.
I Fly Like Wilma
.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 07-27-2011 at 03:15 PM.
ILI is a good typing.
Opps, I misread the topic as being created by alexsei. I rescind my statement.
Your obvious social anxiety, misunderstanding social dynamics, terribly passive aggressive behavior+"i have acted like a stranger to most of you for the most part". Sounds like Fe PoLR to me.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
You need to be more active in the chatbox again, Axel. That's where I get to know people.
ILI doesn't seem likely to me. I don't see a lot of NT emphasis. You're very concerned with how other people see you on the forum, and not so inclined to critique and debate purely theoretical points. An ILI would be opposite.
SEE is believable, if I imagine your lines being said by Sylvester Stalone in Rocky.
A lot is lost though in the medium of a thread. If a Gamma SF writes something about a theoretical subject such as Socionics, one's likely to see what looks like Te. Without a video, it may be harder for people to visualize.
However, if you describe more what you're like, what things you're interested in and good at, how you go about your day, etc., perhaps people would have more information to go on....although that's up to you because if you're confident of your type, it doesn't necessarily matter what other people think.
I don't see ILI as a jaded, misanthropic type at all. I mean, a person might be those things and ILI also, but might not. Also, people who think that issues with others on the forum must be due to Fe-PoLR misunderstand what PoLR is. Similarly, I agree that having conflicts with others on the forum has nothing to do with being a logical type.
Changing one's self-typing radically does confuse people though. It's understandable that people will scratch their heads, because they have so little to go on besides self typing and posts that they have read with that self-typing in mind. Nevertheless, a lot of people have done radical shifts I like. I remember Joy: SEI, then ILE, then LIE, and I think now SLE? And some others in between maybe. That's just part of the discovery process...it's not that uncommon.
In real life, SEE and ILI are so different. The only time where they might be confused is if one has a really energetic dualized person who seems like the "full package"...and there are people like that who seem to project all 4 Gamma functions at once....usually those people are extremely driven and successful.
What? That's BS; SEE are generally observant so they can see what's going on; they don't have to be shy and not be SEE; shyness can be overcome by anyone of any type. He could just be trying to take things in through his senses rather than participate; I think you're coining irrelevant attributes to type.Originally Posted by Director Kam
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I agree that NTs don't necessarily have academic interests. But in a Socionics discussion, I would expect an NT to gravitate if not to the finer theoretic aspects, at least to questions about how it may be used, or whether it's valid at all. And if those issues had little interest for the NT person, then I wouldn't expect that person to hang around here.
Actually, your post here fits NT pretty well. You're making general points about Socionics, people, etc. I don't see that emphasis coming from aixelsyd. That's all I was saying.
Oops, sorry about the Sylvester Stallone comparison then...
To my way of thinking, SEE fits Aix better than any other sociotype by a considerable margin. I accepted her as ILI when she self typed that way, but honestly I feel much better about viewing her as SEE.
Also, Aix doesn't strike me as an unusually negative person. She speaks her mind plainly and pays little heed the superficial niceties over which others get all tripped and tangled up. Negative? I think not. Legit? I think so.
You're ESFP imo.
okay, i suppose that is fair given my comment in the other thread, but give me some days to make the case.
Haha. I'm starting to like you ESFPs.
Thanks for posting....some nice ideas. Being good at music, improv, sightreading, singing, etc. isn't specific to type. It's one of those things that it seems people of any type might have.
However, there are definite type-related tendencies among musicians. For example, intuitive types often have trouble listening to what's actually coming out, and may have more trouble with tension. Sensing types may have to work harder on having an overall conception of the piece and where it's going.
I once played in a trio with an SEE violinist (maybe borderline SLE). She was very energetic. Once, I accompanied her on a piece for an audition, and she insisted that I play by ear, because she wanted it to be spontaneous.
Most SEE composers I've met tend to write something that's pretty showy and appeals to people easily. However, one may also explore one's dual function through music, so I wouldn't be surprised if the music has an Ni quality. I happen to think Liszt's music sounds SEE, although Socionists are all over the map on him (EIE and LSE are mentioned...I don't believe it). There's a certain Ni quality that comes through, as with Wagner also, but I think that can be consistent with Se.
Your first youtube post does have an Ni quality to me. However, that doesn't rule out SEE. Just from the music itself, I might also think Beta NF as a possibility, but that doesn't mean much.
Enough said then - you're SEE
I'll check out the videos soon and let you know, but so far, I've gotvaluing, Irrational,
/
valuing for you, you make a ton of sense to me, I like you in Gamma, more coming after I eat some food...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Holy crap, you're really goodyou gotta make more!
