For William

[Beautiful sky]

@William


Regarding Se PoLR

Please read the following, thanks. This is my post from Truck's thread

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post949280

"They are usually thinking of something about you. If he thinks you're gay or is picking up gay signs, he may be staring to see if he's sure or not; usually, I stare when I really think someone is incredibly beautiful and I'm trying very hard to use my Se to pick up on all the details I can about that person, which I can't no matter how hard I try; I try so hard to paint the picture of that person in my mind so I can think of them again, but I can't; I never pick up on just the right shade of their skin, just the right cut of their hair, just the color of the shirt they were wearing, the exact smile; I really want to have the photo in my head of them, and so I stare, hard but to no success."

(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic_and_dynamic

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static. I miss out on details of people despite trying.

[Absurd]

Damn it, I thought it is Tuesday again.

[Absurd]

Didn't you used smilies like a smiley generator in the past, William? Just curious.

And yes, Si egos don't drive any vehicles, they would rather use the train, relax and fall asleep in comfy seats, and miss their destination whilst Se ego driving their bike might fall victim to the incoming train by not really falling asleep but getting tangled in rails.

Carry on though, interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to Marita's reply on the duality part between you and her. Be aware though, LSI isn't in high demand in Delta quadra...

[anndelise]

William, I think you are reaching quite a bit in that post. Especially considering Absurd's reminder question above.

For starters, her expressing her emotion is very much about her own emotions, her own emotional judgments on things. While ignoring what's going on inside others. Even when she tries to control the emotional atmosphere, she tries to get everyone to focus on HER emotions and HER needs, rather than the general emotional atmosphere. This could be used to support Fi base over Fe. (Note: not that I think Fe ego types don't do that.).

Also, regarding self expression of emotions, strong Fi has strong vital Fe, and vice versa. So yes, even infj are emotional creatures, and may even express those emotions. Though, I will admit that maritsa's use of emoticons feels forced, like she is trying to influence someone else's emotions towards thinking of her the way she wants them to think of her, rather than expressing a personal natural emotion.

As for silliness, FiNe may be a serious type, but they are also one of the childish Ne types, with a tendency to behave as both young and old, even at the same time. FiNe are quite playful when they are in the mood to be, particularly within their close relations. Playfulness is not the same thing as reinin's Merry. For an example, think of...damn, i think i might have the name wrong.. @Minde? She's posted pics of her dog. The dog always looks quite happy and healthy. He's obviously loved and receives a lot of attention from Minde. This suggests that she also plays with him a lot. And I am sure Minde smiles and laughs while doing so.

Now, with that said, none of this means that I don't agree with nor disagree with the alternative typing.

[Absurd]

The dog always looks quite happy and healthy. He's obviously loved and receives a lot of attention from Minde. This suggests that she also plays with him a lot. And I am sure Minde smiles and laughs while doing so.

Smart people might argue Minde's dog is Fe dominant.

Anyways, William, if you're reading this. Come on, I'll give you a free ride on my fiery warhorse - we just have to make sure the road is even enough, I don't want to scrape myself off the road for the seventh time.

[anndelise]

Regarding Se PoLR

Please read the following, thanks. This is my post from Truck's thread

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post949280

"They are usually thinking of something about you. If he thinks you're gay or is picking up gay signs, he may be staring to see if he's sure or not; usually, I stare when I really think someone is incredibly beautiful and I'm trying very hard to use my Se to pick up on all the details I can about that person, which I can't no matter how hard I try; I try so hard to paint the picture of that person in my mind so I can think of them again, but I can't; I never pick up on just the right shade of their skin, just the right cut of their hair, just the color of the shirt they were wearing, the exact smile; I really want to have the photo in my head of them, and so I stare, hard but to no success."

(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic_and_dynamic

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static. I miss out on details of people despite trying.

Maritsa, you do realize that your method of VI requires extensive use of Se based information, right?

[Words]

Maritsa, you do realize that your method of VI requires extensive use of Se based information, right?

How do you mean?

