It's definitely worth the experiment though. But as far as my capacities go, I'll stay in cuddly Delta. If you ever want me as your semidual tho, I'm also a 2w3 according to him, I can be anybody you want me to beOriginally Posted by Cassandra
It's definitely worth the experiment though. But as far as my capacities go, I'll stay in cuddly Delta. If you ever want me as your semidual tho, I'm also a 2w3 according to him, I can be anybody you want me to be
Even if you weren't SEE and kept with the IEE thing, some people would still assume we are Semi Duals because they think I am SEI.It's definitely worth the experiment though. But as far as my capacities go, I'll stay in cuddly Delta. If you ever want me as your semidual tho, I'm also a 2w3 according to him, I can be anybody you want me to be
TFW you identify a bit more with Reinin's ESE description than Gulenko D:
Always welcome typing advice. :]
Think I jinxed it
Aylen - LSE
Resonare - ILE
Cassandra - ESI
handjob - ESE
Chae - ILI
I'll be here all day.
Why ESE?
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
Have you considered Alpha? Some would say it's cuddlier than Delta.
Why not?
Of course.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
If that was the case, that would mean my real type is actually LIE?
(ESI upside down is LIE, yo.)
Don't try to rationalize trolling...If that was the case, that would mean my real type is actually LIE?
(ESI upside down is LIE, yo.)
Deltas don't seem as cuddly, as alphas, to me. I am LSE so I should know.
I have seen snuggling/cuddling associated with alpha quadra before in various thread. I can cuddle for short periods but I mostly prefer some part of my body has contact with some part of their body, when I am into someone.
This seems more delta to me.
“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
Alphas are cuddly overall. Deltas are more particular about the who and where of cuddling. Gammas are probably the least-cuddly.
I didn't like the voice from your video. But the title reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/3ibC5pps0dA
Imho, light touches and cuddling is definitely more Alpha - I think Deltas are more into tickling, poking, very light spanking, squirming and sometimes "Daddy" role-plays.
Betas/Gammas tend to like stuff like hair-pulling, hard spanks and stuff more closely related to BDSM. Betas specifically like squeezing and choking while Gammas get turned on by resistance followed by compliance.
Just my 2 cents.
In Alpha, cuddling is far more impersonal imo. Yeah everybody gets a soft hug and the skinship is plenty but that already makes it less intimate and special. It becomes less meaningful when it's detached from the type of your individual bond.
This forum has a particularly shitty group of Gammas, and by that I mean highly suspect in their typings, that's spread some silly ideas about what Te-Fi entails.
I'm glad this is being addressed, the separation of Te from academia is an important one. There is an idea about Te having to do with hard evidence, academic consensus, and things like this when it is only, at best, tangentially related to what Te is concerned about.
Te is first and foremost concerned with workability. Tests, standardization, and everything else is just a signpost to what is workable and effective. You don't need strict scientific evidence, in the sense of repeated tests and measurements, to determine what is workable, but it streamlines that process. This why you may see Te valuing types looking at standards in this way. I have seen people who specifically take issue with lack of standardization, and have found no correlation to Socionics type between these people.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Hey, what type do you think I am? This one two sentence message that I've just made should be plenty enough to go on.
"I find you can often find humor just by turning something upside-down. Like a small child." — Emo Philips
If socionics is true and everyone filters information in a manner specific to their cognitive function, then objective typing in itself is theoretically impossible as everyone is going to interpret another person's type differently as information about other individuals is filtered and processed through a different set of algorithms. This is the socionics paradox. The best one can do is have their own set of typings based on who they think they are. The typing process always revolves around the individual doing the typing. It is subjective by nature and in theory.