I'm the same with words, it's easy for me to write them into a poetry thing and make it rule, but when it comes to fitting the words to the music and having it all work as a whole, that's a lot more difficult...
If you're like me, you'll do better with the singing/vocals and all when there's a lot of people around you to fire you up with it, I can't go in if it's just me and do good, but if there's a ton of people there, I'm good to go
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
LOL, the thing you don't know is that I type her IEE since she was typing herself ILI. But I pardon you since you're Ne Irrational, shit happens when you see more into things than it is.Enough said then - you're SEE
you're the one that supposedly typed themselves opposite to their real type. i don't think the burden of proof is on anyone but you where solving this conundrum is concerned.
@aixelsyd: I would have a lot to say about this but I don't want to upset you anymore and stuff. Although I disagree with quite some things you say (1) I think that unlike nanashi (2), you are a good person who got out of her ego circle and you try to understand people the way they are. Yeah, I maintain my opinion of IEE.
(1) - including the eternal bullet-proof "they don't know me!", and deciding who's what type or who's whose Dual at the round table;
(2) - because you're astonishingly similar at the core to me. However, she has this sort of passive-aggressive obstinacy to say opinionated things that she knows they will get a reaction from others, especially regarding what allegedly males are made of, but then pretend to be a victim of harassment. But since I give her satisfaction by reacting to her arrogant feminist shit, I consider that we are in a good relationship, me and her
I often justify my typings in high detail. The burden of proof to find me wrong is yours, who claimed "real type" out of the void. Repeating something is no proof.
PS: I shortened my message especially for you, avoiding "unnecessary" details.
Hey Axielsyd, I'm no expert, but didn't this closet homo thing affect your typing of yourself ?
I LOVE YOU AIXELSYD!!! AND YOUR MUSIC IS AMAZING
A song for you!!
I will give you the whole album if you want it.
Well, this is serious and I don't think it is reversible. SEE it is, although I thought only betas can be homosexual. Lesson learned.
I see, that's quite interesting bit of info, I'll drink to that.
They don't kick out of school, home, call police for alcohol abuse anymore. What is going on with this world ?So while it did lead me to compartmentalize my life for my own personal safety (she like many others who got found out or came out had to deal with nearly being kicked out of home or kicked out, being controlled to change, and abuse, and a lot of things which I know a lot of people have gone through and didn't know what to expect if I was ever found out and assumed it would be the end of me if that happened when it did)
I don't have a problem with you being SEE at all. IMs fit, quadra fits, temperament fits, etc, go with it. Just this homosexual thing, I thought only betas are homosexual, no offence betas. No haha, it was intentional.Oh, and in regards to the IEE thing
Anyway, good luck and take care.
No really, when I saw a homosexual on the street I thought beta instantly, when I took a puff off a fag I thought beta. What's wrong with me ?haha
1. post was not directed at you.I often justify my typings in high detail. The burden of proof to find me wrong is yours, who claimed "real type" out of the void. Repeating something is no proof.
PS: I shortened my message especially for you, avoiding "unnecessary" details.
2. "real type" was claimed by OP.
3. WFT are you talking about this time..?
4. don't respond to this post.
This ties into a theory I have that maybe we don't have types at all...we just have types relative to other people. At least in myself, I tend to play the roles of different types when I'm around certain people. Sometimes I think that rather than having fixed types, we just have a greater or lesser ability to play certain type roles. Certainly being around a strong personality, I find myself turning into that person's dual to some extent, although I'm not able to play the roles of all 16 types.
So for example, around this person who played the role of SEE very well, that made you ILI. Perhaps around a stronger ILI, you would be SEE in comparison, and if you had an SLE friend, then you might be more IEI, possibly.
I misread that, sorry. Blame conditioning to your posts, I usually don't need to read them carefully to know what you have to say.
One other thing I was thinking, on the hypothesis that fixed types do exist in some sense....
It might help if we understand whether SEE really fits you all the way, or if it was a deduction based on:
* believing that you prefer Te/Fi over Fe/Ti
* Seeing that you're more emotional than ILIs.
I'm not saying this to dispute your self typing of SEE, but the way you write about a process of realizations about life sounds a lot like IEI to me. I can imagine an IEI being someone with few friends and finding an Se who helps her believe in herself and going through a long journey about a reflection on who she is and the meaning of life, and her place in the world, and finally coming to some sort of realization "I'm an SEE!" But I can't imagine an SEE doing that.
Most SEEs are pretty straightforward to type. They're usually popular and energetic, don't mind doing all the practical stuff, and usually not really reflective about the meaning of life, nor tending to have some dynamic-type process of continuous self-discovery.
