Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: derail-Suz's type

  1. #1
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default derail-Suz's type

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    you remind me a bit of Jennifer Conelly. I don't see SEI, i don't see Fe. you seem very emotionally muted. SEIs are a lot more expressive even when they're playing it down, or at least aware. you seem much less conscious about what your face is doing. in fact you also remind me a bit of @Director Abbie.

    ALSO SUZ IS NOT SEI, SUZ CUT IT OUT. /fake anger
    i never said i'm definitely SEI but it's a type i am considering for myself. Last time i checked, i know myself better than you do and i have the right to self-type whatever i resonate with most, without being told to "cut it out" by yourself or anyone else who disagrees with what i chose for myself. (though i do feel its sweet of you to suggest we're in the same quadra. Still, it's getting annoying and bordering on offensive). Some people dont think you're EII... so what?

    I am currently self-typing ESE, not that it should matter to you nor bring about these kinds of statements.

    But i agree with you that i think Dooneese might be Delta quadra, but it's up to her to make the final call.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  2. #2
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    i never said i'm definitely SEI but it's a type i am considering for myself. Last time i checked, i know myself better than you do and i have the right to self-type whatever i resonate with most, without being told to "cut it out" by yourself or anyone else who disagrees with what i chose for myself. (though i do feel its sweet of you to suggest we're in the same quadra. Still, it's getting annoying and bordering on offensive). Some people dont think you're EII... so what?

    I am currently self-typing ESE, not that it should matter to you nor bring about these kinds of statements.
    i'm not trying to flatter you when i say you're IEE, it's not because i like you any more or less. it's really plainly obvious on every level. i just feel obligated to point it out.

  3. #3
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    i'm not trying to flatter you when i say you're IEE, it's not because i like you any more or less. it's really plainly obvious on every level. i just feel obligated to point it out.
    Well, whether you intended or not, i take being seen as IEE as very flattering. Its a delightful type. By all means keep typing me that.

    Listen Radio, bickering about these things is petty. You feel IEE is obvious, but many others dont and ive resonated less with that type the longer i self typed it. Maybe your socionics is off, or maybe you just dont know me as well as you think you do. Additionally, I see the opinion of others as auxiliary information that my own judgement will ultimately trump, if differs.

    So, my friend, i call my right to type myself what i see fit, without being given a hard time about it. Most ppl on this forum have ppl who disagree with their self-typing. Its the nature of the beast.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  4. #4
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    You feel IEE is obvious, but many others dont
    many others like...... who?

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    Maybe your socionics is off, or maybe you just dont know me as well as you think you do.
    this is the same argument as "if you don't like justin bieber ur just jealous".

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    So, my friend, i call my right to type myself what i see fit, without being given a hard time about it. Most ppl on this forum have ppl who disagree with their self-typing. Its the nature of the beast.
    type yourself what you want, call an umbrella a shoe but it's still a goddamn umbrella in shape, size, function and structure.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    many others like...... who?

    this is the same argument as "if you don't like justin bieber ur just jealous".

    type yourself what you want, call an umbrella a shoe but it's still a goddamn umbrella in shape, size, function and structure.
    why are you going after Suz in a different user's type thread......

    additionally, logic fail in your post.

  6. #6
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm no one to stop a pointless derail from happening

  7. #7
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    additionally, logic fail in your post.
    lol yeah i thought so too
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  8. #8
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    lol yeah i thought so too
    lols ya i'm so dumb i didn't even notice herpaderp

    ????????????

  9. #9
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    lols ya i'm so dumb i didn't even notice herpaderp

    ????????????

    Your point?
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  10. #10
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    suz i'm not being contentious, your type is not your fucking identity, stop being offended at this pointless thing

    god this forum is so FRUSTRATING

  11. #11
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    suz i'm not being contentious, your type is not your fucking identity, stop being offended at this pointless thing
    exactly, so why are you taking the possibility of error in my self-typing so seriously??? smh
    You should take your own advice.

    What I'm offended by is not whether you recognize me as a certain type (couldn't care less about that), but rather how you and certain others try to humiliate me for making my own decision about my own type and try to coerce me into a type that I dont resonate with. It's not cool, it makes socionics less fun and it infringes on my freedom as a forum member indulging in socionics as a leisure activity. Maybe it makes it more fun to you, but i'm speaking out here for my right to self-type what i want to.

    Like i said, type me IEE if you want to, it doesn't matter to me that much. It does however mean i think you're wrong, but why should your panties be in such a wad over that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio
    god this forum is so FRUSTRATING
    Then why are you here?
    Last edited by Suz; 06-18-2015 at 09:46 PM.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  12. #12
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    Well, whether you intended or not, i take being seen as IEE as very flattering. Its a delightful type. By all means keep typing me that.

    Listen Radio, bickering about these things is petty. You feel IEE is obvious, but many others dont and ive resonated less with that type the longer i self typed it. Maybe your socionics is off, or maybe you just dont know me as well as you think you do. Additionally, I see the opinion of others as auxiliary information that my own judgement will ultimately trump, if differs.

    So, my friend, i call my right to type myself what i see fit, without being given a hard time about it. Most ppl on this forum have ppl who disagree with their self-typing. Its the nature of the beast.
    Look @Radio I even said it to you a couple posts ago!!