[anndelise]

@Words
VI necessarily utilizes information that comes in through the senses. Not passively, but actively looking at and categorizing visual clues about the person. The way that Maritsa does it uses static bits about the person such as bone structure, the spacing between eyes, eyebrows, lips, neck curve, etc. She also refers to different bone densities, fat%, etc. While fat% does change, how it looks is dependent on bone structure, height, and other minor-to-non-changing factors.

She's shown to be quite willing to go into great detail about these aspects of a person's physical structure.

She herself used the definition for Se of:

(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.

VI is actively perceiving the outward sensory data projected by a person's physicallity. It uses the unchanging structures of the person's body.

I'd add on that it also uses that info to make determinations about a person's nonphysical strengths and weaknesses, and their primary mental territories.

I'll go even further by suggesting that VI requires the combination of Se with Ti. Socionics having provided the Ti rules/norms through which she categorizes the static sensory details of the person.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this supports typing her as an Se ego type, nor Se valuer. But it does counter her attempts to claim to William (and other forum members) that

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static.

[Beautiful sky]

@Words
VI necessarily utilizes information that comes in through the senses. Not passively, but actively looking at and categorizing visual clues about the person. The way that Maritsa does it uses static bits about the person such as bone structure, the spacing between eyes, eyebrows, lips, neck curve, etc. She also refers to different bone densities, fat%, etc. While fat% does change, how it looks is dependent on bone structure, height, and other minor-to-non-changing factors.

She's shown to be quite willing to go into great detail about these aspects of a person's physical structure.

She herself used the definition for Se of:

VI is actively perceiving the outward sensory data projected by a person's physicallity. It uses the unchanging structures of the person's body.

I'd add on that it also uses that info to make determinations about a person's nonphysical strengths and weaknesses, and their primary mental territories.

I'll go even further by suggesting that VI requires the combination of Se with Ti. Socionics having provided the Ti rules/norms through which she categorizes the static sensory details of the person.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this supports typing her as an Se ego type, nor Se valuer. But it does counter her attempts to claim to William (and other forum members) that

No, because it's an application of a system that has a few not many rough criteria, as least the system I use.

[Raver]

@William: Like Anndelise mentioned, EIIs have strong . The difference between them and doms is that its their ignoring function so they don't use it as consciously.

[InvisibleJim]

@William in my view Maritsa is Fe-Si. She constantly wants to talk about people and their impact on her and what they do for her especially with regards to concrete material needs: food, etc. She also has no personal selectivity compass; she doesn't come and say 'I really dislike things like this, but I much favour things like that' which is a very Fi thing to do. I don't think Ni or Ne is particularly noticeable in Maritsas behaviour.

[anndelise]

I don't feel like discussing socionics with you at this time. Perhaps this will be best for both of us.

Lol, iow you don't want constructive criticism regarding your reasons.
Fine, but please note that I did NOT say that Fe was a reach, I said your REASONS for Fe were a reach. I had even provided you with some reasons which could have helped your argument about typing her Fe.

And there is nothing about socionics that says that we cannot use our vital functions consciously AT ALL. @Raver was right when wrote AS counsciously as. It's not Raver twisting the theory, it's you. Or are you suggesting that you are incapable of counsciously using your Ti while forming your arguments? Oh wait...

[anndelise]

@William in my view Maritsa is Fe-Si. She constantly wants to talk about people and their impact on her and what they do for her especially with regards to concrete material needs: food, etc. She also has no personal selectivity compass; she doesn't come and say 'I really dislike things like this, but I much favour things like that' which is a very Fi thing to do. I don't think Ni or Ne is particularly noticeable in Maritsas behaviour.

I, too, lean towards FeSi for her.
But I admit that I think e1w2 or e2w1 describes her far better than socionics does. And I'm not even that keen on the enneagram.

[InvisibleJim]

I, too, lean towards FeSi for her.
But I admit that I think e1w2 or e2w1 describes her far better than socionics does. And I'm not even that keen on the enneagram.

2w1 probably; shes too vapid for a 1 based on experience of a few powerful 1s.

[Absurd]

Yes, and I was being fake with low self-confidence. I think people could see through that. People can tell when you're not being yourself.

Ahh, glad self-help books helped, then.

[Raver]

Your 7th function, your ignoring function, is not used consciously AT ALL. Are you agreeing that Maritsa is CONSCIOUSLY using Fe? That's the impression I get from this post. That you agree she's consiously using Fe, but you're twisting the theory, saying that you CAN do that with your ignoring function.

