GNU/Linux! I run Lubuntu at the moment and it rules. I wanna put either 5 or 6 up front, and fill the rest of the tritype out with 1 in the Gut fix and 3 in the Head fix. In full, wings and all, I'm gonna go 5w6-1w9-3w2 for the guy. No idea on stacking at the moment. Alpha NT for the guy works, leaning ever-so-slightly to LII. And since the @Butt Commander is so sure that me and my fellow Linux enthusiast are Identicals at ILE, here's a short vid I made a while back for a YouTube trailer; there I am in the vid, see for yourself.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I find technology fascinating, but I can't really keep up... >.<
"disquieting" perhaps?
"I/ENFPs who have developed both their NT and SF faces can present a capricious image of contradictions. They can engage in logical dialogue at a conceptual level (NT) and then a short time later engage in actions that seem to fly in the face of that discussion (because their SF nature was engaged). Extraverts seem to be particularly adept at turning either of these faces to the outer world - depending on the circumstances. At one moment, being able to talk and make the big picture, tough decisions and at another moment be warm, fuzzy, or empathetic are two sides of the same NFP coin. Yet this can be disquieting - conjuring up the image of false masks implied by the pejorative term "two-faced."
You have me and him as Identicals. Explain.
In addition to it being more obscure parts of theories that you deliberately fuck up on a fundamental level, it's a means of subtly encouraging people to explore more of the theories in various ways, as well as a way to leave the type field somewhat open so the people here can go more off of their rationale than mine. You're one of those people, but just one. If you don't know what any of that's supposed to be, that's all on you.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...00#post1007600
Here you go! enneagram, classical elements, tarot, the occult looming in the shadows, it's all there... muahahaha...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
look at yourself and then look at him; it's pretty obvious
sorry, it's that blasted PoLR; you'd understand if you were SEE
regardless, I still disagree that Fi = fields
lol, it sounds pretty meaningless to me; I just find it funny that you still think you use Fi
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
from Filatova's IEE description:
from Filatova's SEE description:is better able to focus on ‘big picture’ work than to be occupied by thorough study.
System, structure, objective laws – these are areas in which the SEE struggles. Finds it difficult to think deeply and thoroughly about a problem.
now, from Filatova's ILE description:
also from Filatova's ILE description:Is able to qualitatively and consistently execute work, to scrupulously study its components, should it fascinate him.
Is irreconcilable in his requirements, he does not pardon those that do not correspond. Is sometimes capable of victimizing others.
@KC, those tiny cut-and-paste snippets from type descriptions, derived from typings borne from explicitly and vastly different IEs than you use, add up to barely more than nothing. Check this out, I have just become the valedictorian in your very own school of Socionics:
Originally Posted by IEI!Originally Posted by LSE!Originally Posted by LSI!Originally Posted by ESE!IEILSILSESE CONFIRM!!Originally Posted by ILI!
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
those snippets were Filatova's summaries of "what functions look like" in IEE, SEE, and ILE
the first two snippets were summaries of Ti-PoLR; the second two were of Ti-creative and Fi-PoLR, respectively
I find this one especially pertinent, because it's exactly what you're doing:
Is irreconcilable in his requirements, he does not pardon those that do not correspond.*
@KC, the content in those snippets isn't in any way exclusive to their respective types.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
it's called "nuance"
keep self-reflecting (if you can); eventually it might make sense (in your case, that's a big "might")
think about people who've pissed you off in life; what did they do that made you angry?
think about people you've made angry; what did you do to piss them off?
think about what people have said about you; what traits did they ascribe to you?
think about "how you've felt" in various situations; what was happening and how did you feel?
intense self-reflection is the key to self-typing; these questions are for you to think about and ruminate over, not answer here
Last edited by Olduvai; 03-21-2014 at 11:56 PM.
