people; label or not, the difference is still going to be there.


That's very interesting. I actually have a chart of how my affection/sensuality/romanticism/sexuality evolves, and it's very segmented while others seems pretty All-At-Once. Even before the sexuality comes in, and I'm just looking at the pre-sexual stuff, it's still more segmented.

The fact that I'd be confused by the other people I see, that I'd even construct a chart in the first place... might be an indicator that I'm double-demi. Or demi-squared!

*Addition to original chart in BOLD.*


meeting + _*platonic *_attraction =
interest

interest + comfort =
affection

affection + curiosity =
sensuality

*=================================================
sensuality = approximately what I'd call a crush, but moreso a function of
curiosity than the affection
=================================================*

sensuality + vulnerability =
passion

=================================================
passion = sensuality becomes more an exercise of
desire than a means of establishing vulnerability
=================================================

passion + trust =
infatuation

=================================================
infatuation = sensuality becomes an exercise of both
exercising desire AND /deepening/ vulnerability
=================================================

infatuation + familiarity =
romance

=================================================
romance = desire to exercise sexual pleasure,
and to utilize sexual arousal, occurs
=================================================

romance + dedication =
partnership

partnership + compassion =
love


　


coagulate said:


> Of course  I'm the same way, it's what they mean to me, not to other people.
> 
> See, most people I know consider a crush to be romantic _attraction_. (Not romanticism per se, just romantic _attraction_.) So that is why I had observed this difference.


I consider a crush affectionate curiosity, from which sensuality flows forth. A desire to become more vulnerable and see if some passion for interacting with that person can be both stoked and sustained.

Romantic attraction doesn't begin for me until further passion, and vulnerability, and trust _and _familiarity in being able to exercise that trust without it being broken.

So sexuality feels incompatible until all of the above is in play.

I could be a demisexual demiromantic demi-_sensual_ if others don't wait until they're affectionate to even get sensual! xD

Layers! We're like onions!

　


coagulate said:


> Edit: I did want to add though that I just go by panromatic, because romantic attraction can only exist for me after a close relationship anyway - that's just normal to me. But, it is not normal from others' perspective. It depends on the purpose of the demiromantic label; is it to identify myself with (in which case idc) or is it to differentiate myself from others (which I don't really do, either, but in this case it would be relevant).


I like all teh labels. They're interesting. They help me connect with others rather than push others away. They're great for boundaries. As an E8, my Producing Fe and Ti are very much driven to create these stupid labels. As an introvert, it really helps me to connect with people as opposed to simply experiencing people in real-time.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Anyhow, I'llderail this even further:

I wanna predict that @myst91 is actually a big

IEE

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

(btw don't take this the wrong way. I saw that opportunity to misread the word "big". I am in no way, form or shape involved with any information about you besides what you write. And that came out...wrong. Damn! EPIC FAIL :crazy


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Anyhow, I'llderail this even further:
> 
> I wanna predict that @_myst91_ is actually a big
> 
> ...


This is interesting. I considered in her own typing thread that she had Fi, but everyone disagreed with me. :kitteh:

I'm not sure if IEE is the case, though. Her having Ti PoLR seems highly unlikely. She is always using Ti reasoning, analyzing and taking apart arguments meticulously.

Through watching her threads over time, as well, Beta and Ti in the ego seems more likely than my initial impressions.

That aside, you've pronounced a conclusion without your reasoning. What makes you think IEE? Where have you seen this cognition?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> This is interesting. I considered in her own typing thread that she had Fi, but everyone disagreed with me. :kitteh:
> 
> I'm not sure if IEE is the case, though. Her having Ti PoLR seems highly unlikely. She is always using Ti reasoning, analyzing and taking apart arguments meticulously.
> 
> ...


Maybe what you see about her is the motivation, what would say something like enneatype 5. Jung only deals with perception and what we do with it. It says NOTHING about the ability(although it's hinted at) and most certainly not about motivations. So, we can't say shit about that. The only relevant judge should be her.

