Ask Me Stuff?

[silverchris9]

So, as of tomorrow at 7pm, I will be done with my freshman year of college. As such, I will suddenly go from being a chicken madly running around with my head cut off to a placid lake of stillness and boredom. So, I need something to occupy my time. And, as I find that I understand things 400x better when I'm forced to reason them out, I would absolutely love it if people would ask me questions about socionics. Anything, type opinions, celebrity typings, what I think about the functions, I don't care. I'm up for wading through ten-minute interviews or ten-page rambling monologues about your life, whatever. I'll blather for a page-and-a-half about why I think Michael Jackson is IEI and Barack Obama is a Beta NF. I don't care. I just want something to do. And, since my fifteen minute internet study break is currently going on its seventeenth eighteenth minute, I will now end this post. Questions hugely appreciated. Also, I have a whole years worth of typings and interpersonal interactions, so I probably have at least one example I know fairly closely of most intertype relations. Obviously you have to take my word for it that these people are typed correctly (hint: I have a bias towards typing people IEE--either that or I just know a lot of IEEs), but hopefully my observations will be a little relevant? Anyway, okay. I'm really going to shut up now and get back to Oscar Wilde (btw, his poetry SUCKS, no matter how amazing Earnest is). Thanks!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

Awesome! So what makes you think Levin is ExI? What type do you think Kitty is? Also, if you'd read Northanger Abbey (Austen), what types do you think Catherine and Henry are? And have you read Mansfield Park?

[Mattie]

Here's something that's been on my mind that could use a little discourse. Recently, with some discussions here and there, I find that I could view Socionics-related issues in different lights between two distinctions: The IEs can be observed separately within a type from one another in their functions (i.e. leading + creative + role, etc. = NeFi) or are viewed in blocks, which the IEs in each block are integrated and don't have a distinguishable separation (i.e. -ego + -superego, etc = NeFi). One could also make the argument of all the blocks being indistinguishable from one another as well, meaning you can't necessarily pinpoint one IE within the mix without making note of the influence and context of all the other IEs in their positions. So far, I think of all of these and wonder if these are steps to be observed, or if there is only one of these ways that is the most affective.

I think observing the difference of these perspectives makes a difference because of how some typing goes on here, for example, I think some people type just looking for IEs and then place each in functions after they have identified them in a person. Like how someone can say they think someone is a "Detla NF," the only way you can say this is if you only observed the IEs separate from functions, or else the same person would have said "-creative," which would be NeFi vs FiNe against NeFi vs SeFi, and depending on which above perspective you prescribe to, FiNe or SeFi would be a closer typing to NeFi.

This would also decide if you can really talk about the IEs and how they relate to others separate from the type and still actually be relatable. So when we talk about , are we talking about the that is removed from types and therefore exists the same way in all types, or, are we talking about that is specific to each type. And when that's not made clear, is that when confusion/disagreement occurs?

I'll stop there to see if this catches your interest, it was something that popped into my head, and since you're asking for discourse, well, here you go

[thePirate]

how do you feel about Fi PoLR?

DETAILS PLZ

[Timeless]

how do you feel about Fi PoLR?

DETAILS PLZ

Hey, add more details to the above.

I'd like to hear a different perspective and understanding on that.

[silverchris9]

So, college still owns my soul for another seven hours, but right now, I don't care.

Awesome! So what makes you think Levin is ExI? What type do you think Kitty is? Also, if you'd read Northanger Abbey (Austen), what types do you think Catherine and Henry are? And have you read Mansfield Park?

I think Levin is ExI (and honestly, I'm pretty settled on ESI--I'd consider LSI before I'd consider EII), because of the conversation that he has with his half-brother wherein the half-brother keeps using logical arguments and Levin just sort of feels trapped. It seemed very much like a weak-Ti thing. Also, I consider him to be a clear Te-dualseeker. The passage where he loses himself in mindless work when he cuts the yard with the muzhiks is textbook Te-dualseeking. I'm repulsed by mindless work like that. But Te-DS people find that just as refreshing and enjoyable and mind-cleansing as I find riding the wave of Se. Doing boring practical stuff like that energizes them and is healing to them, just as it is to Levin.

In the discussions that arose between the brothers on their views of the peasantry, Sergey Ivanovitch always got the better of his brother, precisely because Sergey Ivanovitch had definite ideas about the peasant--his character, his qualities, and his tastes. Konstantin Levin had no definite and unalterable idea on the subject, and so in their arguments Konstantin was readily convicted of contradicting himself.

(from Part 3, Chapter 1)

Exposing contradictions in others' arguments (and using that to prove that you've "won") is close to the essence of Ti argumentation. Levin, being an Fi-valuer, has more subjective, and therefore less rigid, ideas about "how things should be done" (the general realm of introverted judgment is "how things should be done," imo). Thus he is constantly "convicted of contradicting himself"

The better he knew his brother, the more he noticed that Sergey Ivanovitch, and many other people who worked for the public welfare, were not led by an impulse of the heart to care for the public good, but reasoned from intellectual considerations that it was a right thing to take interest in public affairs, and consequently took interest in them. Levin was confirmed in this generalization by observing that his brother did not take questions affecting the public welfare or the question of the immortality of the soul a bit more to heart than he did chess problems, or the ingenious construction of a new machine.

(From Part 3, Chapter 1)

Common Fi complaint about Ti valuers. They act "for the wrong reasons". Levin wants to act for emotional reasons, out of compassion. Sergey wants to act for logical reasons, because it is intellectually "the right thing to do".

"Do you admit that education is a benefit for the people?"