Also, your talking about playing the "jaded, misanthropic" role actually sounds like IEI more than ILI. An emotion of jadedness and being misanthropic is actually a kind of Fe. An IEI imitating an ILI might do so with that sort of sarcasm, etc., and an Fe type might think the ILI is being jaded and misanthropic, but in the ILI's mind, he/she's just being logical.
Keep in mind that even the "experts" tend to disagree a lot on Xi vs. Xe. I mean they can never get them straight...just look at how frequently famous Socionists put famous people into opposite quadras. So many people take the MBTI and come out INFP and are able to see how they have Fi, and it makes sense, then in Socionics many of those people are IEI and find that they have Fe, and then they realize that that makes sense too, when you think of the functions in a different way. Everyone has different definitions, and it's not as straightforward as it would appear at first.
Anyhow, I'm not saying this to doubt your type, and of course all of this is prefaced on the assumption that types exist in the first place.
Interesting. I don't know about most of those people, except Dustin Hoffman, whom some people type ILI and others LII. I'm not much into VI, myself.
One thing I wonder....When most people here change their self-typing, they believe that their type has remained the same, but only their understanding of it changed. However, there was a forum member named Smilingeyes who believed that his type changed from EIE -> LIE -> LSE, or something like that. When he announced that he was LSE, he wasn't saying that he always had been LSE; rather, he was becoming LSE at that moment, and had previously been those other types.
I'm wondering in your case if you feel you actually were base-Ni and journeyed to SEE, or if you feel you were SEE all along. I believe it is possible for a base-Ni person to go into an Se state, which exists sort of on top of the base-Ni and takes over, sort of how you described. But in that case, the person is really base-Ni in the past, and has become SEE.
It is sort of a continuous life development, perhaps a sort of destiny.
That (or an SEE developing an Ni side), on the other hand, is very different from someone developing a little bit of his/her dual side, which looks very different to an outside observer. For example, I know an IEE, and he's developed certain aspects of Si and Te through hobbies and interests, but remains an IEE and would never be confused with an SLI.
I've been thinking about that a ton myselfThis ties into a theory I have that maybe we don't have types at all...we just have types relative to other people. At least in myself, I tend to play the roles of different types when I'm around certain people. Sometimes I think that rather than having fixed types, we just have a greater or lesser ability to play certain type roles. Certainly being around a strong personality, I find myself turning into that person's dual to some extent, although I'm not able to play the roles of all 16 types.
So for example, around this person who played the role of SEE very well, that made you ILI. Perhaps around a stronger ILI, you would be SEE in comparison, and if you had an SLE friend, then you might be more IEI, possibly.
Around a fellow SEE girl, I end up more oriented to ILI then than I do on average, and I may be closer to SLI than I usually am when I'm with the Alpha quadra musicians... whatever people need out of me, they'll usually get to some degree, unless it's something that involves massed amounts ofor
As far as I'm concerned, people have eight functions, with potencies that differ as time goes forwards and situations rearrange themselves; they usually align in the manner appropriate for their type, sometimes not, and I don't see it impossible for a line to get hopped here and there as far as type is concerned - people grow in all sorts of ways...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
For whatever it's worth I tend to think of you as a gamma introvert. I think you could possibly be my identical. Mirror isn't out of the question though, especially since I have never met you. I do feel like I often times agree with you and understand your train of thought.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
just from posts in this thread you do sound like a static type rather than dynamic such as ILI, and Fi valuing - SEE/ESI would be good guesses
TBH, socionics is like deep and complicated (that's why it's really interesting imo) and you're just sorta like skimming on social-behavioral stuff. Which no offense (you're not doing anything wrong and I like you), it's just...well, surface-y. What you're saying sounds like it could be anything. It's a balance though, you're probably afraid if you go any deeper, you will scare people away socially. I have this same fear. =( But socionics has a lot of technical depth to it that makes it quite interesting.
You do come across like you have some social uneasiness but you understand those feels aren't rational or sane or whatever and you quickly get over them. You're just a little people-shy I think and honestly it's really attractive and cute. If more people admitted this or something, the world would probably be a better place. I mean, a lot of people end up getting hostile and aggressive as a way to cover up their 'nerdy qualities.'
You're not *exactly shy* but you are a little shy. Most of us here are that way so I think it's like a support group. People who are the opposite kinda easily make friends wherever they go and have a LOT of people following them and are all preppy and popular and shit. We're just not like that. We're just like the losers on the other side. But that's why we're family. =p
You are SEE. Too moody to be Te ego IMO.
Posting Permissions