As for me, I don't know anymore. I am just a mess when it comes to introspection. I just want to live in my surroundings and take care of my needs. I literally answer blindly to most questions. Because self-report, unless it involves the "FALSE" factor(F, R, whatever factor) is ultimately useless for me. And why? Because I pay next to no attention to what I do in a given situation. I really have next to no idea what this says. Oh and I don't care about other, unknown or non-related humans(or do I?). I'm such a mess I can only be Ne something.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Maybe what you see about her is the motivation, what would say something like enneatype 5. Jung only deals with perception and what we do with it. It says NOTHING about the ability(although it's hinted at) and most certainly not about motivations. So, we can't say shit about that. The only relevant judge should be her.
> 
> As for me, I don't know anymore. I am just a mess when it comes to introspection. I just want to live in my surroundings and take care of my needs. I literally answer blindly to most questions. Because self-report, unless it involves the "FALSE" factor(F, R, whatever factor) is ultimately useless for me. And why? Because I pay next to no attention to what I do in a given situation. I really have next to no idea what this says. Oh and I don't care about other, unknown or non-related humans(or do I?). I'm such a mess I can only be Ne something.


Being a 'mess' doesn't automatically make you Ne-something. :kitteh: 

Hmm... I'm not so certain I would necessarily describe _myself _as a 'mess', even though I am Ne-base. Perhaps a methodical one. My space is in disarray, but I know where everything is, kind of thing. My mind works similarly. I am completely useless with emotional thoughts, and they tend to disrupt logical reasoning to the point where I can't execute my ideas properly-- In _that, _I am an utter mess.

Mostly, what distinguishes Ne from other cognitive functions is potential and interest, and the enthusiasm generated from these points of execution. This, I don't necessarily see you exhibiting. I don't see you juggling potentialities. What you describe... Confuses me, in terms of connection with cognition. 

I mean, I generally pay attention to what I do in a given situation. Although, generally more attention in retrospect than at the time. :kitteh:

I'm curious what turned you away from ESI.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Being a 'mess' doesn't automatically make you Ne-something. :kitteh:
> 
> Hmm... I'm not so certain I would necessarily describe _myself _as a 'mess', even though I am Ne-base. Perhaps a methodical one. My space is in disarray, but I know where everything is, kind of thing. My mind works similarly. I am completely useless with emotional thoughts, and they tend to disrupt logical reasoning to the point where I can't execute my ideas properly-- In _that, _I am an utter mess.
> 
> ...


I don't know. I guess I could be. Shouldn't ESI know this kind of a thing like an inside of his pocket?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

*Rip apart the armchair psychologist:*



ENTPness said:


> Kerik_S said:
> 
> 
> > Long crazy rant(s)
> ...


Have fun derailing this guy.

　
@_ENTPness_ 

Have a terrible day.

　

@_Wednesday Mermaid_ 

As I was looking at ENTPness's profile's sidebar to Ignore him, I saw you're on his Friends List. I don't think you'll appreciate his words that I quoted above.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

@Kerik_S That poster is an annoying troll, never mind him. I didn't read your post there though. But yeah, my impression of him is 100% troll lol.

I also think he's some kind of Te valuing type, but that's just a vague impression based on some things he's said.


----------



## Wednesday Mermaid (May 30, 2015)

Not even sure why I've been tagged in this thread?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ixim said:


> I don't know. I guess I could be. Shouldn't ESI know this kind of a thing like an inside of his pocket?


You mean, be self-aware and know exactly what they're doing given their actions? What 'kind of thing' do you mean? :kitteh:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Wednesday Mermaid said:


> Not even sure why I've been tagged in this thread?


It's probably because of your name. It's so cool. 

It's either that somebody thought, "Nobody could be called 'Wednesday Mermaid', so I have to try to mention them and see if they show up, and if they do, WOW, WHAT A COOL NAME." 

Or they thought.. "This bit of something is something Wednesday Mermaid would be interested in, oh wait, I'm too shy, nevermind. But, I seriously can't stress in my thoughts how cool that name is." 

"A MERMAID WHO IS ONLY A MERMAID ON WEDNESDAY?! WHAT!?"

Sorry, I'm hyper in the morning.


----------



## Wednesday Mermaid (May 30, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's probably because of your name. It's so cool.
> 
> It's either that somebody thought, "Nobody could be called 'Wednesday Mermaid', so I have to try to mention them and see if they show up, and if they do, WOW, WHAT A COOL NAME."
> 
> ...


Ahaha, thank you 

It's actually a combination of Wednesday Addams and Anais Nin, or rather what they represent: my cynical half and my idealistic half in one.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Someone typing me as EIE got me giggles to the point I can't help but embarrass myself by constant smiling on the way back home. That said, PerC has one of the most interesting people in my experience. My clumsy wanderings to other places had never been the same way satisfying.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

To_august said:


> Someone typing me as EIE got me giggles to the point I can't help but embarrass myself by constant smiling on the way back home. That said, PerC has one of the most interesting people in my experience. My clumsy wanderings to other places had never been the same way satisfying.


