see
see
videoOriginally Posted by crAck
@crAck
not ILI. SF is possible
i rly dont like that person lol
i dont know. weird vibe
literally every single one of those those are baseless assumptions
people often are attracted to conflictor; that is what drags the relationship into a negative feedback loop, they continually believe they can fix things with the other person (implying they think they arent all bad)
fascination with strength is more a feature of Se seeking [1]
how you get "how I should be" from role Fi is entirely unclear. literally every role function is some form of that. voice, dolled up, are forms of sensing. Fi role is more about remembering people are more than nodes in a Ti system
you're going nuts with the DCNH face shape thing, the only article I've seen by gulenko on VI is here
technically ILI aspires to be more like LSI not the other way around
[1] love is often defined as fascination. Sartre said love is being fascinated by a person and making a project of fascinating them in return. this dovetails nicely with socionics and DS functions
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-22-2018 at 07:48 PM.
mistyping is rampant in general and there's a kind of intuitive logic to say people overestimate themselves on HA but the thing is they have to actually know what the functions actually do to even swap them so cleanly (base<->HA)... in other words, people confuse the functions in every conceivable way, so they could, for instance, think Fi is Ne (on the phenomenal level) or whatever the individual case may be. if you think about that for a second you realize most beginners don't even really know what Ni is in order to switch it properly. Ni could be mistaken for Ti Ne Si, etc depending on how they interpret their own experience and the words on the page.. so one person thinks they're buttressing their HA by typing themselves INTJ and another person of the same type types themselves ENTP for the same reasons. the pleasant feedback is not based on whatever type they really are, but almost entirely determined by how their understanding of those words make them feel
what actually happens is people read behavioral descriptions or take a MBTI test, come over to socionics, apply some half baked conversion, and declare themselves whatever type they think correlates to the MBTI description that flatters them (and all of this assumes they take the "protect my HA" approach to typology to begin with, which not everyone does). basically inasmuch as MBTI descriptions flatter what the person's true HA is, they may identify with the MBTI description and the corresponding base function that gives them positive feedback on it. its another way of essentially snatching wish fulfillment from typology. but the problem is, even that relatively easy to comprehend process gets confounded once they mess up the j/p switch or whatever. and even then, not everyone does this, if for no other reason they don't know how to, its an entirely unconscious series of steps. some people will identify with their base function correctly. in the end what spins out is almost random because of how much goes into it. there's such a quantum of human confusion we can only say ILI admires LSI as a matter of ITR structure (benefit relations) but that assumes up front the ITR is actually established. In other words, at the stage when someone is typing themselves and knows little to nothing, we havent reached that stage yet, and there's really nothing to support the application of such an inference at work other than some indeterminate amount of people may be inclined to do that (but not necessarily this person). the prevalence of such a phenomenon is assumed to be high enough to warrant making the assumption as a general matter. but that stacks an increasingly improbable amount of inferences, building them in as to what must be going on, and therefore prejudices the case; and although there is a kind of allure because we know it is going on to some unknown degree, if you turn to the actual specific facts then you realize this is a bad instance to gamble on such a shaky prospect..
this girl has more personal interactions with Gulenko himself than any of us (which isn't to say he isn't secretly bemused by a possible mistyping) and is surrounded by other people who know socionics and MBTI quite well, including Ben, so it seems wrong to apply a generalized logic in any case about someone with very unusual circumstances; to attribute as operative such a generalized error, if not less likely to occur in the beginning, is certainly more likely to be caught and corrected, or at least taken into account in some way that makes it less likely to be at work here, unless we're willing to accept that not even these guys know whats going on, and if thats the case then really no one does. thus the consequence of accepting this person is not who they say they are, essentially opens the door to type being more or less unknowable and completely subjective from the point of view of every individual onlooker, which is indeed the case on some level, because everyone is entitled to their absolutely unique interpretation of the world, but that essentially gives up on accepting type from anyone as an a priori principle and reducing everyone to a self contained universe between which there is no real basis for consensus. in short if we are not going to accept this person's type we are committed to not accepting anyone's really but that results in rendering type more or less as meaningless as it was before type became a thing, just a bundle of unutterable and mostly unconscious prejudices