    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  13. #13
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    872
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    bzzzzzzzoooooop

  14. #14
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    1,515
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Untypable

  15. #15
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Suz i lean towards thinking Si-Ne extravert for you, i really don't see SEI or any other introvert as an obvious option. when dealing with other people, i see SEIs generally keeping their cool and staying neutral/moderate even in heated situations (even when they have an opinion). they'll do something like make a joke, brush things off, be diplomatic, etc. but you're more reactive and willing to impose your opinion (i don't mean this in a bad way, btw). just an observation.

  16. #16
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    Suz i lean towards thinking Si-Ne extravert for you, i really don't see SEI or any other introvert as an obvious option. when dealing with other people, i see SEIs generally keeping their cool and staying neutral/moderate even in heated situations (even when they have an opinion). they'll do something like make a joke, brush things off, be diplomatic, etc. but you're more reactive and willing to impose your opinion (i don't mean this in a bad way, btw). just an observation.
    So just curious... do SEIs never lose their patience? Ever? I'm not trying to challenge you, i just wonder... seems unnatural to me...
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  17. #17
    Idiot Iris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,001
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    So just curious... do SEIs never lose their patience? Ever? I'm not trying to challenge you, i just wonder... seems unnatural to me...
    No. The 3 that I know are very chill. I have never seen them angry. They are very calm at their core.
    You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
    But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
    You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
    I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
    Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation
    .


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k

  18. #18
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,793
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    Suz i lean towards thinking Si-Ne extravert for you, i really don't see SEI or any other introvert as an obvious option. when dealing with other people, i see SEIs generally keeping their cool and staying neutral/moderate even in heated situations (even when they have an opinion). they'll do something like make a joke, brush things off, be diplomatic, etc. but you're more reactive and willing to impose your opinion (i don't mean this in a bad way, btw). just an observation.
    I completely agree, especially SEI 9w1, that's like the most non-imposing person in existence.

  19. #19
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    I completely agree, especially SEI 9w1, that's like the most non-imposing person in existence.
    i am pretty non-imposing though....but I do have a backbone when i need to.

    wow so from what you guys are saying, SEIs (esp 9w1) are supposed to let people walk all over them? If so, then we can cross that type out for me...
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  20. #20
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    all i'm saying Suz is that with SEI, i generally see them doing things to avoid heightening a conflict (especially if they're also e9, like darya pointed out). it's not that they cannot stand up for themselves when needed, but rather than escalate a situation, i generally see SEI trying to diffuse it through jokes, not taking a position, etc. i didn't say that SEIs will NEVER lose their cool (and i wouldn't say this, because it's ridiculous to claim a person of any type will "NEVER" do something), but it's just atypical from what i've seen.

    btw, disliking conflict ≠ having no backbone. these qualities are too often falsely equated. imho, it takes a certain kind of strength to avoid getting dragged into a conflict while also being able to diffuse it.

  21. #21
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    all i'm saying Suz is that with SEI, i generally see them doing things to avoid heightening a conflict (especially if they're also e9, like darya pointed out). it's not that they cannot stand up for themselves when needed, but rather than escalate a situation, i generally see SEI trying to diffuse it through jokes, not taking a position, etc. i didn't say that SEIs will NEVER lose their cool (and i wouldn't say this, because it's ridiculous to claim a person of any type will "NEVER" do something), but it's just atypical from what i've seen.

    btw, disliking conflict ≠ having no backbone. these qualities are too often falsely equated. imho, it takes a certain kind of strength to avoid getting dragged into a conflict while also being able to diffuse it.
    Thanks, Glam, for clarifying your original statement. What you stated here is more consistent with my understanding.

    And there is nothing in what you said just now that doesnt fit me. Although i am self-typing ESE at the moment.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz
    wow so from what you guys are saying, SEIs (esp 9w1) are supposed to let people walk all over them? If so, then we can cross that type out for me...
    Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.

    And even socionically speaking, there are more abstract definitions of the information elements that bypass these kinds of associations that I think work better if we want to acknowledge variation.

    As for 9s, my view of this type isn't as a peacemaker. I'd say inertia is better as a theme -- you could have agreeable 9s and not so agreeable 9s. Personally think there's no reason really a phobic 6 wouldn't be *more* of a peacemaker than a 9 in many cases, due to fear being the motive for peacekeeping. Many 9s strike me as more numb and/or somewhat self-forgetting than peacemaking in nature.

  23. #23
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    160 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.
    Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics. Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics.
    Mind expanding? I would certainly not say they are interchangeable, but this seems like a pretty strong statement. What do you see as the foundations-level distinctions between the two, and why do they exist?

    Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.
    According to what definition? I am aware some socionics portraits essentially distinguish the Se types by being forceful, but more generally all Se is would be noting what is required to change an object's kinetic energy, which you can call a force. This doesn't have to translate to a forceful person in the sense of the opposite of compliant - there are a lot of other ways to set things in motion.

    My general point is the more abstract definitions just seem to work better, else you essentially end up with a system where you might as well type by the easiest quadra stereotypes possible.

  25. #25
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    160 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Mind expanding? I would certainly not say they are interchangeable, but this seems like a pretty strong statement. What do you see as the foundations-level distinctions between the two, and why do they exist?
    Socionics is a theory of intertype relations and information metabolism. Jungian type theory does not include these things so it is fundamentally different and to really understand socionics I would advise thinking of the theories as completely separate even if they are superficially similar.