The way you said this has a seriously gentle air about it. The weak Se is so apparent.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> The way you said this has a seriously gentle air about it. The weak Se is so apparent.


Dat poor Se of mine:sad:. So much for my illusions of power and grandeur. 
All the same power and wisdom are the appealing ones.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> You mean, be self-aware and know exactly what they're doing given their actions? What 'kind of thing' do you mean? :kitteh:


Yeah, just that. The ultimate realists when it comes to their preferences, emotions and the like. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Yeah, just that. The ultimate realists when it comes to their preferences, emotions and the like. Or am I wrong?


I do not know, but I suspect that my mother is an ESI, and she could not _be _more dream-like and scattered. It is merely from the lens of Fi-Se-Ni-Te that she is so. 

Doubtless there are Ne-based realists as well. 

I do not think that preferences and emotions speak to cognition alone. There are attributes which tie these together and complete this image. At a risk of sounding redundant, I'll say, once again-- _Motivation_, is key. But, that's vague and unsatisfying, I know.

When I am typing someone, my first question is this: How do they see the world? 

It can be exceedingly difficult to peer at the world through another's eyes, and doubly so to attempt to objectify your own experience in a neutral manner.

But, I listen to _how_ they say things, and consider how what they have said reflects what they might regard. How they look around themselves, and how they seem in their natural state. Also, how our communication is, what falters, and what does not. How similar or different we each are in our individual _perspectives_. 

Although, our perspective will doubtlessly be influenced by our preferences, and a valued cognitive function is one part of how an individual prefers to look at the world, regarding one aspect of preference is not going to encompass the whole of one's cognitive makeup.

Does that make sense?

Now, this time I must say-- _I _could be wrong. This is just how I break it down.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

To_august said:


> Dat poor Se of mine:sad:. So much for my illusions of power and grandeur.
> All the same power and wisdom are the appealing ones.


Issokay. Ne for the win. :kitteh:


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Is it just me, or do others have a secret desire that this thread turns into some kinda dramatic back-stabbing, type, soap-opera? :3


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Is it just me, or do others have a secret desire that this thread turns into some kinda dramatic back-stabbing, type, soap-opera? :3


Its you. Typical Gamma SF. :dry:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I do not know, but I suspect that my mother is an ESI, and she could not _be _more dream-like and scattered. It is merely from the lens of Fi-Se-Ni-Te that she is so.
> 
> Doubtless there are Ne-based realists as well.
> 
> ...


I link motivations to other factors. There are various other tools that could describe motivation better(Enneagram) or MUCH BETTER(Holland's codes, big5 etc) than MBTI. But they all falter at what MBTI, that would say Jung's theory, does best:

Describing how someone sees the world and what he does with it. It's really as simple. And I prefer not to complicate unless it's necessary. Now, that thing I wrote in the previous sentence could very well have something to do with Jung's theory. Because I don't prefer to complicate, but rather to analyse and understand. If it sometimes seems as if I complicate, it's because I want to cover every corner so to speak. Every detail being relevant and potentially the key to understanding. It's like kal-toh(Kal-toh): - Memory Alpha - Wikia even something unconspicous could prove to be important. And I like when people understand me(instead of ).

Well then! Enough of babble, is it?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Anyhow, I'llderail this even further:
> 
> I wanna predict that @myst91 is actually a big
> 
> ...


Good derail. :tongue:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Good derail. :tongue:


Thanks! I'm good at being random and derailing. Sometimes I've to control myself so I don't derail myself when I speak. It's those damned spider webs...


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ixim said:


> I link motivations to other factors. There are various other tools that could describe motivation better(Enneagram) or MUCH BETTER(Holland's codes, big5 etc) than MBTI. But they all falter at what MBTI, that would say Jung's theory, does best:
> 
> Describing how someone sees the world and what he does with it. It's really as simple. And I prefer not to complicate unless it's necessary. Now, that thing I wrote in the previous sentence could very well have something to do with Jung's theory. Because I don't prefer to complicate, but rather to analyse and understand. If it sometimes seems as if I complicate, it's because I want to cover every corner so to speak. Every detail being relevant and potentially the key to understanding. It's like kal-toh(Kal-toh): - Memory Alpha - Wikia even something unconspicous could prove to be important. And I like when people understand me(instead of ).
> 
> Well then! Enough of babble, is it?


MBTI!? MBTI!? Who brings such prattle to these dark corners?! 

BURN THE WITCH. :kitteh:

I was speaking entirely of Socionics.

So, perhaps what I said was not relevant to your thought process? I do not know.

