Type Me, Please

[Azeroffs]

regardless.. idk why you care enough to bicker about something this pointless and in such a childish way.

Marie changed her type and made some mistakes or whatever.. so what..

[strrrng]

Re: 'pro-disrespecting someone needlessly'... You defended someone who insulted someone without good reason... She was civil in what she posted to him, i.e. there was no "need" for him to respond with an insult. (He could've responded like a thoughtful human being.) However, he responded with an insult--"needlessly."

Pro meaning 'for,' or 'in support of...' In this case, 'pro' someone who was insulting someone needlessly. An insult intends "disrespect." Thus by writing in support of crazedrat's insults, you were writing "pro-disrespecting someone needlessly."

That's my reasoning.

This is fair. Let me say that I am by no means justifying crazed's comment as somehow necessary; my contention lies in how it was appraised. It is my opinion that the comment was an innocuous insult that warranted little if no attention, let alone a report to the moderators. Again, had he been maliciously harassing someone, the case would have been dealt with differently; but I see no reason to throw a fit over something so petty.

Re: why I don't like how he handled it... Aside from my conscience reacting adversely to it... After years at this forum, I've found that it's better around here when everyone feels at ease to discuss ideas related to Socionics... People clam up when they suspect they'll get insulted... Thus IMO, it's better to foster an atmosphere where people want to openly discuss things, rather than a toxic one, dominated by people who are insulting people they barely know over things they do not fully understand.

I agree that open, accepting atmospheres foster greater quality of discussion. But, I also think that promoting an open, social environment entails accepting a variety of personalities and interactions, and not imposing some overarching doctrine of collective harmony onto people, which will only result in disagreements over what is and isn't acceptable, consequent supression of some voices over others, and an ultimately limited atmosphere. So, what I'm saying is: it's just as deterring to unnecessarily impose the idea of solidarity, as it is to unnecessarily undermine it; and with a pretext like "positive atmosphere," people will inevitably end up conflating their personal reactions to things with the actual effect on the social atmosphere, i.e. erroneously claiming that the social harmony has been disrupted.

[Creepy-sarahdxwrappd]

I agree with dinki...either EIE or LIE.

[xkj220]

Post a picture Amy! We've got psychic people here than can tell you what type you are by looking at your picture! Don't too worry too much about this little exchange that has happened in your thread... a little rough and tumble occurs here every now and then, but nobody gets hurt

[strrrng]

Nobody gets hurt? How dare you so flagrantly ignore the harm incurred on poor Marie in this thread.

[xkj220]

INFj's have impressive healing capabilities. I'm sure she'll get over it =P

I'm also pretty sure that munenori2 doesn't have any hard feelings for me. I for sure don't for him. Thwat's all in good jest

[strrrng]

Yes, INFjs do indeed have very strong healing abilities. I think this constitutes justification for people to hail insults at any INFj on this forum, whenever they please.

[xkj220]

I agree. I think that could help them come to terms with their Se-PoRL. Also to take things less seriously. It makes sense as well because the LSE's like to appear as people of high moral character and such, but I've found a few scum-baggy ones. This is one of the things that I've observed beta is in a higher position than delta; their lack of hypocrisy. They are rape-pillaging nutjobs, but at least they are upfront about their madness.

[strrrng]

I couldn't agree more.

[UDP]

We definitely, definitely need to get this emoticon for the forum:

[strrrng]

I agree. It would fit right in with your signature.

[Amy]

EIE! I am so sure that you are EIE, from what you have said.


You seem very interested and adept at understanding the inner workings of people, EIEs are pretty wicked at that

You have expressed that you 'act' very codly or with a lot of enthusiasm, which shows that your focus on behavior is on emotional expression above other things (Fe).

Weak will power, procrastination and indecision suggest you value and seek Ti and Se. I hate people who do not make sense (although, I realize that I sometimes do not make sense, myself). EIEs often feel scattered and appreciate Ti, they need to focus their scattered energy - EIEs appreciate people who are assured about their ideas (Ti). You maybe confident in your ability but you need someone push you and you also enjoy theoretical discussion but feel 'lonely' because nobody else does - could be understood as Ti seeking?

You yourself are overly sensetive, but you can't stand it in others - typical beta NF - beta interaction is just taking the piss, you want the beta banter - you dislike oversensetivity in a partner - beta NFs tend to be hypersensitive and indecisive unlike beta STs which is why they work so well together .

You said you are imaginative & 'absent minded' (obsessed with fantasy worlds) - and spend time thinking up future possibilities - which suggests Ni creative.

You want to openly express your opinions without others taking offence and you said you can sometimes be loud and enthusiastic (which betas value, honest expression, taking the piss - loud and enthusiastic is Fe) - yet cold, EIEs often act cold in groups they are uncomfortable in - can come across as arrogant and aristocratic.

Pursuing could also be understood as being the person to spark interaction, and to be the one to keep in contact, which is typical for an extrovert.

You may be right. I read the EIE ethical subtype description on Wikisocion and it actually fit me quite well.

All of what you posted made sense, and the only part that didn't really fit was the ...to be the one to keep in contact, which is typical for an extrovert. I'm not very good at keeping in touch with people. I can also go for very long periods of time without being around people, and I am just fine with it, which leads me to suspect that I might be introverted.

From the first post seems like a young ILI female. That was my thought process all the way through.

I was once a young female. I am ILI.

Well, I am young, and I am female. The general consensus seems to be that I am LIE, however, if you haven't given up on this thread, I would appreciate if you could maybe describe to me how you were when you were younger so that I can compare.

...what?

don't be crazy... this isn't high school and we're not 16 year old girls... It's a forum about psychology. in other words, there's no need for what he said.

