Hi Delta

[The Ineffable]

MD neither you're Delta nor Absurd is LSE. Now get back to Alpha.

[Krig the Viking]

Hi Delta.

Going ENFp now. Why not? Hehe.

Sorry for all the changing, I like keeping an open mind.

Basically, Krig's argument that I'm IEE got me thinking, and both IEE and ESE were the 2 main types suggested back when I started. Something lately still feels off with ESE, and most agree I'm not LSE, but then nothing fit... and then IEE gets suggested, which I forgot about a while ago! Makes sense: I like to keep an open-mind, jump on new ideas, and defend them. I like commenting on trends, being a sort of 'social arbitrator' and defending people who get picked on, I can get under people's skins as I understand they like/dislike. I don't really use Ni, as others have commented so much, so Ni ignoring makes sense, and Fe demonstrative makes sense as well. A lot of things make sense w/ IEE. So I'll type as such for now.

Neat! I'll try not to supervise you too much.

Why not try not typing anything (or worrying about typing as something for the sake of doing so) until you can pin down how the functions manifest in yourself better? Just typing yourself something and "trying it out" is not going to help you figure out your type.

Interestingly, that's exactly how the Holographic cognitive style (namely LII, IEE, ESI, and SLE) works. They "try on" ideas like trying on a hat, to see how well it fits, and compare it with other "hats". Having tried on all the hats they can find, they then feel confident that the hat that fit best is the right one. However, they're always open to the idea of finding a new hat which fits even better, so they tend to hold their conclusions much more loosely than, say, a Causal-Determinist (LSI, SEE, EII, ILE). If the new hat doesn't fit, they'll go back to the previous one which fit best.

This is exactly how I work, and if Mountain Dew is the same way, it's more evidence that a Holographic type like IEE is correct (although a Vortex type like ESE, IEI, LIE, or SLI would be somewhat similar).

[Absurd]

Anytime bro.

I'm not your bro. Wrong number.

[woofwoofl]

[Absurd]

However, they're always open to the idea of finding a new hat which fits even better, so they tend to hold their conclusions much more loosely than, say, a Causal-Determinist (LSI, SEE, EII, ILE). If the new hat doesn't fit, they'll go back to the previous one which fit best.

That means they're going to try on the entire socion. Wonder what is going to be left after exhausting all the options? Ah yes, the previous one.

I think you saw him comparing himself to a number of members on here stating they're just like him, just to drop it, discard it, and move onto somebody else.

Question is, as far ethics go, that is being Fi creative - doesn't it have a bit of a negative connotation - I mean treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs?

This is exactly how I work, and if Mountain Dew is the same way, it's more evidence that a Holographic type like IEE is correct (although a Vortex type like ESE, IEI, LIE, or SLI would be somewhat similar).

I noticed you do the same. Okay then.

[Simon Ssmall]

Well, hopefully this won't last long.

[Krig the Viking]

That means they're going to try on the entire socion. Wonder what is going to be left after exhausting all the options? Ah yes, the previous one.

Some "hats" don't fit very well at all. He might try on an idea ("I am ILI", for example) for a short time (ten minutes or something), see that it completely doesn't fit, and discard the idea. By doing that, the field of possible ideas is quickly narrowed down to just a handful, which are examined in more detail to see which one fits best. Holographic types don't mind returning to previously discarded ideas, which may seem odd to Causal-Determinist or Dialectical-Algorithmic types, who have a much more linear thought process. A Holographic type tries to see things from all possible perspectives and angles, to be sure he hasn't missed anything.

I think you saw him comparing himself to a number of members on here stating they're just like him, just to drop it, discard it, and move onto somebody else.

Question is, as far ethics go, that is being Fi creative - doesn't it have a bit of a negative connotation - I mean treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs?

I'm sure that's not MD's intent, but I'll let him comment on that.

I, on the other hand, secretly treat everyone I meet like guinea pigs, but that's probably because I'm an Fi-devaluing LII.

[Absurd]

By doing that, the field of possible ideas is quickly narrowed down to just a handful, which are examined in more detail to see which one fits best. Holographic types don't mind returning to previously discarded ideas, which may seem odd to Causal-Determinist or Dialectical-Algorithmic types, who have a much more linear thought process.

I know that. I don't mean any harm whatsoever, but it's something peculiar about this. Theory is theory. Take any holographic type on here and see for yourself. MD is out of the equation right now being the person in question so focus on some other person who is, in fact(?), IEE or any other holographic design - doesn't work well -, but it's just my opinion.

