People who have seen me on cam, do I seem more ILE or EIE?
People who have seen me on cam, do I seem more ILE or EIE?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
lol, well, I'm sure this will be a very fruitful thread.
I suppose people could mistake your external validation-seeking (which is tied to being a 6 and having the 'so' instinct) and charisma for Fe ego, but I think you are the prototype of an ENTp.
I kind of think we're in the same quadra... alpha or beta I have no idea.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
He's a light, laid-back alpha. He doesn't have the intensity to be beta, really (no offense). I can sense when someone is giving me Se lol (believe me - I have some good examples)
So far, ILE>EIE
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Enough said.Originally Posted by Gilly
What about IEI?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I think you are too. But I think you're more Alpha than Beta.
You can't sense shit, strrrng.
Based on my observations, I could see that. What I'm seeing is either a combination of Fe and funniness in the head (hope you don't mind my saying that, Gilly) or Fe and Se; much of the force of his arguments are based around making good points sound great; something politicians are prone to doing. And what types do politicians tend to be? EIEs.
I wouldn't call Alpha NTs laid-back. They may look laid-back, but mentally, they're very much alive.
IP temperament is laughable. I think we can all agree that you're extraverted; that you draw your energy externally; that you make more of an effort than most introverts on the forum to initiate social interaction; that you fit pretty much every definition of "extraverted" in socionics theory.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I am a P. I am pretty sure of this.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I am ILE. Please kill me if I start thinking otherwise.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Just to be clear, this refers to a time in the chat where Ezra and I were trying to have a serious conversation about socionics and Gilly was singing enthusiastically at the top of his lungs. Gilly, I know you're more than capable of discussing ideas but it's definitely not your primary mode. There is absolutely no reason for ILE other than that you are kind of unpredictable and playful. But it's pretty clear that you value Se - moreover that you have Se HA, considering all the petty fights you like to instigate.
I can sense your contrived Se actOriginally Posted by Ezra
G, do you have a video you could link to here..?
Gilly, you are ILE in the video. Look at the eye movement. just so intense and all over the place. And the rest of the expressions are somewhat exaggerated. The entire face looks bland (no offence) but at some moments there's half an expression - like there's the knowledge that eyebrows should be raised so they are. Or that there should be a laugh, so there is. Seems somewhat deliberate. Not bad at all, gives all the information that an Fe-ego type needs. I like ILEs, but that's not Fe dominat trait at all.
And Ezra is saying Leon is Ne dominant like Gilly (stupid Ezra, rethink that RIGHT AWAY!!! okay? ) and is between ENTp and ENFp. But I just watched the Ezra-Leon perforn for the16types video. Observe Leon there! His expressions are frequent and rich. Like you can compare a bland italian/french red wine with an rich sugary spicey south african wine. There's just no comparison in the expressions. Leon has 10 times more face muscle movement for simple "okay" than Gilly has for a funny story highlight moment.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Errr, I didn't see ifmd95 talk about Reinin at all in the post you quoted.
It's ironic really, because certain British politicians actually aren't really convincing anyone at the moment (no names, but *coughDavid Cameroncough*). I think you might be seeing the "stuffiness" and the uncharismatic nature in some politicians because they don't actually value Fe. I'm not suggesting all politicians are Fe valuing or strong in it. Simply that it helps them an awful lot if they are. Look at Barack Obama; a black man running for president. This is serious shit for American history.
Have a look at videos of Gordon Brown (ILI) and Tony Blair (LIE). Blair tries to use Fe, but because it's role, it's used in a contrived way. With Gordon Brown, his zero charisma is down to Fe PoLR.
Bitch please! And you tell me to type by functions only.
I'd tend to agree. No offence intended, Gilly.
Yeah. I thought your argument for LSE was really logical and effective. It fits perfectly with poor use of Se.
G, hahahaha. Wassup G!? Wot shit iz goin' down bruv!?
Great argument. I will take that into account.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only thing that fits is your generic behavior within your deluded a priori of yourselfOriginally Posted by Ezra
Of course! I forgot about a priori self-perception. How useful. Especially to people who have no idea about the real world.
In case you thought I was addressing you, I wasn't. I was referring to Gilly's insistence that I don't use dichotomies to type myself or others, but only the functions. Now he's making the same dumbass statements like "I think I am definitely P" that he preaches I should never use.
Fucking hypocrite, Gilly.