I find it humorous when people battle type because they don't realize that their own typings are opinions at best because socionics postmodern theory undermines itself. If you relativize information, you relativize the truth.
its more like xeno's paradox where you just defined it into existence. motion is possible and in the same way mutual understanding is possible, socionics tends to elucidate the ways in which people misunderstand eachother but its more like information is a palindrome and understanding how it is metabolized is the ladder with which one can begin to see it from the other angle (a kind of transcendental deduction). mutual understanding is a demonstrable fact as much as motion so these Ti constructs that peolpe find convincing for even one second I find amusing because its so silly
understanding can be subjective and mutually understood at the same time. intersubjectivity occurs all the time, and it while it is not mutually identical from the point of view of the subjects it is nevetheless isomorphic
its how strat can be compatible with gulenko. while one can point out inconsistencies between them, those are things that in principle can be smoothed over. it is Fi and Ti interpretations of the same phenomena, both are still in process so there are inconsistencies even controlling for differences between Fi and Ti but those are specific instances of mistakes rooted in human error, not substantive irreconcilable difference as a matter of structure. there is no fundamental incompatibility between the two ways of looking at things, rather they are separate levels of analysis that are complimentary, and mutually understandable. if theres anything exclusive to individual types in that sense its their creative potential to originate the expressions, but we have role functions for a reason
furthermore there will always be someone that can deny this or that facet of knowledge in virtue of their capacity for free will, but that doesn't make transmission of understanding in principle somehow permanently out of reach, it just means you can't force anything on anyone, which is kind of what Ti is in the business of doing--it often does take on the form of intellectual violence, which is precisely what many post modern philosophers pointed out as a feature of modern discourse
it is a Ti presupposition though that without such force mutual understanding is somehow impossible. I do think that presupposition along with Ti valuing does contribute to what I perceive as a fascist streak in alpha and beta which is what post modernism, I believe, was largely taking aim at
the genius of psychology, especially "intuitive" (in the socionics sense) psychology, i.e.: analytic or jungian psychology is that it represents a breakthrough in a post-enlightenment age where we unified for first time both science and religious narratives (i.e.:ethics) under one common framework in terms both types can understand without diminishing one or the other. contemporary academic psychology has in that sense taken a step back when it retreats into reductionist Ti modes of understanding like neuroscience, except I don't mean to say its worthless because its a step back but its more like it focuses exclusively on one subordinate level of analysis: science. however we still have a ton of unknown territory in that realm so progress on that front is still valuable at contributing to the higher level from the bottom up (and of course for its own sake, i.e. medical advances etc).
what makes socionics uniquely compelling to me, is I always understood religion and science were just different modes of understanding the same thing in equally valid terms but with different goals implied, but both which are necessary to the human condition. science always struck me as half a man, as did "primitive" narratives such as the earth being made in 6 days: neither by itself seemed "true" to me... it is precisely for this reason that intersubjective understanding is possible because only one side is not good enough for those that have a sense of something greater and its that sense that allows one to bridge the gap. perhaps not everyone is able or willing to pursue that, but that is saying nothing more than some people will never understand eachother, but not that no one can possibly understand eachother under socionics (i.e.: it does not necessarily entail a contradiction--is not self refuting in the sense you portray it as)
jung breaks it down very simply: any idea has logical content and affective content, logical content is colloquially considered objective because it is stripped of its affective content and therefore more easily transmitted via syntax as a logical representation or "proposition." but moreso than that within the realm of logic and ethics you can view it from either side, which is the difference between Ti/Te and Fi/Fe. so once you get the complete picture then you're in a position to understand other types, and misunderstandings result from projections which is essentially viewing whatever logical or ethical propositions someone is putting out "from the wrong side" i.e. what Fe would mean if it were saying what the Fi person is saying just now. This overall picture, to me, is intuition + Te, but maybe that's just my projection. perhaps it is, and projections are inevitable, but my overall point here is, that a sufficiently advanced concept like socionics because of its intuitive content is such that even if you're projecting it is still valid in that it can be viewed from multiple angles and retain its integrity. which is what I would define as "gospel"-- its imperfect, of course, but its getting closer. to me my understanding of the bible is that God made it such that viewed by anyone it had a valid message for them and that's what made it perfect. i think that's because its perfect intuition in a pre-scientific world (in fact its hard to imagine science without christianity first). to me pure intuition is in some sense the sense of the unity between logic and feeling--its implications back and forth--and socionics and jungian psychology is a very intuitive theory--and intuition is what bridges Ti and Fi and what makes intersubjectivity possible (and is open to anyone, not just N egos or whatever)
i.e.: logos exists
Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 06:58 PM.