    According to what definition? I am aware some socionics portraits essentially distinguish the Se types by being forceful, but more generally all Se is would be noting what is required to change an object's kinetic energy, which you can call a force. This doesn't have to translate to a forceful person in the sense of the opposite of compliant - there are a lot of other ways to set things in motion.
    I have no idea what you're getting at here. What other ways? How can someone be good at (and like) using force without being considered a forceful person?

    My general point is the more abstract definitions just seem to work better, else you essentially end up with a system where you might as well type by the easiest quadra stereotypes possible.
    I agree. But this is so closely related to the "definition" that I see no reason to doubt it (unless you think socionic and Jungian functions are mostly the same).

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    How can someone be good at (and like) using force without being considered a forceful person?
    Well this is fine, just that I was saying "force" is pretty generic a term. Does it mean force as in the opposite of being compliant? Does it mean knowing how to impact situation X directly so as to send it moving towards goal Y? there are lots of instances of people who do this latter without being forceful in the sense of being aggressive personalities.

    (unless you think socionic and Jungian functions are mostly the same).
    Well definitely not, there's differences; the thing is I find they are similarly themed with different focuses within those themes.

    Abstractly the link between Jung and socionics-Se (and Si) AFAIK is this: in general, sensation to Jung involved one's interface with tangible reality, and in its extraverted manifestation, this meant more one's interactions with the objective stimulus itself than with the residual impressions left by the stimulus (which you could translate in socionics to saying the introvert withdraws consciousness from the object in favor of registering his relation to the object). Thus, I'd say a majority of this idea of moving something/impacting the object directly (as opposed to registering its effect on the viewer) actually fits a good bit in with the Jungian theme. In Jung's words, if I recall correctly introverted sensation is restricted to perceiving innervation phenomena by means of the unconscious, which more or less is a kind of withdrawing away from the conscious impact of the stimulus in favor of noting its connection to the archetype responsible for registering it as a part of one's reality-values.

    My general stance is there are situations where it makes sense to make allowances for socionics definitions being different because it's a similar theme but with different theoretical aims to some extent, but there are other situations where I think going back to the Jungian foundations work better even for socionics.
    For instance, I rather like the socionics presentation of ILI, even though I'd hardly say all Jungian introverted intuitives with auxiliary thinking resemble ILIs.

  27. #27
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.

    And even socionically speaking, there are more abstract definitions of the information elements that bypass these kinds of associations that I think work better if we want to acknowledge variation.

    As for 9s, my view of this type isn't as a peacemaker. I'd say inertia is better as a theme -- you could have agreeable 9s and not so agreeable 9s. Personally think there's no reason really a phobic 6 wouldn't be *more* of a peacemaker than a 9 in many cases, due to fear being the motive for peacekeeping. Many 9s strike me as more numb and/or somewhat self-forgetting than peacemaking in nature.
    Thank you for voicing this, I totally agree...

    When people start describing "typical" type behaviors and invoking their "XYZ" type friends, I get very skeptical... maybe *their friends* happen to be like that (and other people of XYZ type could be slightly different, maybe even their friends would be different when faced with a different situation), perhaps their friends' behavior is like that for NTR reasons, and who knows how they're typing their friends even... maybe they typed their friends type XYZ because of their such behavioral stereotype...questionable.

    Additionally, to comment further not specifically to you chemical, but to the other participants in this thread, my own behavior is very situational. In this particular derail, I wanted to put an end to the put downs i've been receiving, not just from radio but from a select few other forum members, for identifying with a certain type. It was a response to many such instances which i had previously been fairly diffusive of, but it's really getting very annoying and i felt that its not fair to infringe on my personal freedom like that. Even so, i dont think anyone can say that the way i handled this rudeness served to escalate the situation; on the contrary.

    Neither was I "imposing" my opinion on anyone -- in fact, i clearly stated people should feel free to type me whatever they please. Generally, while I can feel quite at liberty to express my opinions on things, it goes very much against my style to impose my opinion on others, so i dont really know where that assessment of glam's came from (even if it was made in goodwill). I'm quite tolerant and inclusive of other people's views, in general. Most of the time differences in views actually don't even matter to me, but I do enjoy a nice intellectual discussion, with mutual respect of one another's views, and being agreeable to disagree if the differences are irreconcilable.

    At work, i actually have a reputation for diffusing polarized social situations and being quite laid back and calm. My bosses and peers talk about it all the time, and it has been a large part of my character references from my higher ups. Additionally, even on this forum, several people have noticed on multiple occasions my ability to do so, but i do so quite inconspicuously most of the time that often people dont even notice, yet the situation has been diffused. It's similar among my IRL friends as well.This is what i mean when i say, i know myself better than you guys likely do. You dont get this kind of info from me here, because i dont typically care to brag about it or even think to mention it. This is also a reason i've never made a type me thread (this one kind of happened inadvertantly). As i've said, my judgement on my type will trump anyone else's opinions of what they *think* i'm like. I'm here simply trying to learn the socionics, and i make my own final decision on what type i think i am, with good reason.

    I do speak up when i need to though. I dont tolerate being a doormat, and i expect to be treated in a courteous fashion, just as I do for everyone else. So if that makes me not SEI, that's totally fine with me.
    Last edited by Suz; 06-21-2015 at 11:20 PM. Reason: typo
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally I find with things like aggression, enneagram is a better explanatory means. I think Jungian functions and the offshoots should capture specific ways the motivations play out, rather than becoming temperament theories.