I'm sure that's not MD's intent, but I'll let him comment on that.

As long he doesn't call me bro, I'm alright. I'm a bit allergic when it comes to association.

I, on the other hand, secretly treat everyone I meet like guinea pigs, but that's probably because I'm an Fi-devaluing LII.

Well, I was right once again. You can call me random Reuben.

[Creepy-Snaps]

That means they're going to try on the entire socion. Wonder what is going to be left after exhausting all the options? Ah yes, the previous one.

I think you saw him comparing himself to a number of members on here stating they're just like him, just to drop it, discard it, and move onto somebody else.

Question is, as far ethics go, that is being Fi creative - doesn't it have a bit of a negative connotation - I mean treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs?

I'm sure that's not MD's intent, but I'll let him comment on that.

Absurd, how is noticing similarities between myself and other people unethical? Yeah, I said I'm similar to other people in some ways, then I've changed my type before. That doesn't mean I still don't identify with some aspect of them, be it their courage, their people-skills, their analytical nature, or whatever. We're all humans and are similar in some regard. I just see a lot of similarities all the time. That's certainly not treating people like 'baboons' or 'guinea pigs', just because I notice a key similarity, than not necessarily comment on it again.

And Krig, I like your explanation of Holographic thinking. Makes me feel 'understood', when I want to 'try on' different types, and people give so much crap for that. Pardon my French. I've glanced at this hat before, but I should've just gone ahead and tried it on sooner! Who knew, perhaps this would be the best fit of them all?

As long he doesn't call me bro, I'm alright. I'm a bit allergic when it comes to association.

No problem dude. Anything you say, homeslice.

[Codie]

You're not like any other IEE i've known, I really think you're ESE. I live with one, you're similar to her in some ways... how you put across things, give similar solutions, don't have time 4 tactless people etc. She is a 2w3 but I think you're a 3w2.

[Pa3s]

And Krig, I like your explanation of Holographic thinking. Makes me feel 'understood'...

Yeah, duals understand each other.

[Absurd]

Absurd, how is noticing similarities between myself and other people unethical?

Show time.

The act of actually hugging almost everybody saying they're the same type as you and after the fact saying you don't see anything in common with them. Examples of this are in abundance, I don't think I have to throw it out there for Krig to analyse with his organ, he already did. That's why they call LII analysts. All in all, I consider this a bit extreme in approach and foolish. You're tossing your flesh for hungry wolves out there, limb by limb, and few think you're tossing furniture. Wolves can't live on furniture.

As for the ethicalness of it, I won't do, nor participate in anything like that. I do respect people as hard it is to believe, and like I said, no tossing of salad nor melodrama from my side to them.

Yeah, I said I'm similar to other people in some ways, then I've changed my type before.

Duh! That makes me this other Gulenko thinking style as it does numerous people on here. What is your point?

That doesn't mean I still don't identify with some aspect of them, be it their courage, their people-skills, their analytical nature, or whatever. We're all humans and are similar in some regard. I just see a lot of similarities all the time. That's certainly not treating people like 'baboons' or 'guinea pigs', just because I notice a key similarity, than not necessarily comment on it again.

Cuntish approach. You don't judge yourself by numbers of people. You judge yourself by yourself, not me, not Krig, not any one else. You are you, You're not some dancing queen like Typhoon who doesn't know what the heck he is talking about, for example. You being E3 explains that, I think.[/QUOTE]

[Creepy-Snaps]

You're not like any other IEE i've known, I really think you're ESE. I live with one, you're similar to her in some ways... how you put across things, give similar solutions, don't have time 4 tactless people etc. She is a 2w3 but I think you're a 3w2.

Thanks for the opinion. I agree with the enneagram, I type as a 3w2.

Yeah, duals understand each other.

Yes they do.

Simple question: Why don't you like me?

And didn't you self-type LII before yourself?

[Creepy-Snaps]

and after the fact saying you don't see anything in common with them. Examples of this are in abundance, I don't think I have to throw it out there

Actually I will ask for an example of this, because I don't believe I have ever done this. I don't like throwing away possibilities. And I wouldn't say I don't have "anything in common" with someone, that just doesn't sound like something I would say at all, considering I've always been a huge believer that people always have at least one thing in common. I think you're getting your facts twisted Absurd, and putting words in my mouth in this case. Until you provide an example, I think your argument here is a bit flawed.

Cuntish approach. You don't judge yourself by numbers of people. You judge yourself by yourself, not me, not Krig, not any one else. You are you, You're not some dancing queen like Typhoon who doesn't know what the heck he is talking about., for example. You being E3 explains that, I think.