There is nobody who will intersubjectively believe that you are ESI with you after reading this...
What is intellectual violence? It sounds like a math competition filled with beta STs.
Translation - Te is first and foremost about inductive inference so you are wrong because it does in fact want scientific evidence, tests and measurements in order to create a holistic "formula" or explanation from observable data points and facts. This is at the core of what Te is, and concern for workability and effectiveness are observed characteristics of Te though MBTI and Socionics and are not what the function is at it's core.
To say that tests (which produce facts) are "just a signpost" when talking about Te shows your ignorance because facts are completely what shape the reasoning from Te in the first place.
yes but the facts tests "produce" are one hundred percent subordinate to the "fact" that the results are derived on the basis of interpretation. that superordinate fact forms the basis of a Te judgement that says "facts" of the kind derived by tests are not the end all be all from which to base a valid inference and from which to derive or construct a conclusion. they are merely one data point that has to be considered in light of other facts as part of a holistic multi factor anaylsis (Te)
to take into consideration only test results and not the other factors that would produce and or influence the results would be a failure to do a Te analysis because it would be omitting facts in favor of a one dimensional if->then chain of reasoning that goes something like "x is test result therefore x should be taken at face value" that is precisely how unsophisticated Ti tends to view the world, not Te
intellectual violence is when those who hold power and influence require that certain dubious assumptions be taken for granted as a requirement for admission into the dialogue on the basis that any failure to do so will result in exclusion, not out of intellectual merit, but as a result of pure power. its basically enforcing ideology of all kinds at the academic level because while it may not be a big deal to exclude those jilted intellectuals, it results in everyone who comes up within that system as potentially being brainwashed, never knowing it happened because they were never allowed to be presented with alternate views. its basically anti-democracy in the intellectual sphere,because the idea is they were never allowed to be assessed on the merits in the first place, but more than that its basically indoctrinating the populace with "power-approved" normative Ti (see marcuse's 1 dimensional man). its in essence the intellectual side of lack of freedom in society, that perniciously recedes from view hence is a powerful tool of hegemony whether it be capitalist or communist
its also Ti wanting everyone to understand everything in precisely the same Ti terms, which reduces out all most of the "humanity" or "ethics" in thinking--its violence in the sense that it tears something out of a persons brain by calling it categorically wrong or illegitimate (or worse starving it as a child)
it hinges on the idea that there is only one right way to view anything and it is the if-then logical chains of Ti, filled with specific Fe ideological ethical particulars (hence the beta and alpha tendencies). its embodied in the psychological profile of that post that spurred my response: that if Ti is not identical there is no such thing as mutual understanding, which is an assumption (a psychological value, really), but more than that an assumption that if acted out would lead to massive leveling the likes we see across multiple levels in beta society, i.e.: economic and social (as in the soviet union/communist china) but also in the intellectual realm. the countervailing idea is you can have the rainbow and all that shit and it doesn't mean anyone is wrong, so much as they all have a nugget of truth and the goal is to understand one another, not make them think what you think. in other words one has a positive duty to expand ones own understanding and not merely limit others under some kind of central authority
in other words the truth (tm) is more about understanding disagreements rather than simple mutual agreement (harmony or Fe) i.e.: tolerance over conformity
Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 11:09 AM.
While I agree that this stuff is certainly bad, Ti is also associated with independent and groundbreaking thought as much as it is associated with dogma and academic pedantry/elitism. Also Te is more associated with holding onto the words of a chosen trusted authority figure, so it should be about equally associated with "the man" as Ti is with the problems that follow from that.
That's a bit incorrect. Even if you give Te questionable facts, it will still inductively formulate an explanation. If a fact is found to be false, Te will discard the explanation and look to create a new one. You're right in that Te would look for other influencing facts but you're wrong in saying that it would otherwise do nothing without them since no one knows everything, right? Even though socionics says ETjs tend to have an encyclopedic knowledge, they still don't know every single bit of data so everything is still dependent to some degree.
