Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 138

Thread: Se Polr thread split - jung discussion

  1. #81
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entelecheia View Post
    Yeah, if his mind were strong, why would he need to tell everyone to kill for him instead of just doing it?
    LMAO

  2. #82
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Clearly you did not get my reasoning. This is based in reality.

    Your reasoning lacked record support. It was not based in reality.

    Lol, so it's supposed to be defined more by your opinion?

    I never explained you as disconnected from reality because you disagreed with my opinion about your type. Reading comprehension 101. I said you were disconnected from reality because stuff you were saying didn't pertain to anything I posted.

    Let's review since it doesn't seem to be sinking in:

    -you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead".
    -you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
    -you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
    -you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
    -you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
    -you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.

    Ultimately, your air ad hominem explanation for my alleged disconnect from reality traces back to my opinion that you're ILE and that said opinion conflicts with your opinion that you're LSI. See here it is in your own words:

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality."

    "I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

    You are conflating the opinion you have of your type with reality. This is one thing a Ti-dom would never, ever do. You didn't claim a disconnect from reality when I was making similar style points for Jordan Peterson being LSI on the Peterson thread. I note on that thread you agreed with my typing of Peterson, so that's probably why you didn't see it as a disconnect. Furthermore, the logic I employed was identical to the logic I applied to Peter's story. I was using Jung to define elements in both cases and applying it to a function in socionics.


    See, you didn't get it if you just call it a "formal explanation".

    I merely called it a "formal explanation" to distinguish from your airy ad-hominem explanations. Because I chose the phrase "formal explanation" does not imply I didn't get it....you're really grasping for straws now.

    In the end, you haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:

    "Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

    "Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

    "I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."


    That's pretty weak for "proof"...

    The burden of proof is on you as you are the one claiming knowledge that everybody does it. So far all you have provided is a blanket assertion that everybody does it.

    It would be great if this one wasn't based in reality because that would mean you will indeed stop and think about what I reasoned about.

    It's impossible for you from behind your computer screen there and not living inside my head to know what I have stopped and thought about unless you are imagining possibilities. Hence, your assumptions aren't based in reality.

    No, I never disagreed with the use of Jung to define elements. Incredible how much you missed my argument because it was not about criticizing Jung's definitions. At all.

    I made a post defining Te with Jung and applied it to Peter. You followed up with a post construeing the use of Jung with MBTI logic. You called it "idiotic reading", claimed Jung wasn't God and said that only some of his stuff was...just...well...ok...but needed to be updated by stuff in psychology. So it would appear that you have or had some issue with using Jung to define elements. Perhaps you have flip-flopped again back to your position ten days ago when you constructed my post on the Peterson thread.

    Your view of what Ti does is very narrow. Ti leads do refine systems. Ti creative doesn't care about that as much, that's true.

    Totally wrong. If there is a flaw in the system, Ti-doms won't refine it. They'll just simply point out that the system itself is broken and provide their arguments for that or look for stuff that they can still find value in.They won't sit around looking for advances in psychology to synthesize it with. They are correlators of systems, even systems they deem to be broken. The system doesn't have to be completely unflawed for the Ti-dom to find it mentally stimulating.

    And you call me Ne base? lol seriously

    It's not unconnected. It was relevant to the discussion we were having. Particularly, you tried to construe the use of Jung to define elements with MBTI logic. Hotelambush interjected to notify you directly not to waste your energy on MBTI/Jung blockheads. And then after Squark called you out on your hypocrisy, you started to backpedal. Although it appears you have flip-flopped back to your position ten days ago on the Peterson thread (it's not easy keeping track of your flip-flops), I'll say it again. Jung is a primary source for both socionics and MBTI. It's not MBTI logic/Jung versus Socionics.
    ...
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 04:52 AM.

  3. #83
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    ...
    ^ My thoughts exactly too after all that.

