niffweed is LII thread split

[VixenDogFox]

This doesn't negate Alpha NT in the slightest.

** look at things big-picture, e.g. in terms of 'the marketplace of ideas,' or other large conceptions like that... opposite alpha NTs in that way...

...

That seems exactly like Alpha NT imo.

What would be the opposite of that?

As much as I don't "feel" Niffweed to be an LII (and I could totally be wrong), it's true that the list why he should be ILI does not negate him being Alpha NT, or more specifically, INTj, AT ALL. My LII is all those things that were just labeled ILI...

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah (also VI ur bf and Niff if you didn't already for extra fun lol!)

[duality is cringe]

Where are Niffweed's photos?!

Malia, I already showed you here. Niffweed is the Ne-INTj wearing blue.

Ne-INTjs

[duality is cringe]

I think you were just put off by his autism and overall social retardation which many mistake for -PoLR.

[olduser]

niff is ILI

[ArchonAlarion]

niff is a swirling digital mist of eternal damnation via pomegranates

[ArchonAlarion]

You Aixelsyd, are a rampaging umbra of refined sand eroded from an ancient aztec-alien ziggurat.

[electric sheep]

he has that characteristic unfocused Ni look? Wait, no... that's his social retardation look.

[Not A Communist Shill]

His gaze seems harsher than the gazes of supposed LIIs...especially if he is supposedly the Ne subtype, who are supposed to have a softer gaze. But there is so much variation in the visage of just one individual that it's no good typing from just a few photographs.

[Mea]

niffweed = ILI

[ArchonAlarion]

His gaze seems harsher than the gazes of supposed LIIs...especially if he is supposedly the Ne subtype, who are supposed to have a softer gaze. But there is so much variation in the visage of just one individual that it's no good typing from just a few photographs.

Actually Ne subs are object focused, hence more direct.

Softer? yeah Niff actually does come across as more all over the place and eccentric (based on RL observations) than Ti INTjs.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Actually Ne subs are object focused, hence more direct.

Softer? yeah Niff actually does come across as more all over the place and eccentric (based on RL observations) than Ti INTjs.

You completely misread what I said. I said he had a harsher gaze.

"More direct"? You're being very vague, especially considering this is a VI thread.

[ArchonAlarion]

harsher than what though?

I dont see his gaze as very harsh at all.

I mean... Ti can be pretty "harsh" maybe thats what you're seeing.

And yes subjective/field leading types often are unfocused, spread out, and "distant" in a natural gaze.

I personally have to really force myself to focus, otherwise it feels like my eyes are inversed and even when I look around I'm not really looking around. Feels peripheral. Even if I'm involved with objects or people. I see something and I immediately glaze over and see how it fits into a chart or can be broken up into sub systems. This is slightly exaggerated, but still I focus on Ti and Si quite a bit (Ti ENTp).

[Not A Communist Shill]

harsher than what though?

I dont see his gaze as very harsh at all.

I mean... Ti can be pretty "harsh" maybe thats what you're seeing.

And yes subjective/field leading types often are unfocused, spread out, and "distant" in a natural gaze.

I personally have to really force myself to focus, otherwise it feels like my eyes are inversed and even when I look around I'm not really looking around. Feels peripheral. Even if I'm involved with objects or people. I see something and I immediately glaze over and see how it fits into a chart or can be broken up into sub systems. This is slightly exaggerated, but still I focus on Ti and Si quite a bit (Ti ENTp).

I said that he had a harsher gaze than some of the INTjs identified on this forum...he certainly has a harsher gaze than Malia's boyfriend who is supposedly a Ne subtype. IMO Malia's boyfriend looks like a warmer individual...and if VI is apparently mostly to do with the eyes, then I would say the difference in appearance is more than a one sixteenth difference. Maybe you think that niffweed is an 'eccentric' (i.e. normal) INTj-Ne subtype who looks like a INTj-Ti subtype.