Anyway, that's not my main point but I think you know that already.
lol ok cassandra
im not saying this thoughbut you're wrong in saying that it would otherwise do nothing without them since no one knows everything
its all the difference between low and high dimensionality, and to some extent coupled with intuition (or lack thereof)
most the misuses, as I see it, of Ti and Te is 2d or less so every quadra can be a moron just like every quadra can be unethical
but viewing the socion as a whole, rather than individual idiocy, you see alpha+beta handle information one way and gamma+delta a different way. everything I've been saying has been my view on the first half. but more in a sense to explain currents in post modern philosophy as a product of psychological values. I think no individual is doomed to subscribe to any of that. the same way individuals are idiots individuals are also moral beings. so no particular person is good or bad so much as it is fair to say I dislike alpha+beta ways of implementing their plans compared to gamma/delta (and there is a tradition of this criticism and it has a name, broad brushed as "post-modernism")
here's an if-then statement with some food for thought. If Ti says there's only one right way to view anything, then Te says there's only one right way to do anything. Standards therefore, approved methods and so on are all in the realm of Te. Those who wish to standardize the process of typing whether it be through tests or what-have-you are wishing to enforce Te, not Ti. The whole idea of an approved canon is Te-based as are all standards of that nature. Regulations, standard operating procedures, laws - all in the realm of Te.
I find that EQ and IQ go hand in hand more often than not, though this is a whole other topic.
agree but its low dimensional ti and te in both cases and to the extent I've painted all ti as a low d caricature I am wrong. LII almost never falls into this kind of stuff i'm talking about, but they're also not the ones with the big mouths so its easy to forget about them
low d Te is a pain in the dick too, because rigid adherence to methods with no room for innovation isn't even a good way to go about things and isn't that supposed to be the whole point of te..?
to a certain extent it may not even be low D but low IQ or just low experience (i.e.: youth or being a moron i.e.: literally "retarded")
sometimes I overstate things for effect and its a bad habit
ESE confirmed
maybe the evil has been inside me the whole time
@Bertrand I cannot remember if you have, and I am too lazy to check:
Have you already mentioned what type you think I am? Just curious.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
Lol...
I read your post again and it seems there's a bit of a misunderstanding. We're talking about a standardized socionics test here. That's what @Cassandra originally said, right? That means how the test was formulated, how the data was measured and collected, what is relevant and why is standardized, meaning that stuff doesn't get questioned until it starts producing incorrect results because of some contradictory fact.
If it weren't standardized then for sure you would be correct in questioning the legitimacy of the test just like how online IQ tests are questioned all the time, but you don't question the standardized version of the test without good reason because that is the same as questioning what is considered normal with nothing abnormal against it (Standardize is a synonym of Normalize - "to make normal"). Yes, the only way to attain your IQ is through the test, but that means in the journey of discovering your IQ the result from the IQ test is the only factual data point. For socionics, a standardized test would be one of many data points, but questioning the validity of this one point based on how the test was constructed despite it being normal with nothing abnormal against it doesn't make sense.
Of course, misinterpreting the test and other user error things are possibilities not facts to Te but I don't think this is what you meant? Because that would mean Te types would never believe anything that's sourced from another person in fear of a human error and falsehood. I'm sure they cross-reference a lot but to never believe information inside of books doesn't sound fitting with ExTj types.
I'm trying not to strawman you here so if I misunderstood what you said then do reply with what you meant.
Figure out what a fact is then get back to me.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
What the hell is up with cognitive function teleology?
I can look up "fact" in the dictionary. I'm interested in what you have to say.
I just want to point out those Te "facts" might not be scientific in nature. Reasoned, yes. Scientific, not always. Logic of action could come from a Grandparent, Dad, teacher. The "inductive inference" you speak of is just as easily refereed back to "this was the way my Daddy taught me so this is the right way of doing it."
Posting Permissions