all this is to say just because someone gives you bad vibes doesn't mean they can't be X type, to fairly draw such a conclusion we need more, a lot more... and inasmuch as any typing sets out to justify that basic premise ("not X") it is corrupt from the beginning from assumptions that could always ultimately validate themselves if only you draw a large enough circle in order to do so, but for precisely that reason cannot serve as the basis from which to reliably proceed. that is the entire problem with typology as it stands, you can support any premise with it, because it is a freestanding circle of interpretations at bottom. all that is required in order to come to validate any prejudice is that you draw enough into that scheme of prejudices to account for them, but this has an pernicious effect of distorting reality itself to fit the conclusion. the one way to escape this problem, because it effects reality in general and not just typology, is to get "skin in the game" and if you treat life this way to gamble on it in a way that puts something at stake and is verifiable in whether it nets a return or not. in that sense you get objective feedback on your personally engineered circle of meanings. this is why solipsism in the air is a kind of faux-courage because anyone actually convinced of their system ought to be able to act on it and not simply explain everything away and justify inaction at every turn (these amount to little more than articulate fears). you can see how this exact form of reasoning is the basis for ILI->LSI benefit relations, because the life's journey of ILI culminates where LSI picks up as a child
some prejudices go so deep you can catch the entire world in the net one draws by justifying that singular premise. this is precisely why people wander their entire lives for a central premise on which to found the creation of such a net, whereas others simply adopt something given, like when people are "racist to the core" or what have you. I think in this day and age we are getting more and more wanderers because most the old prejudices are being ferreted out and exposed for the empty charade they are, with post-modernism going so far as to suggest there may be no way to actually objectively evaluate any of it. leaving anyone who is relying on the environment to supply a ready made premise without any meaning, since religion, politics, etc have all been undermined completely. no better no worse, no up no down, and leaves anyone who does not know how to generate a premise for themselves totally aimless. and leaves the ones that do as a kind of "deluded fool" who only proceeds on the basis of not realizing how droll their life really is. having meaninglessness rubbed into one in this way so thoroughly is how the individual loses all capacity to resist any sort of idea forcefully established because they do not believe in their own right to generate a contrary premise. this is essentially slavery, because in the final analysis they are simply subject to believing what they are commanded in order not to disrupt their comfort, having failed to even believe in the possibility of something that would make giving up that comfort worth it. the only difference is the raising of the living standard has adjusted that set point of comfort with all the trappings of modern technology. thus any absurdity will do, because everything is absurd, the main thing is simply to go on living with a minimum of punishment coming ones way, and if toeing one line or another is what accomplishes that, then that is what we call truth in the modern world.. this is what I think Jung means when he says man is chained, like an animal, to his body.
when Nietzsche discerns between masters and slaves I think he is also tapping into this essentially saying masters set the initiative and slaves follow whatever as a matter of self preservation. self preservation determines up front a degree of irreducible compliance that can always be counted on by anyone willing who goes far enough to impose their will. this would be the herd that exists to perpetuate the species, not better it. the central premise to these people's lives tends to be the personal bonds they establish with other individuals, thus "not X" (where X is a person) can be a premise on which to found an entire world, just as much as "yes X" can, inasmuch as it is all a statement of a fundamental relationship, from which everything else flows. this ties into the ethics of what Nietzsche calls "slave morality" which puts the accent not on the global meaning of anything but on maintaining the links in one's local relationships, that when done by all maintains the herd in toto. thus these types aren't concerned with a kind of global coherence because such coherence flows as a byproduct from their locally bound ethic. in other words, they leave the power struggles and betterment of humanity to others, and simply find meaning in the family and so forth. this makes them easy to manipulate as a group, but also supplies for them meaning that any would be manipulator needs to possess in order to find one iota of genuine satisfaction in their power games, a meaning which is lacking and corrodes the souls of anyone bereft of it for too long. thus you could say there is no slave without master, and no meaning without absurdity, each group has something the other wants, and each tries to leverage their strong side without realizing the solution lies not in denying the truth of the other side but in embracing it. the only problem is when caught in up in this realization it has a tendency to tear one apart, which is why people continually repress it. it is the death instinct itself. to go on living is to participate in the differentiated scheme of things. in the end death comes for everyone anyway, and the unification is said to be "on the other side" of death, i.e.: heaven. in this sense hell is eternal life, and when theologians speculate on how God damns no one, rather men simply choose to persist in hell--is to point out that some, if they could, would choose to remain in this differentiated state of endless suffering--forever [1]. this is the fundamental tenet of Christianity which is "he who gives up his life (for my sake) will find it", its a paradoxical inversion of life and death upon which one may find the strength to act in the fact of adversity. its a symbolic representation of reconciling the opposites in the figure of Christ, which entails an ego death in order to climb out of despair and meaninglessness.