"Direct" can mean various things...in the field of VI, I would think that the gaze of a Ne type would be unfocussed and indirect. But then an unfocussed 'stare' can appear direct...

On what basis do you say that "Ne subs are object focused"? As opposed to what exactly?

Also, It is actually possible to have unfocussed eyes and not look harsh.

[The Exception]

I said that he had a harsher gaze than some of the INTjs identified on this forum...he certainly has a harsher gaze than Malia's boyfriend who is supposedly a Ne subtype. IMO Malia's boyfriend looks like a warmer individual...and if VI is apparently mostly to do with the eyes, then I would say the difference in appearance is more than a one sixteenth difference. Maybe you think that niffweed is an 'eccentric' (i.e. normal) INTj-Ne subtype who looks like a INTj-Ti subtype.

"Direct" can mean various things...in the field of VI, I would think that the gaze of a Ne type would be unfocussed and indirect. But then an unfocussed 'stare' can appear direct...

On what basis do you say that "Ne subs are object focused"? As opposed to what exactly?

Also, It is actually possible to have unfocussed eyes and not look harsh.

Can subtype be VI'ed with reasonable accuracy? If so, what are some key differences between Ti-INTjs and Ne-INTjs? Pictures please.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Well I personally think it's silly to identify someone's subtype via VI (it's silly enough as it is), considering how VI typing has a completely unreliable track record.

To see an Ne-INTj (what does "warmer individual" mean, Subterranean? Are you talking about an ethical type?)

By 'warmer', I don't mean more 'ethical'. I mean more approachable from my point of view. Your boyfriend looks like he would tolerate certain types of behaviour that would be different to the certain types of behaviour niffweed looks like he would tolerate (and also from my experience of him). Your boyfriend is happy to have a silly photo taken with some animals, while niffweed seems more likely to think "wtf is this shit?". I don't think it would be impossible for niffweed to have such a photo taken of him though - I'm describing how they generally come across. But of course I can afford to make such vague statements.

[ArchonAlarion]

some people are grumpy dicks lol.

I bet I could pose for a picture and have it look "harsh".

btw Ne subs are object focused (primarily) due to Ne being internal object statics.

Also VI is only unreliable to those who disagree for whatever reason with the typings. Its not unreliable for others (obviously).

[electric sheep]

Also VI is only unreliable to those who disagree for whatever reason with the typings. Its not unreliable for others (obviously).

Is this like a 2 + 2 = 5 thing? It's only true if you believe it?

[ArchonAlarion]

what?

I'm saying that VI obviously has a good track record if you believe it works lol!

So its not universal that "VI has a bad track record". I was clarifying SubT's opinion as in fact his own, which I'm sure he understands.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I bet I could pose for a picture and have it look "harsh".

But then why did Deante choose that photo if you admit this is the case? You think he looks INTp, but you actually think he's an INTj? I thought the eyes were the most significant part of VI...it seems to me that VI is strongly affected by whether a person is looking at the camera or not.

btw Ne subs are object focused (primarily) due to Ne being internal object statics.

But INTjs of both subtypes are both Ti-dominant. So why do niffweed and Malia's boyfriend have significantly different gazes, considering that you and Deante think they are both INTj-Ne subtypes?

[Not A Communist Shill]

what?

I'm saying that VI obviously has a good track record if you believe it works lol!

So its not universal that "VI has a bad track record". I was clarifying SubT's opinion as in fact his own, which I'm sure he understands.

erm...but you should 'believe' that VI works based on its track record, not the other way round.

[ArchonAlarion]

But then why did Deante choose that photo if you admit this is the case? You think he looks INTp, but you actually think he's an INTj? I thought the eyes were the most significant part of VI...it seems to me that VI is strongly affected by whether a person is looking at the camera or not.

No I don't think he looks INTp. I think he looks like an INTj

and no its not lol. Also I'm VIing based on that pic, his videos, and irl interaction, so maybe thats where you're getting confused? VI works looking at camera or no.