And & know this. I made 6 specific points and observations how Maritsa consciously uses Fe. Did you read my post?

I just don't like to state things in absolutes so that is why I stated as consciously as opposed to unconsciously. I read your post, but most of your arguments seemed to provide evidence that Maritsa had strong and not that it was used consciously imo.

[anndelise]

Is that what you think you had said? Let's take a look at what you ACTUALLY said:
...[]...
Doesn't look like you differentiated. You also said:

You're right, I didn't specify "reasons" but perhaps you missed the ending of that post:

Now, with that said, none of this means that I don't agree with nor disagree with the alternative typing.

Basically making an argument that she could be Fi, but not really committing to it. Regardless, with your whole post considering the possibility that Maritsa could be viewed as Fi, I don't think it's a stretch to assume you intended your post to mean that 'Fe is a stretch'.

I look at things from a variety of povs, not just my own. I also tend to jump around from pov to pov so I'm not surprised when people, like you did, misunderstand which pov I am in at the time I wrote something.

I am also a judicious type, as in approaching a situation as if it's fresh/new without bringing in too many preconceived notions. And that is how I approached your reasons for Fe. If you are going to claim something as proof, then it helps to look for reasons that would negate that, as in the exceptions to the 'proof'. This helps build a stronger argument. (Of course, this is also why I don't have many actual opinions, and even fewer of those are strong opinions. I don't see things in simple black&white.)

But, perhaps you're not particularly interested in building a stronger argument regarding maritsa's Fe-ness, so *shrug*.

I see that. But I neither need nor want your help. Not from someone who believes that taking care of one's dog is obviously Fi,

Since I didn't say nor suggest that, I'll assume you are referring to someone else.

and that Se & Ti are REQUIRED for VI.

Let's see you try to VI without using any sensory experience nor comparing your nonsensory experiences of a person's physical nature with an abstract theory about the meanings of those physicalities.

Seriously, I'd really be interested in seeing how someone Visually Identifies a person's type without, you know, visually identifying the parts that suggest a type.

Good point, I see I was wrong about consciously using your 7th function. But Ti-ignoring is more about not caring about the argument itself and favoring the credibility of the person making the argument. For example, if a woman is a flip-flopping hypocrite, I am much less likely to listen to her. Hypothetically speaking.

Logic looks at the argument itself, not the person making the argument.
Subjective types are partially defined as considering the reputation of the person making an opinion/argument,
While objective types are partially defined as comparing the argument/opinion with the facts themselves.
But, that's reinin, so I can understand you dismissing that difference between Ti and Te.

[Beautiful sky]

Hi, Maritsa. Good morning again. As I've made it clear in other threads, I believe you are EIE. I will present my arguments and reasoning here to discuss.

I believe we both perceive our relationship as Super-Ego. That is something we can agree on. I understand you believe you are INFj, and you perceive me to be ISTj. I, however, self-type ESTj and perceive you to be ENFj. Regardless, we can both agree we are a Beta-Delta Super-Ego relationship. So basically, any & every function is open for discussion and analysis for perceived strength and perceived value. This won't be a thread discussing singular comparisons of Ni versus Ne, or Ti versus Te, but rather a full-blown type-fest of socionics.



So you have a weak visual memory. It happens for some people. I would agree with you that your explanation is indicative of weak Se. However, I would disagree that this is a case of Se POLR. In fact, when I read this, I get the impression that you very much care about trying to remember what other people look like, hence the staring and trying to remember sensory data. To me, this gives me the impression that you value Se, despite being weak at it.

I don't care about what they look like, it makes me sad that I can't. Now you can analyze that. That makes this function CONSCIOUS AND WEAK LOL

You'll say "oh it doesn't matter" when it does matter.

[Absurd]

Disagree. Te types consider the credibility of the person. Ti is impartial like you describe.

How do Te types know who is credible and who is not and Ti as function is completely subjective, so notions of impartiality are just ridiculous. Don't drink and drive, William...