Nevertheless, ESI _does _seem to be a safe bet. I mean, seeing the way you write, and your video interview with the Ent. Seems fairly straightforward.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Is it just me, or do others have a secret desire that this thread turns into some kinda dramatic back-stabbing, type, soap-opera? :3


This thread could do with some good ol' Machiavellian blood-and-guts.



Word Dispenser said:


> Doubtless there are Ne-based realists as well.


They named an entire sociotype after one.



Ixim said:


> Thanks! I'm good at being random and derailing.


You did it less when you were self-typed as an ESI. Sticking with IEE for now? Might have to watch this supposed interview you did with Entropic.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Ixim, here is where Ne dominance leads you to: http://personalitycafe.com/intp-for...-respectively-interpersonal-intelligence.html Keep reading what I post in that thread, its Ne driven.

I'd say its more of a strange "urge" to look at the world in terms of connections between the abstract concepts of things, people and systems. The focus is on what things represent and their alternative combined potentials, not the actual physical side. This often leads to generating ideas and making intuitive leaps which are not obvious to most other ppl.

This is accompanied by "excitement" for any novel pattern we discover.

The chaotic side imo stems from the function being expansive, more and more connections are made and the patterns just keep expanding.

It is how I aggravate Entropic though my constant need to seek new connections between personality systems in order to understand how it all fits together due to my need to develop an internal system map of my own unique pattern. PPP

PS: I'd appreciate input for that thread if you have ideas...;3


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> You did it less when you were self-typed as an ESI. Sticking with IEE for now? Might have to watch this supposed interview you did with Entropic.


*cough* 



 *cough*


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Ixim  awesome accent dude. Ahh the familiar sound of "east European" English.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Wednesday Mermaid said:


> Sorry to be so cranky about it, but you didn't have to stir me into the pot. I don't like constantly fixing forum fights...


Nah. I took a risk being so brazen-- I can't expect everyone to be on-board with my every whim


----------



## Wednesday Mermaid (May 30, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> Nah. I took a risk being so brazen-- I can't expect everyone to be on-board with my every whim


We cool, man, we cool. Maybe some other time I'd have reacted less harshly.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Wednesday Mermaid said:


> We cool, man, we cool. Maybe some other time I'd have reacted less harshly.


How dare you have a moment like that!? xP


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I was wondering if it is possible to have a mutual supervision relationship, lol, like say between an xEE-Fi who is a heavy Fi subtype and an xLE-Ti who is a heavy Ti subtype. Would that resemble mutual supervision within the theory? Obviously would not be as "severe" as true supervision but still? Maybe?


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

counterintuitive said:


> I was wondering if it is possible to have a mutual supervision relationship, lol, like say between an xEE-Fi who is a heavy Fi subtype and an xLE-Ti who is a heavy Ti subtype. Would that resemble mutual supervision within the theory? Obviously would not be as "severe" as true supervision but still? Maybe?


I don't know how accurate this is, but sociotype.com suggests:
SLE-Ti's relationship to SEE-Fi:

Primary: Super-ego (87%)
Secondary: Kindred (13%)
Tertiary: Look-a-like (0%)
Psychological Compatibility Rating: Fair (27%)
These relationships are often acquaintances. There is a small overlap of valued elements (or an identical temperament) which leads to enough common ground to provide a moderate amount of positive interaction to both parties. However, sustained long term interaction eventually becomes tiring as both sides realize that despite the overlap, there are still large differences in values.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I dont understand this thing of mine. Like i never introduce my friends with each other because i think they wouldnt like each other that much. Overall, i think i have a good understanding of who will dislike who, that sounds high Fi. On the other hand, i literally couldnt come up with anyone i know who would like each other and thats a veryyy low possibility, statistically right ? So that makes it shitty Fi, actually. Or maybe i'm just not liking the silence when people dont know each other.

I also have an interesting aversion to getting to know people closely. Like after some point, i just want conversation to stop. I try to keep my distance but while being really friendly outside. Its strange. Like i never been close with any group/individual in my life maybe except childhood. I always tried to talk with everyone but i think it also makes me kinda outsider you know. But this also sounds type 9+7 (looking for variation) maybe. I dunno.

Yay for random rant !


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

crashbandicoot said:


> I also have an interesting aversion to getting to know people closely. Like after some point, i just want conversation to stop. I try to keep my distance but while being really friendly outside. Its strange. Like i never been close with any group/individual in my life maybe except childhood. I always tried to talk with everyone but i think it also makes me kinda outsider you know. But this also sounds type 9+7 (looking for variation) maybe. I dunno.
> 
> Yay for random rant !


