contact functions, subtypes, internet discourse

[Bertrand]

He could be ILI I guess.. but he looks more like a delta NF to me. Definitely a delta > gamma look.



it's comments about your own appearance like this, i meant, that make you seem uncertain, ILI, and victimy.

I was just trying to explain the discrepancy between my initial photo and that one. I wasn't fishing for compliments

[niffer]

I was just trying to explain the discrepancy between my initial photo and that one. I wasn't fishing for compliments

I know that you weren't fishing for compliments lol, and you didn't seem like that either. That wasn't my point. My point is exactly what I said and nothing more, which is that you seemed self-deprecating and uncertain and victimy.

[Bertrand]

I know that you weren't fishing for compliments lol, and you didn't seem like that either. That wasn't my point. My point is exactly what I said and nothing more, which is that you seemed self-deprecating and uncertain and victimy.

I feel like I was very certain, but whatever this is getting too meta for me

[niffer]

I feel like I was very certain, but whatever this is getting too meta for me

you are just wording it this way because you know it will make you present as a sensor........ and i know it lol. ILIs lmao.

more like you're just feeling cornered tbh which is typical (semidual) aggressor-victim activity.

[Bertrand]

you are just wording it this way because you know it will make you present as a sensor........ and i know it lol. ILIs lmao.

more like you're just feeling cornered tbh which is typical (semidual) aggressor-victim interaction.

this is what I don't think (some, beta) intuitives fully understand: which is that I'm not playing some game but I'm just referencing a solid touchstone inside. so I don't really need to think that far ahead I just tell the truth and that's that. really

[niffer]

this is what I don't think (some, beta) intuitives fully understand: which is that I'm not playing some game but I'm just referencing a solid touchstone inside. so I don't really need to think that far ahead I just tell the truth and that's that. really

LoL you have lost track of what you're talking about at this point haven't you

[Bertrand]

LoL you have lost track of what you're talking about at this point haven't you

I feel like you're thinking I'm strategizing in regards to what I want to say based on how I predict I'll sound, but that's really not the case at all

I feel like maybe thats projection, or maybe its aimed at your dual IEI (who does do that)

[niffer]

I feel like you're thinking I'm strategizing in regards to what I want to say based on how I predict I'll sound, but that's really not the case at all

I feel like maybe thats projection, or maybe its aimed at your dual IEI (who does do that)

hmm yah maybe partly. in all serious i think it's both. you can be genuine, while finding the most effective way to present that genuineness. i think doing that is the goal of most ILIs i know (SLIs handle their Fi HA in a bit of a different way). but in my experience they don't always accomplish that. on the one hand they want to be and come across as genuinely as possible, but then on the other hand they have an awareness that a lot of other people are playing a "game", and they resent this but they take the minimum measures to make sure they aren't filtered out of it socially. yes i know the ILI type well hunty.

betas gon beta, I can't stop you, but I'm not going to engage

its like they interpret everything I do as some kind of come on or cry for help

I don't want your help

this is not a light act of resistance meant to excite you

find your EIE/IEIs

stop looking at me

this from the Ti polr thread was victimy as hell btw

[Bertrand]

was it? I've always wondered what victimy even looks like; I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue because I feel like if I don't say precisely what I mean and think is going on then I'm partially responsible for leading people on. and my goal there was not to encourage this sort of thing, but I guess I failed...but I don't think its all bad cause I think some good points are being made in the process

I feel like beta and gamma have this thing where they're struggling for power, and it may seem by just telling it how I see it I'm participating in that, but that's really not my motivation... I'm just trying to figure things out not brainwash people into thinking Im SLI because I get off on it or something to that effect. Although I will say that I hope gamma wins, if Im being honest, but that Ill come by it honestly not as a result of some crazy game. like I don't want to play, I want off that ride. I want the whole world off that ride

[niffer]

was it? I've always wondered what victimy even looks like; I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue because I feel like if I don't say precisely what I mean and think is going on then I'm partially responsible for leading people on. and my goal there was not to encourage this sort of thing, but I guess I failed...but I don't think its all bad cause I think some good points are being made in the process

[niffer]

like I don't want to play, I want off that ride. I want the whole world off that ride

[niffer]

i *just* realized too that you put this thread in the general socionics discussion section and titled it "contact functions, subtypes, internet discourse" when in fact it was all about trying to start a discussion about you or sneakily inception your POV into the heads of others. this is roundabout as hell and definitely an Ni ego thing.

if you, or anyone else reading this thread needs more proof on your typing ILI, there you have it.

