This is the last time I'm doing this

[Slacker]

Where do you see strong Si?

It seems like the most obvious thing about her. I know she's joking a lot of the time, but still almost every single post she puts up is about sensory pleasures. Sex, drinking, food, whatever. I know anyone can be into that but she posts almost nothing about Socionics as a theory and almost everything about sensory things. It looks to me like a huge emphasis. I just don't get this at all. I feel like I'm in bizzaro world where I'm seeing one thing and everyone else is seeing something else. I just truly don't get it at all.

[Gilly]

@strrrrng: Your analysis of extroversion and introversion is extremely poor. What you are describing is actually Fe vs. Fi.

Socionics extroversion has virtually no correlation with sociability, and DEFINITELY not with talkativeness. This is related to Se and Fe values more than strength.

[Gilly]

It seems like the most obvious thing about her. I know she's joking a lot of the time, but still almost every single post she puts up is about sensory pleasures. Sex, drinking, food, whatever. I know anyone can be into that but she posts almost nothing about Socionics as a theory and almost everything about sensory things. It looks to me like a huge emphasis. I just don't get this at all. I feel like I'm in bizzaro world where I'm seeing one thing and everyone else is seeing something else. I just truly don't get it at all.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on this being a correlating factor with a sensory type. The fact that she doesn't learn the theory doesn't mean she's sensory, and I can hardly think of what else she'd talk about other than what she does with herself in real life.

[strrrng]

Socionics extroversion has virtually no correlation with sociability, and DEFINITELY not with talkativeness. This is related to Se and Fe values more than strength.

yeah, I had a friend mistyped before on this basis, when he was really Fe creative...and just genuinely friendly.

[Slacker]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on this being a correlating factor with a sensory type. The fact that she doesn't learn the theory doesn't mean she's sensory, and I can hardly think of what else she'd talk about other than what she does with herself in real life.

But if that's all she writes about here, that's all we've got to go on. And based on what we've got to go on, I don't see how you're seeing that she's intuitive and weak in Si.

[strrrng]

@strrrrng: Your analysis of extroversion and introversion is extremely poor. What you are describing is actually Fe vs. Fi.

I just saw my name in this. it's not poor; it's based off of the objective/subjective concept. extraversion is correlated with outward focus, on many things.

YOUR statement about Fe and Fi is very poor. you are mistaking Fe for superficial sociability and Fi for depth and caringness. that is bullshit.

[Gilly]

Then what are you mistaking Extroversion and Introversion for? I didn't clarify anything beyond your definition. YOU are the one making them out as such.

Care to put a poll to this and see what the forum thinks? I guarantee you, you're going to lose. It's clearly Fe and Fi; you're talking about attitudes towards people. That is the DEFINITION of ethics.

[Gilly]

And, please refrain from telling me what I'm thinking. I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have, and I've had a solid understanding of the entirety of classical socionics since before you even arrived. I'm well aware of common biases, and make it a point to not only avoid them myself, but point them out and address them actively when they come up.

[Gilly]

But if that's all she writes about here, that's all we've got to go on. And based on what we've got to go on, I don't see how you're seeing that she's intuitive and weak in Si.

I also have VI to go on, as well as the fact that she seems to value Se/Ni>Ne/Si: I wouldn't say she has a mean streak, but she certainly doesn't shy away from confrontation, and seems to have a bit of an "edge" to her that I don't recognize in any SLI here. She's even described the Victim erotic attitude pretty well: she expects sexual initiative from her partner, and leaves it up to him to dictate the position and such. Careful types prefer to actively pleasure their partner, and Infantiles aren't really the types to take sexual intitiative, let alone take physical control during sex.

Also, I can't see an SLI playing games with me the way she does. I think they'd find it tiresome and pointless.

[strrrng]

wow, you're such a guru, gilly. shut your fucking mouth. I don't need to make a poll. my description may have not been that good, but I was simply pointing out that it was incorrect to associate the same generic traits with Fe and Fi. Fe's can care about deep relationships and Fi's can enjoy light fun. they are not attitudes toward people; they are functions of the mind. they are ways of processing information.

[strrrng]

oh yeah, I had a general understanding of socionics before I arrived. the fact that you knew about it longer doesn't mean shit. I probably learned it faster than you anyway.

