Te vulnerable
Here I describe Te vulnerable and what it actually does.
Whenever someone jumps on an IEI with definitions and corrections of stuff believing they are helping, what they are actually doing is causing pain to someone that cannot defend themselves. Doing it on purpose could even reach cruelty don't you think?
SEIs, how do you feel about it?
I understand the self-doubt. I thought this was a good video.
Te types also notice actions of people around them. For example my BF being LSE will point out to me how latent my reaction and comments to the things he says or does are. While my response is because I'm an introvert and I'm Te valuing so his pointing out doesn't offend me I can see how over time it would annoy Te polr types and IEI's dreamy romantic mysticism is disrupted by that LSE's "harsh" pointing.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
What I have seen is: I can not figure this out. This is not working. OMG!
Basically experimentation is hard when it goes wrong.
This is where I come in and give some information or if there is no need for repetition and I have aquired the skill I will do it. Sometimes we sit down and figure it out together.
It is funny how alpha SF will listen my reasoning with great interest while with gamma SF it is done with great disgust.
1D Te.. It can be bit similar in EII as their suggestive. The difference is that they want some documentation and learn the algorithm and cut the "unimportant fluff" when process interests them. I can be much more vague around Te PoLR.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 03-26-2015 at 05:46 PM.
Lse are bad at explaining proceedure and method they want someone to watch pay attention to how it's done and do it. You're much more patient which is what SEI need someone to give them long explainations and discussion. Lse are opposite, thay are impatient and brief. Maybe one forum member who I've typed SEI for years can read this and finally understand.Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ok so my bf and I were watching a science show on tv. This kid was bending water with a tool and I said "oh it's electronic charge" my bf stepped in and very firmly with "I'm right voice" said "NO! It's about aerodynamics." I am a very patient person as are SEI and I waited for the show to explain and in the middle my bf figured out where it was going and said "yeah it is electo charge" in a humbled voice like an embarrased puppy "that isn't what I was thinking of. Ignore me I'm an idiot." I feel his embarrasement and wanting to have authority and merit, like a proud king wanting to be on top of his thrown. I said "no hon, you're not an idiot. You were just thinking of something else" making him feel better/capable. I don't know any other type so patient. You can be like me or reactive and poke fun of and insult the LSE who wont get that you're insulting them like Fe creative typea can do subtley or underhandedly or you can gently help him develop patience and kindness, gentleness, better human qualities.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I don't know if this would be an example of Te vulnerable or not, or maybe just childhood naivety, but when I was around ten, I remember someone telling me when we were fishing that earthworms scream in pain when you pierce them with a fishhook, but it was in pitch too high for the human ear to hear. I believed it for many years and embarrassed myself for at least a couple years as I "informed" dozens of people of this fact, lol.
Also, I had a uncle who told me when I was listen to Metallica at age 10 that Mozart originally wrote the melody to Enter Sandman and Metallica just made it into a metal song, lol. I told a bunch of people that one, until one day I said to my uncle, while he was with his wife, "I can't believe Mozart wrote Enter Sandman!" I saw his wife look over at my uncle and she said, "Did you tell him that? You're such an asshole!" We all burst out laughing.
One word: Gullible
I have gotten much better with age
Last edited by Skepsis; 03-27-2015 at 12:59 AM.
There was an earthquake when I was a child and a bunch of ppl went outside to be safer. So in front of my building I bumped into a dude I had a crush on. He said that during earthquakes lots of demons who live in black pits 20 feet under the ground scream and fight. That's why we get an earthquake. He wanted us to bend on the ground and listen to get a proof of said demons. Not sure this was weak Te or just the fact that I was 4-5 years old, but that sounded legit.
I don't know if this would be an example of Te vulnerable or not, or maybe just childhood naivety, but when I was around ten, I remember someone telling me when we were fishing that earthworms scream in pain when you pierce them with a fishhook, but it was in pitch too high for the human ear to hear. I believed it for many years and embarrassed myself for at least a couple years as I "informed" dozens of people of this fact, lol.
