DA QUESTIONAIRE IN VIDEO

[Muddy]

I think your definitely a 7w8.

[Myst]

This woman is LSI D, @Number 9 large is not LSI D. @Myst , is this woman you or what?

Lol

I'm a bit more engaged in a sense (in interaction) compared to this woman, but I see why you ask

Wow this is the first time I've seen you on video. I honestly think LSI is possible, it's just that you seem like you're on crack. Some kind of Se ego definitely.

He just doesn't seem focused enough for LSI in the video and gets emotional too easily in forum posts.

He seems too spacey in video too for Se ego, IMO.

Thanx maybe ill make another video. Crack is correct

Make one where you really are being yourself without any drug influence etc.

[Number 9 large]

Lol

I'm a bit more engaged in a sense (in interaction) compared to this woman, but I see why you ask




He just doesn't seem focused enough for LSI in the video and gets emotional too easily in forum posts.

He seems too spacey in video too for Se ego, IMO.




Make one where you really are being yourself without any drug influence etc.

Thanks ill make sure ill post one soon

[ooo]

Ooh thats flattering

eheh glad u find it flattering I was afraid of a derailment

u see, it's just that the common stereotype of extrovert= loud/ introvert= quiet, is derailing itself... so if someone says u look intro because u look intro and whatnot, well that's just an impression, not the reality of ur being ^^

[Sol]

that's just an impression

There is no such thing as "just an impression", as impression is just same function like logic thinking and has basis in the reality. The better is your N and experience, the more correct is your impression.

[ooo]

An impression is not merely a single cognitive function. In facts all cog functions form impressions differently, respectively from:

Te- external established data
Ti- internal valued data
Fe- external established bonds
Fi- internal valued bonds

Se- external established "impressions"
Si- internal valued "impressions"
Ne- external established connections
Ni- internal valued connections


Jung gives to Se the ability to recognize best what is the “real” world, not to T (E/I), because T types draw conclusions not on what is there, but have a judgement that is biased in their very nature; Te relies on what is widely “accepted”, Ti relies on what is personally “believed”.

So I’d need not N to form better impressions, because N's nature is not about estimating reality, but it’s creative, it creates new possibilities.

One needs Se to form the best “objective” impressions, maybe that’s why I so suck at those.

[Bertrand]

that framework is a good start but I think you need to maintain the "accepted/believed" distinction across all functions, which is really nothing less than the difference between the objective/subjective factor. take that together with intuition being abstract perception with sensing being concrete perception and the whole thing spins out better, and the result is N is abstract perception that is either accepted or believed and that is just as weighty a factor as any other kind of perception or attitude. for the Ne valuer it may in fact be the most important factor, but in deference to the principle of relativity that socionics is based on, keeping in mind that is a psychological value that may or may not be shared by others

one needs Se to form the highest granularity "objective" concrete impression, but what those impressions are attached to is related to the granularity of the rational functions and the intuitions underlying them, so the whole thing hangs together in a constellation. K4m has high res concrete impressions but seems confused across other layers, namely F and N. in a similar manner all personal typologies are subject to such errors. this is why consensus is so important in reaching decisions about type, because the truth is distributed across multiple perspectives. no individual has a monopoly on type and no function is inherently superior to any other because it secretly relies on every other function, no matter how much it tries to declare itself superior-- that in of itself is a manifestation of ego

[ooo]

I like N defined as abstract perception ~

N creates possibilities (either externally or internally), it's important to remember because it perceives reality just to “create” smth out of it.

the impressions of Ne are kaleidoscope-like, aimed at an external range of possible scenarios; while Ni is more a tunnel vision towards the core, it produces insights. and if I've understood correctly, it was the sort of N Sol was suggesting to use.

I wouldn’t use the users in here to establish how a function works, lol. internet is a real barrier for anyone, even more for S’s antennas, it definitely requires some good use of N to scrap behind the surface.

