Thanks Arthur battletyping split from "Between XEIs"

[DividedsGhost]

I don't know what's more ridiculous, TA self-typing as SEI, or thinking he can type other people SEI when he can't even get his typing right.

We've got another winner here.

Well they always said if it was raining cats and dogs...I guess now I won't have to worry about money for the rest of my life.

[Aleksei]

TA is SEI. He types using archetypes and relationships and has in the past bitched IM elements are too abstract, and he seems to have a poor grasp of rhetorical argumentation. I'd actually argue his Ti-HA is poorer than he thinks it is.

[DividedsGhost]

^ That's very true and what you say was almost enough to fool me. However, his orientation is that of an ILE-Ne with little concern over the concrete practical application of the theory (which also leaves IEE, however nothing about him suggests Fi-valuing, but quite the opposite, since he is not at all a stranger to using Ti judgments to make others look foolish or unwelcome with zero remorse). Fi-demonstrative in an SEI is of a very blunt, innocent nature that allows ILEs to know when they have overstepped their play and bounds, without leaving them feeling unwelcome and disliked. This is how it manifests in practical observation for the theory to hold and make any god damn sense.

And everything he posts has an Ne flavor, not only non-consistent with SEIs, but not at all consistent with the grounded nature of an Si leading, Se observing type. It just isn't logically coherent for him to have an ILE's usage of Ne and still keep an Si leading framework of mind. Si leading are some of the most grounded people and are content with the more simpler pleasures. His typing goes against all simple observational theory and his mind works nothing like the quieter nature of an Si dominant would. Si quiets excessive Ne, and Ne sparks the much less frequented Ne in an SEI, in very basic applicable and enjoyable sense for both people or the typings are most likely wrong.

If he wants to address (or in other words thinks he can address) these basic caveats with the theory, then I would love to hear it and would even appreciate it. But for now, he seems extremely clueless, and he's not the only one. Unless I am missing something and no one really cares to talk about or understand socionics and are just putting random typings into their avatar for improved social affect (deterring prejudice in another sense). But I would like to hope otherwise.

[Aleksei]

He doesn't appear to use in analysis at all or be, far as I can tell at least, very good at sparking novel ideas (though not for lack of trying -- which itself is more subtype-related), so I'm not sure where you're getting that his posts have an flavor. Goofiness/lightness itself is more than anything.

[DividedsGhost]

I don't know if you've noticed it, but people often display their observing function online more than their leading. In fact, it is common for those new to the theory to confuse unconscious functions for their conscious ones. But back on point.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...910#post731910

If I'm having a guest around who will need somewhere to sleep, throw out anything in my room that needs throwing out, and make sure there are clear paths to places. Also lay down nice clean sheets so they have somewhere really nice to sleep.

Make sure there's enough equipment for feeding.

I'd also shower and wash my hair (something having a ponytail has allowed me to be lazy with, fu fu fu), but if I'm just having a few several couple drunks then I'll probably just stop at a shampoo... or a rinse if it hasn't been too long since my last good hair-washing.

Here we get a good glimpse of a person that does not sort everything through an Si framework. Clearing paths and making sure a clear spot is around for someone to sleep is not a good indication of Si. And the rest is very good to read as well.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...908#post731908

Which of the two appears more socially "keyed in" or involved in what's happening around them? Which of the two appears, then, on the other hand, as being spaced out and less involved in the situation at hand?

Is it perhaps not as simple as that? Subtypes perhaps?

Here we get a good glimpse of his asking style of interaction - that of an ILE. SEIs have declaring which helps correct and manage the ILEs Fi-PoLR.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...901#post731901

It's just a random pointless exercise in curiosity too see if there's anything sufficiently typable in the material provided.

I don't think I need to explain this one.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...954#post731954

According to the first dream analysis hit on google, that means you're a chatbox And also you perhaps have unaddressed fears of failure, or perhaps they're just topical (ties in with the university dreams, thematically).

In my case it's probably just my dissociation issues rearing their head. The common thread is I'm dying or being damaged permanently and I can't stop it happening.