#threadclosed

[Myst]

not really, I just thought it was an interesting way to look at things.. I got his permission to post a photo so this is what I think a real ILI looks like

I have another ILI friend that's sort of on the other end of the spectrum (super skinny) so Ill try to get permission to post that; I think it'll be pretty illustrative

Your pic looks more SLI than ILI, granted. More in tune with the moment, not contemplative enough. And the ILI pic does look a lot more Victim than you do. It's possible that you were just using a lot of Ni role in topics you are knowledgeable about.

Of course, a couple photos don't mean too much, only if it's typical of how you look by default.

So umm, I got curious, since an SLI girl here, Slugabed (I can't explicitly mention her I think) claims she doesn't focus on all that Si body stuff, she isn't so much in tune with her own body or health and just focuses on sensations, sensorial experiences and while she focuses on comfort seeking, she does not focus on the physical body - do you relate to her with that?

Of course, where she said she doesn't keep schedules for eating or proper diet, that isn't actually Si since such strict adherence instead of being tuned into what the body wants naturally at a moment is more like Rationality and/or Se valuing.

[Myst]

was it? I've always wondered what victimy even looks like; I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue because I feel like if I don't say precisely what I mean and think is going on then I'm partially responsible for leading people on. and my goal there was not to encourage this sort of thing, but I guess I failed...but I don't think its all bad cause I think some good points are being made in the process

I feel like beta and gamma have this thing where they're struggling for power, and it may seem by just telling it how I see it I'm participating in that, but that's really not my motivation... I'm just trying to figure things out not brainwash people into thinking Im SLI because I get off on it or something to that effect. Although I will say that I hope gamma wins, if Im being honest, but that Ill come by it honestly not as a result of some crazy game. like I don't want to play, I want off that ride. I want the whole world off that ride

Victim Ni looks like, from my pov, hm, soft, pliable and contemplative. If Se of an IxI suddenly comes into play, then that Se seems very raw and un-refined to me (more so for the IxI-Ni's). It takes my attention very much, both these (the Ni and the Se aspects as described here).

The last two sentences... umm why?

[Myst]

As for the rest of the posts - if one tries to assume based on type as to which internal motivations are behind posts of a typee and the assumed motivation always ends up being a mismatch according to the self-reporting of the typee, I don't know what that means.

[The Reality Denialist]

Visual diagnosis: SLI purest form. Industrially produced one.

[The Reality Denialist]

Not all of them are goofy neckbeards.

Can you give examples? Some of them tend to be insufferable. I rememberer one who tried complete quantum mechanics course for several years always running out of Se.

[Slade]

I think there's a misconception that Ni is more or less "deep" depending on where it falls... but I think how "deep" it is is more a function of IQ and study (and passion). For example, I know Ni users who only get into trouble with their Ni, despite very "creative" (expanded dimensionality) use of it. I think what you're seeing from me is actually just very well elaborated role Ni. But role Ni is in many ways the expression of the traditions of the culture I found myself in. In other words, Ni dom explores for its own sake, Ni creative has a more targeted "vision" they seek to implement, Ni activating is steadily running in the background coming out to play as the situation demands, Ni suggestive gives structure to what would otherwise be a mess... Ni role is just trying to make sense of the world in a way that stays true to "norms" in other words, its not particularly self serving. It has this aspect of being "the voice of the past" (or traditions). In other words Ni role has its own unique structure that can be more or less advanced and what you're seeing here is just a sophisticated expression of Ni role. The misconception is that any sophisticated expression of Ni must be Ni dom or Ni aux, but the reality, as I see it is, Ni in any position can have a sophisticated expression--rather the position informs the overall structure of how that Ni functions from within the organism. And when Ni role turns in on itself in a complex way you get people like Jung and Peterson. I don't use Ni to convince myself of stuff the way Ni valuers do. I use it as guardrails and as a kind of delimiter on what is real but based on what tradition and culture dictate... I feel like Ni valuers have this ability to convince themselves of basically anything. And while since what I'm saying here might be unusual it might look like that, inasmuch as I'm misunderstood; I feel like I have a radically conservative approach to Ni, so conservative it looks like its running ahead... But its really not, its always looking backwards...