and yes, each function comes with its bias~

[Bertrand]

well I would say "accepted/believed" is itself a subjective take on what is essentially "objective", in other words "acceptance" implies not capital T truth but simply a sufficient amount of "beliefs" that taken together nudge it from mere belief into "accepted belief." I think this is actually a Fe version of truth, which is to say it is subjectivist at its core. I think this is why "accepted/believed" only works semantically from within a subjectivist view point. an objectivist would prefer different nomenclature altogether not because, from their point of view, its a matter of opinion but because it captures things better from an objective standpoint. This is why subjective/objective factor (in the classical Jungian not Reinin sense) is the most complete way to view functions and anything else is an interpretation that works better or worse based on the subset of like-valuers it is aimed at. In other words, "no individual has a monopoly on type" can be interpreted either as a subjectivist claim or an objectivist one. the subjectivist claim is more like the truth exists as a Fe consensus, making consensus the sufficient condition for truth, whereas the objectivist claim is it is rather the necessity of consensus in principle that the truth is founded on. in other words, subjectivism would say pandering to the crowd makes a thing true, whereas objectivism would say the thing the crowd cannot ignore despite not being pandered to is what makes a thing true. all this relates to what you're saying to Sol in the sense that Se is not just what people would all admit could they percieve it, its what they cannot ignore whether they perceive it or not if the individual, who does perceive it, leverages it-- this is where Se is more about "force" than just objective sensory acuity

the deal with N is it abstract perception with Ni being the path into the future (dynamic) and Ne being all the divergent possibilities latent in the here and now (static). when Sol talks about intuitive impressions I think he means to say he's simply considering the possibilities and arranging them in accordance with an objective picture of the outer world, not conforming his perception to some pre conceived goal and shoe horning people into categories based on that (what K4m seems to do). the thing is both LSE and SLE and every other type actually does both, one or both are just subconscious processes, so its sort of an inaccurate claim to begin with because the whole person (just not the ego) necessarily utilizes both Ni and Ne in developing their system, it is just unknown to them and potentially a major flaw or weakness that is clear from the outside but perceived only dimly or not at all from within. If you watch Sol interact with Aster you see the Ni (Fi) polr peak through in his ostensibly Ne statements on related or seemingly unrelated topics

[Sol]

An impression is not merely a single cognitive function

it is in that context - N

> In facts all cog functions form impressions differently

your polr is charming

[ooo]

the subjectivist claim is more like the truth exists as a Fe consensus, making consensus the sufficient condition for truth, whereas the objectivist claim is it is rather the necessity of consensus in principle that the truth is founded on. in other words, subjectivism would say pandering to the crowd makes a thing true, whereas objectivism would say the thing the crowd cannot ignore despite not being pandered to is what makes a thing true.

I would really say the opposite. Subjectivism is related to introversion, even in Jung. Whereas consensus is exactly what extroversion is about: Fe, Te, but on a more unconscious degree even Ne and Se, aim at that external reality, made of people, facts, ideas and sensorial data that compromise what we call “object-ivity”.

Subject-ivists, always following a Jungian term, know instead pretty damn well that “reality is an illusion”, it’s a construct, a surface. Because they work within. And consensus from outside is not needed at all to them, at least in the comfortable safety of their own preferred function, exactly because they form their own impressions without the external “consensus”.

So I don’t know what you mean when you say about how having consensus is subjective, whereas understanding its dynamics is not. Anyway these two attitudes seem to resemble not all of reality but especially Fe/Ti. They’re both rational, but it’s the former to appeal to objectivity, because it appeals to “what is considered true”. The latter, Ti, is not objective, because it doesn’t appeal to the object. Simple. It’s internal, it’s subject-ive.

We can argue whether T(hinking) is more “rational” than F(eeling), but this is a dog eating its tail because ultimately they need each other, right? And the more you focus on one the greater becomes the need of the other. Simple balance.

Ultimately it’s a simple prejudice to think that “objectivity” has more real value than “subjectivity”, and this is said in Jung’s work as well, he addresses this problem when talking of Te/Ti, and to the particular atmosphere of our modern western world.

(Reading Jung anyway it’s pretty clear how he favors Ti over Te, and this may just be a prejudice of himself, since he considered himself a Ti dominant in a Te world.)