Also, I had a uncle who told me when I was listen to Metallica at age 10 that Mozart originally wrote the melody to Enter Sandman and Metallica just made it into a metal song, lol. I told a bunch of people that one, until one day I said to my uncle, while he was with his wife, "I can't believe Mozart wrote Enter Sandman!" I saw his wife look over at my uncle and she said, "Did you tell him that? You're such an asshole!" We all burst out laughing.
One word: Gullible
I have gotten much better with ageI can be naive but not really gullible. Not even as a child. This sounds like naive children to me and not weak Te but I think both of you already knew that. hahah Both stories are cute.
There are benefits to being kind and gentle when dealing with all people. As long as I am not being gullible. I would not humiliate someone I cared about by making fun of them for making a mistake. If they made a joke of it then I might laugh with them but not at them. Not just LSE respond to kindness. Congrats on being kind to your bf Marisita.A gullible person believes what other people say and does what others ask without thinking. Gullible people trust others too much, too easily. Bad people steal money and take advantage of gullible people. For example, a gullible person would buy a used car without checking it carefully, and later discover the car is in poor condition and not worth its price. Gullible is often used to tell about this kind of situation. Other much harsher words (nouns) for this kind of person are sucker or maybe dupe, patsy, or chump. There are other more vulgar words for gullible I won't list.
Naive includes a lack of wisdom about life in general. A naive person does not have much knowledge about how people behave and how the world works. A naive person thinks like a child and tends to believe the world is good. A naive person doesn't understand that many people lie, that life isn't fair, and that what people promise can be very different from what they do. (A naive person is gullible, too.) Other words for naive might include childlike, happy-go-lucky, eternal optimist, or sees the world through rose-colored glasses.
Naive is used much more than gullible. Maybe this is because naive includes the idea of gullible. Also, naive is usually not meant to be an insult, especially when used to describe young people. Gullible is often used instead of stupid, and is insulting.
“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
But gullible is more self-deprecating than naive.......I can be naive but not really gullible. Not even as a child. This sounds like naive children to me and not weak Te but I think both of you already knew that. hahah Both stories are cute.
sounds more inbred too.But gullible is more self-deprecating than naive.......
http://www.gullible-inbred.com/
“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
only if you're a horsesounds more inbred too.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/gullible
I don't know if this would be an example of Te vulnerable or not, or maybe just childhood naivety, but when I was around ten, I remember someone telling me when we were fishing that earthworms scream in pain when you pierce them with a fishhook, but it was in pitch too high for the human ear to hear. I believed it for many years and embarrassed myself for at least a couple years as I "informed" dozens of people of this fact, lol.
Also, I had a uncle who told me when I was listen to Metallica at age 10 that Mozart originally wrote the melody to Enter Sandman and Metallica just made it into a metal song, lol. I told a bunch of people that one, until one day I said to my uncle, while he was with his wife, "I can't believe Mozart wrote Enter Sandman!" I saw his wife look over at my uncle and she said, "Did you tell him that? You're such an asshole!" We all burst out laughing.
One word: Gullible
I have gotten much better with agei can never hurt a wormie ever again now...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
dear jimmers, you were 10. gah. as in, GAH, i mean TEN YEARS OLD (to spell it out).
actually the earthworm thing is plausible imo. we humans like to think we're very unique. we like to think our experiences are special and complex and advanced. and we are often wrong.
why wouldn't an earthworm experience pain? why would it? it's actually a reasonable question. (not that i promote an experiment of subjecting earthworms to pain to try to figure it out.)
Oh I definitely think it's reasonable to assume that earthworms do experience pain. I just thought it was a funny story to share; usually I get a few laughs when I tell it. I've always had a tendency to take information that I think makes sense to me and accept them as fact, as long as it seemed plausible to me. However, I will rarely not look up something that is of a questionable nature.
