Member Questionnaire (RGB)

[Wallon]

Member Questionnaire 1 (RGB)

What is beauty? What is love?

I cannot be certain of objective beauty of love, and I think there is no such thing.

Different forms of expression have different expressions of beauty. In entertainment, I think that the more strange, fantastic, shiny and colorful the setting and characters are, the more beautiful, or to be more specific, I am attracted to entertainment of this nature. Best examples include the gaming franchises Kirby, EarthBound, Dragon Quest and The Stanley Parable. Another great example is Andrew Hussie's webcomic, Homestuck. Homestuck, EarthBound and Dragon Quest are very high-stakes, which is also beautiful to me.

Love is a feeling of affection with vaguely understood intensity.

What are your most important values?

In order of value descending:

Prudence
Logic
Interpretation
Diplomacy
Argumentation
Social Justice

Do you have any sort of spiritual/religious beliefs, and why do you hold (or don't) those beliefs in the first place?

I am a radical skeptic. I believe I cannot check what the objective criteria for anything is, and that includes truth and falsehood, assuming objective criteria even exists outside of my imagination. I trust this because I have no way to even try to check what the objective criteria for anything is. I also trust that others are subject to the same epistemological boundaries.

Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you?

Within prudence.

What have you had long conversations about? What are your interests? Why?

I have had long conversations regarding philosophical topics. I am interested in argumentation, gaming, social justice and personality. Interest is not a matter of justification. And there are so many potential influences which could explain why I like these things that it would not be worth all the thought, given the length of this test.

Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?

I could talk about health and medicine, but I would have little to no background. I am focused on improving my facial attractiveness, though there is little need to. Beyond that, I don't really care.

What do you think of daily chores?

-

Books or films you liked? Recently read/watched or otherwise. Examples welcome.

-

What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why?

Relevant to the previous question, Disney's Snow White And the Seven Dwarves made me cry five times and then once again after the movie. It made me cry because Snow White was so peaceful, sweet and happy. I was once like that, so I know what it's like and I'll likely never feel that way again. Because I must take a responsibility (which I speak of later in this questionnaire) which no one else will because extremely few else see this as a problem. I'm not saying there's something wrong with them for not seeing it as a problem, I'm saying they likely haven't thought about it and realized how effed up it is, and they would if something prompted them to think freely about it. And acknowledging this problem is severely discouraging, especially considering my efforts will likely not be publicly recognized in my lifetime.

I smile when people behave diplomatically during argumentation.

Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging?

Wherever there is correction and there is not ridicule, condemnation, condescension, or any other rhetorically Machiavellian behavior which stifles sincerity.

What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?

People say I should be less philosophical. But nothing is beyond perspective, and to me, nothing is above logical thought.

I don't like that my crisis causes me so much agony. I could have a far more optimistic or aloof perspective and still acknowledge and fix the problems at hand.

What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself?

People say I am very smart. But I am only curious and reflective. It's only a matter of having a concerned attitude.

I like that I am capable of and open to seeing my mistakes and amending them instead of arrogantly ignoring them or dismissing any relevant and/or fair objections.

In what areas of your life would you like help?

I need resources to get people's attention.

Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.

-

What qualities do you most like and dislike in other people? What types do you get along with?

I don't like people who ignore objections regarding their logical and ethical consistency. Addressing it is good, even if you address it in a flawed manner, because at least you'd show some concern.

I get along very well with emotional people. I provide them with open-minded and polite understanding of their sensitivities, and still provide them with logical solutions to their problems.

How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner?

"How do you feel about romance/sex?"

I gave up. I will not put in any effort until opportunity arises, and when I fail, as expected, I will go back to being alone. It is really confusing why people don't like me. I have a very attractive face. Must I be muscular? Is my sophistication boring? I am humorously quirky when the context is appropriate; I am not serious all the time.

What qualities do you want in a partner?

An attractive face. Pretty much everything else is optional, but I have a few fetishes, such as a yandere personality, and a preference for girly fashion (the color pink, big bows, button-eyed dolls, sweet candy, etc.).

If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?

Are they behaving prudently? That's all that matters. It encompasses everything that matters. Only do what is prudent. Because I want them to be intrinsically motivated to be prudent, I would not try to change them through punishment and reward: this provides extrinsic motivation. Then what will happen when I'm not there for them? Instead, I must teach them through diplomatic reasoning, and I must never once lose my patience. I would not assault an adult for being imprudent, and I would not assault a child for being imprudent.

A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction?

Internal reaction: Doesn't that contradict with premise x? I should check if they agree with premise x.
Outward reaction: Do you agree with premise x? Premise x contradicts what you just said. If you disagree with premise x, I am prepared to explain why I think we should agree with premise x.

Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one.