Se is not just what people would all admit could they percieve it, its what they cannot ignore whether they perceive it or not if the individual, who does perceive it, leverages it-- this is where Se is more about "force" than just objective sensory acuity

I’m not sure I get the sense of this properly. Anyway there’s not just one single definition to each function. There’s even a lot of stereotypes about what the functions are, based on the people we don’t like from the forum, or based on our own dislike of the function itself, or based more probably from a simple misunderstanding of it altogether.
As Ne is abstracted, it’s possibilities, it’s creative, future-oriented and able to “sense” the potential, along with many other things… so Se, similarly, is many things, and if “force” is one of them it’s because it’s the function used to apply energy, in order to get the desired result. This of course comes with the ability to correctly evaluate the objects, be they situations, people or whatnot, because you can’t use your energy correctly if you’re oblivious of the world around you, and especially of what you’re after.

when Sol talks about intuitive impressions I think he means to say he's simply considering the possibilities and arranging them in accordance with an objective picture of the outer world

I think the sort of impressions implied by Sol’s appeal to N are of a very dubious nature. He’s highly subjective in his estimation of reality (Ti), so you can’t call objective the picture he has of the world. Or maybe you consider socionics an objective picture of the world? It’s not, it’s a theory (Ti). I don’t mean this to diminish theories, but quoting your sentence, they’re simply “pictures of the world”.
A picture of the outer world is never objective, it relies on the point of view used to capture it= a picture is not the real thing.

Brief example. Ask a person to take 5 pictures of you with a super pixeled camera. Fine. Which one of the 5 pictures is the more real you?
Now, ask to 4 more people with other good cameras to take 5 pictures of you. Probably they’ll all use different cameras, with different lenses, they’ll even place themselves in different angles, and approach you differently, so that you’ll behave to each of them differently, and in the very end you’ll have 25 different pictures of you.
Is there a picture that captures the real you better? This is no problem really, because they’re all “real”, or “fake”, similarly.

Jung (again!), ascribes to Te the quality of sticking with what is the consensus, in a rational frame, that is, the quality of giving back to the world whatever it is expected one should give.
Ti is instead the quality of sticking with our idea, or theory, of how the world gotta be in a rational frame, and that is like giving back to the world “our own work”.

Both introverted and extroverted sides of T are rational, but one of them uses their own inner “theory” more than the other… guess which one? It’s not any N, it’s simple Ti.

; )

(sorry N.9!)

[Bertrand]

yeah when I say subjectivist I mean in the reinin sense, when I say subjective factor I mean in the Jungian. the problem is they use similar language to describe very different things. all perspectives are inherently bound by differentiation and therefore limited, but if the accent is on the objective factor, which I think it is with Sol, then you can say he's attempting to draw on Ne (to whatever degree of success is sort of irrelevant). to me Sol never explicitly makes subjective judgements. I would agree there are elements of Ti and Ni by implication but Sol does a good job of avoiding directly hitting on them. I see no issue with Ti ignoring, even if a Ti structure ends up emerging as a consequence of his undertaking. to me he is in no way attempting to do such a thing, rather it is something others see in him because its their preferred method of evaluating the world etc

I think Sol harms his own case when he by implication makes claims that Ne and Te taken together make him somehow more "correct" in some metaphysical sense, but to say he's aiming at such a thing in the way philosophers such as LII in developing explicit statements on the nature of reality do, is very far from how Sol comports himself from my point of view. I certainly think he fails perceive that aspect, and you might think Ne would be more self aware as to that point, but it is after all only mobilizing and a weak function. in a certain sense objectivism is a lack of self awareness because it allows for the possibility in principle of being "most right" which I think is what creates this kind of scenario. LSI is more self aware not as a consequence of stronger Ne but as a product of a subjectivist worldview which contextualizes the self as one of many each with equal claim. what LSI does is gauge its activity not in terms of Ne correctness but Se correctness, in a sea of competing equally valid Ne claims, Se is the differentiating factor for LSI, i.e.: a form of might makes right, precisely because it is all subjective. I don't see Sol as really being on that side of things--he sincerely believes, however incorrect, that by Ne standards he is objectively closer to the truth

[Sol]

I think the sort of impressions implied by Sol’s appeal to N are of a very dubious nature.

We talked about impressions about psyche traits. I relate this to Ne - impressions about objects traits which are not seen physically like psyche traits. This follows Jung. If you disagree with me, then you reject the core Jung's theory.
I've pointed that such impressions are not baseless and useless impressions like you've said, but the outcome of one of functions, more to say - common way to type people. In my experience - good way as the results fit to the theory. The example is you - typed to IEI by video, after being doubted to be EII with having chaotic behavior, - which still doubts in this type without reasons.
Instead of following the context you've switched to reasoning about external like to what functions the term "impression" may be applied.
Your thinking style is funny, not in the 1st time.

