Typing

[golden]

You may not think you can read between the lines for what isn't said, but with the exception of last night when I was drinking I had thought I was being very restrained and precise (to the point of stress) in my presentation to avoid miscommunication. So I guess my concept of restrained is skewed of you are seeing things unspoken like Myst and Squark.

I believe I read between lines, but I fall short in that one area I described, which is directly eliciting omitted information. I have to do it with what is already available unless someone like a Myst or Squark supplements. Rather than fill in a puzzle, I will make a succession of different pictures, each of them conditional, and jump from one to another to move forward, depending on which one actually goes somewhere.

I think I see what you're suggesting, and it's understandable, but "tribe" isn't a shibboleth. It was chosen specifically for its ambiguity because very very little of my ideology is codified in any way beyond "I want an 'us.'" If I was trying to hide I'd have not dropped "nationalism" in earlier posts.

If there is an us, who is them? And what if someone is neither? And if it’s nebulous and uncodified, why does Lynx think you’d be banned if we knew your political views? Feel free to consider my questions rhetorical.

[Sisyphean]

I believe I read between lines, but I fall short in that one area I described, which is directly eliciting omitted information. I have to do it with what is already available unless someone like a Myst or Squark supplements. Rather than fill in a puzzle, I will make a succession of different pictures, each of them conditional, and jump from one to another to move forward, depending on which one actually goes somewhere.

Do you have an example of one or both doing this so I can be clear on what you mean?

[Myst]

If there is an us, who is them? And what if someone is neither? And if it’s nebulous and uncodified, why does Lynx think you’d be banned if we knew your political views? Feel free to consider my questions rhetorical.

Whoa this thread is going off topic fast in a er, controversial direction

[golden]

My questions really were rhetorical.

But put a bunch of Betas in a Beta typing thread and voila, controversy.

[Myst]

The 90mph to dead-stop may be a consequence of how I perform in academic tasks, I guess. Generally everything I've ever done in a school setting has just been default very easy, especially if I'm able to visualize the problem to work it out in some way. Mathematics is where most of those brick walls would come up (though never in Discrete Mathematics for some reason). But yes after I work out the anger and frustration there's a kind of "zen" feeling until I finish, take a break, or something knocks me out back into my default.

Oh ok, yeah we experience these things slightly differently, whatever (for me it's just the same level headed mode always, not particularly zen), but I get what you mean esp. with being used to things working easily. Maths though would always fascinate me lol, I'd definitely see walls sometimes but it'd often just feel interesting with me hoping that I will be able to see deeper later (that part is very Ni to me actually). In those cases it would not actually even be truly walls... just... trying to look in the undefined depths somewhere further.

With "mesh" I just meant whether or not the new information/idea integrates with the rest of what I know and believe without fundamental contradiction of a concept or value that I absolutely know or believe. I relate to the sense of a snap-judgement and not taking in things that get a negative judgement. I feel like, though, when I get past the initial "no, this is bad. Kill it with fire" reaction I can consider the idea and its implications on their own without the end being to accept them.

How do you get past that initial reaction? Because a lot of this still sounds like Ti lead with Ne PoLR with extra Se (your kill it with fire response)

On that note I don't know if it's related, but I've known a lot of people that will default take a lot of people at face-value, or simply on their words, and I've more often than other people in my social circles been the one to call out that words and deeds are incongruent--that stated ideas don't align with the implications of what else they are saying/doing. It seems like I'm the only one that will sit back and consider if someone's stated program is just a bunch of bullshit.

Sure, that's Ti. It does sound like constantly checking for Ti information, which is Ti lead > Ti creative.

You may not think you can read between the lines for what isn't said, but with the exception of last night when I was drinking I had thought I was being very restrained and precise (to the point of stress) in my presentation to avoid miscommunication. So I guess my concept of restrained is skewed of you are seeing things unspoken like Myst and Squark.

Err? I do see you as pretty restrained. With some short flashes of reaching out in those err, braggadocious displays.

I'm putting what I feel like is a lot of effort into that restraint in part because I don't know what is or is not appropriate here

What would it be like if you weren't that restrained? Would you just be more opinionated and jokey, or?

I think she means racist or nazi, or something, Myst, but if I meant race I'd have said race. I used tribe as an ambiguous word because the idea I'm trying to express is a nebulous one. It could be squad, platoon, company, town, or country sized. The scope isn't necessarily the key point. It's the shared, animating, identity and common cause with enough meaning to be internalized as a part of the self that is worth sacrificing for.

Yeah I figured you were being more abstract than just it being about races

I don't know anything about DCNH so I'll have to get back to this one later.

Yeah ok cool.

Y'all don't know 1INT in private like I do. He fronts alot of composure publicly but he's markedly more loose, irreverent, mockingly playful, energetic, booming voice, booming laugh, merry-making and bantzy. We both are fairly guarded and polite publicly, and far more candid in private in general. If Y'all knew our political views we might get banned. I've heard SLE is apparently not as 'opinionated' as LSI, and that it's due to higher Fe, except I'm an Fe-ego and I'd get burned at the stake by most moderns.

Oh it's because SLE doesn't need to stick to their Ti opinions as much, instead they will give in to Fe public opinion easier. It's really about Irrationality vs Rationality and specifically the Ti vs Fe dynamics here.

This thread is kind of a roundabout formality cause none of us are seeing the essential person, but that's the typical social issues with typology. You have to actually get to know a person to properly understand them, beyond superficial and cursory guess work conformed to theory, because what you're conforming to theory is a snippet of the fullness of their being - the tip of the iceberg beneath the surface.

Yeah, but it doesn't have to be cursory guesswork or even be purely inside the framework of the original Socionics model, because there are other things about the psychology of someone obviously beyond Socionics.

EDit: Oh and Fi PoLR makes 10x more sense for him than Ne, and he'll personally confirm that.

I'd like to hear about that more from OP yeah.

Well I think I'm sx/so after going back and reading a better explanation of what those terms actually mean, but that's something like 60% confidence at most. Input welcome there as with everything else. Working on specific responses to everything but there's quite a few and I'm slow getting moving today.

That sx/so would make sense in terms of your interests and some of your vibe too maybe.

I believe I read between lines, but I fall short in that one area I described, which is directly eliciting omitted information. I have to do it with what is already available unless someone like a Myst or Squark supplements. Rather than fill in a puzzle, I will make a succession of different pictures, each of them conditional, and jump from one to another to move forward, depending on which one actually goes somewhere.

