Looks like Joy is SEE as well.
Looks like Joy is SEE as well.
Maybe Effie is ESE...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
scarlettlux can be Se SEE and there is no reason for you to keep bitching over it.Intertype relations verify themselves more or less after a while,right? I mean Se-SEEs and EIEs are shitty and noone cares about them.hahah jk! ahahah!
What do you mean by this? Counter-intuitive EIE and onwards?Originally Posted by wookie
She is. Like the OP, prolly whose defenses sound about the same as my own a year ago, lmao. "But you don't knoooooooow me in RL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" xD Best premise on a web forum. Ever.
<3 @ Joy and SL.
But in the case SL is EIE, she is the most counter-intuitive EIE I think I've ever met. hahahaha. I mean, either Lux doesn't care AT ALL (which don't coincide with her actions) or she has stumbled into a most obvious danger. I think there's some description saying SEEs are prone towards that when overly confident.
As I said before, she's probably SEE. You'll SEE. This conversation allows me to rule out IEE.
I'm not sure I follow.
Joy is SEE like SL but SL is EIE.
I don't have an opinion on her type at all. Don't know her so I'm going to relax and enjoy the show.
I see. Thanks for clarifying that up.
So I'm not the only one who thinks that watching exchanges between Gilly and SL is like watching the same person argue with himself/herself. Both of them are dynamic types, both are highly reactive in very similar manner, my typing for both is Fe-EIE.
I'm picking up on that feeling too, I believe this is the omg-I've-got-this-Pi-PoLR-now-I-can't-relax vibe that EJs often radiate
If Se was your leading function, you'd simply have it, since base & creative come naturally. If you "craving it", searching for it, that would indicate that it is something you don't have enough of yourself i.e. that it is hidden agenda or dual-seeking element rather than an ego element.
The dominant function subtype stresses HA more heavily than the creative subtype, so if you are Fe-EIE then no wonder that you'd crave Se so much.
Also what about that LSI girl you posted about some weeks ago? You had this great connection with her and now suddenly she is not your dual any more?
This is part of the reason I'm willing to sway, because simply put, like most Pe doms can't stay focused on any conclusion for more than 10 minutes. They just prefer to operate this way, to be quite frank, extremely overvaluing of the current situation - See Gilly.
I really like the fact(?) that there is so many Gamma SFs on here lately. It's like they reproduce by imagination I mean this used to be a NT safe haven some time ago.
You're going to see that on here multiplied by thousand.
Over 9000.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
She seemed to me like she was your supervisor rather than your dual, which is one of the reasons I went with SEE for you rather than EIE, assuming that she is typed correctly.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
LOL okay, my bad.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Though I may sound like a broken record here, the problem is really that everyone has a slightly different view of Socionics, so it really doesn't matter what people type you as. The issue is that within the basic structure, people all have their own ideas of what the IM elements are and how they're manifested in behaviors. So all that matters really is whether your own concept of typing makes sense in itself, and whether it provides you useful insights.
The odd thing about this and similar threads is that here all these people who've never met SL (or in other threads, other people they didn't meet) are making claims about her type and arguing about it, when they don't even agree amongst themselves about the theory. Perhaps a more fruitful discussion might be "in what way" SL may be viewed as SEE, and "in what way" she may be viewed as EIE or some other type.
Incidentally, I find that SEE and EIE can appear pretty close. One possible theory for that is that if there's anything to Model B and the +/- thing, then people evaluated based on their + functions may appear one quadra to the left of if they're evaluated based on their "valued" functions. Hence SEEs may give off a Beta vibe.
One other quick thought: The best way to get other people to disagree with your type is to proclaim forcefully that you're a certain type. Then they'll certainly all insist you're something else. That doesn't mean they don't like you. They do that to almost everybody.
But if you self-type in a certain way for a long time, and it gets accepted, people are bound to see you in terms of that type. Because forum posts only give a little information about a person, peoples' minds "fill in" a lot based on the person's self-typing or accepted typing. So there's almost a kind of knee-jerk reaction when someone suddenly changes self-typing.