This is simply untrue. There are many quotes saying you 'find yourself' and 'discover yourself' through other people, without which you would have no basis for comparison. I'll give you an example of a quote, if you give me an example where I said I have nothing in common with someone.

[Absurd]

[QUOTE=Mountain LSE;837157Simple question: Why don't you like me?[/QUOTE]

For crying out loud, I don't give a toss when somebody doesn't like me, providing, I don't like them as well. But that doesn't happen that often. I actually like one person on here.

[Pa3s]

Simple question: Why don't you like me?

I neither like you, nor do I dislike you by default. However, as someone mentioned in the chatbox, you changed your type from ISTj to ENFp in a few months. If someone does that and is serious about it, they simply can't know what they're talking about. Of course, people learn more about the theory and change types, but you'll have the whole Socion in your type history if we wait a couple of months.

And didn't you self-type LII before yourself?

Yes, I did that before until I came to the conclusion that it's probably wrong.

[Creepy-Snaps]

For crying out loud, I don't give a toss when somebody doesn't like me, providing, I don't like them as well. But that doesn't happen that often. I actually like one person on here.

Don't forget to put the end bracket on your quote. And yes, we all know you have a crush on laghlagh.

I'm certainly entitled to ask 'Pa3s' that question.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I neither like you, nor do I dislike you by default. However, as someone mentioned in the chatbox, you changed your type from ISTj to ENFp in a few months. If someone does that and is serious about it, they simply can't know what they're talking about. Of course, people learn more about the theory and change types, but you'll have the whole Socion in your type history if we wait a couple of months.

Yeah, I get it. I get annoyed when others change types like that, and then proclaim with certainty what others' types are.

I understand I'm reconsidering everything right now, and keeping an open mind. I'm not saying I know everything, nor am I saying I know more than someone else.

I do like to 'go through types', or 'try on hats' as Krig metaphors, although that way of determining my type may seem strange to some people. I apologize to those who were banking on my being ESE, as a basis for comparison, when that might not be the case.

I've pretty much been typed EVERY single type by other people before... have you had this before? Have you had people debate which type you were, even when their suggestions are in opposing quadras? Sorry if I have such a confusing personality, or I appear deceptive in certain ways, or whatever. I don't intend to be.

[Absurd]

Actually I will ask for an example of this, because I don't believe I have ever done this.

Heh, Krig apparently read my posts. He can read yours and he is claiming you're IEE. I think burden of factual proof lies on his side of the fence. There is few members on here who think you're not, so you plus Krig are a bit outnumbered in this claim.

Belief has shit to do with it. Belief is blind sheep following their leader to their doom. You have actually said you identify with me and Director Abbie to miraculously change your card, that is, ScarletLux.

Don't play games with me boyo. It's all in archives. Any boring wanker can check it and if that is the epitome of being holograhpic, then I think numerous people on here are fucked by association.

I've always been a huge believer that people always have at least one thing in common.

Of course they do, being human.

I think you're getting your facts twisted Absurd, and putting words in my mouth in this case. Until you provide an example, I think your argument here is a bit flawed.

Talk to the hand. As long you don't want to be honest with me, I don't see the reason I should be with you.

This is simply untrue. There are many quotes saying you 'find yourself' and 'discover yourself' through other people, without which you would have no basis for comparison. I'll give you an example of a quote, if you give me an example where I said I have nothing in common with someone.

I laughed my arse off.

[Creepy-Snaps]

There is few members on here who think you're not, so you plus Krig are a bit outnumbered in this claim.

I don't care what the majority thinks Absurd, I'm not trying to be average. Do you remember when I originally switched to ESE, few people agreed with that? 70%+, according to my poll with over 30 votes, still thought I was SLE. I'm not looking for the popular majority opinion, I'm looking for truth.

Belief has shit to do with it. Belief is blind sheep following their leader to their doom. You have actually said you identify with me and Director Abbie to miraculously change your card, that is, ScarletLux.

I would appreciate it if you stopped cursing. You would sound more eloquent. But anyway, if that's what you're referring to, I still believe I identify with you and DA in certain ways. Do you feel lied to in that regard? Or cheated? Yes, and I feel I identify with SL as well. Are you saying that's indicative of my type? Still not sure what the problem is here.

Of course they do, being human.

We agree on something.

Talk to the hand. As long you don't want to be honest with me, I don't see the reason I should be with you.

I am being honest with you.