Eh with the bolded you mean the introverted ("fields") nature of the information element. It's actually pretty explicitly present for me but that just appears so to my mind lol. The way you describe your way of thinking sounds very interesting to me for sure. How are they conditional pictures if I can ask?

[Sisyphean]

Oh ok, yeah we experience these things slightly differently, whatever (for me it's just the same level headed mode always, not particularly zen), but I get what you mean esp. with being used to things working easily. Maths though would always fascinate me lol, I'd definitely see walls sometimes but it'd often just feel interesting with me hoping that I will be able to see deeper later (that part is very Ni to me actually). In those cases it would not actually even be truly walls... just... trying to look in the undefined depths somewhere further.

lol interesting. Yeah I can't really relate to those last parts. With maths, as with programming, the focus was always on getting the answer and correctly functioning piece of software. Wanting to win and not let it beat me, or feeling like I beat it. The process of getting there was most times like pulling teeth but once I got to the goal it felt great. Not getting to the finishing line always feels like "I lost. Maybe I am dumb. Losing is what losers do."

Any time I could visualize the math problem though it became like 75% easier. Only realized that when I was in Trigonometry, and then really noticed it in Discrete Mathematics where I never had any problem at all, and I loved the class because of through it I saw logical validation of things I value, or demonstration of cool shit like how computers work.

How do you get past that initial reaction? Because a lot of this still sounds like Ti lead with Ne PoLR with extra Se (your kill it with fire response)

Mostly it's just a "Okay, this is garbage and I'm not going to accept it, but let's understand it to at least respond" more effectively to explain why it's so shitty.
There's a mutual associate of Lynx and I, who Lynx thinks is an Ne-ILE, who is very much consumed by the exploration, translation, and spreading of novel or different ideas all for its own sake. The very notion of this and the osmotic socio-cultural homogenization it propels was/is anathema to me, enough that I got loudly angry and repulsed. Eventually after a few weeks it hit me where he was coming from. It's still ass cancer for the soul but at least I "get" what he's driving at and why, even if he doesn't consciously see it yet himself. If I ever end up responding to his stuff again I can at least do it directly instead of spending hours talking past each other.

Sure, that's Ti. It does sound like constantly checking for Ti information, which is Ti lead > Ti creative.

Interesting. I would have chalked it up to a general default distrust I have in people to REALLY be straight with me.

Err? I do see you as pretty restrained. With some short flashes of reaching out in those err, braggadocious displays.

Yeah I'm mostly just intrigued that the EIE sees me as not particularly restrained and the LSI sees me as pretty restrained. Curious if there's an explanation outside of just personal differences in how people read text.

What would it be like if you weren't that restrained? Would you just be more opinionated and jokey, or?

A lot more jokes, declarative statements, teasing people, a lot of inappropriate remarks for a laugh. Less of everything being kept at 2 or 3 arms-length away. Lynx can vouch that generally when it comes to banter or pushing boundaries with jokes I don't let someone else get the last or most extreme line in, and I always double-down when I know it's someone that isn't going to get me fired or ostracized for what I say.

Yeah I figured you were being more abstract than just it being about races

I'd like to hear about that more from OP yeah.

I think he and I are both operating on the Sociotype.com LSI and SLE Fi descriptions. Bold parts are the ones that resonate

SLE Introverted Ethics (Fi)

SLEs have trouble evaluating the internal emotional state of other people unless it is accompanied by a visible emotional expression. They are typically inept at reading people's inner feelings and often do not expect people to react to them on the basis of sentiments that are not outwardly visible. They do not like it when they are judged morally or when their lack of attention to others' feelings is criticized. SLEs are uncomfortable in overly sentimental occasions, and in situations where they are expected or required to offer emotional support. Many SLEs are highly emotionally guarded, and may become touchy or apprehensive if they expect that others may judge their character harshly.

SLEs will often tread carefully in their interpersonal relationships. They may fear psychological distance from others, which they often try to overcome by seeking respect and appreciation from others. They have few qualms about taking the iniative, and they may seek affirmation by attempting to engage or protect the other person. However, on some individuals their behaviour may have the opposite effect of their intentions; their protection may be viewed as jealousy and their advances as immature or inappropriate. SLEs can usually maintain an air of formality when necessary, and have the potential to be very direct and undeceiving partners, but they tend to find such interaction stifling; they usually prefer colorful emotional environments in which they are free to act on their impulses and exert control.

SLEs are often under the impression that while they might gain respect or admiration from others, they can never be truly loved by anyone. Sometimes, SLEs can become paranoid about their relationships with others; they may fear that current relations will affect future relations in some way e.g. a bond with a potential partner in the present might "ruin" a relationship with a future spouse.

LSI Introverted Ethics (Fi, Fi)

LSIs are sometimes aware of their internal sentiments and attitudes towards others, but do not always give their emotional responses much attention. They typically are disinclined to depend upon their interpersonal attitudes or internal moral consciousness as guiding principles, instead construing reality through the lens of somewhat stiffer and less sympathetically inclined standards of behavior. They may be disinclined to critically evaluate the ethics of their systems; rather, they may take their own standards somewhat for granted and make value judgments about others based on their conformance to their own accepted principles. They may, in formal contexts, appear to be somewhat cold, harsh, and inflexible. They may have rather dispassionate, formal, black-and-white views of morality (for example, Ayn Rand's philosophy -- which was rigid, "rational" in its criticism of emotional motivations of any kind, and unfailingly unambiguous -- is a phenomenal example of an a Ti and specifically LSI approach to morality).

LSIs are often by default conventional, polite, and perhaps somewhat mechanical (or even forcible) in their approach to social interaction. They may be predisposed to pay more attention to following relevant social ettiquette and appearing personable than to directly empathizing with, relating to, or interacting spontaneously with others. They often pay less attention to or have difficulty discerning the attitudes that others harbor towards them or third parties, and may be characteristically suspicious of others' motives or attitudes.

That sx/so would make sense in terms of your interests and some of your vibe too maybe.

That's good enough for me lol. Was holding back because I'm not particularly good at objectively seeing myself so wanted to make sure I wasn't understating the "so" part once again.

[Memento Mori]

A lot more jokes, declarative statements, teasing people, a lot of inappropriate remarks for a laugh. Less of everything being kept at 2 or 3 arms-length away. Lynx can vouch that generally when it comes to banter or pushing boundaries with jokes I don't let someone else get the last or most extreme line in, and I always double-down when I know it's someone that isn't going to get me fired or ostracized for what I say.

lmao can confirm on a daily basis

[golden]

Vault said:

Yeah I'm mostly just intrigued that the EIE sees me as not particularly restrained and the LSI sees me as pretty restrained. Curious if there's an explanation outside of just personal differences in how people read text.