"Yes, I admit it," said Levin without thinking, and he was conscious immediately that he had said what he did not think. He felt that if he admitted that, it would be proved that he had been talking meaningless rubbish. How it would be proved he could not tell, but he knew that this would inevitably be logically proved to him, and he awaited the proofs.

(From Part 3, Chapter 3)

Typical Fi "helplessness" to deal with Ti issues. Levin knows that by consenting to proposition x, he will be shown how conclusion y logically follows from that agreed upon proposition (classic Ti methods), and he can't figure out how to stop it, because he just can't get his mind to work that way, just like I can't get my mind to work in a Te way.

I'm not sure about Kitty. I'm tempted to lean EIE, but then she also seems potentially Te-seeking. Varenka is a Te-ego, I'm pretty sure. Certainly Te/Fi. Stepan is clearly EIE, with the beta NF weakness for taking care of practical details (with a decidedly cause-he-was-too-busy-indulging-his-emotions flair rather than a cause-he-was-too-busy-having-his-head-in-the-clouds flair).

Sadly, the only Austen novels I've read are Persuasion and most of Pride and Prejudice. But I'm sure I'll get to Northanger and Mansfield eventually!

What are the main differences between you and the IEEs you know?

Well, it's a socionics cliche at this point, but it really is true to say that they are "nicer" than me, in a certain sense. They are more concerned with the well-being of others, making sure others feel "okay" with a certain decision. They also tend to be more politically active than I am, especially as college kids. They really take a strong stance on an issue, and consider it almost a moral failing if you fail to agree with that stance. Just as a Ti ego will say, "oh, if you don't agree with this, you must be stupid," an Fi ego (esp. Delta NFs) will say, "oh, if you don't agree with this, you must be inconsiderate/mean/a bad person," or if they really like you, the alternative is that you "just don't have all the facts" or understand the situation fully.

The IEE I've spent the most time with over the past year is Fi subtype, so she doesn't exhibit much of the typical "wild n' crazy Ne zaniness" that one might associate with an Ne subtype. So I act much stranger and much more random than she does.

What else... they seem much more focused on not "jumping to conclusions," whereas I'm completely willing to jump to conclusions. We just tend to have typical communication difficulties---what I emphasize is not what they emphasize. Like, last night, I was in a conversation with myself (IEI), a good friend (IEE) and an acquaintance (Beta NF, not sure which type yet). The conversation was about sophomore slump and following one's passion and what is good or bad about the school we go to, etc. The IEE was focusing on "not taking yourself too seriously" and was clearly somewhat shocked when the Beta NF acquaintance started talking about hazing in the greek life on campus. And she totally did not understand or accept the philosophy of "making a diamond" with a lot of pressure during the pledging process, whereas, even if neither of us were willing to undergo it ourselves, the Beta NF and I sort of had a natural sympathy for that position.

IEEs tend to have a natural distrust of people who are too singlemindedly focused on one goal, whereas I tend to admire those people for being driven, even if they go to extremes at times. Here's another example: I wanted to take a certain class next semester as part of this whole overarching scheme to put me in a good situation for grad school applications. The IEE was clearly very skeptical and thought I was kind of crazy for obsessing and planning that far ahead, but to me it was only natural to have an ambition and go for it, even if it seems premature. I mean, that's how you succeed, right?

Okay, that's all I can think of at the moment, but maybe you could ask some more questions if that's not the sort of thing you were looking for?

Here's something that's been on my mind that could use a little discourse. Recently, with some discussions here and there, I find that I could view Socionics-related issues in different lights between two distinctions: The IEs can be observed separately within a type from one another in their functions (i.e. leading + creative + role, etc. = NeFi) or are viewed in blocks, which the IEs in each block are integrated and don't have a distinguishable separation (i.e. -ego + -superego, etc = NeFi). One could also make the argument of all the blocks being indistinguishable from one another as well, meaning you can't necessarily pinpoint one IE within the mix without making note of the influence and context of all the other IEs in their positions. So far, I think of all of these and wonder if these are steps to be observed, or if there is only one of these ways that is the most affective.

I think observing the difference of these perspectives makes a difference because of how some typing goes on here, for example, I think some people type just looking for IEs and then place each in functions after they have identified them in a person. Like how someone can say they think someone is a "Detla NF," the only way you can say this is if you only observed the IEs separate from functions, or else the same person would have said "-creative," which would be NeFi vs FiNe against NeFi vs SeFi, and depending on which above perspective you prescribe to, FiNe or SeFi would be a closer typing to NeFi.

This would also decide if you can really talk about the IEs and how they relate to others separate from the type and still actually be relatable. So when we talk about , are we talking about the that is removed from types and therefore exists the same way in all types, or, are we talking about that is specific to each type. And when that's not made clear, is that when confusion/disagreement occurs?

I'll stop there to see if this catches your interest, it was something that popped into my head, and since you're asking for discourse, well, here you go

Hmmm... that is interesting/a good topic for discussion. I agree that people tend to either look at the IM-function pair by itself or sort of consider it in general terms. I know I use both. When I'm getting down to sort of nitty-gritty analysis, I'll usually focus on how a given statement or characteristic seems to point to a certain IM in a certain position. I think of this as analogous to analysis in literary criticism, that is, it should be used as proof, as demonstration: analysis as evidence. However, I tend to get the general impression first, and that is more of a view-it-in-blocks or as a whole type thing. So sometimes when typing someone, I'll just say they have an "SLE vibe". That really means that they seem like they have Se and Ti in their ego block, but I don't experience it as "representative of Se and Ti," I experience it as "similar to internal sensations/patterns of behavior I have experienced/noticed when relating to other people of this type." So that's when I type in blocks or in whole types or in sort of generic things like "Gamma NT" or "Beta ST" or "Alpha SF." And labels like "Gamma NT" tend to work for that whole typing-by-impression/association thing because you just sort of get a vibe, but vibes aren't very specific, and so you're sort of leaving room for the fact that while you sort of get the Te vibe and the Ni vibe and the Gamma NT vibe, it may not be totally differentiated yet into ILI vs. LIE, even though there are pretty darn clear differences between the two types, you may not have gotten enough experience to really feel that, but just to feel the Gamma NT part. And that's where the function-by-function analysis would come in to help prove that there's more evidence for one or the other. But I always try to get in the ballpark (less than 6 possible types, preferably four or less) by pure vibe and then let the evidence/analysis part of it take over from there.