Generally my dreams are really average day-to-day stuff, just with weird dream logic in effect in some detail or other, like a television talking to me, or being embedded in a table, or a Buckingham palace guard being at school. I always just chalked it up to Si taking in situations around me and spinning them into dreams.

Ni-observing. Ni role in an SEI is a tool of reluctance. In fact the role function is a function that one uses reluctantly in all types and as a way to deal with what their valued functions miss and can't deal with.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...668#post730668

Lol, at the very end of the day we parted ways and I slept on the couch. Does that answer your question? That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CILi
I wish you could VA your posts or something.

This place'd be even better.
Good idea! I'll start doing that from now on.

Hear we see haphazard Si, again associated with high Ne. It is very common for Ne-leading to end up "sleeping on the couch" or spending the night "somewhere" outside of the home that an Si leading tends to find uncomfortable and will demonstrate with Fi if they feel the need to.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...652#post730652

Hmm. A lot of it was trying to introduce her to Socionics and get her to take it seriously, because she's done that thing that ILEs do where they take a system and decide they know it better (only in her case it's pure Jung) but equally a lot of goofing off and random chatter about... everything. She's planning out how I can break into voice acting for me And we also made fun of people who dial in for phone sex. Seriously, we were talking for so long I can barely tell. And stuff about being kids.

I suspect this is really an identical relationship. Here he attempted to convince someone of the validity of Socionics. Ti-HA doesn't feel a need to demonstrate or understand complicated Ti concepts in great detail, but rather wants the end result and conclusions for reassurance, so they don't have to feel dumb or think that they don't understand anything. Remember they have a Te-PoLR which makes them the farthest removed from treating the world as objects and instead as special unique subjects. Ti-HA gives them the ability to bridge gaps without having to be objective and make sense of the world without having to revert to treating it as a box of 'objects'. It doesn't attempt to persuade the validity of a theory that needs to be objectively verified. They are wary of Te. This is not SEI behavior.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...330#post730330

I've been watching this series, Mushishi (again again again, I never get sick of it, but besides the point). The main character, Ginko, always speaks in this slurry, laconic way. It's really distinctive, and makes me wonder if it's in any way significant for his characterisation. Like, is it something that instantly jumps out as being, like, "Oh! That says he's such-and-such a person!"?

Here we have the asking reinin dichotomy, rather than declaring, and an example of Ni-observing fueling Ne.

[http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...641#post729641

Yes, Jarno, I can see how you would stay stuck "observing" females' "types" online.

Ni-observing, yet again.

I just don't see how SEI makes any bit of sense. If he wants to believe he is SEI, then fine, but if he does, he's not following Socionics.

[The Ineffable]

I don't know what's more ridiculous, TA self-typing as SEI, or thinking he can type other people SEI when he can't even get his typing right.

With the former, you play safe. I usually disagree with his "SEI" typings, my gf (SEI) as well - she actually often complains to me that TA made yet another flippant SEI typing. Though, I think he's rather having fun and there's no point in correcting those, although I frown at these, as I find bloat counter-productive in anything.

Now because of this playfulness, you may want to be careful to the "evidence". I also considered ILE, but on short: consider ESE, too. I think that he's too impulsive, inaccurate, slightly (only slightly) condescending-ironic and patronizing. Has that "I'm going with this and see what happens, FTW" habit, unlike a logical Creative. OK, to make a choice is maybe not that easy for an Alpha, but still, when this is chronic haste, it's rather Fe-Base than Ne (even less likely Ti-Creative).

I just don't see how SEI makes any bit of sense. If he wants to believe he is SEI, then fine, but if he does, he's not following Socionics.

My thoughts.

[Creepy-male]

You need to brush up on your critical thought. There are lots of mistakes here. Either that or you're just very emotionally invested in my type. Why would that be?

Here we get a good glimpse of a person that does not sort everything through an Si framework. Clearing paths and making sure a clear spot is around for someone to sleep is not a good indication of Si. And the rest is very good to read as well.