[Pa3s]

I've pretty much been typed EVERY single type by other people before... have you had this before?

I've never been typed any beta type, ESE, SEE, LIE, LSE and IEE.
SEI, ESI, ILE and EII were rather exotic opinions, only supported by a single person or a small group.
Most people still type me either ILI, SLI or LII.

This can be connected with my relatively obvious (stereotypical?) personality traits, but it has a certain pattern (also regarding the amount of people typing me).

[Slacker]

IEE makes more sense to me than LSE. But ESE makes more sense to me than either. Whatever!

[Krig the Viking]

For the record, I think ESE is a strong secondary possibility, and I wouldn't rule it out entirely yet. So far IEE seems like it fits best, but like I said, I'm always revisiting old opinions to see if I've overlooked anything.

[InkStrider]

I don't know you enough to be able to tell what your type is, but I'd like to show some support against this onslaught against changing ones mind with regard to type. I personally see nothing wrong with "trying on" a type, as our understanding of the functions/what it means to be a particular type/understanding of ourselves/interpretation of intertype compatibility changes. It is simply the present conclusion at a particular point in time according to our existing understanding of socionics.

When a person changes or "tries on" a type, they aren't intentionally doing it in order to confuse people and whatnot (although it can be confusing), but it is also a natural consequence of sifting through the theory in order to determine what works and what doesn't. When one type is discarded for another, it is the result of the changing of weights given to differing aspects of the theory (As we very well know, different interpretations of the theory result in very different typings). It is an experimentative process, and is how I personally approach not just socionics but also in tackling the more worldly problems, in forming and refining "algorithms" that actually work in real life. Very often, I try on new approaches/ideas (many times even if they seem infeasible), run them through to test if they "work", and dump them if they do not. It is the same process with socionics.

What I'm pointing out is, people should stop giving other people shit simply for undergoing the process I've just described, because this "Holographic-Panoramic" cognitive style is every bit as natural as Causal-Determinist, Dialectical-Algorithmic, and the Vortical-Synergetic style of cognition.

[Absurd]

I don't care what the majority thinks Absurd, I'm not trying to be average. Do you remember when I originally switched to ESE, few people agreed with that? 70%+, according to my poll with over 30 votes, still thought I was SLE. I'm not looking for the popular majority opinion, I'm looking for truth.

That's like looking for love in a brothel.

I would appreciate it if you stopped cursing. You would sound more eloquent. But anyway, if that's what you're referring to, I still believe I identify with you and DA in certain ways. Do you feel lied to in that regard? Or cheated? Yes, and I feel I identify with SL as well. Are you saying that's indicative of my type? Still not sure what the problem is here.

Me and eloquent - again - wrong number. Don't pay much attention on how do I sound, it's not a concern of mine in the slightest. You don't like what you hear or see. Bummer. Well, at least you didn't say I'm controversial. Now that would be way off.

I don't know you enough to be able to tell what your type is, but I'd like to show some support against this onslaught against changing ones mind with regard to type. I personally see nothing wrong with "trying on" a type, as our understanding of the functions/what it means to be a particular type/understanding of ourselves/interpretation of intertype compatibility changes. It is simply the present conclusion at a particular point in time according to our existing understanding of socionics.

I think this imaginary onslaught is in your head and you're fighting against the greatest enemy there is - your mind. Trying on a type isn't the same as being one, two, three, four or five. You can't become what you're not but you can learn it like a deaf person learns the notes. That's the only offence I take when it comes to "trying on a type". Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car and putting on a hat doesn't make you a leprechaun. Seems like descriptions of certain types make a person in this case and not the other way around.

Don't forget to put the end bracket on your quote. And yes, we all know you have a crush on laghlagh.

I'm certainly entitled to ask 'Pa3s' that question.

Don't forget to tell me to keep drinking and yes you do sound like WA more and more. Must be indenticals. I'm really sorry I can't say the same thing to you I did to her a bunch of posts ago.

[Beautiful sky]

is how I personally approach not just socionics but also in tackling the more worldly problems, in forming and refining "algorithms" that actually work in real life. Very often, I try on new approaches/ideas (many times even if they seem infeasible), run them through to test if they "work", and dump them if they do not. It is the same process with socionics.

What I'm pointing out is, people should stop giving other people shit simply for undergoing the process I've just described, because this "Holographic-Panoramic" cognitive style is every bit as natural as Causal-Determinist, Dialectical-Algorithmic, and the Vortical-Synergetic style of cognition.

What did you do this week? What did you get done this week/accomplish?