LOL!
What type was THAT girl Lux?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Good point, never thought about Socionics in that way before.
Not even Model B, EIE and SEE are similar in being Se/Ni-valuing(Resolute) Ethical Extraverts. That's among the closest you can get under the basic Jungian theory. The major differences are Rationality/Irrationality and TeFi/FeTi(Serious/Merry).Incidentally, I find that SEE and EIE can appear pretty close. One possible theory for that is that if there's anything to Model B and the +/- thing, then people evaluated based on their + functions may appear one quadra to the left of if they're evaluated based on their "valued" functions. Hence SEEs may give off a Beta vibe.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
SL changing her mind about the LSI girl isn't the main reason that SEE typing doesn't fit her. The main reason is that the structure and flow of the information that she relays indicates that she is a dynamic type, not a static one such as SEE. Since socionics types are distinguished primarily by their information metabolism, the main indicator of someone's type is the flow of information that the person generates, which can be assessed from their speech or writing (which is one of the reasons why you don't need to meet someone in person to be able to type them). Going by how SL expresses herself in writing she sounds very much dynamic.
Here is a Russian study that covers differences between static and dynamic types: link
Essentially, static types tend to use linking verbs that do not show action, while dynamic types tend to use action verbs. Which is not surprising considering that dynamics perceive reality as constant flow of events (constant action) while statics perceive it in episodic manner (discreet states).Dynamics (IP and EJ):
For dynamics current events are viewed as a sequence which is not decomposed into separate episodes. The consciousness of dynamics is oriented towards perceiving continuous flows of changes as oppose to discrete states.
...
Lexicon: they use verbs of action which do not have a direct object ("went", "made", "brought", "settle", "cheered themselves", "cried a little"). In their stories they use many semantic verbs which express actions of the storyteller and other characters in the story and interaction between all of them.
Statics (IJ and EP):
Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of statics is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not as continuous flows of changes.
...
Lexicon: frequent usage of "to be" as a catenative verb ("to become (Something), to be (Something)"), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal verbs ("to want", "to can (To be able to)"; "it is possible to make" instead of "make"), usage of no-verb constructions.
SL's posts in this thread and other threads are full of action verbs that reflect her own actions or those of other people ("I started" "he met me" "I'll take into consideration" "he noticed", etc.). For comparison here is a post by dolphin/Nemo whose type is SEE: link. Her story contains many no-verb constructions and heavy use of various conjugates of "to be" verb ("I was" "It's so weird" "he is not Ne" "Gilly and I were" "Se is", etc.) and the narrative is very much episodic in nature. This is markedly different from how SL conveys information in her posts.
I can see how EIEs can appear SxE-ish in their behavior on the surface, especially Fe-sub with its strong focus on Se hidden agenda, but going by her communication style and everything that Russians write, SL's type just isn't SEE. (and same applies to Gilly, not static either)
Ahhh, the Mountain Dew approach. I have to try that someday.
I disagree, I would state that she is a static type because she keeps redefining 'what she is' situationally. A dynamic type would have flow. One day she is IEE due to one set of experiences the next she is SEE, these are discrete, static states based upon the current environment, there is minimal reflection and reinforcement. She doesn't see the common trends. Thats what I would define as being static when it comes to processing information. This is also where analysing peoples 'writing style' falls down, because you need to look at their underlying cognitive thought processes, the 'why' not the method of presentation.
Se valuers generally think and speak in ways that may be discrete or static, but minimal reflection isn't the same thing as unconscious immergence, which SL doesn't seem to possess. Even Se valuers switching modes rapidly retain an inherent groundedness. See Allie, woofy, merky, Herzy, squark, Bardia, blackburry, timewu..
Even if Se valuers throw a tantrum, they can't not be static. It's like a feeling of not being able to break out of that perception..to reach "flow". Now, when I've seen SL express herself, really express herself beyond the limits of what type she's trying on this week, she's quite fluid.
Which reminds me..still haven't seen any actual content from SL that's devoid of type bias.
Oh Glory,
As you were.