I kinda relate to this _a lot_. 

Have no idea why it happens.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Schweeeeks said:


> I don't know how accurate this is, but sociotype.com suggests:
> SLE-Ti's relationship to SEE-Fi:
> 
> Primary: Super-ego (87%)
> ...


Thanks. I don't really get why this site says they are Super-ego though? They'd still be Kindred, maybe more Look-alike-ish (similar to LSI-ESI), but Super-ego? I'm guessing there's something I'm not understanding there.

But anyway, I suppose if you show your creative function enough in the company of your Kindred relation, to appear almost as your Mirror, you could hit Kindred's PoLR enough for it to resemble Supervision occasionally? idk. :crazy: haha.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

counterintuitive said:


> Thanks. I don't really get why this site says they are Super-ego though? They'd still be Kindred, maybe more Look-alike-ish (similar to LSI-ESI), but Super-ego? I'm guessing there's something I'm not understanding there.
> 
> But anyway, I suppose if you show your creative function enough in the company of your Kindred relation, to appear almost as your Mirror, you could hit Kindred's PoLR enough for it to resemble Supervision occasionally? idk. :crazy: haha.


Super-ego is strange to me as well...I suppose it's because SxE-xI subs both have stronger Ne? So SLE-Ti will look closer to ILE than SEE. SEE-Fi looks closer to IEE than SLE. Hence Super-ego.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Dunno if any of you have checked BlazBlue, as I'm wondering to which quadra it may belong. I'm very confused with the news of the arcade mode, as the plot went directly to hell.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

counterintuitive said:


> I was wondering if it is possible to have a mutual supervision relationship, lol, like say between an xEE-Fi who is a heavy Fi subtype and an xLE-Ti who is a heavy Ti subtype. Would that resemble mutual supervision within the theory? Obviously would not be as "severe" as true supervision but still? Maybe?


It won't be supervision. It doesn't have that "special glue" of having same thinking styles. It's still a kindred relationship, a more noisy version of it. I've seen a few Fi-IEE and Ti-ILE relationships and it turns into a lot of bickering, guilt tripping and moral high horse rides by the IEE and precise knife-cut argumentation of the ILE who will say something insensitive to provoke the IEE and get back for all the pressure the IEE has put on ILE's Fi PoLR.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

OK so here is another question, if anyone wants to answer. I didn't think it warranted its own thread.

I have read that Fi judgments can be like/dislike, where the Fi is expressing its personal feeling of like/dislike of something...

Whereas the Fe judgment is about objective property of the object/person...

The difference between Fi's _"I hate him"_ and Fe's _"He's a jerk"_. Fi's _"I like X"_ and Fe's _"X is nice"_. I was just looking at some space pictures (similar to the one in my avatar) and I thought _"That looks cool"_ and _"That is awesome"_ - very, very rarely would I really think _"I like that picture"_. I've known lots of people who don't tip waitstaff at restaurants, for instance, and I'd maybe say stuff like _"What a jerk, he didn't even tip!"_ - which would be a widely acceptable judgment in most groups I run in. The jerkiness is an objective property of the person (at least for that particular context); it is not a personal sentiment of hate/dislike.

Is this an accurate understanding of how Fi judgments vs. Fe judgments tend to be phrased - where the Fi judgment is subjective, the Fe judgment is objective?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I think the above the accurate. Only thing to keep in mind is the potential to confuse Fi for SX instinct that is also centered on personal feelings, likes and dislikes: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

counterintuitive said:


> OK so here is another question, if anyone wants to answer. I didn't think it warranted its own thread.
> 
> I have read that Fi judgments can be like/dislike, where the Fi is expressing its personal feeling of like/dislike of something...
> 
> ...


Never noticed that before, but yeah I would say it's a trend with all my typings irl. Also, I use like/dislike terms when speaking to others about people's interactions, rather than the objective version.


----------



## willowglass (Aug 6, 2015)

counterintuitive said:


> OK so here is another question, if anyone wants to answer. I didn't think it warranted its own thread.
> 
> I have read that Fi judgments can be like/dislike, where the Fi is expressing its personal feeling of like/dislike of something...
> 
> ...


I think this a good post and a good way to put this. 

I actually mentioned a conversation between my Fe-valuing mother and I about someone we were discussing that she thought was 'nice' that I didn't like on my typing thread that is similar. I can recognize if someone is nice but it doesn't really matter to me how nice they are. Either I like them or I don't. They don't even necessarily have to be nice. They might be nice and I still don't like them...