Okay, you didn't note the sarcasm intended there. This is something you need to get into strrrng's little Ashton-infested brain, because I've been trying to explain that a) LSEs are competent in Se and so it doesn't look contrived and b) LSEs wouldn't want to use Se because they don't value it, and - in Expat's words - it would be "scaring one's dual away" with the use of Se (why the fuck would an LSE attempt to use their Se when their dual is Se PoLR?). It's a massive hole in his argument, which is why I find the idea completely laughable.So we use our 8th functions "poorly" now? What other function outside the ego is as likely to be effective? This is one of the more lousy arguments for your type IMO.
It is not about forcing your 8th function, annoying your dual or any of that bullshit - yours is a very specific case. Your a priori about your being all aggressive and direct causes this stupid behavior, which is generally translated to Se in socionics. It's not that you inherently try to force the information element of extraverted sensing; it's that you try to force an attitude that is commonly associated with extraverted sensing, thus making people think you're SLE. Is that so difficult to understand lolOriginally Posted by Ezra
btw your stickam pic kind of demonstrates what I'm talking about lol.
btw Ezra, I actually like you lol...so it's not like I have a personal vendetta against you. I just like it when people act real.
Which one, the Humphrey Bogart one? Or the other one of me?
The feelings are mutual. I just think you argue in an idiotic way. It's totally illogical. If, for example, you were to argue that I was weak in Se but that I valued it e.g. if I was an EIE or an LIE, then I could understand your case. But you think I am LSE and Se valuing as well as weak in it, which is a glaring contradiction. Is that so difficult to understand?
Or do you think I'm good with Se but that I over do it, giving the appearance that it's contrived?
was that logical enough for you?Originally Posted by Ezra
Whatever quadra thehotelambush is in, I am probably not in it. I don't think there has been a person on the forum yet whom I have found so annoying.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
lolOriginally Posted by Gilly
lol k. I'd still be willing to discuss it in pm.Originally Posted by Ezra
life sucks and then you die. get high while you can.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
forrallOriginally Posted by Gilly
i am the macdaddy of machined monkey mockery. mess my maligned malchick's moneygrubbing mewtwo.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
actually I don't think strrrng is being "illogical" here at all - this explanation, at least to me, is a perfectly valid possibility - I have no problem following the logic in this argument, and I now understand what I previously thought was a somewhat absurd claim (that you are the dual of an Se-polr type). However I don't see any reason to agree with his initial premise so I will accept the much simpler explanation that you (Ezra) display an attitude commonly associated with Se because you are indeed an Se ego type.
I am 7w6 so/sx. I'm afraid of creating familiarity because I hate leaving people behind who I love, and my life has pretty much been a developed sequence of leaving-behinds. I am always looking for a new lens through which to view the world because it keeps things interesting. I am random, risky, and impulsive. I have something inside that needs to get out, but also a hole that needs to be filled. I do things that most people think are just silly, like drive with my left foot hanging out the window. I love singing at the top of my voice even (especially?) when people think it's ridiculous. I am interested in personal development above nearly all. I like to make people laugh more than anything, but internally I feel wounded and probably need to be made to laugh at myself more than anything. I hate people who are anxious and retentive. I am bored by people with no taste for excitement or adventure. I love people who can appreciate that commiseration is not always just sad but also cathartic and helpful when you are able to see where it has led you. I appreciate it above all when someone can identify with the weird shit that goes on up in my head because it makes me feel less alone in the world. I'm a life junkie and I live for the next high, whether it's a drug, a meditation experience, a connection with a person, a fascinating piece of writing or music, or even death. I want someone who is as crazy as me, who needs what I have but who won't try to leech off of my supportive nature, and can stand on their own two feet. I like long walks in the woods and being naked outside.
That's probably the most important stuff about me. Typety type type type.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Right, okay, that explains it. strrrng, you have to realise that I don't follow this model, and that in said model, I may well be an LSE, but I'm not interested in studying said model right now. Hence, please stop telling me I'm a type in classical socionics that I'm not. I'm interested in classical socionics, and in classical socionics, I am an SEE.
Last edited by Ezra; 06-04-2008 at 10:31 AM. Reason: concl.
to be fair, unless Strrrng's understanding of the information elements themselves (e.g. Se) is different from that of the majority of users here, I don't think the use of some other non-classical model is the reason for the disagreement on your type Ezra.
It seems to stem more from the premise that you have this notion in your head that you must act in some confrontational/aggressive way (which happens to resemble Se ego). However I don't really understand why he believes this to be true.
I'll live.
I like your avatar, by the way.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
thanks
It kind of depicts my ideal state. I wish I could find a place like that, and be completely free of the demands of society. Though I don't think the setting itself is necessary to achieve that, but it looks nice anyway