But INTjs of both subtypes are both Ti-dominant. So why do niffweed and Malia's boyfriend have significantly different gazes, considering that you and Deante think they are both INTj-Ne subtypes?

They don't have different gazes imo. All I agreed to was that Niffweed looks harsher aka grumpier lol.

In the dreaded "model x", destructor of mankind and bane of all that is negentropic, Ne INTj's have Ne leading.

I know its cerazzzyyyyy!!@!!!

But if Augusta had said it you'd being saying it to...

[Not A Communist Shill]

No I don't think he looks INTp. I think he looks like an INTj

and no its not lol. Also I'm VIing based on that pic, his videos, and irl interaction, so maybe thats where you're getting confused? VI works looking at camera or no.

But why was that photo used as the best VI example of niffweed then?

They don't have different gazes imo. All I agreed to was that Niffweed looks harsher aka grumpier lol.

They do IMO. I said that niffweed had a harsher gaze...so why would you half-agree then? I do think Malia's boyfriend has a softer appearance overall as well as it happens though.

[ArchonAlarion]

i dont think it was supposed to be the best... i think its like the only one we have, right?

I think he looks harsher slightly in that picture, but i don't think it affects his appearence in terms of type. He still looks INTj. INTj's can be quite harsh and strict looking.

I doubt INTps would look harsh in that way. That's all Static rational related plus the external, analytical and strict nature of Ti.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think he looks harsher slightly in that picture, but i don't think it affects his appearence in terms of type. He still looks INTj. INTj's can be quite harsh and strict looking.

I doubt INTps would look harsh in that way. That's all Static rational related plus the external, analytical and strict nature of Ti.

Harsh in what way? You don't think INTps can look strict?

[ArchonAlarion]

Doubt it.

INTp's are dynamic irrationals. They're chill. Its like the opposite of strict lol. Go with the flow mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn..................

But no, INTp's are not strict. Why would an ESFp want someone who is strict? They'd hate that shit.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Doubt it.

INTp's are dynamic irrationals. They're chill. Its like the opposite of strict lol. Go with the flow mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn..................

But no, INTp's are not strict. Why would an ESFp want someone who is strict? They'd hate that shit.

I asked you if you believed that INTps could look strict. I believe they can. I also believe, as it happens, that INTjs and INTps are both strict in their own ways...it's not like ESFjs are particularly fond of 'strict' people either....however you wish to define it. I would certainly consider an INTp more strict than an INTj.

[ArchonAlarion]

lol w/e SubT. You can believe what you want, so I'm done on that point.

Ip's are explicitly not strict in demeanor. gah.

[Not A Communist Shill]

lol w/e SubT. You can believe what you want, so I'm done on that point.

Ip's are explicitly not strict in demeanor. gah.

Explicitly not strict according to what? Temperament? So are you saying that an Ip type from a person's opposing quadra could not appear strict, simply due to different ways of thinking?

[ArchonAlarion]

Explicitly not strict according to what? Temperament? So are you saying that an Ip type from a person's opposing quadra could not appear strict, simply due to different ways of thinking?

lol sure.

So should I describe ISFj's as good for nothing prudeish assholes next time i post about them in a thread?

You can use that argument for anything SubT.

However, unless your entire typological method is going to center around your feelings towards other types (something I'd expect an Fi-er to do) and never try to find qualities which can be observed no matter observing type, than ya better chenage your attitude about that.

I am an ILI. I can look strict. I can look dreamy. I can look grumpy. I can look zany and very happy. I can look spaced out. I can look intense. I can look sad and very hurt. It's called being a human.

[quoted just to expand on Sub's point]

And yes, INTps can be very strict, especially if you attach a moral sitgma to whatever makes them come that way since we can actually be extremely devoted to protecting ethical principles if someone convinces us of its legitimate ethical nature. At least that's where I come off as strict.

Seeing as I type you as Alpha NT that argument does nothing for me.