How? Explain this point and what I've just demonstrated. At the moment it's a completely baseless assertion.

Here we get a good glimpse of his asking style of interaction - that of an ILE. SEIs have declaring which helps correct and manage the ILEs Fi-PoLR.

Confirmation bias. And also black-and-white thinking.

Here's an alternative hypothesis: I'm NeTi super-id. I ask lots of questions because I'm trying to get people to connect the dots for me.

I don't think I need to explain this one.

You really should. This just betrays how absolutely certain you are of your correctness. Bad Milkor.

Ni-observing. Ni role in an SEI is a tool of reluctance. In fact the role function is a function that one uses reluctantly in all types and as a way to deal with what their valued functions miss and can't deal with.

I can't argue with this because you didn't say anything. How is what I posted a demonstration of Ni ignoring?

Hear we see haphazard Si, again associated with high Ne. It is very common for Ne-leading to end up "sleeping on the couch" or spending the night "somewhere" outside of the home that an Si leading tends to find uncomfortable and will demonstrate with Fi if they feel the need to.

"Hear we see me taking a random event and then arbitrarily analyse it in such a way that supports my pet theory."

I suspect this is really an identical relationship. Here he attempted to convince someone of the validity of Socionics. Ti-HA doesn't feel a need to demonstrate or understand complicated Ti concepts in great detail, but rather wants the end result and conclusions for reassurance, so they don't have to feel dumb or think that they don't understand anything. Remember they have a Te-PoLR which makes them the farthest removed from treating the world as objects and instead as special unique subjects. Ti-HA gives them the ability to bridge gaps without having to be objective and make sense of the world without having to revert to treating it as a box of 'objects'. It doesn't attempt to persuade the validity of a theory that needs to be objectively verified. They are wary of Te. This is not SEI behavior.

Lol, as it turns out, my alleged ILE is in fact EIE.

"It doesn't attempt to persuade the validity of a theory that needs to be objectively verified. They are wary of Te. This is not SEI behavior."

Um. My argument was, "I've found that Socionics works beautifully accurately in real life, in my experience. OTOH, you're telling me it's a crock of the proverbial substance. This contradicts my experience, so if you'll just please slow down for a second and listen to me..." There was no "objective verification" anywhere.

I am a Sensor. If someone tells me that something I've seen with my own two eyes is wrong, then they're wrong. It's really as simple as that and has nothing to do with Te.

Here we have the asking reinin dichotomy, rather than declaring, and an example of Ni-observing fueling Ne.

Reinin asking/declaring is not "asks questions/makes statements".

Ni-observing, yet again.

I just don't see how SEI makes any bit of sense. If he wants to believe he is SEI, then fine, but if he does, he's not following Socionics.

I sincerely hope this is a joke, or that you're just too excited that you've finally cracked my case in one fell swoop of utter genius, because this is utterly idiotic.

Implicit in that statement, whether you consciously chose to imply it or not, owing to the internal structure of Socionics (and hi, I'm a maths nerd, I have a really dim awareness of basic logic; which in no way breaks socionics FTR), is that all my intertypes are broken. To be able to assert that you would have to be experiencing my life first-hand, and observing and experiencing all my close relationships.

Obviously that is impossible, and it's incredibly frustrating that you seem to think you're such an expert to a degree that makes you immune to this.

What I would suggest is that you leave this discussion for a few days and come back when you can think clearly. At this stage it honestly does not appear as if you can, and I don't particularly care for angry confrontations or people who are convinced they're right.

You can of course reply, but I will ignore you. Have a nice day.

[Aleksei]

Here we get a good glimpse of a person that does not sort everything through an Si framework. Clearing paths and making sure a clear spot is around for someone to sleep is not a good indication of Si.

...that actually is an excellent indicator of , as is the rest of that post. Si essentially consists of awareness of how to create a pleasant atmosphere of oneself and others, which is kind of what he's doing there.