[anndelise]

.
LOL. But how are we able to type sentences using keyboards? To construct language with text must require the use of logic. Perhaps we are all logical types. Or maybe we're synthesizing the meaning of each letter with each word, so we all must be intuitives. But if Se is observing anything externally, how are we able to drive? Maybe we're all Se-egos. At least everyone who drives. Hmm, how are INTjs & INFjs, with such weak Se, able to 1. Drive 2. VI people 3. Type with keyboards??? lol

And yet you provide no alternative of what kind of info VIing requires processed.
Also, your slippery slope ignores that every single type has at least the experience of every information element. (Aka 1D)

Maritsa started this thread to you by including her definition of Se polr

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static. I miss out on details of people despite trying.

She claims that she CANNOT process that kind of data, and that she misses those types of details of people despite trying. Yet she regularly attempts to type people by looking AT their 'outward data' in great detail. And she puts great stock IN that method, as well as in her ABILITY to accurately process that outward data.

This completely counters her first post to you, in this thread.
Now, whether it means her definition of Se is off, her defintion of Se polr is off, her own abilities to VI are off, or whatever...something(s) in her first post is off.

Now, I can understand if you would prefer this to be discussed in a different thread.
But it was brought up in response to her claim of having Se polr (and her attempt to support herself as being FiNe).

Disagree. Te types consider the credibility of the person. Ti is impartial like you describe.

Logic, not logic types. Look up logical fallacies.
(And yes, I am aware that it I have a problem of expecting...almost a demand...for self-typed logical types to be ...logical. This probably falls under the equivocation fallacy, I'm not sure. )

[Beautiful sky]

And yet you provide no alternative of what kind of info VIing requires processed.
Also, your slippery slope ignores that every single type has at least the experience of every information element. (Aka 1D)

Maritsa started this thread to you by including her definition of Se polr

She claims that she CANNOT process that kind of data, and that she misses those types of details of people despite trying. Yet she regularly attempts to type people by looking AT their 'outward data' in great detail. And she puts great stock IN that method, as well as in her ABILITY to accurately process that outward data.

This completely counters her first post to you, in this thread.
Now, whether it means her definition of Se is off, her defintion of Se polr is off, her own abilities to VI are off, or whatever...something(s) in her first post is off.

Now, I can understand if you would prefer this to be discussed in a different thread.
But it was brought up in response to her claim of having Se polr (and her attempt to support herself as being FiNe).


Logic, not logic types. Look up logical fallacies.
(And yes, I am aware that it I have a problem of expecting...almost a demand...for self-typed logical types to be ...logical. This probably falls under the equivocation fallacy, I'm not sure. )

so you're saying eii and lii are blind?

[Ryan]

@anndelise: I see your point, but it's most likely far from being true. Regarding the Se/Ti thing.

William is being an asshole anyway. His points are equally wrong. He also has no intention of discussing the subject beyond what he believes to be true. And it looks like you're distracting him from his mission to convert, erm.. I mean, convince Maritsa that she is EIE.

[InvisibleJim]

Is Maritsa blind or are EII/LII blind?

[anndelise]

so you're saying eii and lii are blind?

Please reread that first paragraph.

[Beautiful sky]

Please reread that first paragraph.

Ann, how do you type Van Gogh?

[Words]

Ooops, I liked your post by accident.

[Ryan]

Is Maritsa blind or are EII/LII blind?

[anndelise]

Ann. If you're arguing that every single type can use every single IE, then can't everybody be able to use VI? Don't we all use Se to some extent? When we open our eyes and see things, do you consider this Se?

If you're making an argument that VI *REQUIRES* Se & Ti, but that anybody can use Se & Ti temporarily, you defeat your own argument that Maritsa can't use VI because she has Se POLR. Does this make sense?

I would understand if you're making an argument based on skill level, and types who have weaker Se & Ti might be worse at VI. But that wouldn't render them incapable.

There is more to type than level of capability. There is also value vs subdued elements, and level of confidence.
Maritsa obviously not only values it, but is very confident in her ability to do so.
Maritsa even goes so far as to ignore her supposed 4D Fi to replace it with a 2D Fi system that requires her to use her supposed polr. Iow, she values that system, she values categorizing people based on their outward physical traits more than she does in actually relating to/with them. Even on the forum, her attempts to relate to and interact positively with people on the forum is centered around her desire to type them.