Also you're strawmanning me by acting as if I don't believe people can have those expressions. Sorry, but I have to differentiate the types based on behavioral traits somehow!

Thats not how INTp's Fi manifests. Ethical principles? Legitimate ethical nature? Sounds like you're making ethics into an external, explicit, and definable system. Thats called Ti valuing.

[ArchonAlarion]

...

I know. Why don't we ALL be Alphas! Ah ha ha ha ha ahskd hfaksjdf a;lskdjf ;!$@#^#$ 3$%&@& !!@!!!! 1 ! 1!!one!

That'd be pretty skeet-elite

Also Socionics is sorta *ahem*...

an alpha centric thing, ya know all dem cate-ma-gories and latent traits that when assorted in certain ways create a type. All that systems in systems in systems deal.

but for plitical correctness reasons I shall say that Socionics is loved equally by all types!!@@!!@!!!

[Not A Communist Shill]

lol sure.

So should I describe ISFj's as good for nothing prudeish assholes next time i post about them in a thread?

You can use that argument for anything SubT.

However, unless your entire typological method is going to center around your feelings towards other types (something I'd expect an Fi-er to do) and never try to find qualities which can be observed no matter observing type, than ya better chenage your attitude about that.

Nope, I based my observations on strict INTps I've met. For example, a strict INTp Chemistry teacher that everybody considered strict. I didn't say that only Ip individuals from a person's opposing quadra could appear strict - I simply expect that to be the most obvious case. Individuals of all types could be considered strict and their particular quirks could be found irritating. But with Socionics, it is the way they appear strict that is important.

[Not A Communist Shill]

However, unless your entire typological method is going to center around your feelings towards other types (something I'd expect an Fi-er to do) and never try to find qualities which can be observed no matter observing type, than ya better chenage your attitude about that.

But you have typed me in exactly this way. You consider me a Delta type simply because I disagree with you (because that apparently makes me a Reactive...although you have also called Niffweed a Reactive, and you think he is an INTj). You also always see hidden motives behind people's posts, rather than address the points they raise directly.

[ArchonAlarion]

Though you are merely answering my post with pre-conceptions as to what I meant about ethics.

I'm not talking about how some people will say you need to pray five times a day, or tithe, or spend so much money on charity. I would say that is a more Ti thing, but things of honor (like not taking advantage of someone's sudden misfortune to obtain a cheap but easy victory, keeping your promise that you made even though it's no longer convenient for yourself or that it requires personal expense, doing your fair share of work even if you know some good-hearted fellow would pull the extra weight from your end just to accomplish all tasks, allowing yourself to be wrong or to put your ego and personal slights aside when someone who has done something not so nice is really hurting and could really use your effort and assistance, etc). Those are things that I attribute somewhat to Fi and a lot of people will not go out of their way to do the right thing when it becomes hard and inconvenient.

I used to do much at my own expense because I simply thought in my heart that this was the right thing to do and I could not live with myself if I just pretended that I could ignore them just because they weren't all logically sound. I know it sounds vague, but people who have been there understand that truly giving of yourself and loving others is not very romantic and grand. It's hard work but you do it because inside you feel that this is the right thing to do.

It has little to do with logic (in fact, that's when I push logic to the side and say that it shouldn't always have to be rationalized to do something that you feel is right) other than seeing how doing such a thing will benefit others and yourself and how it generally helps people function on a better level. But to me, these sort of things are sacred and thus something I rarely analyze from a typology stand-point because I find it degrading, even if I consider myself far more corrupt than I used to be, though I no longer wrestle with emotional guilt at my own failings since you are not going to always do the right thing at the right time and when you do things because 'that's what people do' and make it a Ti thing of a list of rules and obligations just because while cutting off the part of doing it because you genuinely care to do the right thing deep down inside, yeah, then it's stupid and hypocritical and you end up being a pharisee, so to speak.