Here we get a good glimpse of his asking style of interaction - that of an ILE. SEIs have declaring which helps correct and manage the ILEs Fi-PoLR.

Super-id leakage. He actually seems declaring in personal conversations -- he rambles on and on non-stop.

Ni-observing. Ni role in an SEI is a tool of reluctance. In fact the role function is a function that one uses reluctantly in all types and as a way to deal with what their valued functions miss and can't deal with.

Clarify how that's Ni as opposed to Ne.

Here we have the asking reinin dichotomy, rather than declaring

Out of curiosity, what do you think the Asking/Declaring dichotomy actually is? (Hint: It's not exactly what it says on the tin).

[Mediator Kam]

TA is stepping up the logical talk. Watch out.

And I have found the declaring renin dichotomy to be pretty well described. I make statements all the time, even when asking a question, I will try to frame it in a way that it is more stating subconsciously. Everything I write is just statements after statement, and any questions are either direct or they are rhetorical. TA better be this way.

[Aleksei]

TA is stepping up the logical talk. Watch out.

And I have found the declaring renin dichotomy to be pretty well described. I make statements all the time, even when asking a question, I will try to frame it in a way that it is more stating subconsciously. Everything I write is just statements after statement, and any questions are either direct or they are rhetorical.

But do you find yourself making long, rambling speeches, or do you prefer back-and-forth dialogue?

[The Ineffable]

But do you find yourself making long, rambling speeches, or do you prefer back-and-forth dialogue?

Just tell him what each means, cause he wants to be SEI.

[Mediator Kam]

But do you find yourself making long, rambling speeches, or do you prefer back-and-forth dialogue?

I do both, although I can sense if people are not following me if i do ramble, and I will ask "You know what I mean?" to make sure they are on track. One to one, obviously I want back and forth, but if I am the center of attention and people want to listen to me, I will draw out what I am saying and flesh it out some more.

Just tell him what each means, cause he wants to be SEI.

I am SEI. That much is apparent.

[Sir Knight]

Geez, you ask a question and suddenly you have a YOU'RE NOT YOUR TYYYYPE! gangbang called upon you from out of nowhere!

[DividedsGhost]

Wow, this forum is clueless. Okay, you are SEI. I tried to help. If you can't understand anything I have written or are going to interpret anything I say any way you want, but the way it was shown and intended, fine, it's your problem, not mine. I made a decent case and if you can't be bothered to explain the basic principles of how you properly connect everything together and consider that your understanding might be missing important basic logical premises of the theory or can properly refute mine, then I'm wasting my time too.

And I am slightly emotionally vested because half of you are perpetuating things that are extremely contradictory and senseless; this keeps people from understanding something that could be used to help them understand themselves. I have first-hand experience with almost all the types and have put a lot of thought into analyzing each one, over and over, theory after theory, sifting, sorting, reading opinions, starting from scratch, and this is the only thing that will make any sense for the relations. You haven't refuted or addressed anything I have said with any kind of rationale, other than accusatory behavior and non-sequitur. And that has nothing to do with whether you are an SEI, but if you want to believe being a lazy rational means you are truly another type apart from the cognitive energy you display, fine do that too and add to all the baseless generalities that overflow this forum. I will no longer help because I don't have the energy to keep up with this. Enjoy keeping the discussions in this place at a school-yard social level; enjoy your right to blissfully disregard my thoughts and well-structured logic with all of the ignorance you can muster.

[DividedsGhost]

I will answer your questions since you at least are willing to consider what I say.

...that actually is an excellent indicator of , as is the rest of that post. Si essentially consists of awareness of how to create a pleasant atmosphere of oneself and others, which is kind of what he's doing there.

No, an Si dominant will have things clean and cozy. They don't like having stuff piled everywhere and put comfort at a maximum compared to other types. These types focus on aesthetics more than any other type. Having shit piled around is just not what Si leading is about...

Super-id leakage. He actually seems declaring in personal conversations -- he rambles on and on non-stop.

He only does this when he's confrontational, which is what any sensible person will do. His natural conversational writings have always been of an asking nature.