The question of whether or not you can talk about IMs in isolation is also a sort of thorny one. I mean, obviously, an IM never acts in isolation. An IM also never "acts" period, but you know what I mean. What I think we mean when we talk about IMs in isolation relative to behavior is "the IM that seems to have the most explanatory power, and the most relevance to this behavior is x." When we talk about IMs relative to one another, I think we're sort of differentiating between how they are generally I guess, with awareness that they will be slightly different based on the function pairing and order, but... you know, some Ti/Fi conflicts will be the same whether it's a beta-delta conflict or a beta-gamma conflict or a gamma-alpha conflict or whatever. Some aspects of it will be similar. And so when we talk about Ti and Fi in isolation, in the pure good of theory, we are talking about those similar aspects.

I hope that makes sense and addresses what you were talking about. If not, let me know, or you can just respond to this and we can continue the conversation, or whatever.

[silverchris9]

how do you feel about Fi PoLR?

DETAILS PLZ

I just wanna say, Fi-polr is sexy/cute/adorable in girls and endearing/comical in males. It's just like who the hell cares, right? Like, go ahead, say really awkward shit. My favorite story is my SLE buddy who once asked a girl if her boobs were fake. And he didn't even know her that well. Like, really? Like, why would you do that, that's so dumb, but it's also like, good for you for not taking stupid shit into consideration. Oh, and there was this wonderful, wonderful moment with one of my new SLE friends from college and this ESI girl. The ESI girl had been playing a little kid in the play we were in, and she's a pretty tiny girl anyway (but also really hot--side note--she's a dancer and I saw her in a hip-hop number and... damn. Just damn.) And so the SLE sort of makes a comment about it, almost treating her like a little kid. And she got this look on her face that was like "I WILL KILLLLEEEE YOU!!!" And it was one of the funniest things ever, and I would never have gotten to experience that moment if it weren't for Fi-polr.

On the more serious side, I think that I find Fi-polr very liberating because it leads ILEs and SLEs to say things without regard to others' feelings. And while that can be a bad thing some times, I personally spend way too much time thinking about others' feelings when I'm deciding what to say. WAY too much time. And so to be around this people who just don't seem to give a shit is wonderful. And then to find out that they DO give a shit (sometimes) and they want to you help them stop and think about that kind of stuff some times (or at least warn them when they're about to step on a landmine)... glorious.

Um, what else... yeah, Fi-polr leads to great comedy times of awesome con frecuencia. I can only hope that ILEs and SLEs find my Te-polr as endearing. Your dual tends to look on your failings with your polr as "oh, that's funny, how cute." There are some times when polr fails aren't met with as much acceptance, like this one time, I was looking for something for my SLE friend and it was in a really obvious place and he was kind of stressed cause we didn't know where it was, but then he looked for it for like four seconds and found it immediately, and I felt really dumb, and he was frustrated for a second, but I just sort of did the "I'm a cute IEI... and you really don't need to freak out about this cause it doesn't matter at all" thing, and, I dunno, he sort of accepted it as part of the package. If you're going to get your "doesn't care about unimportant practical matters" dual, you're going to have to deal with it when those unimportant practical matters come up and they fail at it. Also, I've noticed my Beta ST friends tend to notice my epic fails with practical issues very quickly, and are very aware of them (I suppose that I'm similarly aware of their weaknesses with Fi), but laugh them off, just as I laugh off their tendency to not care about Fi.

Also, Fi-polr means that SLEs and ILEs tend to be less considerate of my feelings in some ways, but in cool ways, like this one time, I was babbling about nothing and no one was listening to me, and this SLE girl I'm friends with just goes, "shut up, Chris." And I did, and it was great. Even when I notice things, I'm very inertial--I always go on until I am stopped and I never am stopped (unless an SLE walks by).

I only worry about Fi-polr if it's going to get people into serious trouble, and then I just do my best to warn them off of whatever their course of action is. But I can't think of a time when I've had to do that. There's a guy I know (probably beta, probably NF over ST though, and dating this incredibly hot SLE girl who tends to take her shirt off at parties) who had sex with this girl, and he's you know into casual everything (like, he has lube just sitting out on his dresser next to his bed, according to this one girl), but she hadn't had sex in a long time, and she was very much emotionally attached (she was an Fi-valuer, probably ESI-Se), and it just turned into a huge mush. If I saw a situation like that, I would do my best to prevent it, just because I don't think an Fi-polr person would notice how much they would fuck with this girl's world (and it really messed her up for a while), and so I'd probably try to intervene in that case.

But 99.99% of the time: Fi-polr is just cool and funny.

Were you looking for a more serious sort of theoretical analysis, or something else, because I can give that too. Just as a general rule: let me know if I'm not giving the kind of answers you wanted/were expecting and I'm always willing to try a different approach.

Can I ask about enneagram, too, since I know little on it other than what I know?

Sure, whatever. I don't know that much about it either, honestly, but I can relate what I do know, and maybe someone with more knowledge can discuss it more fully.