Oh you do seem restrained, but there’s a massive leakiness to that restraint and it comes across as inconsistent and not totally natural. There’s too much pressure behind it.

You guys can talk about tech stuff, and I have minimal interest and ability there, so I’m left staring at all the other, less intentional communication.

[Myst]

lol interesting. Yeah I can't really relate to those last parts. With maths, as with programming, the focus was always on getting the answer and correctly functioning piece of software. Wanting to win and not let it beat me, or feeling like I beat it. The process of getting there was most times like pulling teeth but once I got to the goal it felt great. Not getting to the finishing line always feels like "I lost. Maybe I am dumb. Losing is what losers do."

Any time I could visualize the math problem though it became like 75% easier. Only realized that when I was in Trigonometry, and then really noticed it in Discrete Mathematics where I never had any problem at all, and I loved the class because of through it I saw logical validation of things I value, or demonstration of cool shit like how computers work.

Ah I see. Yeah ok, I also usually just focus on the task, but sometimes I get those Ni moments. Overall a bit more of a Se approach for you there... Fitting Se base with how you focus on that primarily with winning. I also often do spatial logic btw, good trick there.

"Logical validation of things I value" in a maths class ??

Mostly it's just a "Okay, this is garbage and I'm not going to accept it, but let's understand it to at least respond" more effectively to explain why it's so shitty.
There's a mutual associate of Lynx and I, who Lynx thinks is an Ne-ILE, who is very much consumed by the exploration, translation, and spreading of novel or different ideas all for its own sake. The very notion of this and the osmotic socio-cultural homogenization it propels was/is anathema to me, enough that I got loudly angry and repulsed. Eventually after a few weeks it hit me where he was coming from. It's still ass cancer for the soul but at least I "get" what he's driving at and why, even if he doesn't consciously see it yet himself. If I ever end up responding to his stuff again I can at least do it directly instead of spending hours talking past each other.

I see, hm, just out of curiosity, where do you think he's coming from?

Interesting. I would have chalked it up to a general default distrust I have in people to REALLY be straight with me.

Alright, I would trust your evaluation of your internal motivations more than what the model would in general guess for your internal states.

Yeah I'm mostly just intrigued that the EIE sees me as not particularly restrained and the LSI sees me as pretty restrained. Curious if there's an explanation outside of just personal differences in how people read text.

She must be more sensitive to Se displays than I am.

A lot more jokes, declarative statements, teasing people, a lot of inappropriate remarks for a laugh. Less of everything being kept at 2 or 3 arms-length away. Lynx can vouch that generally when it comes to banter or pushing boundaries with jokes I don't let someone else get the last or most extreme line in, and I always double-down when I know it's someone that isn't going to get me fired or ostracized for what I say.

Ok, beta ST in any case.

I think he and I are both operating on the Sociotype.com LSI and SLE Fi descriptions. Bold parts are the ones that resonate

SLE Introverted Ethics (Fi)

SLEs have trouble evaluating the internal emotional state of other people unless it is accompanied by a visible emotional expression. They are typically inept at reading people's inner feelings and often do not expect people to react to them on the basis of sentiments that are not outwardly visible. They do not like it when they are judged morally or when their lack of attention to others' feelings is criticized. SLEs are uncomfortable in overly sentimental occasions, and in situations where they are expected or required to offer emotional support. Many SLEs are highly emotionally guarded, and may become touchy or apprehensive if they expect that others may judge their character harshly.

SLEs will often tread carefully in their interpersonal relationships. They may fear psychological distance from others, which they often try to overcome by seeking respect and appreciation from others. They have few qualms about taking the iniative, and they may seek affirmation by attempting to engage or protect the other person. However, on some individuals their behaviour may have the opposite effect of their intentions; their protection may be viewed as jealousy and their advances as immature or inappropriate. SLEs can usually maintain an air of formality when necessary, and have the potential to be very direct and undeceiving partners, but they tend to find such interaction stifling; they usually prefer colorful emotional environments in which they are free to act on their impulses and exert control.

SLEs are often under the impression that while they might gain respect or admiration from others, they can never be truly loved by anyone. Sometimes, SLEs can become paranoid about their relationships with others; they may fear that current relations will affect future relations in some way e.g. a bond with a potential partner in the present might "ruin" a relationship with a future spouse.

LSI Introverted Ethics (Fi, Fi)

LSIs are sometimes aware of their internal sentiments and attitudes towards others, but do not always give their emotional responses much attention. They typically are disinclined to depend upon their interpersonal attitudes or internal moral consciousness as guiding principles, instead construing reality through the lens of somewhat stiffer and less sympathetically inclined standards of behavior. They may be disinclined to critically evaluate the ethics of their systems; rather, they may take their own standards somewhat for granted and make value judgments about others based on their conformance to their own accepted principles. They may, in formal contexts, appear to be somewhat cold, harsh, and inflexible. They may have rather dispassionate, formal, black-and-white views of morality (for example, Ayn Rand's philosophy -- which was rigid, "rational" in its criticism of emotional motivations of any kind, and unfailingly unambiguous -- is a phenomenal example of an a Ti and specifically LSI approach to morality).

LSIs are often by default conventional, polite, and perhaps somewhat mechanical (or even forcible) in their approach to social interaction. They may be predisposed to pay more attention to following relevant social ettiquette and appearing personable than to directly empathizing with, relating to, or interacting spontaneously with others. They often pay less attention to or have difficulty discerning the attitudes that others harbor towards them or third parties, and may be characteristically suspicious of others' motives or attitudes.

OK, that does sound more Fi PoLR. Have you seen SLE-Ti vs LSI-Se descriptions too? I'll be curious about the DCNH too.

That's good enough for me lol. Was holding back because I'm not particularly good at objectively seeing myself so wanted to make sure I wasn't understating the "so" part once again.

Do keep it in mind that this one is a superficial impression for the vibe, beyond seeing that you do deal a lot with typical soc matters (politics, groups/tribe stuff). Have you looked at the combination of soc instinct with Enneagram 8 btw?

[Sisyphean]

Ah I see. Yeah ok, I also usually just focus on the task, but sometimes I get those Ni moments. Overall a bit more of a Se approach for you there... Fitting Se base with how you focus on that primarily with winning. I also often do spatial logic btw, good trick there.