ANN. You were CLEARLY talking about logical types here, and you CLEARLY contradict yourself:

No, I didn't contradict myself.

Logic looks at the argument itself, not the person making the argument.
Subjective types are partially defined as considering the reputation of the person making an opinion/argument,
While objective types are partially defined as comparing the argument/opinion with the facts themselves.
But, that's reinin, so I can understand you dismissing that difference between Ti and Te.

The first sentence is talking about logic itself, not socionics' T.
The next two are referencing socionics logic types.

I may be guilty of unclear expression of thought, but that does not make it a contradiction.

[anndelise]

Ann, how do you type Van Gogh?

I don't.
I'm not that interested in typing people.
Even if I was, I have no way of actually interacting with him across a variety of settings to see what consistently sticks out across a variety of situations.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't.
I'm not that interested in typing people.
Even if I was, I have no way of actually interacting with him across a variety of settings to see what consistently sticks out across a variety of situations.

then why are you typing me?

[Words]

Y'all don't start bawling now.

[anndelise]

then why are you typing me?

If I was setting out to form a judgment of your type, I would be putting in far more effort and create a firmer stance on these discussions than I do.

Instead, I look at things you write, ways you behave, arguments and reasonings people give regarding you and/or your type, what people who have interacted with you outside of the forum have said about you, our own personal interactions with each other, etc...and wait to see what clearly stands out. What does clearly stand out to me is not particularly socionically clear. As I said earlier in this thread, I think that what stands out most clear about you is e1w2 or e2w1. If I really wanted to categorize you, I would research more clearly what each of those fully stand for and how they completely differ from each other to arrive at one conclusion. I would also go out of my way to find people who interact with you in a variety of settings and talk with them, or even engage with you outside of the forum. But I'm just not that interested in categorizing you.

I am, however, somewhat interested in understanding you enough to maybe figure out how to help you, or rather, people like you. At least I was until you became an aggressive bitch to other deltans. Now I vacillate between wanting to help you and wanting to tell you to shove it.

[Beautiful sky]

If I was setting out to form a judgment of your type, I would be putting in far more effort and create a firmer stance on these discussions than I do.

Instead, I look at things you write, ways you behave, arguments and reasonings people give regarding you and/or your type, what people who have interacted with you outside of the forum have said about you, our own personal interactions with each other, etc...and wait to see what clearly stands out. What does clearly stand out to me is not particularly socionically clear. As I said earlier in this thread, I think that what stands out most clear about you is e1w2 or e2w1. If I really wanted to categorize you, I would research more clearly what each of those fully stand for and how they completely differ from each other to arrive at one conclusion. I would also go out of my way to find people who interact with you in a variety of settings and talk with them, or even engage with you outside of the forum. But I'm just not that interested in categorizing you.

I am, however, somewhat interested in understanding you enough to maybe figure out how to help you, or rather, people like you. At least I was until you became an aggressive bitch to other deltans. Now I vacillate between wanting to help you and wanting to tell you to shove it.

you don't call that typing? what do you call it?

[Beautiful sky]

When you say you're sad that it's harder to observe people externally, I would say that's Se. But you wish you could. Again, that seems like a valued function to me.

When you say you don't care what people look like, that seems more Si to me, or not type-related at all.

So, Se type find it hard to observe people? How?

[anndelise]

you don't call that typing? what do you call it?

Observing you doesn't require typing you into a formal category.

[Beautiful sky]

Observing you doesn't require typing you into a formal category.

Oh, so it's ok to say "i think she's not Se PoLR" and then to say "I'm not typing her as not Se PoLR"?

[anndelise]

Oh, so it's ok to say "i think she's not Se PoLR" and then to say "I'm not typing her as not Se PoLR"?

I was countering your claim and your definition of Se polr, not typing you.
There's a difference.

Edited to add: i will step out now so that william can try to get you back on track. If you wish further communication on this with me, feel free to PM me.

Good luck @William.