In any case, what type do you think E.E. Cummings is?

Not sure. I'm not that much into his work. But I think he's an Ne-ego (as is, almost unquestionably, Gertrude Stein, another one who liked to experiment with crazy forms). ILE, IEE, or EII are what I'd look into first, with IEE as the front runner. Also, my alpha and delta friends tend to like him rather better than I do. I think he's a little mushy.

[Mattie]

However, I tend to get the general impression first, and that is more of a view-it-in-blocks or as a whole type thing. So sometimes when typing someone, I'll just say they have an "SLE vibe". That really means that they seem like they have Se and Ti in their ego block, but I don't experience it as "representative of Se and Ti," I experience it as "similar to internal sensations/patterns of behavior I have experienced/noticed when relating to other people of this type."

This is my experience as well, and I wonder to what degree others allow this to either dominate or decide their typing. I would say I have this knee-jerk typing, and it's not only with Socionics-related information but with other stuff as well, to give me context to work with until I get a more solid typing, as you related it to literary criticism, finding "evidence" for their type. I don't think I'd ever hand out my observations about someone's type if it was just at this stage, as I feel like it easily glosses over things, and there's the MBTI part of my brain that recognizes that type as well. For instance, my newest coworker is an ESTP FeSi. So my first reaction was that he was a -creative Socionics type, but as I started to look for evidence, he ended up being FeSi.

But I always try to get in the ballpark (less than 6 possible types, preferably four or less) by pure vibe and then let the evidence/analysis part of it take over from there.

The process is pretty much exactly what you said here. A vibe gives me about 4 types, and then I start to narrow it down, and it's usually one of those types, I haven't been that off before.

So that's when I type in blocks or in whole types or in sort of generic things like "Gamma NT" or "Beta ST" or "Alpha SF." And labels like "Gamma NT" tend to work for that whole typing-by-impression/association thing because you just sort of get a vibe, but vibes aren't very specific, and so you're sort of leaving room for the fact that while you sort of get the Te vibe and the Ni vibe and the Gamma NT vibe, it may not be totally differentiated yet into ILI vs. LIE, even though there are pretty darn clear differences between the two types, you may not have gotten enough experience to really feel that, but just to feel the Gamma NT part.

I don't know if it's specifically any use of dichotomies that makes me feel disagreeable about that, but the usage of "Delta NF" bothers me, or worse, when someone feel a person is "ENFx". I feel like these, in degrees, are something of an unawareness of properties associated with the IEs, as an NeFi and FeNi are radically different when you use the perspective of typing by functions. Technically, you can't reach an "ENFx" conclusion if you type by functions, unless you just have a generally uninformed position on the person you're typing. I think I'm becoming more sensitive to those who share certain IE positions rather than any sort of grouping. But you brush against part of what I'm talking about, do you know specifically a vibe that is separate from or influence? Can the same be viewed in both and egos? Or, do you only really observe paired with the Xi IE, not completely distinct?

[somavision]

Why are you the only forum member to have featured in one of my dreams?

[Timeless]

I just wanna say, Fi-polr is sexy/cute/adorable in girls and endearing/comical in males. It's just like who the hell cares, right? Like, go ahead, say really awkward shit.

Reminds me of what I had said to a lady I met near H&M one time:

(Regular conversation)

Me: Hey, let's have casual sex.
Her: (Blank stare)
Her: (Nods and smiles)

... Sure enough.

[silverchris9]

[quote=ananke;650075]1. How come you use so many words?

Because words alone are certain good.

2. How come so many curse words happen to be four letters?

Because curse words, to make the sort of guttural, angry sound they need to in order to sound right, need to generally be monosyllabic, but long enough to squeeze in two consonant sounds that are somewhat at odds with one another. Damn. Shit. Fuck. All those fit the pattern.

3. How come I never fall in love?

Because you aren't willing to lie to yourself. I've decided that I've been single too long (although I haven't been lonely, not in that way), so I'm starting to lie to myself. It hasn't done me much good, but I have to confess that it makes masturbating easier/more pleasurable.

4. How come I am making a list?

It helps to organize the randomness of your brain and accordingly of life.

5. What's the meaning of life?

To know and love God.

6. Is there an afterlife?

Yes. We don't know the ratios, but we know there's something out there.

7. If you imagine for a moment there is no meaning and no afterlife, what does it change?

"Imagine there's no heaven... it isn't hard if you try... no hell below us... above us only sky..." If I imagine all the people, maybe it's okay, but you can't just focus on one side of a thing forever.

Oh, and if there's no meaning... well, I can't imagine that, because meaning is built into the world at a basic basic basic level. Saying there's no meaning is like saying there's nothing, because it's part of the necessary structure of reality. A meaningless world is a meaningless (i.e., semiotically empty) concept. Now, if you're saying imagine we can't discern the meaning or state it propositionally, well, then, I'd just write more poetry, which is what I do anyway.

8. Do I work out too much?

I dunno. I don't work out enough.

9. Should I have more sex?

Again, depends on how much you enjoy lying to yourself, but overall, the answer is morally no and hedonistically yes, although the more difficult pleasure of spirituality is also a greater pleasure. I still believe that.

Also, depends on who you're having more sex with.

10. Out of the selftyped IEIs here, who is most likely not IEI, and why?

Eh. Redbaron is the most different from the IEIs here, so she's the easiest type to question. But she's also a real adult and female and most IEIs here are lonely teenage males, so...

[silverchris9]

Why are you the only forum member to have featured in one of my dreams?

Because I'm so. damn. sexy.

[somavision]

Because I'm so. damn. sexy.

