Aquagraph demands your attention (Now with visual footage!)

[Aquagraph]

So, here it is.

Discuss and analyze like Socionics would have any actual scientific credibility.

[Aquagraph]

Oh, and I also learned that "Aquagraph" is a fucking watch

[mu4]

This poll needs check boxes!

[Slacker]

I can't see the video on my ipad

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

you can always try on ESE and agarina LII and play duals.

[Korpsy Knievel]

For several years I detested ketchup on the grounds that it was a trucker's condiment and I would not eat the stuff, though I have relaxed my stance in recent years.

Apparent similarities with someone I know outside the 16chan realm are a large part of why I listed you as ILE on the spreadsheet, though that was rather provisional. While mobilizing /vulnerable still seem fairly solid, recent exchanges and observations of your mien and interactions have introduced new doubts into whether you're Ne/Si-valuing at all. To that effect:

1. In conversation you tend to have a linear apprach to addressing topics instead of going off on a bunch of tangential bullshit and talking around them.
2. Though I wager you'd try it once or twice for novelty's sake (and perhaps even turn it into a photo op) I doubt you'd have any strong desire to be swaddled in a diaper and coddled like an infant.
3. You don't appear possessed by an urge to pull your intellectual penis out and waggle it apropos of nothing or become embroiled in disputes over who has the pointiest head (a general blemish of the NT club, not just the alpha variety).
4. Your attitude to challenges or adversity is more of a "roll with the punches" sort than I'd expect of the average incontinent infantile.
5. The commission of your mischief likewise seems more showy, direct, and Aggressor-y than I'd expect of the stereotypical alpha dweeb.
6. Your post in the Socionic Realism thread seemed to view the problem first from a very close range and then zoom outward to encompass the bigger picture before arriving at a mediatory third way along the interface of the famous antipodes, subject and object. I will suggest that this is firstly a manifestation of being Ni-valuing and its tendency for essential holism, and secondly a potential sign of Holographic-Panoramic cognition along these lines: "Two different perspectives of an indivisible whole which, when superimposed in the mind, produces transition to a higher level of understanding about the object. SLE thinks this way in battle. Analyzing the situation, they simplify it to two or three facets (frontal, flank, and/or rear), but then quickly go to a higher tier of understanding."
7. After reading your posts and being involved in various chatbox convos I've had little difficulty making sense of your writing and I haven't been impelled to place your name on the list of the eminently euthanizable. That said I do think in regular Real-Life™ contact your look-at-me antics might cause me to edge away to avoid being caught unprepared in the spotlight myself, but not in a way I'd find especially alienating. This suggests neighboring quadra values and reminds me of usually-positive relations with at least two probable SLEs I've known.

So all told I think the Ti-ego core remains where it was but I'm starting to think you're Se>Ne and thus SLE is your likely type.

More Agarina, less Aquagraph.

I CONCUR! Also I'm still not convinced she isn't ESI either (because she also reminds me of someone else), though overturning her self-typed applecart isn't a pressing concern. In any event, I repeat my call for the importation of more Finns.

[Absurd]

SLE is your likely type.

Haha, you little shit nearly shit yourself trying to type me SLE and sending your drones to do it. Die in shame and flames you IQ overlord.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Haha, you little shit nearly shit yourself trying to type me SLE and sending your drones to do it. Die in shame and flames you IQ overlord.

You soppy idiot, try drinking a bottle of Clue:

[Gilly]

Works fine on my HTC Desire

Android ftw

fuck Apple fascists

[Roro]

I still stand by the type I told you, say, two months ago.

I can smell from a mile away. Well, even further than that since you're in another country.

[Slacker]

Android ftw

fuck Apple fascists

I love my ipad, but I want to watch the video.

[Slacker]

I realized I have another browser on my ipad. problem solved.

You type yourself as SLE, right? I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a strong opinion, either, but I rarely do.

[Ave]

K, since you requested I watched it, and I think a video of you was in order anwyays. My opinion on your type hasnt changed though, so no surprises will come from reading this, except maybe now Im more convinced you are valueing because you said you value someone who is not down to earth. Not sure what that means from a socionics perspective, to me it seems like an valuer would be more "down to earth" even though I myself am more head in the clouds by nature I would say this is because I have strong ; I dont value this head in the clouds quality in myself though and prefer someone who is down to earth(but with imagination). I guess it depends what you mean by down to earth though, you dont particlularly clarfiy that part.

[Gilly]

So, here it is.

Discuss and analyze like Socionics would have any actual scientific credibility.

What the fuck

You make me wonder if Sarinana and I had children 20 something years ago

SLE without a shred of doubt

[silke]

... I dunno, maybe there is nothing I can do to make you see what I see, but to me his ILEness is just too clear to be missed. ... Maybe a person's Ne just isn't always that obvious to people they don't know well or on the Internet?