Let me explain this in a form that will make more sense to siuntal. *cracks INFJsforum knuckles*Se valuers generally think and speak in ways that may be discrete or static, but minimal reflection isn't the same thing as unconscious immergence, which SL doesn't seem to possess. Even Se valuers switching modes rapidly retain an inherent groundedness. See Allie, woofy, merky, Herzy, squark, Bardia, blackburry, timewu..
Even if Se valuers throw a tantrum, they can't not be static. It's like a feeling of not being able to break out of that perception..to reach "flow". Now, when I've seen SL express herself, really express herself beyond the limits of what type she's trying on this week, she's quite fluid.
Which reminds me..still haven't seen any actual content from SL that's devoid of type bias.
EP static.
A = GREAT
B = GREAT
C = GREAT
D = GREAT
A and C are opposite, B and D are opposite.
Differentiator, gamma or delta? If delta call B 'aristocratic' and if they are western they hate it because of the static label.
In the case of IEE or SEE theres a lack of willpower to define the underlying themes within the boxes, A+B+C+D. Once they become available or the IEE/SEE is forced to confront them, Ti PoLR comes in and it is no longer a case of 'appearances only'.
By contrast IJ static,
A = Great
B = Rubbish
C = Rubbish
D = Rubbish
Regardless of the fact there is very little difference between the other choices and A. Because of their individualized criteria for what is 'good' and 'bad'.
In this situation I see ScarletLux going... okay, I like all of these things but can't be bothered to do the work to justify any of them unless I'm pushed and forced and I don't like it! Then I'll copy and paste 100 irrelevant paragraphs to justify why its great without adding any concise 'working through' of the problem. A dead give away of Ti polr.
A patient man will realise I haven't tried to break down IEE or SEE. Because thats the next piece of the puzzle and is basically a choice of Gamma vs Delta, which should be fairly obvious (i.e. IEE).
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 12-27-2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason: Simplified, feedback says post too long
And yet, this freedom of disposition carries Se's immersion within the experience. Even Eps have a Ji function in their ego
Ti PoLR friend.And yet, this freedom of disposition carries Se's immersion within the experience. Even Eps have a Ji function in their ego
lol no matter how many times I read the above posts, I'm still confused as fuck.
I don't understand these kinds of descriptions. Socionics becomes more and more of a joke to me as time passes. It's so ridiculous the amount of abstraction and theorizing that some people put into it when yeah, everyone's viewpoints will always differ somewhat and there's no way to confirm any objective truth about any function. Damn why am I here?
It's quite fun. More fun when you jump quadras, and make it dramatic.
I have suspected that as well, good call. I mentioned I identify strongly with SL's writings. Perhaps she could be Delta NF, as opposed to Beta NF? That's why she felt uncomfortable there. IEE could very conveniently explain the conflicting relation between her and DJ, among other things.
Yeah, but it's addicting, isn't it? That's why I give weight to VI... what with all the theorizing, I feel VI still has some groundwork of concrete proof. The theorizing can be fun though.
Bet you $100 you are still posting here next week about this very topicYes, its crap because there is more than one way to skin a cat. It's not the cats fault, the skinners fault or the knifes fault.
@MD. I dont think its right to go around changing your type as form of gameplay, because it affects the perception people have of you, its disrespectful to go around mentally masturbating on everyone because its not fun for anyone except for you, it plays with people's emotions and its basically just a joke to the person doing it.
I'll leave the melodrama to you. You're better at it than me.
You're telling me Mountain IEE is a joke?
To put it bluntly.
I dunno if its a "joke" in and of itself, in the sense thats its meant to be funny but the whole type-changing for the fun of it is taking your self typing only half seriously and seriously lacks any form of stable grounding in that belief, since its probably gonna change in three weeks, anyways, so why beleive in the first place? If I tear something down and build it over again, do I not prove I was wrong the first time? But whats the point of repeatedly tearing something down for the fun of it? To constantly prove you are wrong?
Not SEE.
I agree with Starfall-- SL and Gilly are way too fucking dramatic. same quadra; neither being of SEE typing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