You did do that thing, just before I woke up.

[redbaron]

Eh. Redbaron is the most different from the IEIs here, so she's the easiest type to question. But she's also a real adult and female and most IEIs here are lonely teenage males, so...

hmmm..... a 'real adult', eh? I'd say that it's fairly amazing how much I agree with nearly everything you say, silverchris, given the age/life experience difference. Not that that alone makes me IEI, but nevertheless.

[redbaron]

Is it true that 90% of Internet users are IEI?

[discojoe]

pics

[silverchris9]

hmmm..... a 'real adult', eh? I'd say that it's fairly amazing how much I agree with nearly everything you say, silverchris, given the age/life experience difference. Not that that alone makes me IEI, but nevertheless.

Oh, yeah, you're obviously IEI. I was just sort of side-stepping the question, because I can't really think of an IEI I don't consider IEI. Eh... Pirate might be EIE. But this is true, we do agree on a lot of things. Type transcends life experience and all that jazz!

In what way is it a lie to fall in love?

You almost always have to convince yourself that the person you're in love with is someone else, or that they will solve "the problem". I mean, if we're talking, true, deep, fall on the floor, you make my life complete love. There's probably a mature kind of love that doesn't require as much lying. And also the dating process and the whole flirting thing involves a lot of fakeness, in my opinion. I want to skip straight to the part where we're real with one another.

I tried, but I don't see any Gods around.

Bad eyes. Me too, most days. Try visiting an Orthodox service, maybe they are different, maybe they aren't. Maybe they're just different from me. But still, the spirit has a spark and the spark has an origin in flame, and I am persuaded that there is a God who lives, and in some sense lives in me.

We do? Why don't I see it?

Because you have logical ideas that make it impossible for it to be there. Because you have proofs that it is not there. Because it being there is just an assumption. But I think it is perceptible. Didn't Socrates believe in the immortality of the soul?

What is meaning, then?

When people ask that question, what they mean is, what is the ultimate referent of meaning. Because obviously you know what meaning is. Meaning is the quality whereby you are able to derive a cognitive impression from these shapes that appear on your computer screen. But if you trace meaning back and back and back and back, what is it? I think it is the same thing as being. Meaning is the property whereby one can come to an awareness of being.

Try boxing.

I might.

Morally no? Why is that?

Because God exists. But better yet, because the world is structured in such a way that having sex with lots of people rather than with one partner (and maybe even--ugh--only for the purposes of procreation, but we're going to hope and pray that's not the case) inhibits people from realizing themselves, from instressing their inscape, from achieving the fullness of their souls, from enacting all the potentials, from full instantiating their unique Form (I think BnD calls it their Idea, although he detaches the personality component of the Idea from the moral or character component. I think you can't have one without the other).

If I could choose between an IEI, an LSI and an ILE, who would you recommend and why?

Obviously it depends on a hell of a lot of factors more than type. I know an IEI and an LSI right now both of whom I've flirted with a little, I guess, and while the LSI I guess is technically closer to what socionics says I should go for, the IEI is just more attractive. She has a sexy voice.

Honestly, if it's a one night stand, unless the LSI has serious chops/experience in bed (or there are other important mitigating factors), go for the IEI.

In what way is she different? And what type would you consider for her?

I dunno. She's less externally :SOIABO"IQ V"{UQW {F@")+!@L F:U(B APCJO"ACJKOU W{EUV IW?C
}PIWQ DBU>V<CW {FPI)NV<?AIW C the meaning of life is the repetition the repetition the constant resounding resounding what a gathering gathering it will be what a gathering gathering gathering it will be O God may my soul soar so far o'er its bound that I never see ground again! #fullthroatedmusicaltheaterbelting.

But like I said, I wouldn't actually consider another type. If she had to look at another type, it would be SEI, because she's obviously Fe-valuing. The only problem is that she's only slightly less obviously NOT Ne-valuing. So IEI is by far the best fit.

[thePirate]

Eh... Pirate might be EIE.
.

Im entertaining the idea, although its highly doubtful

would like to hear your thoughts on it though =X

[redbaron]

Im entertaining the idea, although its highly doubtful

would like to hear your thoughts on it though =X

Pirate, have you done a VI thread?

[discojoe]

He looks like Obama. Not kidding.

[redbaron]

You almost always have to convince yourself that the person you're in love with is someone else, or that they will solve "the problem". I mean, if we're talking, true, deep, fall on the floor, you make my life complete love. There's probably a mature kind of love that doesn't require as much lying. And also the dating process and the whole flirting thing involves a lot of fakeness, in my opinion. I want to skip straight to the part where we're real with one another.

this is kind of cynical but I think I get what you're saying. You don't need the puppy love that turns out to be crap after awhile. But I'll also point out that you yourself have admitted that you've never been in a romantic dual relationship. And although I haven't either, I've watched them unfold. And I think.... you won't be disappointed.

I dunno. She's less externally :SOIABO"IQ V"{UQW {F@")+!@L F:U(B APCJO"ACJKOU W{EUV IW?C
}PIWQ DBU>V<CW {FPI)NV<?AIW C the meaning of life is the repetition the repetition the constant resounding resounding what a gathering gathering it will be what a gathering gathering gathering it will be O God may my soul soar so far o'er its bound that I never see ground again! #fullthroatedmusicaltheaterbelting.

I do that stuff in the privacy of my own mind, I guess. No need to angst about it over the internet. Especially at my age. lol

[thePirate]

He looks like Obama. Not kidding.