My mother and I did go out to eat once and the waitress told my mother that she would have to check if a server would serve us. My mom was like, 'How rude! I can't believe she said that!', but I didn't take it that way at all. I was like, 'Mom, I think that's just the way she is. I don't think she meant to be rude by it.' And I really don't think she meant to be rude. I think it was just her personality. She didn't bother me at all. But my mom was very offended by it and went on about it for a while to me.


----------



## willowglass (Aug 6, 2015)

So sometimes things people say really bother me and they stick with me for a really long time. For example, my DH was telling me about something some had said about someone else that really bothered me. Evidently these two people were driving past a house with an old man outside and the old man had waved to this couple. The girl in the car commented on how she couldn't believe he was sitting outside because his house was a wreck and he should be embarrassed to sit there.

So when I heard this it really pissed me off. It was at least two years ago and it's something that still bothers me. Why should the old man be embarrassed? Maybe the way his house looks isn't important to him? Maybe he's poor and can't fix it. Why should that prevent him from sitting outside to enjoy the day?
What do his living conditions have to do with anything? Maybe he is old and depressed, his wife was dead, and he was a veteran, and maybe he thinks there are more important things than constantly cleaning up his house for it to look nice for other people. Maybe he just wants to sit there and enjoy the moment and pursue things he thinks are more important. 

So I sometimes get really mad about these kind of things and other people don't always seem bothered or as bothered by them, but I can be get pretty mad about it and it will stick with me for a long time. 

I had met this girl and I could tell she was like that already, and I didn't really care for her to begin with, but after I heard that, I was pretty avoidant of her.

So I was wondering, does anyone know what functions are at conflict here? Is me reacting that way about it Fi Vs Se&Fe? Or am I wrong? I wasn't sure where else to put this... I hate starting new threads.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

goldberry3 said:


> So sometimes things people say really bother me and they stick with me for a really long time. For example, my DH was telling me about something some had said about someone else that really bothered me. Evidently these two people were driving past a house with an old man outside and the old man had waved to this couple. The girl in the car commented on how she couldn't believe he was sitting outside because his house was a wreck and he should be embarrassed to sit there.
> 
> So when I heard this it really pissed me off. It was at least two years ago and it's something that still bothers me. Why should the old man be embarrassed? Maybe the way his house looks isn't important to him? Maybe he's poor and can't fix it. Why should that prevent him from sitting outside to enjoy the day?
> What do his living conditions have to do with anything? Maybe he is old and depressed, his wife was dead, and he was a veteran, and maybe he thinks there are more important things than constantly cleaning up his house for it to look nice for other people. Maybe he just wants to sit there and enjoy the moment and pursue things he thinks are more important.
> ...


What do you mean? It depends on what light you want to view it through. Is it him not being able to freely express himself that bothers you? Is it him being attacked in any shape or fashion what bothers you? I can view it through any light to see how it could be any element, but I can't state what element your light is through. You have to look at the basic element descriptions and determine which aspect, specifically you have an issue with him being denied. For myself, I would be most concerned with the girl not bothering to try and feel how the old man must feel. Dude's wife could have been battling cancer for years, died that week, and he just wants to sit on his porch, stare off into space, and be numb.


----------



## willowglass (Aug 6, 2015)

*edited*

nvm, tmi.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> I think the above the accurate. Only thing to keep in mind is the potential to confuse Fi for SX instinct that is also centered on personal feelings, likes and dislikes: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html


What's the difference then if both do that?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

myst91 said:


> What's the difference then if both do that?


One has to do with information processing -- the other with deep seated emotional neuroses. You can learn to tell them apart with a lot of typing practice. It seems like enneagram affect gets misinterpreted as something relevant to socionics type, particularly in cases when the enneagram type is very pronounced and doesn't really abide by the stereotypes of mainstream socionics.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> One has to do with information processing -- the other with deep seated emotional neuroses. You can learn to tell them apart with a lot of typing practice. It seems like enneagram affect gets misinterpreted as something relevant to socionics type, particularly in cases when the enneagram type is very pronounced and doesn't really abide by the stereotypes of mainstream socionics.


How is the focus on personal feelings/like/dislike stemming from the latter not a type of information processing?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

cyamitide said:


> One has to do with information processing -- the other with deep seated emotional neuroses. You can learn to tell them apart with a lot of typing practice. It seems like enneagram affect gets misinterpreted as something relevant to socionics type, particularly in cases when the enneagram type is very pronounced and doesn't really abide by the stereotypes of mainstream socionics.