Visual thinkers ftw. Spatial intelligence scores always blew away my verbal intelligence scores lol.

"Logical validation of things I value" in a maths class ??

rofl it always sounds weird to anyone I tell that to. Lynx had the same reaction like 5 years ago. The short version being that it's related to the nature of meaning and exclusion that I saw explained, implemented and demonstrated through formal logic, Set Theory, and the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of...aditional_laws

There's a longer version but I'm confident you'll see what I'm getting at since you have so far.

I see, hm, just out of curiosity, where do you think he's coming from?

That the process of that exploration and translation is valued above the things being explored or translated, and more than where he returns to from exploration and translated. The sparks started flying when he is also an advocate for robust, self-conscious, coherent, defined, and distinct cultures/nations in addition to that. The resolution came with the understanding that he promotes distinct pluralities specifically for there to continually be something to explore because on some level he grasped that he's a vehicle for cultural osmosis/blending which taken to its fullest extent produces broad homogenization which kills the opportunity to explore.

Alright, I would trust your evaluation of your internal motivations more than what the model would in general guess for your internal states.

I mean I'm not saying the model is wrong, just that I'm also generally suspicious of people so I can be pretty damn critical and exacting that there be some sort of continuity in action with what they're trying to tell me.

She must be more sensitive to Se displays than I am.

Oh those silly Beta NFs lol

Ok, beta ST in any case.

Best quadra? Yup. Best quadra.

OK, that does sound more Fi PoLR. Have you seen SLE-Ti vs LSI-Se descriptions too? I'll be curious about the DCNH too.

I've seen SLE-Ti vs LSI-Se ones. I'm kind of mixed on those but if I had to choose I'd say SLE-Ti sounds right more often that LSI-Se. Still picking through the DCNH stuff. Again I'm torn, but if I had to choose for that I'd lean more towards N-SLE than C-LSI considering both my own impressions and those that you three and Lynx have said.

Do keep it in mind that this one is a superficial impression for the vibe, beyond seeing that you do deal a lot with typical soc matters (politics, groups/tribe stuff). Have you looked at the combination of soc instinct with Enneagram 8 btw?

I haven't yet, actually. Do you have a good resource for Enneagram + instinct?

[Myst]

rofl it always sounds weird to anyone I tell that to. Lynx had the same reaction like 5 years ago. The short version being that it's related to the nature of meaning and exclusion that I saw explained, implemented and demonstrated through formal logic, Set Theory, and the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of...aditional_laws

There's a longer version but I'm confident you'll see what I'm getting at since you have so far.

Hm well what kind of meaning and exclusion? The formal logic itself is clear but not what you had in mind about meaning/exclusion.

That the process of that exploration and translation is valued above the things being explored or translated, and more than where he returns to from exploration and translated. The sparks started flying when he is also an advocate for robust, self-conscious, coherent, defined, and distinct cultures/nations in addition to that. The resolution came with the understanding that he promotes distinct pluralities specifically for there to continually be something to explore because on some level he grasped that he's a vehicle for cultural osmosis/blending which taken to its fullest extent produces broad homogenization which kills the opportunity to explore.

Gotcha lol, good point there

I mean I'm not saying the model is wrong, just that I'm also generally suspicious of people so I can be pretty damn critical and exacting that there be some sort of continuity in action with what they're trying to tell me.

Yeah I relate to this a lot, the idea is whether you do continuously track with Ti or more with Se. This sounds like a whole load of Ti here and reminds me of myself strongly.

Oh those silly Beta NFs lol

Yeah ....

Best quadra? Yup. Best quadra.

I've seen SLE-Ti vs LSI-Se ones. I'm kind of mixed on those but if I had to choose I'd say SLE-Ti sounds right more often that LSI-Se. Still picking through the DCNH stuff. Again I'm torn, but if I had to choose for that I'd lean more towards N-SLE than C-LSI considering both my own impressions and those that you three and Lynx have said.

Mind elaborating on this?

I haven't yet, actually. Do you have a good resource for Enneagram + instinct?

This isn't too bad: http://oceanmoonshine9.wordpress.com/

[Myst]

@1INT Vault Dweller

I reread the DCNH stuff, I currently think LSI-C for you, but if I see anything that is out of place with that, I'll let you know. Currently what mainly seems out of place with it is your SeTi-ish description of how you plan but that's just one thing on its own...

My main reason for LSI-C though is that the overall description fits you and that you are a tiny bit too playful and quite light for SLE-N, along with how much you focus on Ti declarations, and what @golden said about Se leaking would fit Se creative better anyway. I have been told a similar thing IRL... i.e. that my Se is like spilling out all the time in interactions.

[Sisyphean]

Hm well what kind of meaning and exclusion? The formal logic itself is clear but not what you had in mind about meaning/exclusion.

That things are equally and simultaneously defined by what they are and what they are not [A =/= ~A; A == ~(~A)], that meaning (of everything, but particularly groups of people) derives from its distinction and exclusion from what it is not. The more inclusive a set, the more broadly a set is defined, the less meaningful and less useful it becomes, and the less proximate in its value to the individuals included. The fewer allowed in then the more meaning it has to the ones that are allowed in. In that way the most meaning is in 2-person sets (eg. husband and wife, battle-buddies, brothers by choice), next up the fire-team sized group, squad, platoon, company, in concentric social circles, and beyond that things start getting so inclusive that the only sense of meaningful kinship is through abstracts and symbols rather than direct relationships with the people claiming to be "your people."

Am I willing to sacrifice for "humanity?" Fuck no. What would I sacrifice for my family and closest friends that know me better than my own blood? Everything, and with a smile on my face.

Gotcha lol, good point there

As soon as it hit me I felt like going .

Yeah I relate to this a lot, the idea is whether you do continuously track with Ti or more with Se. This sounds like a whole load of Ti here and reminds me of myself strongly.

Hmm. Maybe some of the subtype stuff can help clear some of that up. If not I'll have to think some more on that. Might post the parts that resonate from your link to the aspects of valued functions

Mind elaborating on this?

Based on the descriptions it sounds seems like ~60% of SLE-Ti and N-SLE descriptions apply and ~50-55% of the LSI-Se and C-LSI descriptions do.

