Funny methods to be discovered in typology:
VI, mojo and the new comer in town is gut.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@Scarper possible base Fi. or T type with E-9 if such the nature holds
It's a good combination.
Fi base is a bit much for me, but I'd like it. Fi valuing and T type likely.
I test as SLI, IR in real life fit mostly Delta, preferring IEE.
Other types I considered, SEI due to being close to SLI, and LSI based on being close to SLI - at least on dichotomies.
E9 or E6 - not decided.
I think this has mostly came about from me requesting you to cool off a bit in your pursuit of reverie, but that's OK if it's the case, each types got their own way of reacting
One of the reasons I like to avoid controversy, lifes too short, which could be E9 possibly too.
Thanks for the typing.
You seem to care about Fi region much. It's suspicious for T, as they mostly don't care about emotions of others (except close ones or some IRL). While you do this sequentially. You talked in details about own emotions with random forumie like there.
> Other types I considered, SEI due to being close to SLI, and LSI based on being close to SLI - at least on dichotomies.
I suspect ESI among Fi. If Fe - SEI as the 1st to check.
> I think this has mostly came about from me requesting you to cool off a bit in your pursuit of reverie
I've noticed earlier similar style. That's why I've made a generalization. With reverie's flood I've found your argumentation as not solid as it could, and that seemed was due to your emotional motivation. As reverie is not close for you, so this may point to F type.
> Thanks for the typing.
I need video to type others. Here I'm pointing on my doubts.
You should go back to the reverie conversation, some useful advise for you from Gulenko
SLI's generally are sensitive to the lack of warm and positive emotions, so I try to convey to others what I like, in turn I get more of what I like too.
Gulenko's recommendation for SLI is to talk to their partner (the person you're addressing) in a serious tone, when conveying emotions. This is something as personal improvement I've taken on board.
There's other factors too, but to discuss them means 'flood' as you put it comes in to play, but for short, as a Christian, I try to be a light in this world, that is, care for others. My emotional-ness, as you've noticed it, has been affected by that.
I disagree though that T types mostly don't care about the emotions of others, this is not true, they may have difficulties in knowing what to think about things or relationships, or look for control over initial energetic conditions (Fe), but T types can care as less as F types about emotions, for instance, an F type can have the attitude of, 'it's their own fault.'
Well, that was interesting I never expected to be typed there haha.
But, no video from me, I have no need or desire to be typed by it.
Gulenko should listen my advises to forget Reinin's stuff.
> SLI's generally are sensitive to the lack of warm and positive emotions
T types don't feel it clear and don't try to control so openly, while you seem to be sure how to deal in F region. Also the said relates to E-9 which many ESI are.
> as a Christian, I try to be a light in this world, that is, care for others. My emotional-ness, as you've noticed it, has been affected by that.
Also don't judge and don't feel offenced: "pretty dickish", "you were nasty and hurt my feelings". You seem closer to F type, than contiguous Christian. Without video it's impossible to relate your strange for T types behavior to non-types factors.
> I disagree though that T types mostly don't care about the emotions of others, this is not true
It's true where they argue on logical themes. To concentrate on T, we block F.
> I never expected to be typed there haha.
On typology forums your behavior may be estimated to the model anywhere. As people watch and study you as a possible example of a type, also noticing contradictions to the profile's type.
> But, no video from me, I have no need or desire to be typed by it.
The need you have, as you behave wrongly. While your desire is to use the types for your good, what needs the correct own type. So when you'll understand that being Christian does not explain your assurance and manipulations in F region, then you'll can to get opinions of other people about your type and that needs a video.
Of course, let's ignore what Gulenko says, and what everyone else says about themself, instead lets agree with @Sol.
But, if you want to show contradictions to the type profile, then please do, what you have shown instead, is contradictions within yourself, your own want of what I should be to fit in with anything I could say, so mostly nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
I don't ignore what other say, but take that into account in the degree it has a basis to trust and doubt when there is basis to doubt. You need to think and trust to reason on which I only point, but not to authorities or people you have a sympathy to. While setting of subjects higher than objective sense is F types trait.
Also you've switched from logical argumentation to personal: a bad Sol disagrees with a heretic pseudosocionist Gulenko and don't trust to evident bs from reverie about her good friendship in bad IR, hence I may shut my eyes on his arguments against mine about how Christianity strongly turns behavior of T types to F types.
You are obsessed with the ignorance.
Be obsessed is not T types trait, but of brainless and emotional F types which have fanaticism to "authorities" like Gulenko and other bs.
I have 15 years experience of watching how the typology works. It is the basis to my opinion about the types and IR.
I was highly sceptical to the typology until have checked own type and have noticed how the theory fits to what I see. Then I studed and watched.
Besides subjective basis, I've made "IR test" which gave interesting results - they are often not random, some statistically are close to proof the duality hypothesis. IR work even when you watch lame bloggers. When you'd communicate IRL you'd noticed this more clear and deeper. But you need correct types, so the IR theory was noticed - and that's the problem as lame typing and heresies prevent this. To explain bs gotten with wrong types "gulenkos" invent subtypes and other rationalizations.
Jung's types is strong factor for some appliances, like marriages and friendship. You need some experience to understand me.
The long and the short of your argument is that, in your opinion, i'm too nice a person to be T type.