Those impressions of "dubious nature" allow experimentally proved typing match comparable with other common methods like interview and questionnaires.
While of "dubious nature" are your opinions: 1) N can't be used for correct typing, 2) "extrovert= loud/ introvert= quiet" is not enough common to be used, 3) intuitive impressions [as there was talked about psyche trait] about E/N are limited to the mentioned "loudness" only.

[ooo]

I think the whole dichotomy objectivist/subjectivist is rather stereotypical of something that indeed should have another name altogether, but then most of Reinin dichotomies are often in conflict with each other, and with the types those dichotomies fall in. Like an LSE who's process-oriented, emotivist, aristocratic... and what not, it's one contradiction after the other, for a LSE.

No surprise to see in the notes of that page that "Ethics strengthens Subjectivism, while Logic—Objectivism.", just to further build on stereotypes, or you can call them prejudices, and so excuse in the same time a theory which is in itself intrinsically flawed.

No doubt though, pairing Fe/Ti and Te/Fi together is just the road to bliss.. they obviously share aspects in common but if such a road had to be found it would comprehend opposites, not the same qualities.

Another point that in Reinin is well mixed among many incongruences.

I don't want to discuss Sol's type further, I think we're viewing this from different standpoints, you think his view is objective, whatever you mean with it, while to me it's one of the most biased, and based on nothing but personal ideas. And that's why he's not a LSE.

[ooo]

We talked about impressions about psyche traits.

No we didnt. You've been calling them "nonverbal" up to 2 minutes ago, and they had all to do with unknown, mysterious N last week, and T just yesterday~

I relate this to Ne - impressions about objects traits which are not seen physically like psyche traits. This follows Jung. If you disagree with me, then you reject the core Jung's theory.

You related that to T, lol, now Ne? AHA....Why do you quote Jung if you don't even know what he's talking about... there's nothing in him to sustain what you claim, which is just your own biased way to apply socionics, which is not even entirely based on Jung, anyway ; )

I've pointed that such impressions are not baseless and useless impressions like you've said, but the outcome of one of functions, more to say - common way to type people. In my experience - good way as the results fit to the theory.

This follows Jung definition of Se : )

The example is you - typed to IEI by video, after being doubted to be EII with having chaotic behavior, - which still doubts in this type without reasons.
Instead of following the context you've switched to reasoning about external like to what functions the term "impression" may be applied.
Your thinking style is funny, not in the 1st time.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that the one who accuses everyone of being mistyped is actually mistyped himself ; )

Projection, you know.

[Number 9 large]

I love deltas

[Bertrand]

I don't want to discuss Sol's type further, I think we're viewing this from different standpoints, you think his view is objective, whatever you mean with it, while to me it's one of the most biased, and based on nothing but personal ideas. And that's why he's not a LSE.

yes to me this is you viewing his, in your view wrong, objectively oriented statements through a subjectivist lens. I agree Reinin is a mess, mainly because people take the semantic content to mean whatever they want it to mean, when its very narrow in its meaning and at the same time vague. it is true depending on how you intepret reinin, one could make him say anything or justify any position because he can essentially invert traditional understanding because of the ambiguous semantics of his signs. nevertheless this is what all I take it to mean

[ooo]

yes to me this is you viewing his, in your view wrong, objectively oriented statements through a subjectivist lens.

objectively oriented because based on an entire set of parameters that can't be explained if not by a call to some "N"? oh no, right, yesterday he said that those same impressions are logic... although logic is not about "impressions", they're Se.

super bias.

sorry I prefer logical consistency.

[Sol]

I love deltas

IEI she is

[ooo]

IEI she is

And you're an LSI, what a coincidence!

[Number 9 large]

I Iove betas

[Tallmo]

Nr 9, have you considered SLI?

[Number 9 large]

Currently typing as ILE

[Blue]

SLE. You skipped right over the beautifying the environment question and thought that was pretty telling of Si Ignoring. You seem more Beta too.

[Exodus]

SLE. You skipped right over the beautifying the environment question and thought that was pretty telling of Si Ignoring. You seem more Beta too.

I do think @Number 9 large is probably SLE, but that question isn't quite as simple as Si/not-Si. For example an EIE may see their surroundings as a vehicle for self-expression.

[Beautiful sky]

I have arrived

[Beautiful sky]

XSTP

[Moou]

I'll be honest, i instantly thought LSI! You have a calm, stable, rational energy. However you do seem fun loving and a bit relaxed at the same time. What do you test as?

[Moou]

I have arrived

Oh no, everybody RUNN!!