    Otherwise, why not just use the 4 temperaments? Melancholic, sanguine, etc. Oh look, you're nice and calm, and easygoing, and friendly you must be the blend sanguine-phlegmatic. Why use socionics at all? I find it's better to keep socionics abstract mainly because it fulfills what I think is its true purpose.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics. Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.
    No, that's a stupid stereotype especially about Si. What about the Si type that gets away from a situation instead of being compliant. What about the Si type that uses their Se ID when necessary?

    For Se, forceful works if you don't specifically mean aggression, just an active approach to things. But many people seem to misunderstand the word usage "forceful" as implying aggression

    An explicitly aggressive approach I think often involves more than just the Se information element - it can involve enneagram motivation, etc

    Though I think the idea that there's a tendency with Se types being more forceful (incl. approaches that seem aggressive to some people) than Si types is okay. And that doesn't even go against Jung.. Jung implies in his Se description that Se can go that direction and same for Si. It's just not part of the core definition of Se/Si as a type of information processing. You can't state that Se type == forceful, Si type == compliant.

    You said it's part of the core definition for Se/Si, why? (Where you say: "But this is so closely related to the "definition" that I see no reason to doubt it")


    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Socionics is a theory of intertype relations and information metabolism. Jungian type theory does not include these things so it is fundamentally different and to really understand socionics I would advise thinking of the theories as completely separate even if they are superficially similar.
    Actually Jung's function descriptions quite obviously imply something about the inferior function being in a special relationship with the dominant function. It's true that it doesn't say anything about intertype relations but it doesn't really go against Jung

    As for information metabolism, I see the jungian functions as types of information processing so again I don't see it as incompatible with socionics.

    Though a lot of the socionics stereotypes are distinctly different from jungian theory, such as Si being compliant... yes that part is "fundamentally different" from Jung, but who cares about stereotypes?


    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    My general stance is (...) there are other situations where I think going back to the Jungian foundations work better even for socionics.
    Example for that?

  30. #30
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics. Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.
    the return of Expationics.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    Example for that?
    In this case, I really was just meaning to try to figure out how to understand the socionics IE foundations-level. Like, I wasn't suggesting revising the socionics definitions so much as working with the more barebones ones while not pinning any particular traits (e.g. the compliant thing), and instead figuring out how Se-socionics and Se-Jung are getting at similar things.

  32. #32
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Force as a type of information that can be processed is not the same thing as the behavior of "being forceful".

    Considering how decisive someone is, how strong their desire/will for something, how much physical/mental/social/financial/etc power is backing someone's actions/decisions, or being quick to decide on an action/opinion is not the same thing as imposing one's own will upon others, being aggressive, etc.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  33. #33
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    160 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    No, that's a stupid stereotype especially about Si. What about the Si type that gets away from a situation instead of being compliant. What about the Si type that uses their Se ID when necessary?

    For Se, forceful works if you don't specifically mean aggression, just an active approach to things. But many people seem to misunderstand the word usage "forceful" as implying aggression
    ok, I mostly agree with what you're saying.

    Being forceful (or better, strong willed) is not the same as aggression. Certainly many Se ego types are not aggressive people. And yes, getting away from a situation is also using Si. And of course any type can use Se, to different degrees. So we are on the same page there.

    You said it's part of the core definition for Se/Si, why? (Where you say: "But this is so closely related to the "definition" that I see* no reason to doubt it")
    Well, for example, Augusta described Se information as "the degree of mobilization, strength of will, power, and beauty of observed objects and subjects." I don't know of any author who denies that (evaluating and applying) willpower is a part of Se. If they did, it would be a significant departure from classical socionics.

    Here are some things Jung says about Se types (again, he makes little distinction between the psychological function and the type):

    Jung's description of the Se type is basically as a bon-vivant pleasure seeker: "his aim is concrete enjoyment". This is closer to Si in socionics, in terms of motivation. He also mentions nothing about willpower.

    This topic has been done to death but just in case people are willing to listen... consider the following:

    1) Jungian descriptions are somewhat different from socionics.
    2) Augusta arrived at the modified descriptions over a period of many years, so these differences are not trivial.
    3) Therefore, in cases where Jungian and socionics descriptions differ, the socionic ones should be taken as the socionic definition.

    So if you recognize that, what does Jung even add to the discussion of socionics? Sure, you can merely write off all the differences you don't like as "stereotypes" but then you are not making a serious effort to learn socionics in my opinion.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Well, for example, Augusta described Se information as "the degree of mobilization, strength of will, power, and beauty of observed objects and subjects." I don't know of any author who denies that (evaluating and applying) willpower is a part of Se. If they did, it would be a significant departure from classical socionics.
    Which sort of willpower, though?

    I have willpower for Se things and I have willpower for Ti things. They are a bit different...


    Here are some things Jung says about Se types (again, he makes little distinction between the psychological function and the type):
    You are terribly wrong about "little distinction", Jung's type descriptions are not part of his core theory and he explicitly states this distinction. They are just exaggerated illustrations, no more. How come you believe the common misconceptions about this?