For further claims of you saying that 'you listen'
Just a few days ago, in delta thread, I had mentioned about a suspected SEE IRL friend, who sat the test and came out as SEE too. You 'discussed' this with me, or rather, gave me orders of what to do. And here you are saying to check IR. I already said that i've done that, and you've seen one example of in real life IR, but that's ignored, somehow forgotten. To fit what you think is logics and clear thinking.Make a video and get more sure opinions about own type, as you have high chance of the mistaking in it. In case you want to use the typology, but not only get an entertainment on forums. Without good checking by IR (>10 of people near you which have good fit to IR theory by your impressions from them) there is no basis to be sure in the your type.
Forget about heretic Gulenko. Use only classical theory of Jung and Augustinavichiute, and very near. Then you'll not be mistaking by bs hypotheses.
I'd suggest you take a look from here,
http://outofthefog.website/traits/
Maybe,
http://outofthefog.website/top-100-t.../4/normalizing
I am no psychologist, but your treatment seems a little like this, it's not pleasant, or normal to have what is said invalidated, then being made to feel the problems with me, ie 'you do read', 'i'm not T it's because of this...' good arguments, and even impressions are fine, but not gaslighting.
http://outofthefog.website/top-100-t.../4/gaslighting
Because, what chance do people have, they either accept what you say about them, which is incorrect, or if they react, it's because they are 'Se' - if they don't react, you're still correct, it's because then they are '9'.
I don't know the people on here well enough to type them but i wanted to drop by anyway
Hey-oh.
I couldn't read what you wrote fully, it's a bit blurred, but introspection is more a 1st world problem. I've moved on from that, it's really a progression from where you are, but it's OK, like I said, you mainly work from projections of your own state.
Socionics is a bit like this, but not just socionics, it creates plenty of time to take up your headspace, but, simpler qualities like, 'treat people how you want to be treated' and not to overthink, although less pretentious, and therefore doesn't get imagined kudos, makes life better.
My thoughts are, instead of how to look good on the internet, is to build plans on life. Simpler to share simple plans and hopes and dreams with friends/loved ones, go for journeys away, these things I like.
if all of that is true it raises the question why you're posting at all
its funny cause I see you as being exclusively preoccupied with "imagined kudos" and all accusations toward me coming from exactly that source
in any case you can try to spin things however you want it doesn't change my opinion of you, which is you seem like a really terrible person, mainly in a "banality of evil" kind of way... I had hoped it was just a product of age but no such luck I guess
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-07-2017 at 08:29 AM.
I've said already why I post, for entertainment purposes, some other reasons related to this I've mentioned in other threads, but not something I care to go over.
Evil is really a subjective thing. You mostly see me as a banal mannequin. For myself, I've seen you relentlessly hounding @Aylen, admitting to using the like/constructive tool as a means of sarcasm - all ways of messing with people, so I take little of what you say as genuine, mostly just some tiresome pointless debate you can get with partners who've run their course.
Drama dudes, you may read my resume. You saw nothing special in the situation with her. I saw such on forums and IRL also. People are similar, and Se types have specifics.
Sol is making baseless claims to create drama. This is not T type behavior. F type is likely, especially EIE.
entelecheia is just making a joke, it plays off of how in form you say "evidence A leads to type B being likely" but uses as evidence the artificial social consensus you're "creating drama" its basically making fun of the forums in general because it implicates both parties in being less than perfect in some way, which is true, and its usually this sort of confluence that creates conflict, which it has
Monica Lewinsky, you were the best
i guess what someone looks like is more important than what they have to say >.>
gotta do something on a thursday night amirite
Hey Scarper do you approve of the new banner that's essentially mocking Sol for his english as a second language
is it fair play because he saw fit to question reverie in a way people considered offensive?
do you think it could be received as bullying or is it all just "in good fun"..? do you think everyone is laughing "with it" or is it laughing "at" someone?
does humor contain within it an implicit understanding which is what makes it funny, or is it something that is just funny regardless?
sol hasn't said anything about it yet but if he outright states that he dislikes it and asks for it to be removed we should probably see that as an indication that he's aware he needs to improve his English and continue making more and more banners to help him, out of love. right? we know best.
anyway i see it as sort of an homage and a nod to the quirky charm of this place. but i can see how it would be perceived as bullying esp considering the current stuff going on.
exactly, the reasoning is trying to parallel his own perceived justification for "going after" reverie, and thereby make its point that if he doesn't like it neither does she, in order to "teach him a lesson", except his entire motive is premised on he doesn't get why its bad (and at least some people agree), whereas I think everyone realizes the banner is meant to be an insult. its not so much teaching anyone anything, because to do so they'd have to be fundamentally alike, but the only thing that makes them similar is that some people agree they're in bad taste. two things being in bad taste in the eyes of someone doesn't make them equally (un)justified. and to sort that out people ought to do more than take unhelpful jabs that fail to sort the real issue, under the guise of "teaching a lesson" it doesn't teach anything. its just petty revenge without merit. it begs the question in the guise of forward motion without convincing anyone but the people that already believe. it talks around the issue without hitting on it directly, its not teaching, its self satisfied payback, with a cowardly element of "haha" plausible deniability built in like some kind of escape hatch, because on some level it knows its indefensible