[Gilly]

oh yeah, I had a general understanding of socionics before I arrived. the fact that you knew about it longer doesn't mean shit. I probably learned it faster than you anyway.

You obviously still haven't learned much.

http://www.socionics.us/theory/ext_int.shtml

Get to it.

[strrrng]

You obviously still haven't learned.

http://www.socionics.us/

Get to it.

wow, you must feel cool, posting an innocuous, sarcastic response. I've read virtually every piece of material on that site.

[Gilly]

wow, you're such a guru, gilly. shut your fucking mouth. I don't need to make a poll. my description may have not been that good, but I was simply pointing out that it was incorrect to associate the same generic traits with Fe and Fi. Fe's can care about deep relationships and Fi's can enjoy light fun. they are not attitudes toward people; they are functions of the mind. they are ways of processing information.

I never said anything to the contrary. YOU were the one making the generalizations, buddy. As an Fe-valuing type, I think I know as well as ANYONE that we're perfectly capable of having rewarding intimate relationships, and growing up in a Delta family, I've seen Fi types have plenty of fun. Quit talking before you embarrass yourself further.

[Gilly]

wow, you must feel cool, posting an innocuous, sarcastic response. I've read virtually every piece of material on that site.

Not well enough. Now quit feeling so threatened and start learning, if you want to accomplish anything at all.

[Wittmont]

It is interesting that in model A SLI has Si in the first block and Ni in the third, while ILI has those reversed, Ni in first block and Si in third. The second and fourth block (the fourth is Fe PoLR for both types) are the same.

Jessica clearly imo is a Sensory-logical introvert rather than a Intuitive-logical introvert. The abstract socionics symbols mean next to nothing to her, as she keeps pointing out, and the reason for that I believe is because they do not provide her with the tangible information data she needs to use her Sensory logical approach.

Also Jessica's job seems to be a typical "repetitive, long attention span" ISTp one, other types (like Ni intuitives) might be bored to death doing what may seem repetitive to that extent. This job comment is just another observation, it may well mean nothing, but I think it has a point in this context.

[Wittmont]

It seems like the most obvious thing about her. I know she's joking a lot of the time, but still almost every single post she puts up is about sensory pleasures. Sex, drinking, food, whatever. I know anyone can be into that but she posts almost nothing about Socionics as a theory and almost everything about sensory things. It looks to me like a huge emphasis. I just don't get this at all. I feel like I'm in bizzaro world where I'm seeing one thing and everyone else is seeing something else. I just truly don't get it at all.

I agree! I was baffled when Gilly made that Ni comment, I thought he was joking about the ILI thing. The strong S was the first thing I noticed about Jessica from the "orange" pic, I thought she was ST but couldn't quite place her.

[strrrng]

alright, this is obviously pointless. all you do is post general, sarcastic replies to keep the illusion of control. you're not worth anymore responses. consider yourself lucky we haven't crossed paths in real life, arrogant bitch.

[Gilly]

The abstract socionics symbols mean next to nothing to her, as she keeps pointing out

This isn't really very relevant at all.

and the reason for that I believe is because they do not provide her with the tangible information data she needs to use her Sensory logical approach.

Sorry, but this seems like pointless speculation to me. Out of context, "Introverted Sensing" barely provides any more relevant information than the picture symbols. To a person who doesn't know the terminology, it could mean "a quiet person who senses things." That has a multiplicity of completely unrelated interpretations, so what this really boils down to is that jessica simply hasn't taken the time to memorize the symbols which, I would argue, is a lack of valuing Ti if anything.

Also Jessica's job seems to be a typical "repetitive, long attention span" ISTp one, other types (like Ni intuitives) might be bored to death doing what may seem repetitive to that extent. This job comment is just another observation, it may well mean nothing, but I think it has a point in this context.

Profession or job is almost completely unrelated to type, unless we know her reasons for choosing it.

[strrrng]

hmm...interesting...from the site (and this is general, to support my earlier claim about depth and quantity with intro and extro)

extro:wider and more superficial interests; interested in things that don't apply to them

intro:narrower but deeper interests; clearer sense of what applies to them and what doesn't

[Gilly]

alright, this is obviously pointless. all you do is post general, sarcastic replies to keep the illusion of control. you're not worth anymore responses. consider yourself lucky we haven't crossed paths in real life, arrogant bitch.