death in this sense is a mere illusion in the same way life is. to say we are alive now and cease to exist after death is not necessarily correct. in the same way one is existing in a dream but with an attenuated form of consciousness, when we die our consciousness awakens into something we could not have understood from the vantage point of the prior state. physical death is just another threshold--one distinguished only by the particular intensity of the fear it engenders. most people don't fear going to sleep at night, but it is because we have collectively accepted it is a state we step down into and will come back up from, but no one stops to think if perhaps this waking life is itself such a step down from a higher state, one we can understand by analogy to sleep. does the sleeper know what awaits him when he wakes..? some in fact do! some people know they're dreaming while they're dreaming. why should waking life be any different? the sense of knowing one is dreaming is a cognitive achievement beyond the norm and that same achievement is waiting to be grasped by humanity with respect to life as we know it in general... I suspect this is where the forefront of human development lies in much the same way all cultural notions developed from herd animals to monarchy to democracy and so on. the Christ symbol can go on developing, Jung said, as he added his contribution with depth psychology
[1] Nietzsche said this was, in fact, the case and that we lived out an eternal recurrence.. in other words, we better get used to it because we're going to go on like this in a differentiated state forever. this is why he called himself the anti christ
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-23-2018 at 02:40 AM.
how so?
"Mad Mike" Hoare: LIE-Te 8w7 so/sp
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/dai...ad-mike-hoare/
a girl - ISFJ
Terri Cheney, Possibly ESI, (alt LSI?)...I read her book Manic a while back. She also seemed E3 to me. Possibly with a 1 fix. The book was very image oriented.
Agreed!
Maybe whatever Debi Mazar is...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debi_Mazar
Beta???
Olga Espiral - mb ESI
David Kelley is ESI-.
First, he VIs like ESI-
He expresses gamma values with respect to criticizing the Objectivist movement as a "closed system", not because he feels that Objectivism is something relativistic, in the video he says it isn't, but because considering that a philosophy is a finished product means not having anything to learn from anyone. This desire to remain open to others is pretty
I really liked this talk.
I wanted to say LSI but didn't seem quite right. Definitely seemed T dom and extraverted to me but I was not confident enough in my typing to say it. Anyway, interesting! SLE does seem like a better fit for the JinJer girl!
I did look at a few photos of her and she doesn't seem that dark emotionally... it all seems like kind of a fun act to her, imo. Like she likes the hardcore aspect mostly. A lot of photos show her looking "crazy" and "wild" and making expressions appropriate to those vibes. Someone like her might also easily slide into dominatrix territory possibly and that also seems Beta to me.
What tipped me off first she wasn't ESI? I could NEVER imagine in my wildest nightmares behaving or singing like her in that kind of a group. And I've been a working musician in the past. It's just SO uncharacteristic. I just don't think it fits with most ESI's to be quite that aggressively scary. Plus her personal style seems more extreme like some Betas I've seen.
Patrick Shyu = very attractive
Being in a marriages Fe valued P types stay flirty and have higher than other types the _risk_ of adulter. One of _factors_ for this risk.
When I talked with a SEI woman, she said alike "nothing special, to flirt is just funny". That "just a flirt" is a predisposition for adulter as it provokes. They may do not think about this as own inclination to cheat initially. Also those women get the return attention of men and like it.
My "holly" base Fi have lesser inclination but may cheat also. Though _partly_ they may do this to keep the relations when do not feel good in them - to support own emotional state better and such do not break. Dialectics is everywhere. In a marriage with Fi type it needs a permanent control of their emotional state - are they happy - as they will not quarrel much, will behave good as always but... may cheat you quietly to stay "good" further. In one day, when everything was "good" you may know about her sex with other man. There is a good chance she does not want to break with you - if you'll forgive, to say like "I love you. do not do this further" and will care better about her emotional state, then you may live further "like nothing happened" and she'll will be decent. The worse variant is when everything was good may be that a Fi woman will say alike "dear, I'll stay at my "friend"'s home, the lawer will visit you tomorrow to share your home and business. your soup is in the saucepan. kisses, hugs and best regards".
Last edited by Sol; 08-05-2018 at 10:37 AM.
ILI? e9
ESI e6?
Last edited by silke; 08-05-2018 at 11:54 AM.