Sensory subtype Se-ISTj (Se-LSI)

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Appearance
The sensory subtype appears more restless in behavior and internally emotional than the logical subtype. May seem somewhat restrained yet also obstinate and stubborn in his views, willing to enter conflicts when his opinions are not honored. Self-controlled and impersonal in his demeanor. Dislikes objections and lengthy explanations. Often watches the actions of others in order to try to assist them or to point out their mistakes. Sometimes in indignation he makes reprimanding remarks, other times he simply completes the task himself or tries to help another person do it better. Flaring up, he can become unduly sharp and absolutist in his statements. Occasionally he tries to amend the situation and smiles with kindness and charm. He walks at a rapid pace, placing his feet as if he is "stamping" the ground. Makes an impression of a well-coordinated and active person. Dresses conservatively, but aims for an aesthetically pleasant, even stylish, appearance. In conversation, he attempts to get closer to his partner but doesn't make direct contact. Not inclined to overly sensitive, affectionate, and permissive treatment.
Character
He is persistent in achieving his goals. Orients quickly in extreme situations, displaying considerable willpower, endurance, and practical resourcefulness. Able to protect the interests of his project or business with energy and obstinacy in various situations. Usually confident in his opinions, which he bases on facts and his experience. Sometimes manifests excessive obstinacy and intractability. Dislikes being objected to or when someone else tries to impose their will or working methods on him. Inquisitive, accumulates useful information. Often has interests in areas of morality, art, and legislation. Refers to novel and differing points of view with distrust and suspicion, since it is quite difficult for him to change his positions and way of thinking.
Can apply pressure on his subordinates if he is in a leadership position, forcing them to work conscientiously; inclined to "tighten the screws" giving instructions in imperative intonation; will check if his orders have been carried out. If his arguments are not taken under consideration, may flare up and try to force others to do everything as it should be done. Internally disapproves of violations of established regulations. Assesses and judges work by the difficulties and challenges that were overcome during its implementation. Applies the same requirements to everyone without taking individual abilities and circumstances into account.
From time to time needs an emotional discharge to alleviate his inner tensions. In such cases does not hide his emotions and waits for reciprocal sincerity from his partner. Finds it difficult to attain inner balance. At times he loses his restraint and with an outburst can undermine previously established relationships. He is not always able to maintain stable and friendly relations with other people due to his intransigence and straightforwardness of his views and opinions. Despite this, he is usually quite hardy and enduring, both on emotional and physical level.
Rarely talks about his own feelings and personal affairs; and if he does, he speaks about such subjects to very few people. Does not delve deeply into the personal lives of other people, except may be out of politeness. Considers it his duty to help other people in difficult moments; in such cases he shows attentiveness and sympathy and tries to provide the necessary service. Poorly discerns how other people relate to him; due to this it is inclined to doubt their sincerity, or, conversely, can mistake his own desire to be loved for actual love. Prone to harboring ill-founded suspicions.
Hardworking, takes on many tasks and chores thinking that he can do them better than others. Dedicated to taking care of his loved ones and does so selflessly feeling responsible for their well-being. Tries to provide everything that is needed for his household. Watches for cleanliness and order; strives for aesthetics in appearance and his everyday life. Inclined to create comfort, but dislikes excesses. Feels irritated when others touch his things or do something without his permission.


Logical subtype Ti-ESTp (Ti-SLE)

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Appearance
Leaves an impression of calm strength and self-assurance. Rational and consistent in his affairs. Hardworking and enduring. Usually he is cold-blooded, restrained, collected and unfazed, but in moments of irritation does not conceal his anger, which shows in his look and in sudden categorical gestures. When he is calm, he is polite and courteous, tough keeps his conversation partners at a distance. His humor is blunt and can be somewhat crude. Sometimes he has a fast moving, distrustful look that looks from under his eyebrows. Appearance is usually serious, somewhat guarded and alert. Gait and gestures are harmonious, flowing, and precise. Dresses somewhat monotonously, and strictly, although at times surprisingly brightly and extravagantly. Values quality in clothing, occasionally putting together sets from only a few items. In most cases has a tendency to not stand out. This applies both to how he behaves and how he dresses. Seems cold and inaccessible, even though he tries to be appropriate, even-tempered and well-wishing towards others. Holds himself with dignity.
Character
Balanced and self-controlled. Tries not to lose his composure under any circumstances. Restrained and appropriate in his statements, but at times can flare up. Feels very upset when he has lost his temper in front of other people. Authoritative and serious, has a well-developed sense of self-worth. Prefers to talk about that in which he considers himself competent. Relies on official and trusted source of information. Distrustful of new theories, hypotheses, and assumptions that haven't been tested in practice. Skeptical of the occult and the esoteric.
This is a person of action and not reflection. When the time comes to react, he orients quickly in the changing circumstances, boldly takes risks, carefully weighting all chances and not losing his interests from sight. Enthusiastically takes up new tasks, projects, or business. Interested in laws and instructions. Can maintain good documentation (LOL). If he is asked for advice or a consultation, delves into the details of the issue and gives concrete advice. Predisposes other people towards himself by giving them his attention and providing his services.
Mobilizes beforehand to overcome obstacles, calculating ahead of time all the risks of current situation. Always has a good sense of the real situation, and knows how to extract benefit from it. Knows how to properly arrange people to carry out a job or assignment. Well perceptive of other people's business acumen and capabilities. However, finds it difficult to evaluate more distant prospects of projects and relationships.
Grows bored if he doesn't find an application to his abilities, or if he has to finish something he's lost an interest in or that which has no practical interest for him. Only new experiences and impressions and frequent changes in activity raise his vitality.
Rationalistic, pragmatic, and hard working. Very logical and practical in his activities and in business. Punctual, responsible, demanding of himself and expects the same from others. Looks to quality in everything. Unforgiving of simulation and negligence. Evaluates efficacy not by the efforts expended but by the final outcome. Likes to act boldly, takes big risks, but prepares for it thoroughly and in detail.
Discerning and sensible, speaks with a confident tone, tries to convince by facts. Very practical, dislikes theories and pointless activities. In contact with strangers via indirect questions assesses their position in society, connections and capabilities. Looks for common ground and ways in which it is possible to come together to solve common business interests. Undemonstrative, but when a chance presents itself likes to emphasize his achievements. Proud, if he has achieved everything in his life by his own effort.
Authoritarian and possesses a strong will, but, if needed, can demonstrate flexibility in communication, even make temporary concessions for the sake of reaching his ultimate goal. Understands the importance of material and financial incentives, knows how to use them, without losing his own benefit. Shows a friendly, well-wishing attitude towards others, but in work and business requires unity and unanimity.
Considers restraint in expressing feelings to be a guarantee of their seriousness and reliability. Proud, doesn't impose his company, doesn't know how to entertain guests. Rarely makes compliments even towards women. Lives by his mind and puts business above personal sympathies, due to which may unwittingly offend other people, himself not attaching any importance to this. Afraid of falling into dependency, even on people who are close to him. Quite secretive, doesn't like when others try to "climb into his soul". Can deflect a direct conversation and skillfully place his conversation partner on the spot.
In his heart, he is a bit guarded, mistrustful and suspecting. Afraid of trickery and betrayal by those whom he trusts. Inclined to fall into pessimism and melancholy. Ponders over his problems, especially of personal nature, tries not to share them with people around him. Opens up his heart and soul only to very close and tested friends. In moments of despair, needs understanding, compassion and consolation, but due to his mistrust he doesn't risk to open up and be honest. Not seldom turns to alcohol to relieve stress and tensions.