[Gilly]

hmm...interesting...from the site (and this is general, to support my earlier claim about depth and quantity with intro and extro)

extro:wider and more superficial interests; interested in things that don't apply to them

intro:narrower but deeper interests; clearer sense of what applies to them and what doesn't

I don't see anything about people there. Nice try, though.

I thought I wasn't worth any more responses.

[jessica129]

It seems like the most obvious thing about her. I know she's joking a lot of the time, but still almost every single post she puts up is about sensory pleasures. Sex, drinking, food, whatever. I know anyone can be into that but she posts almost nothing about Socionics as a theory and almost everything about sensory things. It looks to me like a huge emphasis. I just don't get this at all. I feel like I'm in bizzaro world where I'm seeing one thing and everyone else is seeing something else. I just truly don't get it at all.

I agree with you.

And why all of a sudden is everyone agreeing with ILI? Is it because of the pictures? Because it cannot be just from that small description of myself that I wrote. What about the pictures is making me seem ILI? I personally don't understand. I could post a million more pictures in which i look SLI.

[Gilly]

Oh I think she's made a valid observation, but it doesn't hold up as pointing to you as a sensory type.

[strrrng]

wow, gilly, you are one ugle motherfucker, lmfao.

[Gilly]

wow, gilly, you are one ugle motherfucker, lmfao.

If you're looking for an insecurity, that's the wrong tree to bark up. Now quit being so reactive and get on with your life.

[Slacker]

If someone talking almost exclusively about sensory things and almost not at all about a personality theory on a personality theory forum doesn't point toward that person being sensory, what on earth does? It certainly doesn't point away from her being a sensory type. Or toward her being intuitive.

[Gilly]

If someone talking almost exclusively about sensory things and almost not at all about a personality theory on a personality theory forum doesn't point toward that person being sensory, what on earth does? It certainly doesn't point away from her being a sensory type. Or toward her being intuitive.

I just don't think it's a solid reason to believe she's SLI. Talking about "sensory" thinks has nothing to do with being sensory; she's just talking about her life. Like I said, if she's on here and not actively discussing Socionics theory, what else would she talk about? Besides, Ez hardly talks about sensory things: he discusses mostly Ti and Ni, the theory and his life goals. There are plenty of Ni types on here (although admittedly more IEIs than ILIs) who seem to discuss the theory about as rarely as jessica.

I think the Victim attitude works well for her, and IMO her somewhat feminine but not fully conscious poses seem more ILI than what I would expect of a more relaxed, natural Si dominant. In the picture with her hand on her face, it doesn't look intentionally placed to hold her head up comfortably; she just put her hand on her face and leaned on it. It also looks like her fingers move somewhat unconsciously. I know this isn't REALLY strong, but along with the fact that she looks like people I've typed as Ni types, I think it's worth considering.


Jess, did you switch your ring from right to left? o_O

[jessica129]

I just don't think it's a solid reason to believe she's SLI. Talking about "sensory" thinks has nothing to do with being sensory; she's just talking about her life. Like I said, if she's on here and not actively discussing Socionics theory, what else would she talk about? Besides, Ez hardly talks about sensory things: he discusses mostly Ti and Ni, the theory and his life goals. There are plenty of Ni types on here (although admittedly more IEIs than ILIs) who seem to discuss the theory about as rarely as jessica.

I think the Victim attitude works well for her, and IMO her somewhat feminine but not fully conscious poses seem more ILI than what I would expect of a more relaxed, natural Si dominant. In the picture with her hand on her face, it doesn't look intentionally placed to hold her head up comfortably; she just put her hand on her face and leaned on it. It also looks like her fingers move somewhat unconsciously. I know this isn't REALLY strong, but along with the fact that she looks like people I've typed as Ni types, I think it's worth considering.


Jess, did you switch your ring from right to left? o_O

lol, i was waiting for someone to notice. I always mess with it.

So what about all the other pictures I've posted? I was always told i looked "sli" in those.

[Slacker]

She said she likes the Caretaker description. And how she poses and how feminine she looks and VI aren't a very strong ways to type. She's pretty and she knows it and her poses are probably more related to that than type IMO.

In any case, I think it's much weaker than what functions she uses in her posts.