    Jung's description of the Se type is basically as a bon-vivant pleasure seeker: "his aim is concrete enjoyment". This is closer to Si in socionics, in terms of motivation.
    Wrong again, don't mix stereotypes with definitions :/

    As for the definition itself, consider what Jung says about Se itself: "This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without"

    Also read what chemical said about it earlier in this thread.

    And as for "Si in socionics in terms of motivation", what do you even mean by that? Explain more.


    He also mentions nothing about willpower.
    The will is linked to the ego and the differentiated function(s) in Jung's theory.


    This topic has been done to death but just in case people are willing to listen... consider the following:

    1) Jungian descriptions are somewhat different from socionics.
    2) Augusta arrived at the modified descriptions over a period of many years, so these differences are not trivial.
    3) Therefore, in cases where Jungian and socionics descriptions differ, the socionic ones should be taken as the socionic definition.
    1) Note again that illustrations != definitions.
    2) That's ok, I'm sure there are differences definitionally too but I also like to assess their relevance. Of course I would not want to mix up the two theories. Understanding of each one is important. And then seeing what matches with reality.
    3) That's a no-brainer but I was only disputing the idea that Se is basically the same as being forceful and Si is the same as being compliant. Pretty sure that's not what the original socionics definitions are getting at.


    So if you recognize that, what does Jung even add to the discussion of socionics?
    What chemical said in his previous post above.


    Sure, you can merely write off all the differences you don't like as "stereotypes" but then you are not making a serious effort to learn socionics in my opinion.
    It's not about liking or not liking differences, it's about what makes sense and what does not make sense. Nothing to do with "not making a serious effort to learn", either. I don't see why you jump to such far-flung conclusions here when my point was simply that the definitions don't include stereotypes.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush -- the thing is more or less, will is separate from the 4 functions in Jung's theory. He did conceive of it, but the closest thing linking will to sensation was his linking instinct to sensation (although not equating). I mean, that makes sense enough -- instinctual reactions can certainly be related to sensation. I suspect this is a better way to describe how Se is related to kinetic energy -- aka the instinct on how to move objects in a concrete situation you're involved in.

    What I'm getting at is... if Mr. X defines a theory modeling the psyche with 'things" arranged in order TNSF, and says T has to do with logic, F has to do with feelings, etc, and then says hey, my theory is totally different, evaluate it on its own terms I have to say that's a little silly. It's like building two programming languages supporting similar paradigms, but with different functionality in terms of the greater specifics. I think it's safe to say sure, you can't expect those programming languages to be the same, but it's also safe to say you can evaluate them against each other because they're trying to do similar things to at least a degree, and you can certainly improve the design of one by having a deep understanding of another. Yes you should accept fresh things one can have that the other doesn't due to differing philosophies.

    At the end of the day, if Se is will, and Ne is potential, and Jung put S=sensation and N=possibilities, and will is outside the 4 functions, I think it's a problem to be solved why these two differing perspectives, rather than a thing to be accepted that zomg, Se in socionics has NOTHING to do with Se in Jung....the better question to me is should it be the case that Se in socionics has nothing to do with Se in Jung -- does it make sense, given the rest of the model, and given the rest of the overlap with Jung.

    BTW, I get the sense Gulenko somewhat links raw forcefulness of personality with the D personality for which Je is first and Se is second? And note that in the MBTI, J correlates with willfulness more than P does.. AND what's more, Gulenko asserts a correlation of J with socionics rationals and P with socionics irrationals in an article I can link you. I'm not saying any of this is 100% determining of what view we should have, or anything more than data. But it's at least alternate stuff to keep in mind before getting too cozy in one's understanding of what Se in socionics should be.

    My current take is Se as the cognition of how to tangibly impact a situation makes much more sense (and also, synergized better with Jungian ideas -- not coincidentally IMHO) than saying Se is mostly given by forcefulness of character.
    That pretty much turns socionics into a 4 temperaments kind of thing with 2 quadras full of everyone who is uhm, forceful and not loosey goosey.

    Like here is socionics in a nutshell:

    - DO YOU EXPRESS YOUR EMOTIONS OUT LOUD/WANT SOMEONE TO HELP YOU DO SO? NO? Gamma or Delta.

    - ARE YOU STRONG AND WILLFUL AND LIKE BEING AGGRESSIVE AND/OR WANT SOMEONE TO HELP YOU? YEAH? Beta or Gamma.

    Done deal. That's literally all there is to understanding socionics.
    @Myst, just in case that wasn't clear, I was being sarcastic at the end O__O
    Last edited by chemical; 06-24-2015 at 12:21 AM.

  36. #36
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think i'm gonna stick with ESE.

    Among other things Gulenko's description is spot-on for me (as are a bunch of other ESE descriptions - Beskova's and Filatova's were pretty darned accurate for me). Please note that it says nothing about being loud or boisterous (though of course that opinion can be subjective & situational).

     
    Ethical Sensing Extravert: The Enthusiast



    (partial translation - further translation needed)

    General Description

    ESE is emotional and communicative. Knows how to improve the mood of others, to cheer them up. Enjoys talking to and about his friends and acquaintances. His emotions can change dramatically: at times he is lighthearted and friendly, other times he is hot-tempered and irate. Notices behavior and manners of others.

    Caring and hospitable. Knows how to create comfort from what there is at hand. Watches for the well-being and health of his loved ones. Enjoys giving gifts and doing something pleasant for others. Excellent organizer of events, vacations and celebrations.