Pirate, have you done a VI thread?

no, privacy reasons.

but, I have had people from here VI me

I dont believe in it as a whole, very rarely have I seen it be helpful and those were only in really obvious cases - blue moon where members would form consensus.

if you VI, I definitely wouldnt mind showing you tho

[silverchris9]

I don't understand, but maybe that's why I don't fall in love. What is the use of it, if it's fake?

Yeah. Eh. Romance is a tricky proposition.

What persuades you?

The trees. How it sort of makes sense for there to be a God that is the source of being. How the Bible has lots of pretty words. The feeling in my tummy. The sentimental education of my childhood. The apprehension of God.

Mostly, I guess, because I see so much in the world that I expect for all of that to have a source, a cause, a generance. What makes the motor run? Or better yet, what is the source of the meaning, what means not relatively or proximately, but for itself? If there's sort of a chain of "because"s leading back to the source, the creator/sustainer of the beauty and the value in the world, what's at the end of the chain? The world is so terribly, achingly gorgeous, however cliche it is to say that, and I have to suppose there is an aggregate of that energy, a pure form. And the story of Jesus is just the best story ever. And it did revolutionize the world. And when I seriously try to study I only get half-way, but even from ten leagues away, I can feel the warmth and the heat.

And more than that, more than that there's this sort of immovable thing that's pretty far deep in my soul that realizes and accepts and communicates (in some limited sense) with God. That's why I believe in God. Because I believe in God.

So immortality is illogical?

I think immorality is contrary to the nature of things, and as such it is illogical to behave immorally, yes.

And the meaning is to believe in God? I don't understand.

No, the meaning isn't anything specific... the meaning is the inherent value of everything. The meaning is people being kind to one another. The meaning can even be guessed by the absence of meaning. Why was I sad when I heard my friend got raped? Because there was something missing. Because there was an absence. Maybe we don't notice that meaning or wholeness when it's present, but only when it's gone.

Doesn't God like sex?

It's not his favorite thing. On the serious tip, I'm sure he likes it fine, but I bet he wants people to only use it in a specific way.

How/why will having sex with lots of people prevent you from realizing yourself and your soul?

I dunno. I mean... if you sort of believe sex is a crazy metaphysical union thing, that it has some symbol-transcendent reality as a meaningful act, then the sharing of yourself with multiple persons seems like a bad thing. And I don't know, to enter into a woman's body seems awfully sacred, like something you don't deserve to do unless you've made some sort of awful sacrifice. And I understand, women enjoy sex too, this is an outmoded Victorian model wherein women are the keepers of virtue, blah blah blah. But still. If nothing else, casual sex depletes the symbol of meaning, and the symbol is important as a precursor to the symbol of life. If sex is sacred then we're better able to understand a really important metaphor for who/what God is, how life works, etc.

But really it's more the sort of attitude that leads to seeking sex than the actual seeking sex. I think it's the attitude that seeks physical satisfaction. I know I sound like an old prude, but old prudes have to be right about some things, right?

And then... I dunno, I think that it's just sort of a part of the world, a part of the nature of things that to act in certain ways is for the health of your soul, to act in other ways is not for the health of your soul. I don't know that I can prove it, just like I cannot prove that poems mean something. You have to sort of let the poem get into you, and then you find where it fits in your life, where it "comes true".

Oh.

Let's pretend that the LSI is very experienced, but married to somebody else that he doesn't care about, and the IEI is in love with you, but you don't love him back. Then what should you do?

How badly are you going to break this IEIs heart? Are you going to start crying in the middle like George and Meredith on Grey's Anatomy back when that show still had a brain as well as genitals? Is he? Honestly, I'm sort of into IEIs, so I would still personally go for the IEI, but... eh.

Is that your honest opinion?

Yeah. I'm very much cool with the idea that you don't have to be as insane as me to be an IEI. I hope that's true. Actually, Redbaron is probably closer to a classical IEI than I am. Although if I'm being 100% honest, I don't see a whole lot of either Ni or Si (but definitely Fe, and what I believe to be Se-dualseeking), and so I guess I'm taking her word for it.


Also: all people on the internet ARE IEI. We're lonely.

RB, I dunno. I'm sort of scared of being in a happy relationship. I mean, I'm scared of being in a relationship period (which is why I'm not in one), but especially a happy one. Then where will the longing in my heart go? And if I don't have longing, how will I write poems?

[Lotus]

what are you on?

[silverchris9]

what are you on?

Just life. And poetry. But poetry really can drive you crazy, just like it did Don Quixote, and Madame Bovary, and Anna Karenina...

[silverchris9]

My original hypothesis was that he's looking for attention. Now I think he's depressed.

You were right the first time. I think I might be slightly happier if I were depressed.

I see. But aren't you describing the same self deceptive feelings as those of falling in love?

Yup! But I think when you're aware of the totality, all that is still there. Romantic love, like any mental conception, is based on what actually is. And so my method of guessing God from forests is based on what actually is. It is only self-deceptive insofar as it limits truth. Romantic love, as I discuss below, is a sort of trap for me, I fear, that will make it too easy for me to limit truth. But I believe that even if I did not limit my perceptions (as if that were possible), I would find the world more holy than hell.

I think you have it backwards. Meaninglessness becomes obvious when the wholeness is gone.

We might just disagree here. Divining presence through absence is the art of poetry, for me. If we experience pain at the lack of wholeness, isn't it because we are aware that there is something missing? And from the shape of the hole can't we divine what might have filled it?

So he likes trees to be free, but he doesn't like human nature to be free?