Recently, I caught myself spreading misinformation about the uterus of dogs and cats. I was telling some people that dogs and cats have numerous uteruses, which is why they are better equipped to have more than one pup/kitten. I got this out of a children's book about sex for one of my children from the library. I don't think the book actually stated it, it was just what I gathered from the illustrations. While I was telling someone about this they were all intrigued and told them I wasn't so sure about it myself and I would have to look it up. It turned out that my information was incorrect.
Since I was a kid, I have had a tendency to accept some things people I trusted, like favorite relatives, teachers, and anything written in a book. As an adult, I'm very good at screening new information for plausibility first, but I'm still amazed at how much slips into my mind simply because I find it interesting.
This whole discussion makes me think that the Te vulnerable discussed by the OP is nothing more than not learning to accurately fact check, which even countless college students are often guilty of.
About the subjective life experience of an earthworm:
who am I to judge?
AwwwI don't know if this would be an example of Te vulnerable or not, or maybe just childhood naivety, but when I was around ten, I remember someone telling me when we were fishing that earthworms scream in pain when you pierce them with a fishhook, but it was in pitch too high for the human ear to hear. I believed it for many years and embarrassed myself for at least a couple years as I "informed" dozens of people of this fact, lol.
Also, I had a uncle who told me when I was listen to Metallica at age 10 that Mozart originally wrote the melody to Enter Sandman and Metallica just made it into a metal song, lol. I told a bunch of people that one, until one day I said to my uncle, while he was with his wife, "I can't believe Mozart wrote Enter Sandman!" I saw his wife look over at my uncle and she said, "Did you tell him that? You're such an asshole!" We all burst out laughing.
One word: Gullible
I have gotten much better with age
Any type can be mistaken about the validity of information depending on the methods that they were introduced that may be according to their time. An example that was given in popular soci poo nics was an LSE who used a thermometer or something like that to take a temperature while aome other method could be adopted too but he/she wouldn't because it was not the method known or used. Ummm information is a tricky thing. Reliability to sources as published and seen or documented is one that most Se types rely on. Then you get brave and dangerous types like SLE who stretch the boundaries to discover new knowledge. I will sometimes say things that i don't have a source for but that experience has provided validity to me. .
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Sarcasm aside, I think something like the experience I described in this thread could never happen to a child whose developed (-ing) function is Te (not exclusively Te, but that was the topic of this discussion). http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...98#post1042698
When I was 3 I scared everyone to death when I tried to quench my SLE cousin's imperative thirst. He came to visit and left with my mom (who was going to work). My dad was supposed to come home from work in 1-2 hours. So I had all that time for myself, as I was already kinda used to. However on that day my SLE cousin (4 years older than me) prolly got sorta bored and wanted some action and returned to my home. Since I had no key, he just stood in front of my window asking for water. I didn't wanna let him die of thirst (jesus), so I tried to pass him a bottle on a rope. Apparently my neighbours got terrified that I was kinda very close to falling from the 2nd floor and breaking my neck and called my parents. Dunno how it all happened, but my dad came home at lightning speed and my mom was on the point of having a heart attack. Apparently I didn't see any risk and kinda defied the neighbors who were warning me and telling me to give up on the whole venture. I still dunno if smth . was really happening or I just had excessively paranoid neighbors. I only recall I was wearing a lilac skirt and a white blouse.
When I was 11 I had a crush on a 8-year old girl after her mom was killed in a truck accident right in front of our school (she was coming to pick her up). She was so angelic, and all blonde and deep-blue-eyed and milky-skinned, but absolutely unaware and serene. I used to prepare all sort of creative gifts for her and made my "desk friend" (a SEE or SLE - se) a bit jealous.
*** I don't necessarily relate Te with the interest in facts or the ability to acquire facts etc....I learned to read when I was 3 and to write when I was 4. I was fascinated by stuff that generally doesn't turn on little kids.
... but in a "critical situation" like the one I described, I was obviously making "non-Te" decisions.