    With difficulty contains his emotions. Nitpicks on those whom he doesn't like. Becomes very offended if his efforts are not appreciated. Quite fussy and scattered. Constantly overloaded with things to do, many of which can be omitted or postponed.

    Poorly predicts major life upheavals and drastic events. Expects positive results and outcomes, thus is often subject to stress and disappointments of unfulfilled hopes. Stable in his habits and ways of spending his free time. When evaluating how much he has left usually does not manage to accomplish all that he has planned. Often takes up important work at the last minute, which leads to unnecessary hurry and agitation.

    Detailed description

    ESE's forte is being able to impact people on emotional and personal basis. Through his boisterous, sharply manifested emotions, he can achieve much. Others find it difficult to withstand his kind of pressuring. Discerning of the moods of those he's conversing with. Able to lift his own mood and that of others. Optimistic, tries to instill in his loved ones hope for success and positive outcomes. Very sociable, easy establishes contacts. With pleasure talks about his friends and acquaintances. Although he usually aims for high social status, he can sacrifice it for the sake of his family. A good organizer of events and celebrations within his social circle. Sees to it that everyone is interested and involved, draws people into conversation. Dislikes those who are overly skeptical and hold themselves as separate and aloof.

    Very caring in relations to his family and friends. Attentive and responsive. Takes care of people who are not feeling well and those who seem impractical and poorly adapted to life. Understands who needs what kind of help. Will not lend his a hand simply for the sake of improving relations. With pleasure receives guests. Loves holiday dinners and gatherings. Knows whom to invite, how to behave, what to serve, how to leave a positive impression. Practical in everyday life. Quickly settles in a new place. Knows how to create comfort from what is readily available at hand. Gets rid of unnecessary things, sells them or gives them away. Picky in his aesthetic taste. Analyzes whether the appearance of others is harmonious. Himself dresses judiciously, masterfully combining various aspects of his outfit.

    Makes himself be active and enterprising in professional and business spheres. Very mobile and energetic, moves around a lot, meets new people, makes various deals and contracts. Grows very offended if he is called flippant, unprofessional and non-serious. Quite fussy and scattered. Often overloads himself with things to do, which eventually exhausts him. Actively furthers and pushes through his interests, often very directly, making several attempts before giving up. In life achieves much himself without relying on help of others. Gives the impression of an agile, expeditious and skillful person. Often considers himself to be impractical since he achieves visible results only after much effort. Does his work quickly, but likes it when he is helped with something. If in a management position, he could use the help of an aid for running small tasks. Strives to accomplish several interrelated jobs at the same time, preferably in a single swoop.

    ESE poorly assesses how much time is available for his activities. Sometimes he takes up most important task at the last minute, which results in unnecessary rushing and stress. Appreciates those who warn him about how much time he has left in reserve. Vacillates a long time before making major steps or pivotal decisions. Remembers past mistakes, but does not act in accord with this his objective, practical experience rather orients by more personal factors. He suppresses in himself any apprehensive feelings of misfortunes and disasters and instead orients himself at a positive outcome. Due to this, many of his hopes and expectations lead to disappointments. Impatient, does not like to wait. Does not respect anyone who often runs late, philosophizes on empty topics, and wastes time.

    Feels comfortable and confident when there is order around, some system in place and few ambiguities. Absorbs and interprets complex information only when it is presented to him in a clearly structured way. Often a conscientious person, has a responsible attitude towards his assignments and duties and cannot relax if something is not done when it should be. Builds relationships on basis of trust. Does not like to construct proofs, to explicate, to repeat many times. Expects others to simply understand his problems and concerns. He is soothed by an objective and impartial analysis of a confusing situation. Once he has such explanation, he will find himself what concretely needs to be done now. Searches for a way to rationally organize his household as well as leisure time activities. Has a good sense of his body. Tries to find methods to avoid sickness and cover up any physical imperfections.

    Readily supports new and promising initiatives. He is in need of alternatives that can awaken his enthusiasm and stimulate him to activity. Grows very pleased when his abilities and energy find a proper application. Inaction, inability to do anything suppress him. Needs for someone else to notice and appreciate his efforts and provide encouragement. Provides emotional support for people who walk their own path not following the beaten track. Himself can light up with an idea and try to push it through, promote it. Strongly desires to be needed by someone. Offers many ideas for organization of events: conferences, speeches, presentations, holidays, celebrations, advertising campaigns, etc. Avoids routines, commonness and vulgarity.

    ESE critically evaluates relationships between people. Openly condemns rude and boorish attitudes. Demands attentive and correct relation towards himself. Democratic in relations. Easy establishes contact and usually keeps at a short interpersonal distance with others. Likes to teach ethics to people - courtesy, good manners. Dislikes like arrogance, pomposity, affectation, in his behavior tries to be courteous and cultured. Grows angry when someone starts bickering with him. In such cases attempts to shame the person, to evoke feelings of guilt in them. If such persuasion is not effective, can start a quarrel. Does not tolerate when someone looks down on him or speaks with him in a haughty tone. Has an acute sense of justice. Sees to it that no one is hurt or overlooked. For the sake of his loved ones can go for any venture.