This isn't too bad: http://oceanmoonshine9.wordpress.com/

[Sisyphean]

@1INT Vault Dweller

I reread the DCNH stuff, I currently think LSI-C for you, but if I see anything that is out of place with that, I'll let you know. Currently what mainly seems out of place with it is your SeTi-ish description of how you plan but that's just one thing on its own...

My main reason for LSI-C though is that the overall description fits you and that you are a tiny bit too playful and quite light for SLE-N, along with how much you focus on Ti declarations, and what @golden said about Se leaking would fit Se creative better anyway. I have been told a similar thing IRL... i.e. that my Se is like spilling out all the time in interactions.

I was thinking that the Se-LSI description sounded more in line with what golden said and oddly the quote you posted talking about Ti-SLE. Hmm...

[Myst]

That things are equally and simultaneously defined by what they are and what they are not [A =/= ~A; A == ~(~A)], that meaning (of everything, but particularly groups of people) derives from its distinction and exclusion from what it is not. The more inclusive a set, the more broadly a set is defined, the less meaningful and less useful it becomes, and the less proximate in its value to the individuals included. The fewer allowed in then the more meaning it has to the ones that are allowed in. In that way the most meaning is in 2-person sets (eg. husband and wife, battle-buddies, brothers by choice), next up the fire-team sized group, squad, platoon, company, in concentric social circles, and beyond that things start getting so inclusive that the only sense of meaningful kinship is through abstracts and symbols rather than direct relationships with the people claiming to be "your people."

Am I willing to sacrifice for "humanity?" Fuck no. What would I sacrifice for my family and closest friends that know me better than my own blood? Everything, and with a smile on my face.

Interesting associations.

As for how much it may relate to typing, I have to say that's very serious Ti reasoning, doesn't seem like light playing SLE's Ti creative would do, but something you take actually seriously and don't change around just for fun, also finding Fe (people related information) in the Ti logic lol, also I would say this is very LSI overall with your particular values displayed in your logic here (very Seish/Feish) and also Ne PoLR for the real dislike of broadness for definitions. (Ok, this latter one is a slightly speculative association here I made but it reminds me of that anyway.)

As soon as it hit me I felt like going .

It's actually a cool reasoning, not that trivial.

Hmm. Maybe some of the subtype stuff can help clear some of that up. If not I'll have to think some more on that. Might post the parts that resonate from your link to the aspects of valued functions

Feel free to.

Based on the descriptions it sounds seems like ~60% of SLE-Ti and N-SLE descriptions apply and ~50-55% of the LSI-Se and C-LSI descriptions do.

OK, the thing is do you see any overall pattern of attitudes/approaches to things in any of these descriptions that you can identify with?

I was thinking that the Se-LSI description sounded more in line with what golden said and oddly the quote you posted talking about Ti-SLE. Hmm...

Yeah, I agree on the Se-LSI thing. Err, which quote?


PS: As for enneagram, if 8 soc doesn't fit, try 6 soc.

[Sisyphean]

Interesting associations.

As for how much it may relate to typing, I have to say that's very serious Ti reasoning, doesn't seem like light playing SLE's Ti creative would do, but something you take actually seriously and don't change around just for fun, also finding Fe (people related information) in the Ti logic lol, also I would say this is very LSI overall with your particular values displayed in your logic here (very Seish/Feish) and also Ne PoLR for the real dislike of broadness for definitions. (Ok, this latter one is a slightly speculative association here I made but it reminds me of that anyway.)

It felt pretty damn Ti while I was typing it lol. And you're exactly right, this thinking does not change. I'd have to rethink a whole lot of how I understand most things if that were up for debate lol. It's the bedrock of anything else I think or endorse, and it's the deal-breaker I check new information against when I'm playing with a new idea. The part about Ne PoLR is a pretty cool idea if it holds up. Too bad the sample size is basically 1 or 2 lol.

It's actually a cool reasoning, not that trivial.

lol well that's nice to hear. It felt so obvious when it clicked. Like I was trying to force what he was saying/thinking through my own mindset. Square peg just wouldn't go through the damn round hole, then eventually it occurred to think "maybe he's coming at all this from a totally shit-brained angle....let's see if that makes more sense."

Breaking news: square pegs go through square holes. Who knew?

OK, the thing is do you see any overall pattern of attitudes/approaches to things in any of these descriptions that you can identify with?

The overall lesser sense of being "level" with the C-LSI than the N-SLE. As you said the impression of their vibes seems off. N-SLE feels "flat" when i read it if that makes any sense.

Yeah, I agree on the Se-LSI thing. Err, which quote?

PS: As for enneagram, if 8 soc doesn't fit, try 6 soc.

lol this quote "Ti-SLEs, especially the 3s, can seem very composed, especially in a professional setting, and have a distinct almost dangerous-seeming coldness to them, but even then you can see a tinge of that potential skater punk/surfer just below the surface, ready to cut loose at the first sight of ruckus." definitely sounds more like C-LSI than N-SLE from what I'm reading
6 sx/so sounds pretty damn close, particularly if with a 5-wing. At the same time a handful of 853 descriptions sound just as close. When going to just an individual, leading number, though I'd say a counterphobic 6 fits better than 8. Power for its own sake has never really turned me on as much as power for something, if that makes sense.

[Myst]

It felt pretty damn Ti while I was typing it lol. And you're exactly right, this thinking does not change. I'd have to rethink a whole lot of how I understand most things if that were up for debate lol. It's the bedrock of anything else I think or endorse, and it's the deal-breaker I check new information against when I'm playing with a new idea. The part about Ne PoLR is a pretty cool idea if it holds up. Too bad the sample size is basically 1 or 2 lol.