Clarify how that's Ni as opposed to Ne.

Ni makes a leap, a connection. Ne creates a possibility. I don't know what else to say.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the Asking/Declaring dichotomy actually is? (Hint: It's not exactly what it says on the tin).

Asking looks for information and is receptive to what others say or think in regard to that and addresses it, without having to make what they know first known. It's sneakier. Declaring attempts to make known what information is already gathered and will not deal with other information until all of it is heard and considered. It's pretty clear to me, although it's important to not get hung up on definitions, but the process of how each to expresses their particular asking/declaring method.

------------------------------------------------------

Now because of this playfulness, you may want to be careful to the "evidence". I also considered ILE, but on short: consider ESE, too. I think that he's too impulsive, inaccurate, slightly (only slightly) condescending-ironic and patronizing. Has that "I'm going with this and see what happens, FTW" habit, unlike a logical Creative. OK, to make a choice is maybe not that easy for an Alpha, but still, when this is chronic haste, it's rather Fe-Base than Ne (even less likely Ti-Creative).

That's true, but if he's ESE, then he's a fuckin' crazy one, no offense. If anything, EIE would be better if you want to go there, but Fe-base is a lot smoother than he is. He's all over the place. He changes what he thinks and uses indirect tactics to divert attention from himself or discussion of what he doesn't like. ESEs may have Se-demonstrative, but they don't exactly look for places where that becomes a crazy focus. From a simple observation, ESEs have been some of the nicest people I have met in terms of wanting to make sure everyone is happy and having fun. But of course they can be real bastards when they think you aren't making them happy, but they find ways to remove themselves from that and don't go looking for it. For all I know, TA would be fine if I ate shit for breakfast. An ESE does make themselves aware of the Fi of the people around them and will try to use it to leverage some fun and good-will. TA is confrontational in a weak sense, even if his explicit logical reasoning skills come across poor. If anything he does not fit with SEI. Be whatever type he is, it is just not SEI. My god, it's ridiculous and I hate people that use their type as an identity and trash the theory in the process. Screw it all. I'm going out for beer and playing Wow. Fuck this gay shit. ;P

[Creepy-male]

Wow, this forum is clueless.

"This forum"? Me and Alexei are "this forum"? This is precisely the emotionally-motivated, muddy-minded nonsense that I'm trying to avoid. That's why I said you need to calm down, so you're not making sweeping generalisations like this.

I tried to help.

Advice from the pros: randomly barging into a thread and proclaiming, completely off-topic, that the OP has him or herself typed wrong will probably not be read as a "helpful" gesture. I don't really care for your victim nonsense. There have been people who have been far more polite about it, and guess what? That tends to make me want to be polite back.

If you can't understand anything I have written or are going to interpret anything I say any way you want, but the way it was shown and intended, fine, it's your problem, not mine. I made a decent case and if you can't be bothered to explain the basic principles of how you properly connect everything together and consider that your understanding might be missing important basic logical premises of the theory or can properly refute mine, then I'm wasting my time too.

You didn't make a decent case. If you had made a decent case I wouldn't have had to ask any questions related to why you made some random connection or jumped to some arbitrary conclusion.

At any rate, your "decent case" came to a completely void conclusion: that I am not SEI. If I am not SEI I have not typed anyone who I am sufficient close to for Socionics to play out correctly, and my entire understanding of the theory is bunk. It is quite possible that I am living in some sort of alternate-socionics reality, but considering that a lot of these typings are supported by their own intertypes, I have reasonable faith that this is not the case.

And I am slightly emotionally vested because half of you are perpetuating things that are extremely contradictory and senseless; this keeps people from understanding something that could be used to help them understand themselves.

Catastrophisation! People are lemmings! I'm the memetic equivalent of a typhoid mary! FIRE AND BRIMSTONE! END OF DAYS! DEAR FUCKING GOD HIDE THE WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN THANKS ARTHUR HAS COME TO CORRUPT THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!