dimensionality expands the way in which Ni can be used but at its core Ni can go relatively deep without added dimensionality, in fact I think the weirdest expressions, but the most personally meaningful ones are deep expressions of low dimension Ni. Higher dimensionality in Ni just seems delusional to me, like when my ILI friends have wacky theories about shit. It may seem that this right here is a wacky theory, but from my point of view its actually in line with very traditional views of human wisdom... so traditional it seems wacky in a post modern world, but I would say my worldview in a lot of ways is primitive which is why I don't at all mind classical expressions of ideas. When Jung and Peterson try to dig up ancient collective wisdom in symbols, religion, shamanism, etc I feel like they're doing something different than say what people like Sam Harris are doing when they philosophize. Sam Harris is treading into the future with his, what I think are, ungrounded but appealling in virtue of their contemporary timeliness, whereas J/P is going into past trying to excavate a timeless wisdom that died and was buried along time ago. This is rooted in their own inability to creatively advance via Ni itself, but a way to via Si and Te refine the Ni of the past that has been embedded in our culture and that resonates with them. This process is so novel and rare that anyone does it it seems like they're running ahead but that is predicated on two misconceived assumptions 1) that "ahead" means Ni, which subtly denigrates Si "progress" and 2) that Ni is somehow superior in its ability to think or to synthesize a body of knowledge to Si and therefore anything sufficiently advanced or novel cannot be Si--in other words that there are creative limits on Si and I do not think that is the case.

I think there's a reason Ni is probably rare, because its usefulness is very limited and most Ni egos miss the mark and are kind of dangerous (Sam Harris, with his bad ideas, and EIEs with their lynch mobs, etc). If you think about it Jung and Peterson were delta to the core in their values and what they achieved and what they were trying to vindicate which is something greater than their own personal vision (Ni valuing) it was more like the voice of the earth (Ni role)

I think what we see a lot in ILI and IEI is just low level use of expanded dimensionality of Ni which comes out as what we "expect" Ni to look like: which is basically people who are neurotic. This probably sounds pretty neurotic but its more an attempt to unwind what I see as a complex misconception so I'm trying my best; I genuinely just want to explore this issue in a productive way...

One example I can think of to demonstrate low dimensionality high depth or cultivation would be Kobe Bryant. Pretty sure he's LIE but he's also one of the best basketball players ever. He's what Se looks like when this happens. Its rare and interesting but it doesn't mean he must be SLE or LSI, etc. In the same way egos with high potential may have it unrealized but they may also use their relatively underdeveloped function in nevertheless creative ways. In the end what it looks like is master of the fundamentals (Kobe, me, etc) vs unskilled creativity (every ILI convinced he's an anime)

one way to think about Si dom and Ni role is to think how there's an inherent conservatism to it that stays grounded in personal experience and any Ni elocutions are going to reflect that. Whereas Ni egos differ in character, they run ahead in a way that's hard to wrap ones mind around if you're not paying attention but they are iconoclastic and reacting to something (in the case of beta) whereas Si is trying to vindicate the past and is reactive in the sense its trying to stay true to something. So even though Sam Harris' philosophy can be kind of trite, it is radically progressive in the sense that it is not grounded in respect for the past the way say Jung's analytic psychology is. Ni has this ability to detach completely, whereas Si is grounded in a phenomenological and historical experience. Its the difference between banal progress and highly creative traditional approach

there's also a presupposition that higher dimensionality Ni is "right" and that "role" Ni could never be better, but that's like saying Kobe Bryant could never beat a SEE at basketball. Nietzsche has this entire passage on how "useful mistakes" are the foundation for our concept of truth--the difference to me between role and ego Ni is that role is not trying to make new mistakes but master the old ones, whereas Ni egos function to provide new ones. in that case they're the ones most likely to be off-base; yet they are also the ones, in sufficient numbers, who occasionally make a useful mistake (this is their evolutionary role--their service to humanity). But if your goal is no mistakes (e1), that is role Ni

this last paragraph is my palpable feeling towards philosophy and religion in general, and it is dominant Si with role Ni. the expression was provided via Ne and Te

Would you be comfortable making a video? Sometimes that sort of thing is helpful with figuring out people's types. Usually, as far as VI goes, its better to have a wide range of pictures, preferably in different settings, to get an overall mean of that person's demeanor. This might help you get the answers you are looking for.