Everyone wants to teach the world something. Or, a lot of people do, at least. Because of this, people need to know how to be diplomatic so that we can learn each other's wisdom. Unfortunately, people are rhetorically cruel to each other. Before I can teach people my wisdom, I must be prepared to hear their wisdom as well, and I must teach them to learn as I have. People as a whole? Generally or universally? I generally do not make universal statements about humans, so I will make a general statement about people. People are not naturally reasonable. People are not naturally unreasonable, either. But people are generally not consciously Machiavellian, and generally do respond better to diplomacy, and hopefully, people will respect my diplomatic behavior in the face of ridicule.

Children are socially conditioned to not question what adults tell them, are constantly being told and treated as though their opinions don't matter, and then are blamed for behaving unintelligently, and adults are abandoned by society if they are not useful. That's awful. There is discrimination on both parts, and it is extremely destructive and unfair. This is the crisis for which I will dedicate my whole life to solving, and I will likely not see results before my death.

How do you choose your friends and how do you behave around them?

My friends are people who will admit their mistakes to me and who I can trust not to ridicule me when I make mistakes. When we're being casual, I am very humorous and intentionally weird, sometimes to a scary or impressive degree. My interest in philosophy and logic amplifies this sometimes. When we're being serious, I am very diplomatic, logical, eloquent and organized in my arguments.

How do you behave around strangers?

I try to talk about how insincere people are around strangers and how narrow their perspective must be, given how the stranger their afraid of is also likely afraid of them.

[Wallon]

Reading wikisocion's description of the different types, I think I sound a lot like ITN and ENF, and I just can't choose between the two.

[Amber]

I guess LII

[some chair]

Do you consider INT an impossibility?

[Olly From Wally World]

My guess would be LII. I definitely think I see a lot of Ti there. Your love for emotional people made it easier to cross out ILI (due to Fe POLR).

[The Ineffable]

ENT is my conviction for your type. I think both ENF and ITN fall short of the bold revisionist that you are. In fact how did you think about the particular two options?

[Wallon]

@Holon
It sounds plausible I may be an INT.
---
@The_Ineffable
The following information of ENFs is borrowed from the wikisocion. It describes me with alarming accuracy:

"The IEE is particularly sensitive to and observant of manifestations of spontaneity, social awkwardness, and psychological compatibility or incompatibility. This comes from a combination of (perception of who people really are, their personality, motivation, and how much they are revealing their personality and 'true selves') and (sensitivity to people's subjective opinions and feelings about things). This sensitivity makes the IEE very choosy of social situations -- whom to interact with, what group to hang out with, how much time to spend with which people, etc. IEEs are likely to vocally criticize social atmospheres that they regard as strained, stifling, or stilted. IEEs tend to comment a lot on people's personalities and social situations and share insights on possible causes of people's relationships, behavior, and life strategies -- even if no one asks for this insight.

IEEs have a penchant for one-on-one communication with intense sharing of insight gleaned from one's life experience."

"IEEs will demonstrate inconsistent behavioral patterns to the objective, outside world.* But to the IEE, these behavioral patterns are as a result of a relativist view of how they make their decisions. For example, an IEE might be steadfastly against going to a particular branch of a bank to deposit a check that is easily accessible and only 2 miles away, but is perfectly content going to a different branch of the same bank that is 25 miles away and requires a roundabout route to get there. To the outside world this would not make sense; why not just go to the branch that is easier to access that can handle the same function? But to the IEE, this does not matter. Something at the closer branch bothers the IEE enough to justify going to the further one. Maybe a particular person works there that the IEE wants to avoid, maybe one time the IEE did something embarrassing while at the closer branch and they are embarrassed to show their face again. Regardless of the reason, the IEE will justify circumstances to dictate the decisions they make in their behavioral patterns."

*I logically explain why I behave this way, so I am behaving consistently, but within an abnormal set of values. I don't think there's anything wrong with the example ENF's choice. If said ENF would rather spend money than be in a socially frightening environment, and then he spends money to avoid a socially frightening environment, he is being entirely consistent with his values.


But here are some things it says which I think are very inaccurate:

"They avoid clearly defining relationships, responsibilities, expectations, etc. and frequently feel threatened and overly rebellious when other people try to establish bounds and limitations that would affect them personally."

"With a propensity to be involved in a diverse number of interests, IEEs find themselves in a position where they would deem that members of certain societal structures would clash if they met. This will, at times, cause IEEs to hide their affiliations to parties that they feel might cause scrutiny or criticism of their affiliations. They would rather not be judged by others based on their affiliations. Also, if an IEE is cast into an "incorrect" category, this can cause deep wounds in the IEE especially if the IEE believes that the person doing the casting will not change their position about the IEE's affiliation, and as a result of that, believes it to be a negatively connoted statement of their own character."