This is a blanket statement. Point out to me where I am "perpetuating things that are extremely contradictory and senseless". You can't just fall back on some generalised mental image of me.

I have first-hand experience with almost all the types and have put a lot of thought into analyzing each one, over and over, theory after theory, sifting, sorting, reading opinions, starting from scratch, and this is the only thing that will make any sense for the relations.

So you know about all of my relationships and they invalidate beyond reasonable doubt that I could be SEI? That's rather impressive.

Only I don't think so.

You haven't refuted or addressed anything I have said with any kind of rationale, other than accusatory behavior and non-sequitur.

And that has nothing to do with whether you are an SEI, but if you want to believe being a lazy rational means you are truly another type apart from the cognitive energy you display, fine do that too and add to all the baseless generalities that overflow this forum. I will no longer help because I don't have the energy to keep up with this.

You really love those blanket statements, don't you? It was Pinocchio who said I'm ESE, not me. It's not a thought I even entertain more than idly at this point, because I'm quite clearly far outside the bounds of an EJ type, irrationally subtyped or not.

Okay, so, will you believe me now when I say you're too emotional to think clearly? Cool your jets man, because currently attempting to talk Socionics with you is going to go nowhere and end up with me incredibly frustrated and ranting to one of my Alpha NT friends about people being wrong on the internet.

Enjoy keeping the discussions in this place at a school-yard social level; enjoy your right to blissfully disregard my thoughts and well-structured logic with all of the ignorance you can muster.

In the politest possible way, fuck off. Fuck your intellectually arrogant, judgemental attitude. Fuck your disdain for socialising and levity. Fuck your unwavering assumption that you are right and I am wrong.

Your "well-structured logic" is idiotic and banal. It's almost farcical to assume it has any quality whatsoever. And how dare you call me ignorant? How dare you assume that you know me better than I do, and better than the people who know me the most closely? What gives you the right? Where do you even get such a ridiculous idea? It's utterly absurd that you can even say that level of sheer brazen bullshit out loud.

This is single-handedly the most offensive thing I've ever read. I can only assume you're either a complete idiot and not even worth my time, or a troll. If the latter, my hat goes off to you. You're a master. I have never been trolled so hard in my life. Kudos, sir.

At this point I'm just going to ignore you, because I fear reading any more of your posts is just going to finally loosen my already weakening grasp on reality.

Have a nice day.

EDIT

Never post in my threads again. I'm not interested in being battle-typed by a moron. If it's so important to you, go make a thread of your own.

[UDP]

Geez, you ask a question and suddenly you have a YOU'RE NOT YOUR TYYYYPE! gangbang called upon you from out of nowhere!

 

[IMG]http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4820202/Op-is-******.jpg?imageSize=Large&generatorName=Alice-lookatdat[/IMG]

Yeah reminds me of the old days, when it happened to me.

[UDP]

Wow, this forum is clueless. Okay, you are SEI. I tried to help. If you can't understand anything I have written or are going to interpret anything I say any way you want, but the way it was shown and intended, fine, it's your problem, not mine. I made a decent case and if you can't be bothered to explain the basic principles of how you properly connect everything together and consider that your understanding might be missing important basic logical premises of the theory or can properly refute mine, then I'm wasting my time too.

And I am slightly emotionally vested because half of you are perpetuating things that are extremely contradictory and senseless; this keeps people from understanding something that could be used to help them understand themselves. I have first-hand experience with almost all the types and have put a lot of thought into analyzing each one, over and over, theory after theory, sifting, sorting, reading opinions, starting from scratch, and this is the only thing that will make any sense for the relations. You haven't refuted or addressed anything I have said with any kind of rationale, other than accusatory behavior and non-sequitur. And that has nothing to do with whether you are an SEI, but if you want to believe being a lazy rational means you are truly another type apart from the cognitive energy you display, fine do that too and add to all the baseless generalities that overflow this forum. I will no longer help because I don't have the energy to keep up with this. Enjoy keeping the discussions in this place at a school-yard social level; enjoy your right to blissfully disregard my thoughts and well-structured logic with all of the ignorance you can muster.