[Number 9 large]

Oh no, everybody RUNN!!

dont worry its only SLI 7

who typed me ESI btw lel

[Lord Pixel]

Bruh SLE af. 8w7 or 7w8. Funny how ppl say LSI- Se sub type, instead of just SLE.
This was the easiest video for me to type, which is usually the case with SLE since you guys are all out there most of you at least, especially type 8s or 7s, most extroverted enneagrams.

[Lord Pixel]

I'll be honest, i instantly thought LSI! You have a calm, stable, rational energy. However you do seem fun loving and a bit relaxed at the same time. What do you test as?

How is he calm, he's looking everywhere the entire video moving and constantly looking around at everything. He has more of an erratic mood than anything else.

[Exodus]

How is he calm, he's looking everywhere the entire video moving and constantly looking around at everything. He has more of an erratic mood than anything else.

Exactly

[Alonzo]

My money is on SLE; way too intellectually lazy at the moment to give an in-depth analysis based on functions, so I'm just going to focus on the top 5 things you said/did that best represent my overall, holistic impressions of/experiences with SLEs--for whom I have much affection, despite the damaged hair follicles I've accumulated trying to manage so many of them.

1.) Hypomanic, fidgety and restless af; which effectively signals some type of "high"/"upper" component, be it induced by "LIFE," genes/hormones, or some narcotic substance.

2.) The slightly anxious snicker, darting eyes, and jerky head motions (signaling mild discomfort/uneasiness) when commenting about a.] your values (as in, "heh, what are those?" lol); b.] the importance of honesty (which I more precisely interpret as "directness"), disliking "fakeness," and general paranoia towards people (perhaps due to an insecurity about adequately gauging interpersonal psychological distances); c.] what you like about yourself (as in, "I'm not so sure I know")--all of which, to me yelled "Fi PoLR!"

3.) The general open-endedness to your plans, alongside your dream setup > "Huge ass mansion...invite random people to party with me and just f**k hookers all day and shit..." & "try everything there is to try." lol Yup.

4.) If someone insults or attacks you, "punch them" or "laugh it off." lol Yup.

5.) "I just want somebody to love me...." aw--Fe hidden agenda. "Guidance and moral support," perhaps best given by your dual IEI bae.

Honorable mention > "I never take any advice, I always go with my own gut."

[perpetuus]

Se ego cracksmoker eyes scanning everywhere

[Aylen]

Se ego cracksmoker eyes scanning everywhere

[Number 9 large]

Se ego cracksmoker eyes scanning everywhere

dont talk about my crack bro

[Number 9 large]

My money is on SLE; way too intellectually lazy at the moment to give an in-depth analysis based on functions, so I'm just going to focus on the top 5 things you said/did that best represent my overall, holistic impressions of/experiences with SLEs--for whom I have much affection, despite the damaged hair follicles I've accumulated trying to manage so many of them.

1.) Hypomanic, fidgety and restless af; which effectively signals some type of "high"/"upper" component, be it induced by "LIFE," genes/hormones, or some narcotic substance.

2.) The slightly anxious snicker, darting eyes, and jerky head motions (signaling mild discomfort/uneasiness) when asked about a.] your values (as in, "heh, what are those?" lol); b.] the importance of honesty (which I more precisely interpret as "directness"), disliking "fakeness," and general paranoia towards people (perhaps due to an insecurity about adequately gauging interpersonal psychological distances); c.] what you like about yourself (as in, "I'm not so sure I know")--all of which, to me yelled "Fi PoLR!"

3.) The general open-endedness to your plans, alongside your dream setup > "Huge ass mansion...invite random people to party with me and just f**k hookers all day and shit..." & "try everything there is to try." lol Yup.

4.) If someone insults or attacks you, "punch them" or "laugh it off." lol Yup.

5.) "I just want somebody to love me...." aw--Fe hidden agenda. "Guidance and moral support," perhaps best given by your dual IEI bae.

Honorable mention > "I never take any advice, I always go with my own gut."

for the record i wasnt on fkin drugs when i took that video lmao

[Alonzo]

for the record i wasnt on fkin drugs when i took that video lmao

lol I didn't think you were, I just assumed that was your natural energy level + feeling bored and restless + some uneasiness talking about introspective personal shit to strangers. At least half of the SLEs I know always seem high on something, even when they aren't--many people are envious of this; it can cost a lot of money for them to achieve a similar state of being. lol