I am much more sincere, as I am competent in diplomatic argumentation.

"Asking an IEE to keep a secret is a burden on him. He can also be a little too trusting of information sources, because spreading falsehood is seen as a foreign and repulsive idea."

Actually, I am excellent at keeping secrets and acting natural when I am trying to hide something, and I often take pride in it. Also, I normally don't do any research specifically because I distrust information sources and falsehood is a very familiar idea. That doesn't mean I pretend I understand things, though. Usually, I take a humble approach and admit I am unfamiliar with the subject and carefully question the information I am provided with.

But I think I am an LII because of my logical, argumentative and abstract competence, rather than wikisocion's description of LII's personality. Here are some of the principles I keep in mind when engaging in debate:

1. Nothing can be understood beyond perspective.
2. Nothing is epistemologically above logic.
3. Nothing is ethically above fairness.
4. If we can agree on some premises and we can logically derive conclusions from those premises, we must agree on the logically derived conclusion.
5. Ideas can be explained by their criteria and may be clearly understood through examples which fit the criteria. Ideas for which the criteria are inconsistent are themselves inconsistent ideas.
6. It is unfair to ridicule or insult your opponent, their arguments and/or their beliefs.
7. It is unfair to object to an argument which is not clearly understood.
8. All relevant and/or sincere questions are intelligent and worthy of answers.
9. There is something which will convince the other speaker that your belief is valid. If you want to convince them, find it or change the information they need so that it is the information you have.

[Wallon]

I am using my keyboard as a mouse and it is really tedious and difficult.

[Wallon]

You know, I just noticed something else which may be important. Te seems pointless to me, since no matter how much you research, you can always continue researching until you find just as much research which contradicts the research you have previously found. You can't know for sure when you have found the truth if you rely on what you are being told since you can always be told new information which contradicts old information. And this indicates to me that Te is not a valued (Ego or super-Id) information element, which, if true, means I must be either an Alpha type or a Beta type. Unless this learning approach applies better to Ni, in which case I would be either Alpha or Delta.

[Wallon]

I am starting to lean towards a particular type, but I will not say which one, since I want to hear more interpretations.

[some chair]

@RGB when you say "research", what do you specifically mean? What sort of things do you research?

I find generalisations are difficult to make, especially since a lot of conclusions are domain-specific/context-sensitive and don't necessarily generalise across all domains/contexts/scenarios.

[Wallon]

@RGB when you say "research", what do you specifically mean? What sort of things do you research?

I find generalisations are difficult to make, especially since a lot of conclusions are domain-specific/context-sensitive and don't necessarily generalise across all domains/contexts/scenarios.

Researching from secondary sources (books, websites, newspapers, etc.), specifically.

[Wallon]

Okay, after looking at multiple descriptions for multiple types, I can prudently conclude that there is very little agreement as to how each type behaves, or perhaps little agreement as to what clearly defines each type.

[some chair]

Okay, after looking at multiple descriptions for multiple types, I can prudently conclude that there is very little agreement as to how each type behaves, or perhaps little agreement as to what clearly defines each type.

If you can arrive at a Gulenkonics type and a Model A type, I think you're pretty set.

[Wallon]

If you can arrive at a Gulenkonics type and a Model A type, I think you're pretty set.

But you know, over the weekend, I have been contemplating the symbolism of information element duality, and I think it helped me understand socionics better. Ti, in the INTj sense at least, represents logic. Fe represents emotions. Archetypically, these are opposite ideas. In the ISTj sense, Ti is more akin to impersonal laws, which are also symbolically opposite to emotion. Te represents profit, the motivation of selfishness; and Fi represents empathy and relation, which are motivations for selflessness. Ne represents the abstract side of experience and Si represents the physical side of experience. Ni and Se are a little weird. Ni is the perception of time, in the case of the INTp, and it is more akin to imagination in the case of the INFp. Either way, Ni creates a behavior which is very cautious, patient, and relaxed or hasted when it is appropriate. Whereas Ni is usually slow and calm, Se is instead energetic, heedless, ambitious, excitable and competitive. Ni takes its time and Se can't hold still.

Even based on this understanding, there are two elements which I am very good at using which cannot share an ego block: Ti and Fi. During debate, I must use Fi to figure out what we agree upon and to keep the debate fair and friendly, and then I must use Ti to make logical conclusions based on our shared agreements and my own assumptions. Either I am a delta humanitarian with an abnormally healthy Ti or an alpha researcher with an abnormally healthy Fi. I will type myself as INTj until I have a clearer interpretation.

PS: The types should not be described as objectively acting a certain way, because acting logically (Ti), for example, means different things for different people, and the same thing goes for behaving emotionally, realistically, and so on for every element.