I get what you're saying but I think you should consider your SO flirting with a 3rd person can be a sign of trust. In some sense the entire cycle of trying to control your SO is predicated on them not being allowed to flirt or express certain emotions toward certain people because it leads to cheating. But those "signs" can just as often signal trust and deep attachment to the relationship. they don't always lead to cheating or indicate a desire to, or any such dissatisfaction with the relationship. if you immediately assume such without other reasons it just becomes despotic and you punish the person for having the exact feelings you actually want them to have, which is attachment toward you (so secure they're not expecting insecurity from your side) and when that unexpected insecurity leads to reproaches they think something really is wrong with the relationship, which in turn validates the fears and insecurity. in other words, relationships function on trust, and outer signs like flirting aren't necessarily risk factors in of themselves, but if you react to them as if they were, it vastly increases the probability of such a thing negatively impacting the relationship, which leads to a cycle of fear and control. there's this idea that the other person is creating the problem but its just as much in where you take it.. in that sense, the expectation that a Fi type is naturally never going to express themselves with another person that you feel personally threatened by is %100 calibrated by precisely what you allow yourself to feel threatened by. in other words, it sounds like its about them, but its %100 about you. you can allow anything to threaten you and turn around and say "my perfect partner would not have done this" which is true, but its a lot like on TV when women say to men "if you loved me you'd know whats wrong" its like you're putting them in an impossible situation and pretending like its their fault. this is just you unconsciously destroying the relationship, when it need not have been that way. socionics isn't really a fix for that, since the problem lies not in the relationship but in ourselves
Galya (bachelorUA) - ISFJ
I know an SEI whose husband was her first boyfriend, high school sweetheart. They have mutually never been with anyone else. HOWEVER, she told me when she'd had too much to drink that they both would be ok with the other having a one-night stand with someone else, just for life-experience's sake.
EDIT: This SEI and husband have been together for 17 years!
I've also thought that SEI's were more than ordinarily promiscuous for a long time. It might have something to do with their strong Fe (adapt to others) and Si (comfort and pleasure) and low Ne (lots of possibilities).
Last edited by Adam Strange; 08-06-2018 at 10:55 PM.
SLE, ILE, SEI, IEI mb similarly promiscuous and more than any other type
Fe is not about "adapt to others", that would be more about Fi. But Fi types value personal relation higher and hence lesser wish to cheat without strong personal feelings, while such feelings are not often. They will not hunt you because you are a movie star, have many money or objectively pretty look - they need good personal contact. So they have lesser sexual partners and cheat lesser than Fe valued types. Just keep Fi woman farther from her long-time "friends" among men. And care about her emotional comfort - she get higher risk to cheat when wants to feel emotionally better, to be liked as a person, when needs more friendship.
While P makes people impulsive and not stable in anything, including with who they may do sex.
This needs stats, anyway.
yeah like that one time Adam exchanged one sentence with a woman and fucked her in an alley, or some such
What the fuck...
If Fi types are not likely to cheat, why would you keep the Fi woman "locked up" and guard her from having any male friends?
Holly Luyah - ISFJ
A long time ago, yeah
Before you was born dude
When I was still single
And life was great
I held this job as a traveling salesman
That kept me moving from state to state
Well, I'm standing on the corner of Lafayette
State of Louisiana
Wondering where a city boy could go
To get a little conversation
Drink a little red wine
Catch a little bit of those Cajun girls
Dancing to Zydeco
Along come a young girl
She's pretty as a prayerbook
Sweet as an apple on Christmas day
I said good gracious can this be my luck
If that's my prayerbook
Lord let us pray.
not obligately, dude
woman - ESI
or other Fi
^ I don't think she's ESI, @Sol. SEI, maybe.
Leya Falcon - SEE
VitalyzdTvSecond - SEE
Nusya Fyodorova - mb ESI
Morgan Claire Sirene - ESI
it's Fi smile. while SEI's smile reminds idiots in my impressions
(sorry SEIs, you have other advantages)
Last edited by Sol; 08-21-2018 at 05:54 PM.
Tessarr (bob123xx) - ISFJ
Leonid (character there) - ILI
Imran Khan, former cricket star and current PM of Pakistan, comes off as an LIE-Te 3w4
Maryana Kushnir - ESI
Californication with Yana (yanabeiliz) - INTP
Last edited by Sol; 08-26-2018 at 03:29 PM.
ESI sx/sp (Sacred Serpent)
Daniel Mackler - ILI
Blixa Bargeld - ILI?
thinking ILI - thoughts?
Last edited by hag; 08-28-2018 at 08:06 AM. Reason: removed broken link
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