Last edited by Amber; 03-27-2015 at 04:07 PM.
why not? fi/te also relies upon who and what are good sources of information. children often rely on trusted adults in their lives to inform them about the world. so if one of the these trusted adults informs the um "developing te child" of something, then it may be taken as fact. then later of course once one discovers that fact to be wrong, he will update his info (and maybe also his assessment of the source of the info in general, or in particular contexts).
i'm not actually saying jimmers is or isn't te vulnerable as i don't know jimmers. i'm just questioning if gullibility, particularly in one's younger years, is a good indicator. i can think of quite a few examples of me being gullible from childhood and they are more fantastical the younger i was.
he's Delta NF, but he just wanted to tell an amusing story.
what I meant with my example is that I wasn't thinking "logically", neither was I "following" what my parents had taught me to do (informed me about the world). I was acting on a "Feeling" function. I think someone with Te or Ti leading would have thought they can break their neck if they stretch and would have ignored the person's needs/claims.
Last edited by Amber; 03-27-2015 at 05:08 PM.
oh gosh. i actually didn't carefully look at your original post and thought you were talking about jimmer's examples not your own...
i think i might disagree with your example too because you were so little... children can really singularly focus on something and be unaware or unable to assess danger. i once ventured out into the ice of a glacier when i was really little because i was curious about something... i felt something was over there, some presence, and there was a curiosity and thing calling to me that i had to know... i didn't get too far before my parents pulled me back and scolded me. after, i remember i learned that i wasn't able to assess danger as well as my parents. i didn't think i was in danger, but from their reactions they obviously thought i was in terrible danger. i was perplexed at how far apart this was (their assessment and mine) and realized that they were probably right and i wasn't able to see it. i was more careful in the future just so not to do that to them again.
oh, and then there was my sister who imagined she could fly. she jumped from the top of our bunk bed and deliberately flew off the swing when my mom was pushing her. i guess she just believed flight was possible for her (in her 2 yo brain. 3 yo?).
Last edited by marooned; 03-27-2015 at 05:44 PM.
For the record I am not Delta NF. There isn't a single person I know in real life that would label me as an NF or Delta. I couldn't care less if people want to label me a delta NF online. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. It just isn't correct. The reason why I change my type so many times is because of something called the Forer Effect. The more I read the descriptions, the more contradictions I notice. Many of the reasons one person may use to argue one particular type may also be used to argue a completely different type. This is why socionics is unscientific, because it is unfalsifiable. What one person sees as one type can plausibly be seen as another type. There are numerous reasons for the same set of traits. This is why I am frustrated with typology. It all comes down to someone's "credential" to type someone, but no matter the level of credentials, it is still pseudoscience. The fact that two different "experts" can type the same person as two completely different types only points to its invalidity. So while I am not Delta NF, it cannot be proven that I'm not anymore than I am. It really depends on the point of view of the typologist.
I dont necessarily disagree with you, but i want to point out that learning to read and write is not "acquiring facts" but learning skills.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
oh, i'm sorry, i guess i took the alphabet for a fact or stuff like signified-signifier.
anyway i don't necessarily disagree with u, as u see, but i want to add there are several people here who could use a LSI or a LII on their back.
what this site needs are philosophers of science
"when you have to promote yourself, you gotta through urself out there" etc. "When that happens, ur sources can be criticized." etc.
Eh ...? which sources? only cliche statements that u can find on wikisoc or so. Nothing original, creative, or at least subjectively interesting. Not Ni leading.
the subtext of all this video is: "don't criticize me here, coz u'r spoiling my Fe base image." (Te polr is used only as an excuse). Dunno if chick is actually making money via self-promotion tho ..so well ... mea culpa.
Last edited by Amber; 04-08-2015 at 02:39 PM.
Does understanding hierarchy fall under Te? If not, which IE would be most relevant to that?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Ti blocked with Se is most adept at thinking in hierarchies and operating with them
Idk
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-08-2015 at 07:57 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