That's Ti lead totally by definition.

lol well that's nice to hear. It felt so obvious when it clicked. Like I was trying to force what he was saying/thinking through my own mindset. Square peg just wouldn't go through the damn round hole, then eventually it occurred to think "maybe he's coming at all this from a totally shit-brained angle....let's see if that makes more sense."

Breaking news: square pegs go through square holes. Who knew?

That strongly reminds me of Ne PoLR of LSI. With the inflexibility of thinking, forcing things one way until finally getting a hunch (from Ni?) for the right direction. This is how it comes off to me, what you are saying here.

The overall lesser sense of being "level" with the C-LSI than the N-SLE. As you said the impression of their vibes seems off. N-SLE feels "flat" when i read it if that makes any sense.

Err, flat in what sense?

lol this quote "Ti-SLEs, especially the 3s, can seem very composed, especially in a professional setting, and have a distinct almost dangerous-seeming coldness to them, but even then you can see a tinge of that potential skater punk/surfer just below the surface, ready to cut loose at the first sight of ruckus." definitely sounds more like C-LSI than N-SLE from what I'm reading

To me these are not the same impressions, but it's hard to put into words. It's like, for SLE the Se is always there even if more in the background for the introverted subtypes, and not just pulled / spilled out in bits. I hope this made sense, let me know.

6 sx/so sounds pretty damn close, particularly if with a 5-wing. At the same time a handful of 853 descriptions sound just as close. When going to just an individual, leading number, though I'd say a counterphobic 6 fits better than 8. Power for its own sake has never really turned me on as much as power for something, if that makes sense.

Yeah, this makes sense. Also happens to be closer to Se creative than Se base with the bolded.

[Sisyphean]

That's Ti lead totally by definition.

Well there we go, then, I suppose lmao

That strongly reminds me of Ne PoLR of LSI. With the inflexibility of thinking, forcing things one way until finally getting a hunch (from Ni?) for the right direction. This is how it comes off to me, what you are saying here.

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across (and likely failing because I'm pretty shit at putting things like this into words without examples if it's not concrete) with how I experience "tunnel vision" in the other thread, as well. If I'm Ne PoLR would subtype play any role in why Fi at least seems so much more consciously sensitive?

Err, flat in what sense?

Like a flat affect, non-expressive (or at least less so than most), or still. I'm having a hard time getting my hands around the words again.

To me these are not the same impressions, but it's hard to put into words. It's like, for SLE the Se is always there even if more in the background for the introverted subtypes, and not just pulled / spilled out in bits. I hope this made sense, let me know.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I get you. Which impression would you say applies more, though? Dunno how indicative of type it would be, but I tend to have a poor sense of the impression I give, so I'm curious.

Yeah, this makes sense. Also happens to be closer to Se creative than Se base with the bolded.

Interesting, I would have guessed Se lead just from "power to affect a change," gut I think I get it with Se serving something else.

[Sisyphean]

Based on what you said re. dislike for extreme individuality etc. I don't think you're a creative type in DCNH

Huh, interesting. I'm not saying your wrong, but I am saying I have been known to be a hypocrite about a couple things.

Is it individualistic to break from a culture of ubiquitous ideological individualism?

Asking those big-brain questions like the guy who only took 1 philosophy class.

[Sisyphean]

Well, I think how you've described yourself fits D first, and N second, based on this LINK -but as always, take a look for yourself and see what you think about it =)

Much obliged lol for the info and the input =)

[Myst]

Well there we go, then, I suppose lmao

Yeah.

Maybe yeah, your self-typing was perfectly fine in the first place, but it never hurts to learn more about stuff, I suppose.

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across (and likely failing because I'm pretty shit at putting things like this into words without examples if it's not concrete) with how I experience "tunnel vision" in the other thread, as well. If I'm Ne PoLR would subtype play any role in why Fi at least seems so much more consciously sensitive?

Well, Role function's information processing is more conscious than PoLR. It might be what you see going on. (I used to relate to Fi PoLR too until I understood how it actually works in xLEs.)

But to answer your question, yeah Inert/Contact and Accepting/Producing subtype theories do try to state things about how the Role function works out, but I personally don't buy that stuff. I only apply two-subtype theory to Ego functions (i.e. is the Creative function strengthened or not) because the rest can be affected by so many other things outside the typology model. This model is just some really general statements about how you focus on types of information processing where even the types of information are very general categories (yet useful in some ways which is what proves continually surprising to my Ne PoLR ;p).

Going back to what you related to in Fi PoLR vs Fi role in an earlier post of yours, why did you not bold (in Fi role) "They typically are disinclined to depend upon their interpersonal attitudes or internal moral consciousness as guiding principles, instead construing reality through the lens of somewhat stiffer and less sympathetically inclined standards of behavior"? Your logic'ing stuff out above seems like a good example of this actually. Tbh though this sentence as quoted is quite awkward in terms of it attempting to express the difference between Fi and Ti.

Like a flat affect, non-expressive (or at least less so than most), or still. I'm having a hard time getting my hands around the words again.

And the LSI one feels like what in contrast?

Yeah I'm pretty sure I get you. Which impression would you say applies more, though? Dunno how indicative of type it would be, but I tend to have a poor sense of the impression I give, so I'm curious.

For you? The Se creative one, with the Se easily showing up in those "bits".

Interesting, I would have guessed Se lead just from "power to affect a change," but I think I get it with Se serving something else.

Yeah that's the point

Is it individualistic to break from a culture of ubiquitous ideological individualism?

You could say. And you just said above that you care more about your close people than overall society. BTW I would think that's true of basically everyone ofc, on a visceral level, but not everyone puts that in an ideology like you did. I don't do it the same way myself (i.e. don't put it in the same ideology, don't emphasise it in the same way), but idk if this is DCNH related even, quite honestly. Overall I don't really try to attribute such specific things to DCNH because it can be affected by too many other things. DCNH is more about where your energy is focused in terms of the IEs, without that focus having to be extra cognitive information processing. I.e. you may be D in DCNH but yet not have enhanced information processing cognitively of Te/Fe/Se of D subtype, just energetically (which to me means that it might require more information processing just on a rudimentary level, not on the higher cognitive level if that makes sense - but this is not a very clear part of how all this might work, so just mentioning this).

One more note before I have to go do other things, I do think the erratic energy pattern for work/inspiration/stagnation etc of C, for what it's worth, it does fit what you described about yourself in your IE thread earlier.

[Sisyphean]

Yeah.

Maybe yeah, your self-typing was perfectly fine in the first place, but it never hurts to learn more about stuff, I suppose.