Yeah, his Ne is very obvious to me too. May be it's because I've had some relationship experience with ILEs and can spot Mirage a mile away now. Like I can just see the first two minutes of Aqua's video and immediately know how it's going to unfold already. If we were friends irl, we'd just talk about philosophy or archetypes or ketchup some other funny/random/abstract shit like that all day long and nothing else will ever get done. Been there - done that already.

So, here it is.

Discuss and analyze like Socionics would have any actual scientific credibility.

Let me start by saying that Ekpy/korpsey made an astute observation that in your posts you "view the problem first from a very close range and then zoom outward to encompass the bigger picture" but he mis-attributed it to Ni whereas it has nothing to do with being Ni-valuing. IEIs, who are Ni-dominant, in fact expect something very different from their duals SLEs. As Glam has explained in this thread about IEI Ti-hidden agenda: "I respond well to people putting things clearly and concisely, people who can sift through all the bullshit and tell me the fundamental way things are in a relatively simple fashion". They expect simplification - not expansion to "bigger picture" or some theoretical ruminations. The way you're expanding to more complex thought forms and theoretical topics is disorienting to IEIs and serves as the basis of Mirage relations - relations of "growing laziness" which are ineffective and unproductive due to this kind of theoretical obfuscation and abstractive disorientation.

It makes for great conversations and very involving chats over the internet. Unfortunately as I've discovered in real life after being in a relationship with an ILE nothing realistic ever gets accomplished in the end, but continues to exist in the realm of exciting discussions. I can see exactly same motifs in your expression and thinking style as I've seen in my ILE ex and can very well predict the unfolding of Mirage at this point. However, SEIs do very much appreciate this kind of expression and thinking style, as I believe Agarina has already mentioned that she has observed SEIs respond very well to you, which is more points towards you being ILE.

To back-up what I've explained above with some socionics theory, expanding from concrete examples towards more theoretical information, as you do it, is what Russian socionists attribute to Process types. SLEs, being Result types, will do something quite different - they will summarize or simplify things down, exactly as Glam has requested. From here:

Result types (SLE) start from the general and progress towards the specifics. Process types (ILE) start from specifics and progress towards the general. These two information paths in formal logic are called deduction and induction. These differences in thinking have a visible impact on activities such as reading books, writing articles, and public speaking.

You're clearly given into deduction and expansion to abstract generalities, as is exemplified by this thread, which is evidence for ILE.

Your easy-going, experiential attitude, ability just roll with it without getting stuck on any one argument, is very elegantly explained by you being enneagram type 7. In this quality you are actually very similar to FDG, who is also e7 and has the same free-wheeling approach. According to old threads he was mistaken for a SLE for the longest time. In general it seem like e7s get confused for SLEs and SEEs often because they have an experimental-experiential, devil-may-care approach to life which many confuse for Se dominance.

At this point I am very certain that your type is ILE. I would say though that you're ILE with beta-vibes, similarly to hkkmr, who interestingly enough also got typed into a SLE by several people on this forum (link).


edit: forgot to mention, from the video it's apparent that your look is very spacy and your eyes are rummaging, searching, which is exactly what is described of Ne-types. SLEs tend to stare right at you in a very focused manner.

[mfckr]

To back-up what I've explained above with some socionics theory, expanding from concrete examples towards more theoretical information, as you do it, is what Russian socionists attribute to Process types. SLEs, being Result types, will do something quite different - they will summarize or simplify things down, exactly as Glam has requested. From here:

Result types (SLE) start from the general and progress towards the specifics. Process types (ILE) start from specifics and progress towards the general. These two information paths in formal logic are called deduction and induction. These differences in thinking have a visible impact on activities such as reading books, writing articles, and public speaking.

You're clearly given into deduction and expansion to abstract generalities, as is exemplified by this thread, which is evidence for ILE.

Eh? Sounds like the author of the article you excerpted flipped deduction and induction, or that's a mistranslation.

Deductive reasoning is usually conceived as going from general → specific, inductive reasoning as specific → general.

I'd say if you're going to corroborate inductive reasoning as a tendency of Result types, then you're making a good case for Aquagraph being SLE.

[EyeSeeCold]

Eh? Sounds like the author of the article you excerpted flipped deduction and induction, or that's a mistranslation.

Deductive reasoning is usually conceived as going from general → specific, inductive reasoning as specific → general.

I'd say if you're going to corroborate inductive reasoning as a tendency of Result types, then you're making a good case for Aquagraph being SLE.

Well I usually don't agree with Ashlyn but he does have a point. I say you guys should make your terminology clear. Gulenko noted the differences in interpretations of deductive and inductive, and I think that's where you two disagree.