    Persistent and picky in his dealings. If a person does not act in a way that ESE thinks he should, he will be constantly reminding him about it and not leaving him alone until ESE gets his way. Very self-sufficient and independent. Knows how to defend his interests. Tries to not miss out on benefits. Takes initiative. Constantly pushes others towards activity. Attempts to manage and guide their actions. Sluggishness and breaks in activity are irritating for him. Does not buy anything without a purpose. Specifically searches for some products, brands, or sellers. Does his shopping quickly. Makes sure that the things that he purchases correspond to their prices.

    As a subordinate

    Strengths: Active, optimistic, and well-wishing person. Attentive to others, caring, aims to help anyone who requests his help. Very perceptive of the emotional state of others. ESE easily established contact with people, of both personal and business nature. Opposes empty waste of time. Himself is frequently busy with urgent matters. Receptive of promising ideas and alternative propositions that can applied in practice. Often a positive and pleasant conversation partner who attains the favor of others. Knows how to do much with his hands. Often has a good sense of taste. In the life achieves much on his own without relying on help of others. Likes to do things quickly and without observers. Persistent and resolute in his actions, especially in emergency situations, when he encounters aggression or these is an acute lack of time. Listens to the advice of others, but does things his own way. ESE performs practical tasks usually successfully and competently, but likes that his efforts and his ingenuity are appreciated by others. Strives for stability, high material standard of living, and respect of his co-workers.

    Problem areas: ESE accumulates negative emotions, which he can hold back for quite a while. However, when these emotions build up, he can lose his temper and flare up, or become depressed and fall sick. He cannot act without having some emotional rapport with his conversation partner, so finds it difficult to interact with those who do not demonstrate their attitude towards what is happening around them. Not very economical, doesn't always correctly assess the value and usefulness of the actions that he's taking. He vacillates a long time before making an important decision or addressing a complex issue. Poorly feels how much time he has in reserve. With difficulty distinguishes main parts from that which is insignificant and minor; therefore, has a tendency to stress and tire himself out with unnecessary tasks and activities. Overestimates his practical and business acumen. Doesn't know how to wait – wants to do as much as possible as soon as possible.

    From ESE one cannot demand and expect:
    an unemotional, always reasonable and objective attitude towards work and other people;
    rigidity and uncompromising behavior when he is dealing with people;
    flexibility in behavior and rapid adaptation to the situation;
    good strategic and technical acumen;
    gratuitous altruism;
    punctuality in meeting deadlines.

    Recommended occupations: building the infrastructure of society, advertising, sociology, medicine, healthcare, design, decoration works, the service sector, trade, management and organizational activities in the social and scientific field (organization of fairs, workshops, recreation, celebrations).


    As a supervisor

    Representatives of this sociotype are characterized by susceptibility to any ideas and initiatives. ESE is energetic, adventurous, can demonstrate courage and audacity in risky situations. His nature is lively, ebullient, kind - the soul of society; a dreamer, and sometimes - a braggart. He has good command of emotions, which are instrumental to him for overcoming obstacles, during which he shows his ingenuity. He does not like to postpone the chores and activities until later, especially when he sees direct benefit or return in them.

    Supervisor-companion
    Any companion is well adapted to the atmosphere of a cohesive team that is moving toward a common goal. Manager of the type "Enthusiast" aims to create an atmosphere of cooperation and friendliness at his workplace. He is inclined to identify with the organization and acutely perceives its failures and rejoices for its successes.

    If he feels himself weakened psychologically, ESE tries to find in the structure of the team such a place that would grant him a safe existence. Stronger, more confident in themselves, and assured the strength of their position ESEs show a marked tendency to dominate, while trying to maintain positive relations in the work environment for as long as possible. Such leaders and managers usually make decisions quickly and "roll up their sleeves" to take on the workload without much delay. They also encourage their subordinates to such expeditiousness. A representative of this sociotype can take up the most routine work if he or she considers that it is necessary, but may err on the side of fuss and restlessness, fearing that he won't finish something.

    Due to his vigor and drive, ESE can compete at very high levels. However, in very harsh conditions of competition he usually does not endure. He lacks vision of potentialities and prospects; thus he becomes "buried" in insignificant details and tasks. This sociotype is most suitable for leadership in narrow sectors of production.

    "Enthusiast", despite his cordial and friendly nature, prefers that his instructions and requests are met without discussion and critical remarks. Otherwise, it may lead to conflict. In relations to his superiors, he is usually moderately cautious; in some cases he is able to strain their relations. Respects people who are independent, who are able to defend their point of view, who can show character regardless of their rank.

    Key Features:
    Adequately can manifest itself as a front leader. Able to inspire others.
    A method for establishing business contacts to a large extent depends on the emotional and value systems.
    The form of business is characterized by persistence in achieving goals by successfully avoiding obstacles and complications in relationships.
    The system of interaction with subordinates constructed taking into account the emotional interactions.
    Inclined to cooperate for mutual benefit. His behavior may manifest elements of competing behaviors.
    Achieves great results at the expense of energy, motivation and skillful manipulation of emotional relationships.
    Can manipulate the ethical principles to focus on different "rules of the game."
    Motives and purpose: good intentions and selfish motives. The goal - profit (preferably within the law).
    Attitude to the law: prefers to follow the letter of the law.
    Strategy: full freedom of control within the law.