Different concepts of freedom. If freedom is the freedom to do whatever we want, God, I think, wants us to have that freedom (my beliefs say he gave it to us, but I don't suppose I can really prove that), but then to use it in a certain way. That makes sense, doesn't it? Hey, look, you can choose--but choose me. Don't lovers say that all the time? (I can think of one instance by Cristina Rossetti off the top of my head.) He likes human nature to be free, but freedom isn't doing whatever you want. The makers of the Constitution wanted to create a "free people" but not by letting everyone do whatever they wanted. I think your conception of what constitutes the core of freedom is horribly limited.

I find it analogous to the question of writerly freedom. One is "free" to write anything in a boring sense: one can scramble up letters in any form and call it poetry. This is the sort of libertarian freedom you seem to be talking about. But only Shakespeare, only the best poets are "free" to write about anything in the real sense, that they are free to represent any character they choose, because they are able, they have the capacity, the power, the freedom to represent any character. Shakespeare was "free" to express any passion, whereas a lower writer is not, because he is bound by his adherence to convention or lack of verbal resources. I think the second type of freedom (which I hope has something in common with "classical freedom") is more relevant to the question of whether or not God wants human nature to be free.

Ask that God of yours if she can tell you the difference between fears and truth. I don't think you need all those fearbased rules of yours, but since you won't trust me, ask God.

Explain to me how they are based in fear. Explain to me how fear being a part of a motivation for believing something has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the thing believed is true. You think your faith in Necessity, in the Limit beyond which there is no agency, you think that has no element of fear? Fear of what you could do, fear of what you're failing to do? Every motive is a part of every act. Most ideas, words, language, and form exist to limit truth.

Why on earth do they have to be right about anything?

Odds. Also, "every convention is based on nature; every convention fails nature."

By having soulless sex, you have come to the conclusion that it's not right? Or didn't you read the poem before interpreting it?

The idea that one must experience something to have any knowledge about it is so obvious a fallacy that I shouldn't provide any argument against it.

You want somebody to choose you, don't you? Why don't you choose yourself?

You wanna psychoanalyze me? You wanna psychoanalyze me, motherfucka? Me? I'm the king! You can't psychoanalyze the king! The king has no component parts; you can't psychoanalyze the king! King Kong... ain't got nothin'... on me!

Also "choose yourself" is even thinner bullshit than my bullshit. It is corrupt without being charming.

But to the point! Of course I want someone to choose me. You want someone to choose you. Everybody wants to be chosen. Everybody wants to be needed, wanted, etc. The people who write songs for boy bands know that. I can't just "choose myself." If it were that simple---and it is, if you make yourself believe that, but to do so you have to lie, you have to limit knowledge---then everyone would have done it already if they're not idiots. If the lobotomy worked, we'd all have had one by now. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't.

There is always a next level of longing. You can't write love poems forever.

I don't write love poems. I do write out of longing for another person. I suppose even in a romantic relationship I would be unable to achieve the perfect unity of personhood my soul longs for (I relate this to enneagram sexual btw, and it's also in Robert Browning's "Two in the Campagna"). But I'm afraid that that romantic relationship would feel so good that I would force myself to forget that it isn't that ideal, and therefore forget that ideal. I refuse to settle. If I trusted myself to recognize the romantic relationship for what it is, to accept that it isn't the ideal, and still long for the ideal and not use the second best as a pacifier for the longing out of which I write my poems (which is a longing for, like I said, perfect, impossible unity of personhood, which itself is only a metaphor for the Thing, which doesn't have a name--Plato calls it The Good, Stevens calls it the sun--"the sun must bear no name, gold flourisher, but be/in the difficulty of what it is to be.") In fact, I understand it better now. It is difficult for me to understand my longing for the Good, the Sun, Being Itself, What Is outside of its mediation through another human being, and through perfect unity and sharing of the self with that other human being. I am afraid that love would give me such a measure of happiness I would take it for the full. But if I stopped longing for the Good, I could no longer call myself a poet. A poet is one who longs for the Good through metaphors (i.e., all men), and has also "loved and been well nurtured in his mother tongue." Whitman also wrote out of desire for the lover, btw. Or at least I'm going to argue that in my Doctoral Thesis one day, and it will be my first book. It will be called "The Fiction of the Lover" and the subtitle will be "Desire in Whitman, Yeats, Shelley, Shakespeare." The ideas will be plagiarized from Helen Vendler's book "Invisible Listeners," but will overgo that book so heavily...

[Rubicon]

Man, I really like you, silverchris. :redface: And thanks for the Levin answer - makes sense!

[silverchris9]

Man, I really like you, silverchris. :redface: And thanks for the Levin answer - makes sense!

Thanks. I'm a huge fan of AK. Although honestly, Levin drove me crazy (and I have another 200 pages to go, actually).

I think I expressed what I was worried about much more clearly in the post above. And you're right---idealization is a step on the road to love. Good point. But my central concern is more for myself, that I might continue to overestimate it, to consider love as the Solution, when nothing's the Solution, except maybe God.

I take myself too seriously, I know. But I think I'm talking about bigger stuff than duality. I think I'm talking about what solves the problem, what will make us happy and content, what will fix us (and don't tell me we don't need fixing, that's just shutting your eyes to one side of the binary)... duality, I suppose, when I find a girl and fall in love, will be great. But it would be a grand mistake to consider that relationship the solution, no matter how great it is. And I want to keep longing for that unattainable goal, because the greater our desire, the greater the power we produce through the resistance to our desire, and thus the brighter our metaphorical lamp can be; with that power, we achieve poetry.

The Solution is also what Suffices. You can know the one by the other. What suffices is what is complete. What suffices? Nothing suffices. Whenever I say the word suffice, it is an allusion to Wallace Stevens' poem "Of Modern Poetry."

[redbaron]

Silverchris, you're scared that duality love will solve all your problems and make you too happy so that you'll stop writing poems and longing for God? Nah. I don't believe it.