Obligations? I hate obligations. Ti isn't a list of rules either. Its about perceiving relations as something explicit and literal. Ti-ers prefer universal ethical codes that they don't deviate from. Its Fi-ers who freakin pick and choose when they want apply a principle. Everything to them is person/situation dependent. "But I like Fred and don't like Bob, even if Fred is wrong in this situation I'm gonna support Bob!". Fi-ers ethical structures are intuited and ime opposed to universalism. Ti-ers like having universal ethical codes that they can apply and stick to no matter person or situation. Like a fair detached judge. Fi-ers especially Ti Polrs are scared of this universalism because it limits their personalized system. They don't want to be constrained by consistency. By following consistent ethics.

Your post demonstrated Ti valuing, sorry.

What do you think Ti is, some sort of banal populist ethical code?

[ArchonAlarion]

But you have typed me in exactly this way. You consider me a Delta type simply because I disagree with you (because that apparently makes me a Reactive...although you have also called Niffweed a Reactive, and you think he is an INTj). You also always see hidden motives behind people's posts, rather than address the points they raise directly.

Um no. Thats absolutely false lol!

I think you're Delta because you apply inconsistent ethics, you are attracted to what I consider Delta culture, I feel you supervise me, Whenever you attempt to be serious and analytical you always default to picking apart what I say and its never in an encapsulated theoretical Ti way its always pompous and observation based, I feel you pick favorites and attack people on character basis.

That's some of what makes me think you're Delta.

[ArchonAlarion]

okay thats fine. Socionics is not scientific at all and differing premises make for arguments like these. Frankly I'm done for tonight too.

Have a good one.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Um no. Thats absolutely false lol!

I think you're Delta because you apply inconsistent ethics (as an example, I believe it was you who said, "I don't want explicit forum rules because then I might have to ban someone I like." maybe it was not you who said this, but I believe it was), you are attracted to what I consider Delta culture, I feel you supervise me, Whenever you attempt to be serious and analytical you always default to picking apart what I say and its never in an encapsulated theoretical Ti way its always pompous and observation based, I feel you pick favorites and attack people on character basis.

That's some of what makes me think you're Delta.

erm...that quote was actually a joke.

You feel I pick favourites? Do you really? In the same way you feel that the forum can have explicit forum rules?

You claimed in one of my type threads that I didn't respond to your posts because I thought you had poor reasoning, but because I disliked you...and that everythin I was was "petty Delta Fi"...and that Deltas are Reactive (you explained quite clearly that Deltas were against change and made things stagnant, and even gave a list of people that had consider as Delta that you believe act in this way).

[ArchonAlarion]

erm...that quote was actually a joke.

You feel I pick favourites? Do you really? In the same way you feel that the forum can have explicit forum rules?

as this is about non-socionics stuff and clarification i'll respond.

I realized this could be a joke, so because it was, I will erase it from my reasons.

I do feel you pick favorites and I don't care if the forum had explicit rules. The sentiment (which turned out to be a joke) however would not be something I'd say or expect a Ti ego to say (maybe as a rare instance, but not if they often said such things). I personally would like extremely few, but simple rules that would be enforced as read.

[Not A Communist Shill]

as this is about non-socionics stuff and clarification i'll respond.

I realized this could be a joke, so because it was, I will erase it from my reasons.

I do feel you pick favorites and I don't care if the forum had explicit rules. The sentiment (which turned out to be a joke) however would not be something I'd say or expect a Ti ego to say (maybe as a rare instance, but not if they often said such things). I personally would like extremely few, but simple rules that would be enforced as read.

I find it easy to imagine a Ti Ego who did not have explicit rules (or who did not follow their own rules consistently) and just basically did whatever they hell they wanted.

For example, you claim to be a Ti Ego type, but since saying that you were done talking for tonight [about Socionics] 32 minutes ago, you have posted in the latest mn0good thread in What's My Type about ephemeros's type.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah this is true, my point is weak there. The situation has too much variation. It'd be the way they went about it not the result.