    What a toxic human being you are. For all you say about projection and imagining, why don't you look at how you hold yourself and treat others and be more productive with your life? No one on this earth will read what you say and take any of it seriously at all until you get a grip, stop using your typing as an excuse to be a ratchet abusive idiot (and mods stop allowing behaviour based on this too) and quit talking like a crazed angry meth head.

  4. #84
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    ^ My thoughts exactly too after all that.

    What a toxic human being you are. For all you say about projection and imagining, why don't you look at how you hold yourself and treat others and be more productive with your life? No one on this earth will read what you say and take any of it seriously at all until you get a grip, stop using your typing as an excuse to be a ratchet abusive idiot (and mods stop allowing behaviour based on this too) and quit talking like a crazed angry meth head.
    I'm using the bold letters just to save time from having to parse everything into quotes. I'm not angry at all. Furthermore, the majority of these arguments revolve around pedantic points. Arguing over pedantic points hardly counts as toxicity or ratchet abusiveness.

    Myst and Bert don't need your support and are debating/discussing back. I have every right to stay engaged in the debates. It's really none of your business.

    Your characterization amounts to a baseless Ad Hominem without any record foundation provided for these claims you make. This references back to your ad hominem thread practice on the Black Panther thread. On the black panther thread, you alleged I was a racist because I misspelled a name of a fictional character from a fictional place called Wakanda and you tried to disparage Chae's typing by passive-aggressively bringing up some breathtaking allegation that her typing reminded you of when she allegedly pretended to be rihanna. You never, ever have anything productive to contribute to these threads.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 05:07 AM.

  5. #85
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    First provide the quote [s] from Jung for the following statement:
    he had a 4 function model bro, the shadow was the flipside to valued functions because valued functions were all he admitted in his model of the psyche. 8 function models didn't come till later. even if you don't buy that because you think its your hill to die on, it doesn't even matter because you get to choose, all I want to know is what do you mean when you say "shadow projections" and how you conceptualize them as operating, vis-a-vis our prior exchange which you said I was projecting onto you

  6. #86
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's hardly a civil debate if you attach contemptuous language to every point you make, make half your points consist of gaslighting the other person and even criticize their life/career choices. You think you're going to knock down a lawyer-to-be who's trying to make something out of his life without looking like a jealous, moronic piece of scum? How dare you insult these people the way you do and even begin accusing others of making ad hominems.

    And in case you didn't realize.... I'm criticizing you not debating you because obviously that's been proven to be pointless. Ad hominem making is reserved for the debate context. Making a characterization "to the man" is literally my point here. And proof is visible to all except someone apparently.

  7. #87
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    its okay if you contextualize the warning as coming from someone who is consistently mistaken it transforms it into a good omen

  8. #88
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    All I asked was for you to provide the quote (s) from Jung that would make it Si/Fe:

    are my shadow projections my shadow as Jung concieved of it (which would make them Si/Fe)
    Is it fair to say that now you wish instead to amend your questions to just the following:

    "all I want to know is what do you mean when you say "shadow projections" and how you conceptualize them as operating, vis-a-vis our prior exchange which you said I was projecting onto you"

  9. #89
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its okay if you contextualize the warning as coming from someone who is consistently mistaken it transforms it into a good omen
    oh snap

  10. #90
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    It's hardly a civil debate if you attach contemptuous language to every point you make, make half your points consist of gaslighting the other person and even criticize their life/career choices. You think you're going to knock down a lawyer-to-be who's trying to make something out of his life without looking like a jealous, moronic piece of scum? How dare you insult these people the way you do and even begin accusing others of making ad hominems.
    If he is willing to call me a used car salesman, compare me to a sex doll, claim my socionics system is a "kind of scam" and more recently claim that I copy and pasted something I wrote, with no basis at all in reality, I'm going to tell him all about his projections and baseless speculations.

    So Bert first initiated the contemptuous language in my debate with him and not long before that, when he referred to socionics new wave as a
    "bankrupt dream (ethical intuition)" and told me "it is sad because its like you're being abused and you don't know it" all because I said quadra values typing is nonsense.

    I didn't know Bert was in law school. I simply said he wouldn't make a good lawyer because the concept of facts and evidence is lost on him. I said this to him in response to a number of posts he initiated where he engaged in what are baseless speculations and projections onto me specifically. I have every right to respond in kind.

    But if Bert wants to dole out his perceived honesty to me, I'm going to dole it out to him. It's fair play. And with Myst, Myst first initiated the contemptuous language when she called my application of Jung "an idiotic reading between the lines".

    Furthermore, a debate that doesn't involve some degree of contemptuous language is not realistic....it's going to happen by the nature of disagreement. This isn't leave it to beaver.

    And again, it's none of your business. So, go fly a kite.

    And in case you didn't realize.... I'm criticizing you not debating you because obviously that's been proven to be pointless. Ad hominem making is reserved for the debate context. Making a characterization "to the man" is literally my point here. And proof is visible to all except someone apparently.
    Your criticisms are inherently one-sided and overly partisan (it's part of your loyalty as a 6w5 to take such one-sided, partisan stances when it comes to these type of situations and you only come in to do it when you can piggy back on others...you're not an independent person). Moreover, your criticisms lack merit. I haven't gas-lit anybody. You are not capable of debate unless you're debating a pushover. That's why you had to resort to an ad hominem on Chae during the black panther thread. you're not capable of sustaining a debate with somebody whose not likely to agree with you. You lashed out on the Black Panther thread and embarrassed yourself accusing me of racism because I spelled a fictional character's name wrong. All you are doing here is continuing your ad hominem thread practice from the Black Panther thread.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 07:25 AM.

  11. #91
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its okay if you contextualize the warning as coming from someone who is consistently mistaken it transforms it into a good omen
    I've been right all throughout this thread with regards to the main debates. As Whodat pointed out, I was right about what I said on Te. I turned out right about HotelAmbush being heretical in his view on socionics when he made that comment about mbti/Jungian blockheads. And I'm right about all the stuff with Myst, too, though, that's more peripheral to the fact that Gulenko's article beared out that I was right about Jung's relationship to Socionics and the distinctions between MBTI and socionics.

    The two main topics -- Jung's relationship to Socionics and core differences between Socionics and MBTI -- I have been consistently right about here on this thread.

    I was also right about the function of juries and evidence....I was so right about it that you reflexively accused me of copy and pasting. It's no secret that you're into that quadra values technique of typing and that I've been it's main opponent since the inception of Socionics New Wave. I don't know how you can say I'm consistently mistaken when you're the one who uses such an outdated typing technique.

    Furthermore, I already provided you with information about shadow projection, examples of your projections on the thread and an explanation for one of those examples. IN return, I asked you to provide the quote (s) from Jung for your insinuation that shadow projections as Jung conceived it would make a person Si/Fe. You have so far avoided doing this. Please advise.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 07:07 AM.

  12. #92
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You keep telling people they're baselessly speculating and their observations have no basis in reality. You made a list of things you believe another poster "imagined" above. You even called me a paranoiac a few posts above and a schizophrenic in the Black Panther thread. How is this not gaslighting lmao.

    I also think it's funny how you mention I'm a 6w5 loyalist (which is an ad hominem in itself lol) while mentioning a situation where you supported Chae in a thread.

    I honestly wish you were doing this on purpose. I'd be impressed .

  13. #93
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh and I'm not embarrassed and I'll say it again. I do think it's vaguely racist and obtuse to butcher an ethnic name after repeated hints and corrections @Kill4Me .

  14. #94
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    You keep telling people they're baselessly speculating and their observations have no basis in reality. You made a list of things you believe another poster "imagined" above. You even called me a paranoiac a few posts above and a schizophrenic in the Black Panther thread. How is this not gaslighting lmao.
    Baseless speculation is common. Me telling somebody they are engaging in baseless speculation when they churn out a pile of bullshit in no way implies I am gaslighting. You are illogical.

    I also think it's funny how you mention I'm a 6w5 loyalist (which is an ad hominem in itself lol) while mentioning a situation where you supported Chae in a thread.
    Well, your position here is extremely one-sided and partisan. I mean, you're essentially shifting all the blame onto me. Blame-shifting is a standard defense mechanism of type six. Furthermore, you still paranoiacally assume a connection between racism and the misspelling of a fictional character's name and display a desire for authority by calling out to the moderators.

    In contrast, by time you posted to Chae on the Black Panther thread, you already earned your subscription to K4M. I wasn't piggybacking into a situation pages after you and Chae had gone at it, and in your shit-stirring post to Chae you referenced me directly.

    And I certainly wasn't calling upon the moderators to come deal with you.

    Oh and I'm not embarrassed and I'll say it again. I do think it's vaguely racist and obtuse to butcher an ethnic name after repeated hints and corrections @Kill4Me .
    There's nothing racist about misspelling a fictional character's name. I am low in perfectionism.

    I also misspelled a name on the Red Sparrow thread. I do it frequently.

    Your hints just made you come across like a spelling Nazi. If you were more assertive, you could have just stated your issue with the spelling directly at the beginning of the Black Panther thread and request that I change it. You couldn't just spit that out. Instead, you wanted to play little ridiculous games with hints. When I didn't take your cryptic hints, you jumped into calling me a racist because I didn't correct the spelling (another version of the same game). I would have never gone back to change the spelling after you reacted like that over the misspelling of a fictional character's name.

    I called you a paranoiac because last I interacted with you on the black panther thread you were being, well, a paranoiac and still haven't changed. In the literature on paranoiacs, it's a core feature of the paranoiac to engage in magical thinking, where things like not correcting the spelling of a name take on deeper meanings which inevitably confirms the paranoiac's suspicion of ill-will (in your case, racism).
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 10:12 AM.

  15. #95
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so autistic

    aka the colonization of Se Polr thread by Se leads~ I type Bert as a SEE aha

    (anyway K4me, I think you're right on almost anything so far.. keep it twisting!)

  16. #96
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,578
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    hey now as someone who just scored freakishly high on an online autismo test the other day I take partial offense at that remark

  17. #97
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    I've been right all throughout this thread with regards to the main debates. As Whodat pointed out, I was right about what I said on Te. I turned out right about HotelAmbush being heretical in his view on socionics when he made that comment about mbti/Jungian blockheads. And I'm right about all the stuff with Myst, too, though, that's more peripheral to the fact that Gulenko's article beared out that I was right about Jung's relationship to Socionics and the distinctions between MBTI and socionics.

    The two main topics -- Jung's relationship to Socionics and core differences between Socionics and MBTI -- I have been consistently right about here on this thread.

    I was also right about the function of juries and evidence....I was so right about it that you reflexively accused me of copy and pasting. It's no secret that you're into that quadra values technique of typing and that I've been it's main opponent since the inception of Socionics New Wave. I don't know how you can say I'm consistently mistaken when you're the one who uses such an outdated typing technique.

    Furthermore, I already provided you with information about shadow projection, examples of your projections on the thread and an explanation for one of those examples. IN return, I asked you to provide the quote (s) from Jung for your insinuation that shadow projections as Jung conceived it would make a person Si/Fe. You have so far avoided doing this. Please advise.
    I just want you to demonstrate your reasoning as to what projection is. I guess you're right, you've already told me. to you projection is whatever you call projection and that's the beginning and end of it. I guess I'm just disappointed because I hoped for a meaningful answer but its all just a web of self referential bravado with you
    Last edited by Bertrand; 03-19-2018 at 11:07 AM.

  18. #98
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol sorry waspy

    ure not autistic to me

    (i scored as an aspy on an online test once)

    i'll rephrase it.

    so aspergery!

  19. #99
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thread derail tho it's important

    DONT TAKE TESTS FROM mypersonality.com, THEY STEAL UR SOUL

  20. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    he had a 4 function model bro, the shadow was the flipside to valued functions because valued functions were all he admitted in his model of the psyche.
    3th was not.
    "shadow" is better to link with weak functions, as they relate to unconscious

    nice derail

  21. #101
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    The Snail Spiral
    Posts
    1,245
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Battle typing on a thread about PoLR Se. Teehee.
    “I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
    Clarice Lispector

  22. #102
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    3th was not.
    "shadow" is better to link with weak functions, as they relate to unconscious

    nice derail
    I concede that is how model A developed the idea of the shadow, but it was not formed yet at the time of Jung. For Jung he had base and auxiliary ("extroverted sensing type" and "auxiliary introverted thinking") leaving Ni and Fi as the unconscious processes underlying them. In psychological types he frames it in those terms talking about the primitive nature of the related (Ni in the case of Se, etc) functions, creating superstitions and so forth. While latent in that was what would be developed into a full 8 function description of the shadow that came later. in any case its mainly a semantic debate without real consequence to the issue at hand, so whatever

    my point has always been whatever the chosen basis for calling something projection is, it still needs to be explained for it to be other than a baseless assertion. I don't really care what framework people use, but if you make a claim it should be capable of rational analysis and not just shouting back and forth about "projections" in the air

    I do think maybe all of this is a projection inasmuch as it is an assumption about what others are capable of in terms of perception, i.e.: that someone is at all using Ne in framing their assertions, when its become clear to me the SeTi use of "projection" is precisely this kind of forceful but empty formal gesture without substance. in other words the appearance of making an argument is the argument. which is shallow, but I'm not sure what I was expecting, in retrospect

  23. #103
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    obviously it was Jung to mention the shadow, and there's no shadow in socionic terms whatsoever, more so in Model A that is not a person so can't invent anything meeheee

    why cant i like my own posts admins?!

  24. #104
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    The Snail Spiral
    Posts
    1,245
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    obviously it was Jung to mention the shadow, and there's no shadow in socionic terms whatsoever, more so in Model A that is not a person so can't invent anything meeheee

    why cant i like my own posts admins?!
    There, I did it for you.
    “I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
    Clarice Lispector

  25. #105
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    u're hired

  26. #106
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    The Snail Spiral
    Posts
    1,245
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks, it's an honour to be working for you.
    Next, I'm going to spam your inbox with pictures I find adorable.
    “I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
    Clarice Lispector

  27. #107
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

  28. #108
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I just want you to demonstrate your reasoning as to what projection is. I guess you're right, you've already told me. to you projection is whatever you call projection and that's the beginning and end of it. I guess I'm just disappointed because I hoped for a meaningful answer but its all just a web of self referential bravado with you
    I demonstrated it a page ago. I provided examples and elaborated on the examples. I included a link.

    You more recently made a claim about Jung that smelled like BS and I asked you to provide a quote. You came up empty.

    Please advise.

    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 04:47 PM.

  29. #109
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Already went through this with you Bert from a page ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    More information about Bert's schtick (shadow projection):



    Even socionic functions/quadras are screens that Bert uses to project his ethically vacant shadow on:

    " Gulenko seems to bring more Fi role sensibility into it with his emphasis on the humanitarian aspects, which is precisely how the clock is supposed to proceed, with ILE venturing an idea and LII refining it into a more working (i.e.: balanced) prototype. I think one of the reason 1d Fi types resist moving on from augusta or otherwise limit the scope to these narrow constructions and goals is for precisely the same reason, which is they have trouble viewing relations in terms other than logical relations or pragmatic ones. in essence, for them, typology becomes a kind of "technology", see my recent exchange with K4m, not unlike a sex doll or some other form of substitute (ethically empty but "effective") for directly managing relations, (although far less crude, etc).."

    "the Ti formulation that attempts to admit that is insufficient moving forward, it can only still the progression and subordinate itself and others to power games. in other words, its declarative not real (rational "verbal" not irrational abstract perception) intuition that functions as anti intuition as we see play out here (Ti construction employed only to constrain and deny legitimacy to competing intuitions). in the same way beta uses everything as a stick to beat people with without regard for the underlying ethical reality that binds everyone together as one (even as they focus and rely on politeness and other proxies to "get the job done" Fe)."
    You're a textbook example.

    In general, people may use innocuous forms of projection to make deductions about behavior or situations. Some typologers favor the "sticky method" where you project different motivations onto a person's behavior and then determine whether that motivation sticks or not based on forecasts about behavior. In war or war-like situations, it's typical for people to engage in this reasoning. There could be other forms of projection as well that don't revolve around scapegoating/disowning ethically vacuous parts of the self onto "screens" in the environment.

    With you, I'm referring to shadow projection as articulated by Jung and considered to be a psychological defense mechanism. You have to remember that there are many different defense mechanisms, including but not limited to, projection, disassociation, splitting, rationalization, repression, and denial. Keep in mind that some typology systems even associate different defense mechanisms with different personality types. There's generally a mixture of two or three people reflexively favor when psychologically unhealthy (Disassociation and projection appear to be your stand-out combination).
    For example, "technology" embodies all the ethical emptiness from your shadow side. 1d Fi types is the screen for your mind to project/dump some of your own ethical emptiness onto. Because you are leading with projections from your shadow, you are coming up with tortured reasoning to make your projections fit into the screen you have chosen. At most, your shadow projections provide the reader with insights into you.
    ...

  30. #110
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    obviously it was Jung to mention the shadow, and there's no shadow in socionic terms whatsoever, more so in Model A that is not a person so can't invent anything meeheee

    why cant i like my own posts admins?!
    oh it just dawned on me, you think I'm debating the notion of the shadow itself or that somehow Jung didn't invent it. no I'm saying that taking his term and applying it entails an underlying nexus of ideas that if they don't meet the application falls flat. in other words, it makes no sense. for something to make sense you have to understand what Jung meant when he said shadow, i.e. what is a shadow and how does it operate in forming projections. model a provides a framework in terms of information metabolism as to how projections are disjunctions between information elements, where one takes the object as if he possessed the properties of the subject, and interprets the meaning of their actions or statements on those grounds.

    the reason I ask k4m to detail his theory of projection is because whether you use Jung's model to apply the notion of the shadow or model A, none of what he claimed made any sense.I see now that this is because they don't perceive the inner workings of theory, i.e. the phenomenon they actually describe. rather words are like legos that they frankenstein a thesis of another person's "psyche" (only in the most facile way) out of. in any case at no point does it touch reality, its more like an idiosyncratic language game where things are not valued for their inner truth but only inaswell as they play with the crowd. in this sense any psychological proclamations are more or less fatally shallow because its just a copy of a copy (a copy/paste application of borrowed rules to overlay on a situation they don't really understand, but nevertheless use to paint people with, and cannot update on the level of perception without reference to a crowd--which is sort of anti-psychology,its just ideology in a new guise). this is why they rely on written words as a kind of sensory bank which they draw on for prefabricated ideas that they redistribute like fake money in order to win empty competitions. the point is this total lack of insight or imagination means Ive just been wasting my time trying to imbue any words with the possibility of real meaning because there is none, so my asking has been totally futile and misunderstood

    while the question may have been futile in some sense I can't say I haven't learned anything so there was definite value in the exchange so for that I'm totally thankful. I think it takes a lot of courage for SLE to be doing these things so far out of their usual sandbox. its a lot like being in law school for me so I think perhaps we have that sense of stretching in common. and I really do think that kind of stuff is really good for people and Id be a big hypocrite to come down too hard on it

  31. #111
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    and quit talking like a crazed angry meth head.
    A long time ago we enneagram typed all the drugs and agreed meth was E8. Confirm final. (We also had to make it clear it was the drugs themselves and not the people taking the drugs, not to be "too stereotypical" and also because you can take all of them.)

  32. #112
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wanted to reply to some deleted post about Kill4Me being shallow: He has "kill" in his username, metal teeth for his avatar, and talks like a crazed meth head to prove that he's "E8." Most death metal songs are significantly more subtle and nuanced than this. Half of 16t is people trying to be stereotypes, then calling other people shallow for not being stereotypes. LOL. Time to call them out.

  33. #113
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    he reason I ask k4m to detail his theory of projection is because whether you use Jung's model to apply the notion of the shadow or model A, none of what he claimed made any sense.I see now that this is because they don't perceive the inner workings of theory, i.e. the phenomenon they actually describe. rather words are like legos that they frankenstein a thesis of another person's "psyche" (only in the most facile way) out of. in any case at no point does it touch reality, its more like an idiosyncratic language game where things are not valued for their inner truth but only inaswell as they play with the crowd. in this sense any psychological proclamations are more or less fatally shallow because its just a copy of a copy (a copy/paste application of borrowed rules to overlay on a situation they don't really understand, but nevertheless use to paint people with, and cannot update on the level of perception without reference to a crowd--which is sort of anti-psychology,its just ideology in a new guise). this is why they rely on written words as a kind of sensory bank which they draw on for prefabricated ideas that they redistribute like fake money in order to win empty competitions. the point is this total lack of insight or imagination means Ive just been wasting my time trying to imbue any words with the possibility of real meaning because there is none, so my asking has been totally futile and misunderstood
    Back to your shadow projections. All this above stuff are just you dumping off more of your shadow junk onto the environment.

    You also erased the post where you called me shallow.

    What I posted was concise and to the point. I'm not going to write out giant walls-of-text about it from one post to the next....not a good enough bullshit artist to do that. I provided you with definitions, examples from your posts and application of the definitions to the examples I cited. Rather than directly respond to what I put there, you simply repeated that I explain what I meant by projection, as if willfully oblivious to what was posted and used it as an opportunity to spray out more of your shadow.

    You best learn concision if you want to get ahead in the real world. I mean, you're still in school. What do you know about the difference between shallow and concise. Let's see if you are so self-righteously idealistic after you get your big lawyer job. Because, uh, I got news for you. The legal profession is shallow. You won't change it. If you want to be an attorney, then you'd better get ready to do and say many shallow things. Your art is sophistry. And if you want to actually persuade people in the real world, you'd best learn to be more concise....if you write motions that aren't concise as you do with many of your posts here, and just load it up with projections-posing-as-insight (i.e. bullshit), you will surely put Judges to sleep.

    If anything, it's shallow for you to tell me that shadow projections as Jung conceived it are Si/Fe, and when I asked you for a quote (s) to source what you were saying, you came up empty.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 06:09 PM.

  34. #114
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entelecheia View Post
    Wanted to reply to some deleted post about Kill4Me being shallow: He has "kill" in his username, metal teeth for his avatar, and talks like a crazed meth head to prove that he's "E8." Most death metal songs are significantly more subtle and nuanced than this. Half of 16t is people trying to be stereotypes, then calling other people shallow for not being stereotypes. LOL. Time to call them out.
    You go, girl.

  35. #115
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol nice work wyrd

  36. #116
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bert tried telling me shadow projections as Jung conceived it are Si/Fe.

  37. #117
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You just need a cuddle from a fuzzy anteater

  38. #118
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    oh it just dawned on me, you think I'm debating the notion of the shadow itself or that somehow Jung didn't invent it. no I'm saying that taking his term and applying it entails an underlying nexus of ideas that if they don't meet the application falls flat. in other words, it makes no sense. for something to make sense you have to understand what Jung meant when he said shadow, i.e. what is a shadow and how does it operate in forming projections. model a provides a framework in terms of information metabolism as to how projections are disjunctions between information elements, where one takes the object as if he possessed the properties of the subject, and interprets the meaning of their actions or statements on those grounds.

    the reason I ask k4m to detail his theory of projection is because whether you use Jung's model to apply the notion of the shadow or model A, none of what he claimed made any sense.I see now that this is because they don't perceive the inner workings of theory, i.e. the phenomenon they actually describe. rather words are like legos that they frankenstein a thesis of another person's "psyche" (only in the most facile way) out of. in any case at no point does it touch reality, its more like an idiosyncratic language game where things are not valued for their inner truth but only inaswell as they play with the crowd. in this sense any psychological proclamations are more or less fatally shallow because its just a copy of a copy (a copy/paste application of borrowed rules to overlay on a situation they don't really understand, but nevertheless use to paint people with, and cannot update on the level of perception without reference to a crowd--which is sort of anti-psychology,its just ideology in a new guise). this is why they rely on written words as a kind of sensory bank which they draw on for prefabricated ideas that they redistribute like fake money in order to win empty competitions. the point is this total lack of insight or imagination means Ive just been wasting my time trying to imbue any words with the possibility of real meaning because there is none, so my asking has been totally futile and misunderstood

    while the question may have been futile in some sense I can't say I haven't learned anything so there was definite value in the exchange so for that I'm totally thankful. I think it takes a lot of courage for SLE to be doing these things so far out of their usual sandbox. its a lot like being in law school for me so I think perhaps we have that sense of stretching in common. and I really do think that kind of stuff is really good for people and Id be a big hypocrite to come down too hard on it
    alright I thought that with this:
    I concede that is how model A developed the idea of the shadow, but it was not formed yet at the time of Jung. For Jung he had base and auxiliary ("extroverted sensing type" and "auxiliary introverted thinking") leaving Ni and Fi as the unconscious processes underlying them. In psychological types he frames it in those terms talking about the primitive nature of the related (Ni in the case of Se, etc) functions, creating superstitions and so forth. While latent in that was what would be developed into a full 8 function description of the shadow that came later.
    you meant that Jung had no idea of a shadow; anyway he actually "invented" the notion of shadow.

    It's pretty obvious that Jung didnt' put the shadow into any model A since he didn't invent any model A of the psyche. The shadow itself has not strict definitions, it might be the entire unconscious or just the side of us that we despise the most, diving it in this way from the Anim@, that is in the unconscious too and that creates ambiguous reactions too.

    Therefore it's really rather nitpicky to decide how exactly a simple term relates to a system that has never been in the mind of its theoretical inventors. We'll never know it, and Model A really doesn't use the Junghian definitions of the psyche, but the Freudian ones.

    I think the Shadow is the ID, most logically, our inverted selves.

    But all of this gets lost if I'm fat and say to someone who's eating the 3rd pastry in a row "u're such a fatso!" and someone points out that I'm projecting, because it's pretty obvious that I am even if you don't dig in my ID.

  39. #119
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Bert tried telling me shadow projections as Jung conceived it are Si/Fe.
    I think he means his shadow projections and is self-typing as Ni/Te (for real this time?) not all shadow projections.

  40. #120
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    But all of this gets lost if I'm fat and say to someone who's eating the 3rd pastry in a row "u're such a fatso!" and someone points out that I'm projecting, because it's pretty obvious that I am even if you don't dig in my ID.
    ...Or they could just be fat and you could be fat. Not that eating 3 pastries in a row automatically makes you fat but still. It's possible to call a fat person fat whilst still being fat yourself.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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