[Mattie]

Not sure if you saw my response to your post or not, or if you just got more interested in this other conversation

[silverchris9]

Not sure if you saw my response to your post or not, or if you just got more interested in this other conversation

Definitely saw it. Distracted by shiny glittery psychoanalysis. Apologies for not responding sooner.

Silverchris, you're scared that duality love will solve all your problems and make you too happy so that you'll stop writing poems and longing for God? Nah. I don't believe it.

Yeah, I guess not, we'll see. And not quite God. I mean, yes, technically, it is God, I suppose (or it is in God), but... meh. whatever.

[Mattie]

Definitely saw it. Distracted by shiny glittery psychoanalysis. Apologies for not responding sooner.

No worries, I just know that sometimes when there's quick replies, I don't notice certain posts just from the sheer luck of the refresh rate. Other than that, the world depends on you to flush out and solve this crisis for once. You must respond!

[Linas]

haha, you're so me, and not me at the same time. but i see certain patterns, tendencies hidden behind the layers... Why so? lol

[Lotus]

Just life. And poetry. But poetry really can drive you crazy, just like it did Don Quixote, and Madame Bovary, and Anna Karenina...

do you consider yourself crazy? or on the road to becoming crazy? can you even foresee such a thing?

My original hypthesis was that he's looking for attention. Now I think he's depressed.

maybe. i just assumed he has a lot of time on his hands and no one to spend it with. or he's hyper-focused on ritalin or something because that is a lot of focused socionics writing to be coming from one person.

silverchris, you must be very self-motivated (or bored).

[Airman]

As you seem to know socionics well, I´d like to ask you the types of famous people, Silverchris.

here they are:

Sharon Stone
Michelle Pfeiffer
Osama bin Laden
George Bush Senior and Junior
Arnold Schwarzenneger
Tom Cruise

so far these.

[redbaron]

I thought BinLaden was IEI and Tom Cruise ESE.

[discojoe]

silverchris, what do you think of ENTjs?

[silverchris9]

f you

Hey, I think I was right, on a purely statistical level, just sayin'. (tongue stick-out smiley). But the other half are attractive and non-lonely females who I don't know how old they are but are roughly late teens earlyish twenties, right?

Other than that, the world depends on you to flush out and solve this crisis for once. You must respond!

I think it's an extinguishment thing, because at first I couldn't tell (and I still can't really) to exactly what degree you're making fun of me. Not that I'm in any way offended, but I just thought that was pertinent to this thread.

EDIT:

Also, I may not be useful on this thread until I go home on Friday, because right now I'm just staying at school and have, surprisingly and happily, found lots of friends to drink with, so, fingers crossed, I should be wasted (and therefore not up for theoretical discussions of socionics) every night until I go home.

[silverchris9]

do you consider yourself crazy? or on the road to becoming crazy? can you even foresee such a thing?


maybe. i just assumed he has a lot of time on his hands and no one to spend it with. or he's hyper-focused on ritalin or something because that is a lot of focused socionics writing to be coming from one person.

silverchris, you must be very self-motivated (or bored).

a) No, I am not crazy, primarily because I remain in control of my faculties. However, I do think that... in order to do what I want to do with my life (read and write poetry, especially writing, but also reading well, because, however much bullshit it is, Harold Bloom isn't entirely wrong to consider reading, writing, and teaching three names for the same activity), I have to be somewhat "unmoored." That is, most people can afford to have strictly and clearly defined semiotic relationships. They can afford to believe cliches and sort of generalized statements which are mostly true. But if I'm really going to write poetry, I can't afford to believe those things. I can't afford to believe much of anything. I'm explaining myself badly.

Lately I've been working on a sort of literary critical theory about the nature of madness in Shakespeare, particularly King Lear and Hamlet. I think that Lear and Hamlet are both mad in the way that poets are mad: they are unmoored. Because all (absolutely all) of Lear's semiotic associations have failed him--that is, because things have failed to mean what he believed them to mean--he goes mad. And that madness, which is the extreme of uncertain semiotic relations, is the madness that poets need. Because it is out of that madness (and in that madness) that Lear changes himself.

So, do I think that I will every actually go insane? No, not if things go according to plan. But do I think that the state I want to attain and out of which I think I will write my best work has some relationship to madness? Yes, I suspect so. I mean, I think that great writers are playing with fire to some degree. You're tapping into the engine that normally just runs in the background of the mind. You have to be careful with that.

I think (and I realize this is a controversial/asshole-ish thing to say) that insanity does have an element of giving up to it. I'm aware that it's chemical in nature, blah blah blah, but I dunno, your mind has a huge effect on your body, especially the deep layers of your mind, and I think at a very deep layer, for some people (say, Nietzche), insanity comes from an inability to sustain the forceful wedding of opposites, or from a sort of failure to wed the opposites on the same layer of the mind. Nietzche, in particular (who had, I believe, read Dostoevsky), went crazy (I like to think) partially in response to his "subconscious" awareness of certain truths about compassion and "slave morality" which he had repressed in order to explore the full truth of the violent world. His mind wasn't strong enough to sustain such strong awareness of both.

One of the differences between a poet and a madman is that the poet rides the track of the storm and sort of controls the direction--James is diving and Nora is sinking.

b) I do have a lot of time on my hands now. I was insanely over-committed this semester in college, but I have nothing lined up to do at home (I'm going to maybe audition for some things and of course try to get a summer job), so this thread is designed to partially cushion the blow of losing not only all of that busy-ness (I love being busy), but also losing all the intelligent conversation I have the opportunity to enjoy, being constantly surrounded by 4,000 brilliant people.