[Not A Communist Shill]

@William


Regarding Se PoLR

Please read the following, thanks. This is my post from Truck's thread

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post949280

"They are usually thinking of something about you. If he thinks you're gay or is picking up gay signs, he may be staring to see if he's sure or not; usually, I stare when I really think someone is incredibly beautiful and I'm trying very hard to use my Se to pick up on all the details I can about that person, which I can't no matter how hard I try; I try so hard to paint the picture of that person in my mind so I can think of them again, but I can't; I never pick up on just the right shade of their skin, just the right cut of their hair, just the color of the shirt they were wearing, the exact smile; I really want to have the photo in my head of them, and so I stare, hard but to no success."

(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic_and_dynamic

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static. I miss out on details of people despite trying.

Maritsa, you do realize that your method of VI requires extensive use of Se based information, right?

@Words
VI necessarily utilizes information that comes in through the senses. Not passively, but actively looking at and categorizing visual clues about the person. The way that Maritsa does it uses static bits about the person such as bone structure, the spacing between eyes, eyebrows, lips, neck curve, etc. She also refers to different bone densities, fat%, etc. While fat% does change, how it looks is dependent on bone structure, height, and other minor-to-non-changing factors.

She's shown to be quite willing to go into great detail about these aspects of a person's physical structure.

She herself used the definition for Se of:

(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.

VI is actively perceiving the outward sensory data projected by a person's physicallity. It uses the unchanging structures of the person's body.

I'd add on that it also uses that info to make determinations about a person's nonphysical strengths and weaknesses, and their primary mental territories.

I'll go even further by suggesting that VI requires the combination of Se with Ti. Socionics having provided the Ti rules/norms through which she categorizes the static sensory details of the person.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this supports typing her as an Se ego type, nor Se valuer. But it does counter her attempts to claim to William (and other forum members) that

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static.

[...]

[...]

Maritsa started this thread to you by including her definition of Se polr

When you have Se PoLR not only can you not process outward data, but also the data does not come in very easily. So the impression changes is not static. I miss out on details of people despite trying.

She claims that she CANNOT process that kind of data, and that she misses those types of details of people despite trying. Yet she regularly attempts to type people by looking AT their 'outward data' in great detail. And she puts great stock IN that method, as well as in her ABILITY to accurately process that outward data.

This completely counters her first post to you, in this thread.
Now, whether it means her definition of Se is off, her defintion of Se polr is off, her own abilities to VI are off, or whatever...something(s) in her first post is off.

Now, I can understand if you would prefer this to be discussed in a different thread.
But it was brought up in response to her claim of having Se polr (and her attempt to support herself as being FiNe).[...]

Wow, you will upset an LSE by matching the speed to the vehicle next to you and thereby blocking the road and yes sometimes LSE get into a rush because they never have time.


I've had an LSE in a white truck tailgate me, honking and cursing at a stop sign. I couldn't go because of odd traffic that was blocking the road ahead. Once the LSE u-turned around me and got a glimps of me shaking my head in disapproval he smiled and thus I saw that he didn't mean any harm by it. I too smiled back and he went on his way.

How did you type the alleged LSE as LSE?

As he passed me he turned his head a full 45 degrees to look at me and look into my eyes directly. When he saw me his mood changed to the flirting gentlemen and he smiled this smile like he adored me Really he was observing me and my reaction. I smil ed back at the observation.

I see, but how did you type the alleged LSE as LSE?

Behavior patterns and their look, features, the intensity of their reaction. I live in LA and observe a lot of people while driving. SEI tend to me more internal absorbing and zoned out kind of. You can pick up on general tendencies after so long.

.

[Beautiful sky]

.

I can't tell you what color eyes he had, I can't tell you his hair cut what model car it was what shirt he was wearing. Those are details of perception you are really out of your mind, please leave me alone

[Not A Communist Shill]

I can't tell you what color eyes he had, I can't tell you his hair cut what model car it was what shirt he was wearing. Those are details of perception you are really out of your mind, please leave me alone

And yet you are determining someone's innate personality type based on superficial behaviour. I would probably have only be able to deduce that he was an asshole.

It is obvious here, and in other threads, that you have a focus on "outward sensory data projected by objects", as well as " (dynamic) perceiving how objects are interacting on an emotional level. One and the same object can interact very different with a stable set of other objects depending on a variety of factors.".