Dude, this post is chock full of ego and pride and you telling other people how much you know. It will not have any positive affect on people listening to you or you seeming more authoritative in whatever you're trying to say.

It's a completely "noob" move to make.
I did it when I first started, too.

The real question is whether you will stick around and develop more skills or if you are going to pout away from the forum and socionics in general - what do you suppose you will do?

[The Ineffable]

When you self-type SEI there's no problem, it's your personal choice, whatever. But when you claim that on a Socionics forum, you're responsible for what you say (in that context, of course). Because the purpose of these boards is not so that anyone can say anything "because he can", but tell something relevant, logical, sensible, as much as possible. Bullshit should not be tolerated for the sake of "respect" because the the disrespect comes from the one who ignores reasonableness and tell that bullshit in the first place.

He was not off-topic. Remember

I know an IEI who's vastly more sociable than me.

...you make a baseless reference to yourself - and this is not an isolated case. What gives you the right to claim being a SEI by de-facto? It is not at all a matter of "your type" but of mistyping. It's unconceivable to claim the validity of an assertion while it can't pass any validation in the first place! You can't pass an exam just with filling in your name and marking all problems as "solved", can you?

Never post in my threads again. I'm not interested in being battle-typed by a moron. If it's so important to you, go make a thread of your own.

While it was the thread opened by you, it was a Model-A typing thread, where you type arbitrarily without reasoning. I think he was justified to refute that falsehood and get offended by your unreliability combined with boldness.

And Gul, don't take it personally, I'm not attacking you as a person, but what you do in this specific matter. Maybe you both will get over it, but the problem of mistyping will persist so I don't actually see a way out unless you take a reasonable approach. Anyway I don't understand you why you stick to SEI just because you want it (maybe you don't even get what I mean), were you pampered by your parents, are you used to win anything your heart desires?

[Sir Knight]

...you make a baseless reference to yourself - and this is not an isolated case. What gives you the right to claim being a SEI by de-facto? It is not at all a matter of "your type" but of mistyping. It's unconceivable to claim the validity of an assertion while it can't pass any validation in the first place! You can't pass an exam just with filling in your name and marking all problems as "solved", can you?

Wait a minute. How is that evidence of mistyping though? That could just as easily be evidence of poor knowledge of Socionics functions or, most likely, evidence of how one's Socionics type is not a binding set of behaviours and modes of thought.

I mean, how does saying, "I know someone of a certain type who acts more gregariously than I do" call one's typing into question?

[The Ineffable]

Wait a minute. How is that evidence of mistyping though? That could just as easily be evidence of poor knowledge of Socionics functions or, most likely, evidence of how one's Socionics type is not a binding set of behaviours and modes of thought.

I mean, how does saying, "I know someone of a certain type who acts more gregariously than I do" call one's typing into question?

I don't remember showing some evidence of mistyping in this thread. Nevertheless, it was often showed along the time but it was flatly ignored.

Well poor understanding would be an argument, except that - what you overlooked - he doesn't care about accuracy and validity, he doesn't even consider them, while still pushing these "SEI" typings around in model a threads. He defies correctness. We can't talk about a "mistake" when there's no goodwill involved at all.

And this is the same thing that Milkor said: Gul (like some others, I'd add) employs a totally frivolous, playful and defiant attitude which is inappropriate in this context - typing and typing discussions. Are we supposed to discuss and give arguments or just ramble on the playground of whoever has nothing better to do at home?

This is a thematic forum, AFAIK, and like any other, it should be relevant, IMO - this is, at least, why I came here, to have relevant Socionics discussions.

[1981slater]

GulanzonBrianThanksArthur is SEI

[Sir Knight]

This is a thematic forum, AFAIK, and like any other, it should be relevant, IMO - this is, at least, why I came here, to have relevant Socionics discussions.