[Gilly]

She said she likes the Caretaker description. And how she poses and how feminine she looks and VI aren't a very strong ways to type. She's pretty and she knows it and her poses are probably more related to that than type IMO.

In any case, I think it's much weaker than what functions she uses in her posts.

I don't think she uses Si in her posts. The only Si things she really talks about are sex and drinking, and that just isn't a strong case for Si dominances. All it means is that she doesn't learn the theory, and wants to talk about herself. You're placing entirely too much weight on this, IMO.

VI is no weaker than making shady assumptions based on what she talks about without taking into account her motivations.

She LIKES the caretaker description, but she also describes her self as more of a Victim, and outside the context of Socionics. I DEFINITELY place more weight on the latter.

Jessica, help us out: why don't you take more time to understand Socionics when you've been here for so long?

[jessica129]

Jessica, help us out: why don't you take more time to understand Socionics when you've been here for so long?

I just don't have the patience or the desire to learn it. It's too confusing and time consuming for me. I don't understand it and don't have the time to sift thru shapes and all this nonsense about "ego blocks" and "ego functions" "Fe dominance" and POLR afakjfkajflakfjjajfkf theories. No. Give me a clear description of a type and be done with it.

[Gilly]

That doesn't help

[jessica129]

That doesn't help

Well that's my reason I'm just lazy and have ADD I think.

[Gilly]

Card counting and how to move underneath a 200 lb man

[jessica129]

Card counting and how to move underneath a 200 lb man

lmao, yes, practical things.

No, i dunno. I like reading up on personality and things of that nature but socionics is just too time consuming and confusing for me.

[Wittmont]

I just don't have the patience or the desire to learn it. It's too confusing and time consuming for me. I don't understand it and don't have the time to sift thru shapes and all this nonsense about "ego blocks" and "ego functions" "Fe dominance" and POLR afakjfkajflakfjjajfkf theories. No. Give me a clear description of a type and be done with it.

Well that's my reason I'm just lazy and have ADD I think.

Well it is just effing obvious to me.

From socioniko.net (just the headlines outlining character traits)

ISTp

"An iceberg in the ocean"
"Talented laziness"
"Reserved richness of emotions"
"Goals and methods"

INTp

"Imagination directs me"
"A priest's calmness and restraint"
"A profound analyst"
"First and foremost he is kind"
"Unapproachable and desired"

Look Jessica doesn't "think" about and approach problems in the way an ILI does. She approaches it the way a practical SLI would (Jean Gabin, cool dude, Craftsman approach).

An ILI (Honore Balzac, grumpy git, the Critic) approach is a profound analysis of the world around her, more along the lines of "what do all these interesting symbols mean, what is the reasoning behind them and do they work as expected Analyse, think, Analyse, think, Analyse, think, Analyse, think, analyse etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc............................................... .think............................................ .......................... conceptualize, theorize, conceptualize, theorize, conceptualize, theorize............................... crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch...................................

So, Stop this ILI nonsense right away pls

That is my position until Jessica herself makes a clear case for ILI. All I have seen so far from her points to SLI

[Gilly]

You know what, two of the most experienced typers on the forum have said ILI, so quit this bullshit, acting like it's SOO EFFING OBVIOUS she's SLI. You are not the end-all-be-all of typing. Not all ILIs are nerdy and overly analytical, which seems to me to be the basis you're rejecting this possibility on.

And, what about "Unapprochable and desired"? You've got to be joking if you don't see this quality in her. And "First and fore most she is kind:" she EVEN SAID she tries to be nice to everyone she interacts with. Thats 2-2. Keep your unmerited overconfidence to yourself.

[aestrivex]

You know what, two of the most experienced typers on the forum have said ILI, so quit this bullshit, acting like it's SOO EFFING OBVIOUS she's SLI.

yes, two people have said she's ILI.

it is now written in stone. it is the true word of god, heralded by the one true prophet.

[Gilly]

Oh quit your bullshit, niffweed. I never even implied that it was definite; I'm not sure of it myself yet. I just think he's retarded for being so fucking self-assured, and if people who obviously know this shit better than him say otherwise, well, that's a pretty damn good reason to question yourself. I'm still open to seeing her as SLI, but I don't see any good reasons to think it's more likely than ILI, and I see some good reasons for the latter, so that's my stance.