Intellectual Level

Describing Evolution–Involution at this level will initially contrast deductive vs. inductive thinking.

Unfortunately, the bulk of literature on this cognitive dichotomy treats it in at least two different senses. In the first sense, deduction is understood simply as a strict formal sequence or expository progression of thought (aka Socionics rationality), while induction is understood as conclusions stemming from practical experience (aka Socionics irrationality).

I will frame this dichotomy in the second sense, namely as simplification vs. complication of thought structure. Meaning that in deductive thinking, given a set of simple and obvious statements (axioms, postulates), the resultant consequences can be necessarily derived (theorem). Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to complex. Evolutionary types therefore mentally complicate the situation.

In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. Involutionary types break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it. Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple.

The Evolution–Involution dichotomy confers different scales of examination in a problem. Evolutionary types see small to large. Details are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map. Involutionary types on the other hand, see large to small. Details are vague. Scale is general and broad. The scale will alternate in Negativists, since they think more alternatively, but the same priority will remain.

It is worth noting that deductive thinking has always had priority in society over inductive thinking. Constructing a deductively consistent theory to explain a phenomenon, has always been seen as a researcher's coup de grace.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

[Aquagraph]

However, SEIs do very much appreciate this kind of expression and thinking style, as I believe Agarina has already mentioned that she has observed SEIs respond very well to you, which is more points towards you being ILE.

She has? But IEIs respond to me well. All of my ex gfs have been IEI (except for that one bitch).

You're clearly given into deduction and expansion to abstract generalities, as is exemplified by this thread, which is evidence for ILE.

I think that thread maybe revealing on how I see things.

edit: forgot to mention, from the video it's apparent that your look is very spacy and your eyes are rummaging, searching, which is exactly what is described of Ne-types. SLEs tend to stare right at you in a very focused manner.

That was partly due to reading the memo on the screen. It's also hard to make an eye contact with the camera. But besides that, yes.

Aqua, I guess I shouldn't tell you I eat ketchup sandwiches.

I appreciate your confession. But you shouldn't have... ..I still find you attractive.

But anyway, I can see SLE more than ILE when it comes to this video. But ah, something still feels weird to me about that typing. I can't tell you what it is hmmmm

You know what it is but can't or can't just put your finger on it?

Any questions for a new video?

[Gilly]

I appreciate your confession. But you shouldn't have... ..I still find you attractive.

Me and Aquagraph: the type that can't help flirting with jessica

[Aquagraph]

I just gave you like fifteen questions you ungrateful prick

AND I JUST ANSWERED (some of) THEM.

The following videos will probably be more about me wanting attention than providing useful material.

@Gilly
teehee!

[silke]

Going to make a few replies and stop posting in this thread, don't want to ruin this game.

You type yourself as SLE, right? I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a strong opinion, either, but I rarely do.

He self-typed as ILE in this post.

I'd say if you're going to corroborate inductive reasoning as a tendency of Result types, then you're making a good case for Aquagraph being SLE.

I wouldn't be making a case for it since Aqua simply doesn't think like one. He just breaks the typical stereotypes of "alpha dweebs" and alpha NTs being socially inept video-game loving nerds, likely why both him and hkkmr get typed as beta.

Eh? Sounds like the author of the article you excerpted flipped deduction and induction, or that's a mistranslation.

Deductive reasoning is usually conceived as going from general → specific, inductive reasoning as specific → general.

Words "general/specific" have different meaning in context of socionics cognitive styles than how they are used in that article. In context of cognitive styles, specific -> general denotes movement from smaller scale, from details to "bigger picture" thinking. In that Wikipedia article "general example -> specific conclusion" means movement from obvious, commonly accepted axioms (examples) towards a particular conclusion derived from those axioms.

Movement from specific to general i.e. from details onto bigger picture thinking in terms of cognitive styles is assigned to Evolutionary/Process types such as ILE: "Evolutionary types see small to large. Details are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map. ... Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to complex." Comparing what Aqua does in his reasoning as Ekpy/korp has described it: "first from a very close range and then zoom outward to encompass the bigger picture" IT'S A MATCH. SLEs think very differently.

You have also omitted some crucial words from that definition of deductive logic that actually provide the much needed context. Deductive reasoning isn't defined as going from "general -> specific" but from "general examples -> specific conclusion". If some of Aqua's writing is examined that's exactly what he does. In this post, for example, he gives some examples that demonstrate similarities in the wizzard archetype ("Gandalf is based on Väinämöinen", "Gandalf mainly got it's inspirations on Merlin", "Later on, came Albus Dumbledore") and then he finishes it off with a conclusion: "We're culturally trapped in archetypes". This style of reasoning "example, example, example -> conclusion", is attributed to Process types i.e. ILE.

[marooned]

SLE > EIE > ILE