Here's a little quote I found interesting and helpful:
It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. William James took the opposite view. He argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals because we have more instincts than they do, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they work so well -- because they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he argued, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwise. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explained at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to make the "natural seem strange":In our view, William James was right about evolutionary psychology. Making the natural seem strange is unnatural -- it requires the twisted outlook seen, for example, in Gary Larson cartoons. Yet it is a pivotal part of the enterprise. Many psychologists avoid the study of natural competences, thinking that there is nothing there to be explained. As a result, social psychologists are disappointed unless they find a phenomenon "that would surprise their grandmothers", and cognitive psychologists spend more time studying how we solve problems we are bad at, like learning math or playing chess, than ones we are good at. But our natural competences -- our abilities to see, to speak, to find someone beautiful, to reciprocate a favor, to fear disease, to fall in love, to initiate an attack, to experience moral outrage, to navigate a landscape, and myriad others -- are possible only because there is a vast and heterogenous array of complex computational machinery supporting and regulating these activities. This machinery works so well that we don't even realize that it exists -- We all suffer from instinct blindness. As a result, psychologists have neglected to study some of the most interesting machinery in the human mind."It takes...a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the natural seem strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside-down? The common man can only say, Of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made for all eternity to be loved!
And so, probably, does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in the presence of particular objects. ... To the lion it is the lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the broody hen the notion would probably seem monstrous that there should be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her.
Thus we may be sure that, however mysterious some animals' instincts may appear to us, our instincts will appear no less mysterious to them." (William James, 1890)
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I'm neither ducking nor dodging, and I already did explain, you're just not comprehending
here's what's happening between us:
Partners understand each other's motives well as they have similar aims, however, their approaches to resolving problems are vastly different. They are thus inclined to seek advice from each other and look for compromise. If this does not occur, it can inspire mutual distrust. Need for autonomy and freedom from each other can arise. Kindred partners are well aware of each other's shortcomings, however, they often lack tact in judging each other's abilities. They can exert emotional pressure on each other demanding that their partner follows a specific course of action that they see as the only true course. Actions of kindred partner sometimes seem as if lacking in common sense or unpredictable.
@KC, your self-typing is suspect at best; when you used it to type Maritsa IEI, your rationale was that she was your Contrary. Putting her at EII puts you at EIE and puts me at ESE, and I know at least one person who would love to hear that news. If you're really gunning for that ILE typing, you're gonna have to do better.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
she's not EII though, no matter how badly she wants to be
if she was EII and if you were SEE, then you would be her supervisor
and don't try to question my self-typing, I have zero doubts that I am IEE; it is a certainty, not just a best fit
if you honestly think it's possible that I am some other type then you fail at socionics
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
it really seems like you have no clue what types actually "look like"; your conception of IEE is obviously ill-founded, and so is your conception of SEE
types are more than just "descriptions"; they are living, breathing people
descriptions are "holographic" insofar as they "hint" at what "is" by painting a detailed but incomplete picture
simply going by what the text says won't get you anywhere; you have to go into the world and observe people for the distinctions to become clear
the information you gather from the real world will "animate" the type descriptions; it will "fill them out"
EDIT:
I find Filatova's descriptions and portraits especially helpful because, taken together, they provide the most detailed and accurate picture of the types
Last edited by Olduvai; 03-22-2014 at 01:36 AM.
No trying to it. Fe-EIE right from when I first talked to you in TC.
aahahaha!! Multiple people have multiple doubts about you being IEE, and they're growing and growing...
The number of people who believe that are dwindling further and further in number.
Here's where I post a played-out 4chan meme that contains "NO U" within the picture. Already linked to the evidence in my posts above.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
you're using your HA function here, and by emphasizing the importance of other peoples' opinions regarding types, you're showing me that you value Fe (not that I didn't know before)
when you say you knew I was EIE since my first TC session, that confirms my suspicion that you don't know what types actually look like
the funny/sad part is that the only thought I have when I read these unfortunate statements of yours is "wow, I guess he isn't the only self-unaware dipshit on this forum"
lol, the irony here is actually infuriating; believe me, I wish you weren't wrong
Joe-cionics Fe = Socionics Si.
maybe if you didn't have your camera pointed at the wall the whole time?
Save us all! Don't forget to stock up on the wig powder...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Dude in the OP seems very E5. Tritype guess on a whim would be 351 or 451.