    Working conditions

    The impetus that drives enthusiast, is to achieve a high emotional status in the group. He wants to be good for everyone to have the opportunity to have an emotional impact. For this reason, the other party is eager to please, to help him in some way. Therefore, in collaboration with the enthusiast you will first need to demonstrate a good attitude, then you certainly appreciate and respect his opinion. Let him speak until the end, as the enthusiast - the type of assertive, and if he went to an excited emotional state, you are unlikely to convince him at once (you need some time to get it "cool" and was able to speculate soberly, to change their views.) You can only weaken him some emotional pressure, keeping yourself balanced state of calm and specifying the details of leading questions. He can do any, even uninteresting, but the right job with good quality, if you can explain its usefulness and prospects of business in the future. Since Enthusiast - concrete type of thinking, of no small importance to him good pay and comfortable working conditions. Although for a while it might just help you if you - a "good man."

    Recommendations for self-improvement

    In everyday life, you - the person open, sociable, friendly mood. For this love surrounding you. You are well versed in the mood of people sympathize with the misfortunes of others, know how to empathize. You do not leave a person in need, will assist the oppressed.

    You know how to give pleasure to people. You hospitable, hospitable, caring. Do you know how fun and filling spending free time going to the movies, theaters, concerts, often at the party. Enjoy a pleasant trip and travel. You do not mind to spend time in the fun, noisy companies, like holidays and feasts. Do you like to give gifts to bring people joy.

    Your main problem - the inability to dispose of their time in the day to day affairs. You are too hasty, often fidgety, you anything is not enough time. You are buried in the endless activities and concerns, often forgetting the basics.
    Try to plan your day. Discard the small, minor cases and issues, set them aside for later. Do not grab it all at once, otherwise you will not be able to do everything in time. Remember - no one is immune to surprises.

    Try to isolate the main events in the network, to predict its development. You may be too demanding and uncompromising in relation to family and friends, that is the cause of many disappointments in people. Once deceived in a man. You become suspicious and distrustful of all others. In a fit of emotion you can exaggerate the faults of others, to present these people in black.

    Learn how to balance their requirements with real life. Be tolerant of people with a condescending attitude to their shortcomings. Remember that there is no ideal people. Excessive emotional pressure can destroy the harmony of the established relationship.

    Other Your problem - excessive extravagance of manpower and material resources. Inability to control the daily expenses does not allow you to create the necessary material reserve. Save your strength, do not go for things that do not guarantee a reliable return.

    Discard the countless meetings with relatives and friends and join in on household chores better to carve out some time for relaxation. Try to keep the house more rigorous. Get rid of useless things, they do not accumulate. The less you have small, useless items, the easier you will find the necessary thing at the right time. Temper your hospitality, do not be intrusive into the treat, try to observe in all sense of proportion.

    Related links and discussions:

    Dynamic - Judicious - Subjectivist - Positivist - Result - Tactical - Obstinate - Farsighted
    Vortical-Synergetic thinking style

    source: http://socionics.kiev.ua/type_description/es/

    from http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko


    Kudos to all the people on the forum who recognized the ESE in me a long time ago, even if i was resistant to the idea. The inaccurate ESE stereotypes floating around the virtual world didn't help -- loud, dumb, typical housewife, typical "overbearing, smothering mother", into substance use, heavy partiers, nonexistent on the internet, are some of the ridiculous things I've seen people say; if that's how some of you are typing ppl in your life as ESE, you're probably mistyping to some degree. That said, I have experienced IRL a fair number of people who assume i'm dimwitted (for whatever reason -- maybe they're Ni-egos or something, maybe it's my demeanor, maybe something else), only to be left face in the mud when it doesn't turn out to be the case. It's my inadvertant secret weapon sometimes. I also dont know what kind of a mother i'll be, since i dont have kids yet (maybe i will be overbearing & smothering.. lol...). Being a substance user or heavy partier is NTR. And making an assumption that there are no ESEs on the internet will inevitably bias one against considering the ESE type for an online forumer; no wonder then, that they are "nonexistent" on the internet -- most are probably mistyped because of that assumption.

    So, in the style of @Maritsa, i hereby declare myself ESE, confirmed & final. End of story. Period. Done.

    p.s. to the dissenters -- you can feel free to continue to disagree... doesnt bother me, but it still means I think you're wrong, so i hope that doesn't bother you.
    Last edited by Suz; 07-05-2015 at 07:28 PM. Reason: added ps
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  37. #37
    rob timidly hacim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    personal space station
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Way to stand up against negative type stereotypes, @Suz. I don't know you well enough to type you, but if you're sure of your own type then who cares what others think?

    I'd like to say that while ESEs can be "loud" in a talkative, enthusiastic, and emotional sense, Betas are generally illustrated as being "loud and boisterous", decibel-wise, because of valued Se+Fe.

    Emotional expression != boisterous behavior.
    Last edited by hacim; 07-05-2015 at 06:30 PM.

  38. #38
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    Way to stand up against negative type stereotypes, @Suz. I don't know you well enough to type you, but if you're sure of your own type then who cares what others think?
    ZACTLY!!
    I dont!
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  39. #39
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    I'd like to say that while ESEs can be "loud" in a talkative, enthusiastic, and emotional sense, Betas are generally illustrated as being "loud and boisterous", decibel-wise, because of valued Se+Fe.

    Emotional expression != boisterous behavior.
    And this makes sense to me...and in regards to myself...
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •