thats why debates about subjective matter are retardedOriginally Posted by Bertrand
thats why debates about subjective matter are retarded
I tried for awhile to be kinder, softer, gentler and so on because of how often I've gotten called rude, and it just ended up backfiring. I alienated the people I actually liked and only temporarily pacified the others, so I stopped trying so hard. (It was also very stressful and didn't seem to do any good) Edit: I think it's most accurate to say that I like people who don't find me offensive. I don't have to worry about holding myself in check or anyone getting upset and what-not.
yeah fuck role
K, I see where you're coming from there.
Could be, as I don't mind some rudeness. Not that I want a bunch of insults hurled at me or anything, but I would rather people be straight with me.mb our IR affect the perception too
You want an example of @Chae's Ni? This thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mething-Thread
This clearly prioritizes the long-term value of society (Ni) over short-term comfort (Si) - or "complacence" as a Beta might describe it. And this is done by forcefully attacking whatever malignant forces of injustice are perceived to be present (SeTi).
A Jungian definition of Fe (as opposed to a socionic one) can only have very limited relevance for socionics since it won't take into account (or likely, be consistent with) intertype or interelement relations. This has to be the driving force behind socionic definitions, in my opinion.
This isn't even really a definition, it's a behavioral description of Fe in a certain position (and not a particularly good one either, according to my observations).Golihov's Fe base:
The classical definition of rationality is very problematic in my opinion, so I have no need to reconcile it with the definition of Fe. Again, it's the relationships that matter more so than what the dichotomies were classically understood to be.As you can see, these descriptions take into account the Rationality of Feeling. Your definition of "self expression" does not.
With your definition, quite a few people who are not even Rational types or even Fe valuing can get typed Fe base. That's just wrong in my opinion. Wrong conceptually and in practice too.
How do you get around that yourself?
(Also, I should note that my working definition of Fe is actually "information about states", self-expression is -Fe in particular.)
true there.
Thanks for finding an example. But this is full of Ne/Si valuing.
E.g.:
Long term (anything reaching beyond the tangible present) approach is just N. Can be Ni, can be Ne. Don't tell me alpha NTs don't discuss that stuff. They do, a lot.This clearly prioritizes the long-term value of society (Ni) over short-term comfort (Si) - or "complacence" as a Beta might describe it. And this is done by forcefully attacking whatever malignant forces of injustice are perceived to be present (SeTi).
Si: "Common mascara is extremely toxic.
I stopped wearing it, that stuff caused me the eeriest of infections. 3 months of use and you're literally smearing an illness"
And so on and on and on... An EIE would run away screaming after a while of reading this load of Si lol.
But really overall, I trust my own metacognitive awareness to recognize that @Chae has about zero Ni expressed. That is, I know how I mentally respond to Ni, she has none of it. She instead has jumps in her ideas that Ni egos just don't do. To be clear, if I'm wrong about IEE, she's still definitely a Ne/Si valuing type, ESE would be the 2nd option, but I'm not seeing it really (not excluding it 100%, but what I am certain about is, Chae is Ne/Si valuing ExFx).
Jung does take into account the dynamics between functions of duality... his whole theory takes it heavily into account, though sure it doesn't deal with interpersonal dynamics of them, just intrapersonal. I don't see Socionics explaining any better why an IE is a complementary opposite to another IE, etc.A Jungian definition of Fe (as opposed to a socionic one) can only have very limited relevance for socionics since it won't take into account (or likely, be consistent with) intertype or interelement relations. This has to be the driving force behind socionic definitions, in my opinion.
This is most definitely not just behavioural, but describes the cognitive focus too: "the person lives through manifested relationships between people, their emotions and feelings".This isn't even really a definition, it's a behavioral description of Fe in a certain position (and not a particularly good one either, according to my observations).
Again, this isn't behavioural: "Relations are perceived as something permanent and if a person has changed, he won't believe it - it's an area of conservation for him."
This either: "Multiple stable relationships and personal connections form the foundation of his personality."
Or this: "Any situation is primarily a combination of relations."
And Van der Hoop shows important differences between the information type of Feeling and Intuition with definitions that are compatible with Socionics Ethics and Intuition a lot of people on here seem to ignore. Yes I know he's a jungian writer, but it deals enough with information processing for me to call them that.
Did you read the Van der Hoop bit on that? Sorry for asking again but I really want to know.
You mean the definition about judging what's to be rather than just perceiving what is?The classical definition of rationality is very problematic in my opinion, so I have no need to reconcile it with the definition of Fe.
I definitely think the difference between the Fe of ExE and Fe of an Irrational Ethical type is significant in terms of this. Rationality provides consistency and direction to the judgments and behaviour. This applies to Feeling/Ethics just as much as to Thinking/Logic.
The dichotomies of the information types are absolutely part of the basics. You can't say that they matter less. Without them, the relationships of their dynamics don't exist either.Again, it's the relationships that matter more so than what the dichotomies were classically understood to be.
(Also, I should note that my working definition of Fe is actually "information about states", self-expression is -Fe in particular.)
Haha, "information about states", nice abstract LII view of Fe.I'd actually be ok with that definition if it specified what kind of states, but I guess you just left that out. I haven't visited your site in a while so not sure if you have it on there beyond "internal states" which is still too undefined to me. Since Intuition deals with them too.
Don't see @Number 9 large's Se. Let alone together with D...@Number 9 large (SLE maybe SEE): D, datu use, m8. Full throttle with base.
@Olimpia (IEI): D, her drive to put ego block in use albeit lack ofrears their ugly heads. Likes to put (relatively so) super-ego block aside. I think she establishes very well base + creative dynamics so I think D type. Ip shifts towards Ej is bit contrary. Clearly not C energy in creative. I could put N under consideration.
@Aylen (IEI): H, it is rather easy to detect her large information consumption while remaining skeptical (albeit bit obscure sources) in that process. She clearly works with
@Tallmo (SEI): N, goal to find/search for comfortable OK place (mentally) while using good amount role.
I think N makes sense for @Olimpia.
If @Aylen is H, she has to be EIE-H. No way she's IEI-H, she's far from being that self-submerged.
@Tallmo might be IEI, definitely surprising amount of Ni.
Better but not on point, another lecture is due. Let's see: Long-term value I didn't think about when opening it, that was impulse. What crosses me on the Internet aka bothers me at the very moment. It's to make myself be clear-cut and others aware, although I thought about the theme I always pursue deliberately i.e. women. My intent ended up being: To be critical about these topics in particular and on the same page, to fast forward a political stance, to collect these impressions, to have a thread that serves truth for dinner. I can sort my memes in there as well, within the overwhelming collection of my threads everything has a place. Remember what I said about order, the method to the madness exists in this case. But: I don't plan or look two steps ahead by principle. "Uh, I just do it and see, your job is to swallow" is the asshole attitude. Future is influenced now to be the way that it is when it arrives. Everything else makes no sense, and I'm not Nostradamus. And as dumb as a brick on top of that to think about one year ahead, jot it down. Too lazy. Complacency VS justice, [counter-]attack, and most importantly protection — Chae 101 key word! — you are correct. I believe very much in justice and punishment/revenge when it comes to the right and wrong of society according to my personal ideology which discriminates between cases. That part aligns with Beta more than anything, I already second that don't you worry. I'm just collecting more insights to piece it together on my own. Otherwise, I'd be adamant to accept a typing. Yes, it doesn't escape my gaze that you're working hard elsewhere, so keep it upYou're dedicated and exacting. But it will be filtered and reconstructed here to suit my demands. When I figured it out, I will superimpose my typing with all insights combined.
About justice: definitely a core value (I have long considered 368 respectively). E.g.: rapists must be castrated no matter the circumstance. In a vicious and painful manner at best so it's deeply traumatizing. Avenging cruelty that borders flat-out sadism is better than the death penalty, increased psychological effect. Plus a demonstrative statement that an underdog bites back and can't be messed with as there will be consequences for treading on the weak. In some ways, insecure-reactive or brutish and not very loving, in others, extremely effective. The appropriate mirroring answer for criminal acts that show no empathy to begin with. Daily comfort is 50/50 for me. It is necessary for my state to cool from the rage and the hustle, make interactions easier, and keeping myself together. Motto: I know my impact, so I know my leisure. I can't go off all the time and put some misogynists in their place, I treasure my sleep, this is what the misogynists don't want me to do so I will do it out of spite! Resistance to men's dictate of sleep! I'm half satirical here, but the grain of truth is blatant. My true comfort principle is: I pour some green tea while everything is ablaze and lean back. Eases the chatter around me so I relax. Society on the other hand is best shaken up to reach this comfort state when said injustices are gone. Comfort isn't bad, it just needs the right circumstance. Nothing shady is covered up by it in a hypocritical way: see wide-ranging, exploitative power imbalances that pretend they are not there. I can't enjoy munching on my salad when there are bullies around. Complacency is cooperation with evil in a way, once you see through the workings of the world it's impossible to overlook. I do understand it in a way that it falls into fight/flight/freeze, the latter in this case, and it is natural. I wouldn't brush offcompletely here for the sake of
That was the bottom line and sermon of today, mother has spoken. Hope it corrected some things and my drives are outlined if they weren't obvious already. Now, in fact, I shall drink tea.
Photo of you I saw a while ago kinda looked EIEish but IEI fits on the whole.
I don't think Sol blames socionics so much as references it in describing the dynamics of how whatever unfolded. its just a useful framework to get a handle on what transpired. maybe not the best, the best would be to be an ethical type gifted and devoted to sussing out those nuances in a more natural way, but still, one can't be the best at everything
That's what's totally pointless lol. Guessing like that about people according to a model that's not meant to be used in this way. I see the model as only meant to be used on a very general level, an actually comprehensive *and* detailed understanding of how the mind/brain works is what would be required for analysis of details beyond that. Maybe some very smart AI in future will be able to do that kind of analysis on the move lol.
And yeah, sure it's hard to avoid focusing on some details here and there instead of always just trying to see the general approach of the person. The latter for me takes time unless I see some pattern about them that I already know from past analyses and thus can recognize.
For details I try to pick ones that seem relevant to definitions, avoiding use of model A function placement nuances beyond the absolute basics.
One of the most terrible consequences of misuse of the Socionics model.And if you make that pseudoscience a larger interest, it clearly takes over how you perceive your interactions to a greater extent.
Lol it's far from the best tbh, if you use model A (or those other obscure Socionics models).
Some Socionics concepts are useful for this analysis but please, not within model A (or those other obscure Socionics models).
Glad to see this threas getting the love it deserves yet again.
“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
not allowed my quadra
Now i really feel provoked to say lots of Ni stuff. You havent seen anything yet. ☺
But seriously its simply a fact that certain people develop weak functons and can used them in a limited way like in this forum. Also writing is an exellent medium for this.
My best hint for anybody wanting to type me is to look at the blockings. Do i have NT or ST blocking. Or do i seem Se seeking or Ne seeking.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It's heresy, as Socioinics is Jung's typology.
Jung's core types theory, including definitions of functions are used in Socionics, are part of it. At best they can be expanded in Socionics, but not to have a contradiction. Augustinavichiute's works have lower priority than Jung and if something in her descriptions looks as not fitting to Jung's core types theory - it's wrong or an expansion. If you think other - you do not understand the core theory or do not see how it is on practice.
Fe is about objective emotional value of objects. Such is at Jung and is in Socionics, which can only add the other view on the same, but not to reject.
If you relate by "other" definition to expanded Jung's functions descriptions - they are secondary, not definitions. They does not matter much, including because Jung not always is clear to be interpereted correctly, besides could be wrong in wider interpretation and using of the own theory. He misunderstood own type, for example. Augustinavichiute is also not perfect to trust her blindly or could be misunderstood. While what wrote other authors - mb just anything.
Those who claim that Socionics is not Jung's typology: 1) are wrong, 2) sabotage the spreading of Socionics. Without Jung Socionics is nothing.
That isn't even the classical socionics definition, it's a Myers-Briggs definition. The socionics definition (see here) is about rigidity vs. spontaneity, which doesn't fit so great for types with high Fe and Ne like EIE.
I did not say the dichotomies don't matter, it's their classical descriptions which are incorrect. I see the correct definition of the dichotomies as a future goal for socionics, not something that is already set in stone. The definitions of the individual IM elements are far more clear.The dichotomies of the information types are absolutely part of the basics. You can't say that they matter less. Without them, the relationships of their dynamics don't exist either.
Sorry, yes I meant internal states (of sentient information processors aka people). Te deals with external world-states.Haha, "information about states", nice abstract LII view of Fe.
Last edited by Exodus; 04-24-2018 at 11:38 AM.
And you see yourself as LSE after this post that's Ti overload......
But of course it would be hard for you to retype now after having declared yourself as the best typer on here countless times.
I happen to agree with how to prioritize here to avoid contradictions btw, etc. I don't really agree that Jung mistyped himself, he was Ti-Ni (LII in jungian version of the system) alright.
PS: It is weird really... you lost a lot of my respect with your previous post where you were really fucking hypocritical and avoiding pure objectivity, but then you write stuff that is (almost) the exact same way I think about it.(Well, I do think about it in a more detailed way because I digged deeper than you but the basic principles are good mostly.)
That wasn't a fucking Myers-Briggs definition. It was Jung. And no, the socionics definition is NOT simply about rigidity vs spontaneity, even the link you are giving isn't defining it as that. You said I was giving you a description and not a definition, well now you did the same with this lol. The stuff on that link that discusses rigidity/spontaneity is a description, not a definition (list of characteristics).
The definitions on that page:
"Rationality in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on actions and emotions. In contrast, Irrationality means a focus on states of mind and body."
"Rational types are defined as any type that has a rational element (T/F) in its first or leading function.
Irrational types are defines as any type that has an irrational element (N/S) in its first or leading function."
Alright we really really have fundamentally different views, shockingly different actually.
Alright, just curious, what do you see as wrong with the dichotomies?I did not say the dichotomies don't matter, it's their classical descriptions which are incorrect. I see the correct definition of the dichotomies as a future goal for socionics, not something that is already set in stone. The definitions of the individual IM elements are far more clear.
And you are intentionally not answering me about Van der Hoop lol! Why?
No worries. The internal states that Intuition sees, how do you define those states?Sorry, yes I meant internal states (of sentient information processors aka people). Te deals with external world-states.
NT or ST blocking... You sound like an SLE would do good to you to pull you out of your mind and your obscure rabbitholey thinking a bit
I love @Myst so much.
NOTE: This post is not an ass-kissing post, I repeat, this post is not an ass-kissing post.
“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
It doesn't really matter, it's also irrelevant to my interpretation of socionics.
It's a description yes, although the list of traits is closer to what I usually see in socionics literature. "a focus on actions and emotions" isn't saying much really.And no, the socionics definition is NOT simply about rigidity vs spontaneity, even the link you are giving isn't defining it as that. You said I was giving you a description and not a definition, well now you did the same with this lol. The stuff on that link that discusses rigidity/spontaneity is a description, not a definition (list of characteristics).
The definitions on that page:
"Rationality in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on actions and emotions. In contrast, Irrationality means a focus on states of mind and body."
"Rational types are defined as any type that has a rational element (T/F) in its first or leading function.
Irrational types are defines as any type that has an irrational element (N/S) in its first or leading function."
Like I said, the one I mentioned doesn't fit EIEs very well. The "judging/perceiving" interpretation (which is definitely used in MBTI also) overlaps with Se/Ni vs. Si/Ne.Alright, just curious, what do you see as wrong with the dichotomies?
I already told you I'm not interested in wasting my time reading Jungian sources, the problem you claim it solves doesn't exist for me.And you are intentionally not answering me about Van der Hoop lol! Why?
I wouldn't say that intuition sees states, more like mental imagery/forms or possibilities.No worries. The internal states that Intuition sees, how do you define those states?
Last edited by Aylen; 04-25-2018 at 06:58 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
man I hope gulenko DCNHs the rest of the socion soon
My perception of DCNH subs
D organizes
N maintains
C creates
H synthesizes
It is actually quite ridiculously apparent from general empirical portraits. The main problem with Gulenko is that he tries to obfuscate things left spinner ways so hard that it is bit detrimental to him. Anyways I do find interesting stuff in it to be used in ways. Gulenko himself is clear C.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 04-24-2018 at 08:26 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It does matter which system one is referring to.
Sure, you have a different interpretation of Socionics, yes.
I quoted more than just "a focus on actions and emotions".It's a description yes, although the list of traits is closer to what I usually see in socionics literature. "a focus on actions and emotions" isn't saying much really.
It's interesting you don't find it a meaningful dichotomy, while I experience it as a significant factor in practice too... the difference between Rationals and Irrationals. Pretty fundamental.
I actually experience EIE to be more consistent and more stiff so to speak than IEI. These characteristics of Rationality do seem to fit EIE well.Like I said, the one I mentioned doesn't fit EIEs very well. The "judging/perceiving" interpretation (which is definitely used in MBTI also) overlaps with Se/Ni vs. Si/Ne.
Decisive/Judicious isn't about the same thing as Rationality/Irrationality but yeah, it sounds deceptively similar in some aspects.
You don't recognize the problem.I already told you I'm not interested in wasting my time reading Jungian sources, the problem you claim it solves doesn't exist for me.
What is your problem with Jung btw, I'm curious, what do you see that's so much better in Socionics?
I was referring to this sort of thing:I wouldn't say that intuition sees states, more like mental imagery/forms or possibilities.
Ni as creative function of EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London) - like to find internally contradictory people, "dig" in them and create in them internal harmony and mood. They make for great artists, because they know how to and love to "become" one with an image of a man and play a role from his worldview. They are able to understand the essence of complex internal situations and make for potentially good analysts. Often it is difficult to find employment for them, as their "product" is the internal conflicts of man and essence, and to penetrate so far, into "the soul" of man, you just need to have permission. Often become unstable, vulnerable, fragile, just so that they can harmonize themselves, and sometimes can start to torment and tear into themselves and dig into their own issues. They have a difficulty finding adequate application to their creative function in the world, since it is not in high demand - not everyone wants someone else to dig into their internal states. Their product - bold ideas, principles, systems of belief and knowledge that they bring into the world and promote. But they do this beautifully, creatively, elegantly, not forcibly imposing them but promoting them in interesting ways. Search for internally contradictory situations, like to grasp their essence. Often realize themselves in art and writing, as this is also a good way to use the function. They are able to enter into various internal psychological states. A good speaker, as he is able to influence positively on the internal state of others. Their product is the "wholeness" of the internal state, and therefore they can find success in field of psychology, because it means that they are the healers of souls. In life they loved to dramatize everything. Everyone around becomes informed about the slightest change in their mood or internal state. Usually they are very fond of "making mountains out of molehills", for them this is a way to find work for their second function. The more they become exposed - the greater the realization of their personality in the world.
(see the bolded parts especially)
I just doubt IEI-H is you at all. IEI is ok, but IEI-H...not reallySo far Deer <3 made the most convincing argument for me being D but she did not seem to be using the DCNH I see some people using here. I have no idea which one you guys are using tbh. I read Gulenko's D and I would not say that is best fit .She and I spoke about it on voice but I wish she had written her perspective on it down. H would probably be best fit but I can see a bit of myself in all the IEI descriptions but not all the EIE descriptions.
Based on these short definitions I do all of D, N, C at times. Now, do I do D or N more as the main overarching pattern... oh yeahh, D. Just maintaining things is boring af. I always need to be doing more than that.
I do like the beta DCNHs and DCNH in general. It all makes analysis more complex but is worth it, it seems. For example, D apparently makes introverts deceptively look like they have an extravert's energy. But their temperament is still their base Ip or Ij temperament, along with Ip's keeping their base Irrationality, even if harder to notice behind the D energy, and despite being quite energetic, they are still coming from inside themselves to interact with the environment. I do look deceptively extraverted too to some people, apparently. With D having Se emphasized too, and for some reason (due it being in ego, I guess) that's what's noticed first, not that Te-Fe energy axis. I'm like half D half C almost really, lol. Except C has Ne too, no Ne for me.
Last edited by Myst; 04-25-2018 at 02:31 AM.
Ooh. Lemme butt in! 'cuse me coming through.
See, for as much as I am so not invested in the overall discussion here, this particular issue is one that I have been pondering lately and as I stumbled on it here I decided I MUST respond to it.And you see yourself as LSE after this post that's Ti overload......
Sol's take on Jung and Socionics is, in my view, a strongly pragmatic one - in the purest sense of the word as well as in the Socionics sense. There is the originator of a concept, and there are the offshoot theories of this concept. If these offshoot theories directly contradict the origin, then they are wrong and are to be corrected or discarded. If not, then you'll end up with a gazillion "versions" of the same theory that become more and more disconnected from reality, reducing the level of practical application of these models. One-fit-for-all is one strong pragmatic thought, a Te one.
The view that these theories are each valid within their own theoretical internal structure, separate from one another in its validity - yet with obvious links to each other that ought to not be taken into account when discussing each operational segment - is that of Ti. It separates theory from reality, as any introverted attitude will do, allowing the theory to develop and live on its own, mutating into a different form depending on its 'author' (the Ti type thinking of it). Consequently this becomes yet another separate child of the mother of theories, but one that can't be reconciled with the origin because too many fundamentals have been altered. Abstract theory that lives its own life. As a result, you can be a Fe type based on Jung's, and a Ne type based on a disconnected-from-reality Ti child. This is the opposite from a pragmatic outlook, making this line of thinking not Te.
Thank you for your attention and have a wonderful day.
|*+- Curtains close -+*|
Does anyone knows if there are DCNH descriptions specific for Delta types?
In your perception of DCNH I am H then. Synthesis combines the different elements into the whole. I have aspects of each and would be able to take elements from all known descriptions of IEI and make my own description to explain why I feel I am whole. This is the only socionics type I would be able to do that with using all the known descriptions to create my own subtype.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Are there links to valid descriptions of DCNH subtypes for any type in general? I feel like ken of these subtypes is screwing with my typing of myself on some level.Does anyone knows if there are DCNH descriptions specific for Delta types?
yeah gulenko did DCNH profiles for beta quadra here (scroll down for link midway)
I think synthesis usually reconciles lots of differences that creative tries to put out there.
In your perception of DCNH I am H then. Synthesis combines the different elements into the whole. I have aspects of each and would be able to take elements from all known descriptions of IEI and make my own description to explain why I feel I am whole. This is the only socionics type I would be able to do that with using all the known descriptions to create my own subtype.
There is a ring where: D->C->N->H->D. H gives a push toward dominant people (H prevails D). Sometimes D will correct H (subtype supervision) maybe being too "vague". I think that H adopts D (or any subtype towards prevailing subtype) characteristics as he/she gets older.
But you could also be EIE-H in POV. Not sure.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Cool thanks. Yeah I guess Delta would be on the way then.
I suggest focusing on finding your own sociotype first and leave DCNH for later.
Hmmm alright. Probably shouldn't focus on too much at a time.
he says baseless fantasies under the label "Socionics"
The first thing you describe is Ti. Discard irrelevant facts: Ti, one overarching system for everything: Ti, filtering everything through it: Ti.
The second thing you describe is Irrational Ni abstractions without the strict logical consistency of Ti and in high opposition with the tangible reality of Se.
Lol - nice Fe performance.Thank you for your attention and have a wonderful day.
|*+- Curtains close -+*|
I really want to claim being EIE-H atm but would feel like a fraud.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Haha it would be cool if you were EIE but no, pretty sure you are IEII really want to claim being EIE-H atm but would feel like a fraud.
Which people on here do you type EIE?
I have been slowly working on my spreadsheet when the mood strikes me. I observe more than I say. I need to have it clear and as close to accurate without interference from feelings (emotions, good or bad) or shreds of doubts. I think I have an old thread where I typed some people too. Not sure if I closed it. Only a few of my typings have changed since then due to new information. I like participating in typing someone only when I can ask questions and get their feedback. Sometimes I speculate with friends which is fun. I do get instant impressions based on some vibes from videos and pics but I am more into wait and see how a personality unfolds both irl and on the forum. The issue is separating what is natural and what is coming from reading too many descriptions. People tend to want to be in a quadra with those they like and push those they don't out. I don't want to be like that.Haha it would be cool if you were EIE but no, pretty sure you are IEI
Which people on here do you type EIE?
When I joined every petite, pretty, flowery, innocent looking girl was being typed IEI by the active members then. Many of them had red hair too. haha Trends change though and some of those girls were troll accounts, not all. All that is fluff to me. I will share when I am ready to present it with clarity.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