I have my doubts that you are a logician to begin with. The majority of your posts are reliant on your own personal feelings and assumptions, to the extent that I am wondering if you are Fi ego. In any case, I don't think you are SLI-Te. You also wouldn't be ILI-Te. There is way too much bias for you to be focused on Te. If we are going purely vibe wise, I would put you at Gamma over Delta. You have elements of emotional hostility, aptitude for confrontation, and cynicism that are more indicative of a Gamma. These elements are more noticeable in Gamma than in Delta, more specifically in Gamma introverts. SLI is difficult to see. I would encourage at looking at alternatives, maybe answering a questionnaire.

[Myst]

In other words, Ni dom explores for its own sake, Ni creative has a more targeted "vision" they seek to implement, Ni activating is steadily running in the background coming out to play as the situation demands, Ni suggestive gives structure to what would otherwise be a mess...

I don't relate to this definition of Ni activating, or I don't consciously see Ni running in the background all the time, nah. For me it can come up with some conclusions in "flashes" at times in situations, yep, but this can't be done on demand, the process is not enough under conscious control for that. My relation to it is a more tenuous kind of control, I can stop and instead try and focus in a contemplative mode and hope it will work and it actually works better to get some conclusions on data in front of me than I think it would, due to not feeling much control over directing the process. So yeah, it's tenuous on the whole, I don't often try and do this. My relationship to Si for example is a much more reliable kind of control even though that one is also not very conscious. I relate to the Ni suggestive one if your description is taken literally but suggestive doesn't really do this much on its own.

Ni role is just trying to make sense of the world in a way that stays true to "norms" in other words, its not particularly self serving. It has this aspect of being "the voice of the past" (or traditions). In other words Ni role has its own unique structure that can be more or less advanced and what you're seeing here is just a sophisticated expression of Ni role. The misconception is that any sophisticated expression of Ni must be Ni dom or Ni aux, but the reality, as I see it is, Ni in any position can have a sophisticated expression--rather the position informs the overall structure of how that Ni functions from within the organism. And when Ni role turns in on itself in a complex way you get people like Jung and Peterson.

Jung was no SLI. His Ne is way too strong for that.

Anyway. You should define some things more, for example, what you mean by the structure being advanced or not advanced, or your post here isn't going to make much sense.

It may seem that this right here is a wacky theory, but from my point of view its actually in line with very traditional views of human wisdom...

Maybe in line with whatever you read up on in terms of matching some ideas, and you do sound like you read up on a lot, but it isn't adding up for me due to you mixing random bits way too freely.

Actually, I'm going to stop commenting on most of the post, it's pointless for that reason, with you adding MBTI and/or Jung into Socionics. Not a good idea to mix different systems together that are not fully compatible and then deducing conclusions from that.


Just two more comments:

one way to think about Si dom and Ni role is to think how there's an inherent conservatism to it that stays grounded in personal experience and any Ni elocutions are going to reflect that. Whereas Ni egos differ in character, they run ahead in a way that's hard to wrap ones mind around if you're not paying attention but they are iconoclastic and reacting to something (in the case of beta) whereas Si is trying to vindicate the past and is reactive in the sense its trying to stay true to something. So even though Sam Harris' philosophy can be kind of trite, it is radically progressive in the sense that it is not grounded in respect for the past the way say Jung's analytic psychology is. Ni has this ability to detach completely, whereas Si is grounded in a phenomenological and historical experience. Its the difference between banal progress and highly creative traditional approach

Socionics Si is physically grounded, not in "phenomenological and historical experience". This isn't MBTI or Jung, again. Here Sensing information is consistently defined as the directly sensed aspect, Si included.

there's also a presupposition that higher dimensionality Ni is "right" and that "role" Ni could never be better, but that's like saying Kobe Bryant could never beat a SEE at basketball. Nietzsche has this entire passage on how "useful mistakes" are the foundation for our concept of truth--the difference to me between role and ego Ni is that role is not trying to make new mistakes but master the old ones, whereas Ni egos function to provide new ones. in that case they're the ones most likely to be off-base; yet they are also the ones, in sufficient numbers, who occasionally make a useful mistake (this is their evolutionary role--their service to humanity). But if your goal is no mistakes (e1), that is role Ni

Mixing enneagram too into it now... Eh, so, there is no presupposition like that in dimensionality theory. That's completely not about that. It's about how information is processed, by just using normative patterns or by having flexibility on top of that. Specific skills can be learned well, yes, this will not be entirely determined by type precisely for this reason and for other reasons.