-raises hand, tentatively- Umm.. I'm a..... - you know what? Nevermind.

Post a picture Amy! We've got psychic people here than can tell you what type you are by looking at your picture! Don't too worry too much about this little exchange that has happened in your thread... a little rough and tumble occurs here every now and then, but nobody gets hurt

I might. But I'll have to find one where I'm not making some weird face, first.

[UDP]

[private]

[strrrng]

The way that masturbatory self-deception should be.

[Marie84]

I'm really sorry Amy for having a part in hijacking your thread

Have you read any of the profiles for LIE? Not to say they describe people word-for-word but it may help to find where you fit in the Socion...
There's one here and here

.....

Since I can't find the post where she was retyping herself as ISFp I am content in dropping it, because I can't back up what I said. I may of misunderstood the context in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ospection.html, which means I was the one being dumb. That, and it's typical of a Delta to call the moderator on you. lol, cry more you wimp. Anyway, her saying that is even evidence for INFj.
So yeah, my apologies.

I do apologize if I previously suggested that you were less knowledgeable than me, what I meant was that we seem to have different understandings of the theory and thus continuing arguing over that (i.e. Kurt Cobain's type) is going to be counter productive for the both of us.
My reasoning for stating the possible reporting wasn't to be vindictive but because if no one does anything about hostile behavior it will just continue, and that will further deter people away from feeling comfortable posting here. I imagine that a lot of the other EII's don't post here for that very reason

There's no reason to swear or put people down for not agreeing with them, if something/someone ticks you off that much it's time to turn the computer off and do something else for a while until you cool down.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Why add on the internet to the end of your statement Insulting people on the internet isn't less wimpy at all then? Why not simply say Insulting people isn't less wimpy?

Nice qualifier lol. Your statement implied that insulting people on the internet was wimpy. Now you're claiming that insulting people in general is wimpy.

because, erm, lol, we people on the internet only have internet personas to go by...so not only might insulting people on the internet not be less wimpy than complaining to a moderator about someone's behaviour, but anything you say about what you do in real life in an attempt to make yourself appear less wimpy to people on the internet might be a complete fabrication. Which if true would of course not make you less wimpy either.

[strrrng]

Insulting people on the internet isn't less wimpy you know. Especially when you cannot argue your points without doing so; and especially when you cannot support your arguments.

Implication: insulting people on the internet is wimpy.

erm...so? That just shows that you are a wimp in more than one aspect of your life. Not only that, but it shows that you do not and perhaps cannot argue effectively with others.

Additional Implication: insulting people in general is wimpy. This negates the significance of your previous point.

because, erm, lol, we people on the internet only have internet personas to go by...so not only might insulting people on the internet not be less wimpy than complaining to a moderator about someone's behaviour, but anything you say about what you do in real life in an attempt to make yourself appear less wimpy to people on the internet might be a complete fabrication. Which if true would of course not make you less wimpy either.

Final Implication: insulting or claiming to insult people, on the internet or in real life, is wimpy. This nullifies the differentiation between the two realms of interaction, and of course the initial argument about what is wimpy.


Nice attempt at shifting the context to your fancy!

[Not A Communist Shill]

Implication: insulting people on the internet is wimpy.

As you have correctly observed, I didn't say that insulting people on the internet is wimpy.

Additional Implication: insulting people in general is wimpy. This negates the significance of your previous point.

No it does not. It could just show that I only tell people the extent to which a conclusion can be made based on the available evidence. For example, before, I apparently implied that insulting people on the internet is wimpy...in the second instance you quoted, crazedrat is giving 'evidence' which may deem him wimpy in other areas of his life other than the internet in the eyes of others.

Final Implication: insulting or claiming to insult people, on the internet or in real life, is wimpy. This nullifies the differentiation between the two realms of interaction, and of course the initial argument about what is wimpy.

It does not. Even if such behaviour wasn't wimpy, it would not nullify the "differentiation between the two realms of interaction", because 'of course' the argument would still be validly presented even if it was deemed false.

[crazedrat]

ahaha. yeah strrrng is the only person on this forum holding me back from getting totally enraged.

[Amy]

you're all dingbats.

[717495]

Just pick a freakin type and get on with your life. It's not that hard.

[Azeroffs]

pick LIE

[crazedrat]

you're all dingbats.

fundamental attribution error. anyway, you know your type now, so fuck off.

[strrrng]

As you have correctly observed, I didn't say that insulting people on the internet is wimpy.

No, but your comment directly referenced insulting people on the internet as an equally if not less wimpy thing than what crazed commented on. The implicit context in this, is that there is a comparison being made between two things that occur on the internet.

No it does not. It could just show that I only tell people the extent to which a conclusion can be made based on the available evidence. For example, before, I apparently implied that insulting people on the internet is wimpy...in the second instance you quoted, crazedrat is giving 'evidence' which may deem him wimpy in other areas of his life other than the internet in the eyes of others.

crazedrat told you that he insulted people in real life to illustrate that it wasn't limited to the internet, as your mocking comment about internet insults being wimpy suggested. His point undermined your limited context, hence how you shifted it in the next response.

It does not. Even if such behaviour wasn't wimpy, it would not nullify the "differentiation between the two realms of interaction", because 'of course' the argument would still be validly presented even if it was deemed false.

Yes, but the argument that would be present, would be completely different than the one initially presented. So, you can justify it as a separate argument, sure; but using it to "prove" or preserve some faded point, is a fallacy.

ahaha. yeah strrrng is the only person on this forum holding me back from getting totally enraged.

[Creepy-sarahdxwrappd]

you're all dingbats.

...i agree.