What? Socionics is deep seated neuroses. They have articles about it.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

myst91 said:


> How is the focus on personal feelings/like/dislike stemming from the latter not a type of information processing?


The enneagram has been related to things like the levels of different neurotransmitters in the brain that predispose people to feel a certain way, but would you call "neurotransmitter levels" a "type of information processing"?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Jeremy8419 said:


> What? Socionics is deep seated neuroses. They have articles about it.


That's a wide-spread confusion between cognitive informatics -- what socionics TIMs, i.e. "types of information metabolism", are really all about -- and psychology of personality. Socionics types first and foremost aren't types of personality but types of information processing, and that's how they should be treated and studied. You can find much bs written in socionics articles by people who are illiterate, neglectful, misunderstanding of what they are writing about -- the sheer fact of writing it down doesn't make it true.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

cyamitide said:


> That's a wide-spread confusion between cognitive informatics -- what socionics TIMs, i.e. "types of information metabolism", are really all about -- and psychology of personality. Socionics types first and foremost aren't types of personality but types of information processing, and that's how they should be treated and studied. You can find much bs written in socionics articles by people who are illiterate, neglectful, misunderstanding of what they are writing about -- the sheer fact of writing it down doesn't make it true.


Well SSS disagrees with you, as does Beskova, off the top of my head.

PoLR is literally a neurosis.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well SSS disagrees with you, as does Beskova, off the top of my head.
> 
> *PoLR is literally a neurosis.*


Hm ya. when strong it make the individual very confused and if continue neurosis. It is even separated define by Jung which is awesome! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung's_theory_of_neurosis
I think this is one area Socionics and Jung type in general is superiour any other theory of the psyche. A psychologist facing the neurosis without taking functions and type into consideration imo do not have the correct tools to deal with the problem, as a general rule.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> The enneagram has been related to things like the levels of different neurotransmitters in the brain that predispose people to feel a certain way, but would you call "neurotransmitter levels" a "type of information processing"?


The enneagram has also been linked to the sun astrology. And I don't find it necessarily any better.

It's sketchy at best imo.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Ixim said:


> The enneagram has also been linked to the sun astrology. And I don't find it necessarily any better.
> 
> It's sketchy at best imo.


So has been socionics. Astrology, Tarot, various religious symbols and spiritual teachings -- you name it.

Comparisons between the Astrology, Zodiac, Socionics, MBTI, Alchemy, Numerology and Taoism


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Oops. I goofed earlier. Meant Strat, not Beskova.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Hm ya. when strong it make the individual very confused and if continue neurosis. It is even separated define by Jung which is awesome! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung's_theory_of_neurosis
> I think this is one area Socionics and Jung type in general is superiour any other theory of the psyche. A psychologist facing the neurosis without taking functions and type into consideration imo do not have the correct tools to deal with the problem, as a general rule.


I wasn't even being logical. It really is labeled directly as neuroses.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> The enneagram has been related to things like the levels of different neurotransmitters in the brain that predispose people to feel a certain way, but would you call "neurotransmitter levels" a "type of information processing"?


That's a speculative theory with the neurotransmitters. There was never real research on this afaik. 

Would you seriously think that the focus on personal feelings in the enneagram 4 is directly related to neurotransmitter levels.

Sorry, with this neurotransmitter theory you have not managed to address the issue I brought up.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I think this is one area Socionics and Jung type in general is superiour any other theory of the psyche. A psychologist facing the neurosis without taking functions and type into consideration imo do not have the correct tools to deal with the problem, as a general rule.


Please don't try to speak about psychology like this as a complete layman. No offense but this is bullshit.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Please don't try to speak about psychology like this as a complete layman. No offense but this is bullshit.


ya sure. but what I seen so far is not that impressive


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> ya sure. but what I seen so far is not that impressive


Well, you'll want to get deeper then to see more. 

I'm not saying the Jungian theory is not useful, I'm just saying it's far from being the only tool or the single best tool when treating psychological problems.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> One has to do with information processing -- the other with deep seated emotional neuroses. You can learn to tell them apart with a lot of typing practice. It seems like enneagram affect gets misinterpreted as something relevant to socionics type, particularly in cases when the enneagram type is very pronounced and doesn't really abide by the stereotypes of mainstream socionics.


OK so, disregarding the Socionics/Enneagram philosophical differences, can you describe more about how you see Sx and Fi differing within the area of personal feelings?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

And also can someone comment on how to differentiate SO instinct from Fe, and kinda also SP instinct from Si? Lol


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ooooh!

Look at me posh new shiney picture!


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Hooray I found this thread.

I don't know my type but I think I'm alpha or delta. Going by Quadra is the incorrect approach but it's as close as I can get. If I am forced to pick a type, lately I've been going for SLI. Anyway, just focusing on Quadra, I'm unsure if I'm serious or merry. A lot of people have addressed my serious demeanor, which isn't exactly what being socionics serious is about. And it's usually addressed by people I work with. I also know I sometimes take things too seriously. I also find it hard to behave in a certain way if I don't have the title that allows me to act that way, for example if we're not close I don't think I should ask something very personal or if we're not a couple, I cannot be very intimate with you or act romantic around you. I also think I need things to be planned and things to be explicitly stated or else I don't take them seriously. I only share my thoughts if I have a reason behind it or if it's special or appropriate for the conversation or if I'm asked for it. Casual, small talk is not exactly my thing. That leans me towards serious. But I wonder how much of this is learned. Or situational. It embarrasses me when I respond with glee (like a child) to an event, specially if it's trivial. And I have suppressed many of these childish moments and tried to act more sober, more somber. I don't allow me to be too happy, specially if it's not special and isn't merit that kind of response. It's like there's always a proper way to emote in every situation. I still think I'm emotionally independent. What I mean with this is that I can choose the way I feel about something and if everybody around is sharing an emotion, I don't feel forced to share it with them. I emote my way but I do it mostly appropriately. I try to respect other's emotions and not change them with mine. But sometimes I flip emotions and a lot of times I wonder if I should flip them or just them be. I want to help. Other times I try to mirror them but if I don't do it genuinely, I rather do nothing.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

myst91 said:


> OK so, disregarding the Socionics/Enneagram philosophical differences, can you describe more about how you see Sx and Fi differing within the area of personal feelings?


I'm answering myself, lol. Fi is the process to evaluate things/situations via personal feeling judgment, sx is just being part of the connection where "one's attention is wholly captivated energetically by someone or something". Sx doesn't have to have any conscious Fi reasoning for this.




counterintuitive said:


> And also can someone comment on how to differentiate SO instinct from Fe, and kinda also SP instinct from Si? Lol


Fe is the process of managing and conveying emotional states via objective feeling judgment. And soc instinct is group orientation for survival. Again, it doesn't need much Fe to accomplish that.

Sp vs Si, I think I still am not 100% clear on this one but I do see that Si as a process for dealing with a certain kind of information on subjective sensations doesn't per se need the sp's self-focus.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

0+n*1 said:


> Hooray I found this thread.


Lol you fit right in here :crazy::tongue:




> Anyway, just focusing on Quadra, I'm unsure if I'm serious or merry. A lot of people have addressed my serious demeanor, which isn't exactly what being socionics serious is about. And it's usually addressed by people I work with. I also know I sometimes take things too seriously. I also find it hard to behave in a certain way if I don't have the title that allows me to act that way, for example if we're not close I don't think I should ask something very personal or if we're not a couple, I cannot be very intimate with you or act romantic around you. I also think I need things to be planned and things to be explicitly stated or else I don't take them seriously. I only share my thoughts if I have a reason behind it or if it's special or appropriate for the conversation or if I'm asked for it. Casual, small talk is not exactly my thing. That leans me towards serious.


No, none of that is Serious dichotomy, all of this you've described here is incredibly generic stuff, were you intentionally trying to say as little as possible? Lol.

The only things specific enough to type(s) would be that you need things to be planned (? whatever you meant by this) and you only sharing thoughts if you see a reason for that explicitly. These would be a Rational approach on the surface. But god knows, even those things are rather generic the way you put them.




> But I wonder how much of this is learned. Or situational. It embarrasses me when I respond with glee (like a child) to an event, specially if it's trivial. And I have suppressed many of these childish moments and tried to act more sober, more somber. I don't allow me to be too happy, specially if it's not special and isn't merit that kind of response. It's like there's always a proper way to emote in every situation. I still think I'm emotionally independent. What I mean with this is that I can choose the way I feel about something and if everybody around is sharing an emotion, I don't feel forced to share it with them. I emote my way but I do it mostly appropriately. I try to respect other's emotions and not change them with mine. But sometimes I flip emotions and a lot of times I wonder if I should flip them or just them be. I want to help. Other times I try to mirror them but if I don't do it genuinely, I rather do nothing.


All I can say from this is the following. You don't seem Fe PoLR. A bit too aware of emotional implications of things.


----------