[Bertrand]

thanks for all the feedback, everyone. I read everything and will think about it. will post when I get back from work. especially the idea that i could be gamma feeler--I have to say on that point I wish I were dresier but I think that's just values

[Bertrand]

omgcat.jpg

Here's a picture of who I believe to be ILI #2 (used with permission). Tell me what you guys think, even if not ILI. From my point of view they cover two of the more stereotypical ILI looks, between the two of them

[Chae]

Here's a picture of who I believe to be ILI #2 (used with permission). Tell me what you guys think, even if not ILI. From my point of view they cover two of the more stereotypical ILI looks, between the two of them

He's more .

[Bertrand]

ryan.jpg

I feel like this is a real balzac

[Bertrand]

He's more .

for the longest time I thought he was IEI, so I can kind of buy SEI. he's really nice I kind of doubt he has Fe PoLR, but at the same time he's very dialectical algorithmic; right down to being a programmer. But then again so is SEI. His girlfriend is LII as far as I can tell (very childlike)

[Chae]

for the longest time I thought he was IEI, so I can kind of buy SEI. he's really nice I kind of doubt he has Fe PoLR, but at the same time he's very dialectical algorithmic; right down to being a programmer. But then again so is SEI. His girlfriend is LII as far as I can tell (very childlike)

Mhm, ditto. What e-type do you think he has, 6,5 ?

[Bertrand]

Mhm, ditto. What e-type do you think he has, 6,5 ?

I'm not sure, maybe 9? He's very Carl Rogers

[Myst]

He's more .

I don't see ego Fe.

[niffer]

I feel like it's doing a great disservice to people .. more or less indirectly insulting actually to type someone as a sensor just because they're more attractive/put together. Aushra even stated in the Dual Nature of Man that intuitives can often look more put together than sensors because they're afraid of looking out of place.:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

"All sensor is well understood for itself and others' physical needs. Able to assess your physical abilities and use them. That they are elegant, graceful movements openly attract the attention of a partner. Intuitive , at best, believe in what they say. And just as long as they say. Therefore, always afraid of becoming dependent on the speaker's compliments. How logical is not inclined to believe that he loved so intuitive constantly in doubt about whether that is attractive, handsome, fit. Touch is stylish to be noticed. Intuitive often more elegant, but only in order to not stand out, be less noticeable. He seems to hide behind its elegance."

This is not the best translation out there, but this is the article on this site. Anyway, you get the picture. Intuitives in my experience can be just as attractive and well-dressed, or more, than sensors. We have a truckload of beautiful intuitives here on this forum: @Chae @Adam Strange @Starfall @ScarlettLux @Vespertine @hacim .. this is by no means an exhaustive list. Judging by how attractive someone is, is no way to type.

[Chae]

Good point. I can obsess over my appearance thinking something's not right (also comparing myself to others to look what is adequate, that's also an enneagram thing).

And.... ;~; SDFdsfkdlk I'm blooshing how can you flatter us so much



Attractiveness and typing --> arbitrary. Andy Biersack is such a pretty stylish boo but also intuitive, any argument is invalid!

[Slade]

I think an even bigger problem is also to not type someone based on what they themselves think they are. It's funny to me that so many people see SLI based on VI because I don't, and I wonder if these same people would have if you hadn't put SLI as your self-type.

[niffer]

I don't know if it's possible to train people to be less biased or treat typing with a better methodology here. I believe people just don't care.

[mclane]

I think an even bigger problem is also to not type someone based on what they themselves think they are. It's funny to me that so many people see SLI based on VI because I don't, and I wonder if these same people would have if you hadn't put SLI as your self-type.

What do you see?