Well I can certainly understand the desire to discuss Socionics in a Socionics forum, but what I don't understand is the impetus behind this entire split-off thread in the first place. What specifically did Thanks Arthur do here, in this thread, to warrant an accusation of mistyping?

[Creepy-male]

Look, it's beyond my mental faculties to argue with people who are convinced they're right. I cannot get inside people's minds and see why they think what they do and explain to them on their terms where they're making errors in their thinking.

So every time someone with a closed-minded, self-assured attitude comes brandishing accusations that I'm mistyped, all I can reasonably do is ignore any attempts to tell me I'm wrong on the basis of the other person knowing less than me.

I recently had a fairly drawn out discussion with someone in private on my type. It was nice and polite and respectful, and that is where the difference is. People like Milkor and thePirate (off the top of my head) tend to adopt a very aggressive, accusatory, blindly self-assured attitude.

What's even more laughable is the degree of novice errors Milkor makes, all the while refusing to listen or learn. Why even bother attempting to have a discussion with someone like that? It's like bashing your head against a wall. It's unproductive, frustrating, painful, and at the end of the day you've achieved nothing other than giving yourself a headache.

Perhaps I am being the pot calling the kettle black, but there's a very good reason why I am sure I am SEI: I have a logical basis for it. I have temperament, club, quadra, functions, and intertypes all supporting my typing from where I stand. Most third parties have access only to highly socionically-ambiguous posts on a forum, subject to a huge variety of factors which alter my appearance at any given moment, and open to far too much interpretation to be useful evidence in isolation.

People I have chatted with on Vent are in a better position to type me. People who I have interacted with on Stickam are in a better position to type me than that. People I personally know IRL are in a better position to type me than that. I am in possibly the best position to type myself now that I have a reasonable degree of self-awareness and can support my self-observations with those of other people.

(As an aside, there's an emotional component to it too. My trusted friends are typically nice people, and if they ever raised anything to contradict my self-image, I would likely listen to it. When someone charges in and is extremely rude and arrogant, I have no desire to listen or to defend myself in a battle that was lost the moment it began.)

If I shy away from argumentation it's because I know well my limitations as a debater, and my thoughts are simply not refined sufficiently to adequately prepare a solid defence, if such a thing even exists in Socionics. I don't like walking into an argument and spouting limp, flimsy supports that do not do justice to any of my internal justifications.

My abilities as a debater have no correlation with the reasonability of my beliefs. I'm beginning to think that this is what it all boils down to--if I had to change my type, I would have to change many people's types, and my understanding of Socionics and Socionics intertypes. This would be highly unreasonable, much more so than continuing to believe that I am SEI. Socionics at the end of the day cannot come up with anything that can be evaluated with truth, it is not an objective system.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Take them as you will.

[krieger]

I'd say the ISFp typing is not satisfying to me in every regard, but neither is any of the other typings that are being proposed. Given this kind of conundrum I am always inclined to go with the opinion of the one that has the most information about the person and has had the greatest amount of time to think about their typing and synthesize the information about the typing case. I'll let you all figure out for yourselves who that person is here.

[UDP]

It's a matter of whether or not someone wants to promote understanding or help someone come to see something about their type vs someone believing they know more or deriving some sort of gratification from telling someone what they are or being right, or padding someone's own intellectual vanity.

[Nowisthetime]

Look, ...

Nice post, I enjoyed reading that.

[The Ineffable]

It's a matter of whether or not someone wants to promote understanding or help someone come to see something about their type vs someone believing they know more or deriving some sort of gratification from telling someone what they are or being right, or padding someone's own intellectual vanity.

... or vs someone projecting hubris over someone else who has genuine interest.

I think it's all a matter of discussing Socionics or something else, though.

[Sir Knight]

Le post

I can definetely understand that. It just perplexes me that they would come and try to argue your type and present only the flimsiest amount of evidence and then not even bother to address your counterpoints or answer your questions.

I mean, I guess I just figured perhaps they knew something they weren't actively sharing and that's what made them so sure, but I guess it was just... baseless intuition? I don't know.