Always good to get a second opinion, too, when someone else has been at this way longer and more diligently lol

Well, Role function's information processing is more conscious than PoLR. It might be what you see going on. (I used to relate to Fi PoLR too until I understood how it actually works in xLEs.)

That sounds like it might be it, then. My (presumably) Ne-ILE associate's mental meanderings get under my skin but I generally feel more acutely aware of not having a solid grip on where I stand with people, reading too much into what I think I see, and misjudging it with some painful/embarrassing consequences.

But to answer your question, yeah Inert/Contact and Accepting/Producing subtype theories do try to state things about how the Role function works out, but I personally don't buy that stuff. I only apply two-subtype theory to Ego functions (i.e. is the Creative function strengthened or not) because the rest can be affected by so many other things outside the typology model. This model is just some really general statements about how you focus on types of information processing where even the types of information are very general categories (yet useful in some ways which is what proves continually surprising to my Ne PoLR ;p).

Ha! Duly noted lol. I'll take a look with a grain of salt.

Going back to what you related to in Fi PoLR vs Fi role in an earlier post of yours, why did you not bold (in Fi role) "They typically are disinclined to depend upon their interpersonal attitudes or internal moral consciousness as guiding principles, instead construing reality through the lens of somewhat stiffer and less sympathetically inclined standards of behavior"? Your logic'ing stuff out above seems like a good example of this actually. Tbh though this sentence as quoted is quite awkward in terms of it attempting to express the difference between Fi and Ti.

Well I mostly didn't bold that over the disinclination to depending on internal moral consciousness. I can be a sanctimonious son of a bitch, particularly in the face of ideas/systems/people with an implicit "inclusivist" (my own term: inclusivity is an end unto itself without limit) mindset. But many times those are things not in the realm of true/false since the embedded assumption for my point of view is actually valuing Meaning as opposed to striving for its metaphysical maximum entropy.

I may be radically misunderstanding Fi in Socionics, though.

And the LSI one feels like what in contrast?

Expressive, unsettled, erratic, mercurial, and from that more relatable =P.

For you? The Se creative one, with the Se easily showing up in those "bits".

Awesome thanks for clarifying lol. I was digging on the other one, too, a bit, but I'd rather have an accurate idea of how I come across.

You could say. And you just said above that you care more about your close people than overall society. BTW I would think that's true of basically everyone ofc, on a visceral level, but not everyone puts that in an ideology like you did. I don't do it the same way myself (i.e. don't put it in the same ideology, don't emphasise it in the same way), but idk if this is DCNH related even, quite honestly. Overall I don't really try to attribute such specific things to DCNH because it can be affected by too many other things. DCNH is more about where your energy is focused in terms of the IEs, without that focus having to be extra cognitive information processing. I.e. you may be D in DCNH but yet not have enhanced information processing cognitively of Te/Fe/Se of D subtype, just energetically (which to me means that it might require more information processing just on a rudimentary level, not on the higher cognitive level if that makes sense - but this is not a very clear part of how all this might work, so just mentioning this).

One more note before I have to go do other things, I do think the erratic energy pattern for work/inspiration/stagnation etc of C, for what it's worth, it does fit what you described about yourself in your IE thread earlier.

Thanks for all the assists, and have a good day.

If I'm understanding this right, and if I'm an LSI, that would mean energy devoted to Se, Ne, and Fe? All 3 or just some? Sounds like that could lead to some weird interplay with PoLR Ne. Would this be in addition to or in place of the other kinds of notation like Se-LSI?

When you get the chance I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on the descriptions by Vera Borisova here. They seem a bit different than Gulenko's so figure I ought to check with an expert before running with it

[FDG]

Y'all don't know 1INT in private like I do. He fronts alot of composure publicly but he's markedly more loose, irreverent, mockingly playful, energetic, booming voice, booming laugh, merry-making and bantzy.

It's quite typical for LSIs to be this way in private, even more than SLEs - it's even listed as as a "weak point" on socionics.com (some people find this behavior weird):

You also have a tendency to appear unrestrained and even rough when in the company of people you know well.

From:

http://www.socionics.com/advan/prof/istj.htm

[Myst]

Always good to get a second opinion, too, when someone else has been at this way longer and more diligently lol

Well you decide for yourself in the end ofc.

That sounds like it might be it, then. My (presumably) Ne-ILE associate's mental meanderings get under my skin but I generally feel more acutely aware of not having a solid grip on where I stand with people, reading too much into what I think I see, and misjudging it with some painful/embarrassing consequences.

Yeah neither LSI nor SLE is great at that.

Well I mostly didn't bold that over the disinclination to depending on internal moral consciousness. I can be a sanctimonious son of a bitch, particularly in the face of ideas/systems/people with an implicit "inclusivist" (my own term: inclusivity is an end unto itself without limit) mindset. But many times those are things not in the realm of true/false since the embedded assumption for my point of view is actually valuing Meaning as opposed to striving for its metaphysical maximum entropy.

I may be radically misunderstanding Fi in Socionics, though.

Oh it was poorly worded, they meant the Fi type of moral consciousness... that's a very personally felt thing, and cannot be reasoned with explicit logic.

Can you flesh out your last sentence, I don't know what you meant about things not being true/false there.

Expressive, unsettled, erratic, mercurial, and from that more relatable =P.

Makes sense.

Awesome thanks for clarifying lol. I was digging on the other one, too, a bit, but I'd rather have an accurate idea of how I come across.

Thanks for all the assists, and have a good day.

Np

If I'm understanding this right, and if I'm an LSI, that would mean energy devoted to Se, Ne, and Fe? All 3 or just some? Sounds like that could lead to some weird interplay with PoLR Ne. Would this be in addition to or in place of the other kinds of notation like Se-LSI?

Se/Ne and a bit of Fe supposedly. It would be in addition. Since two-subtype system would be working on the cognitive level. I'm not sure how DCNH C exactly works with PoLR Ne, but the LSI-C girl I knew before (also Se subtype) tried to create explanations for stuff a bit more freely compared to stereotypical LSI. But even if she would end up connecting two things too fast that turned out to be unrelated in the end and thus being speculative the wrong way, she was still going by formal logical reasoning on top of the ideas. We were both interested in cognitive psychology and I did like her attempts at associating things even if she was wrong sometimes. Also, these associations overall seemed cognitively more Ni than Ne to me. From my D subtype POV, it just looks pretty witty too, the ability to bring up special ideas in conversation in an almost colourful imaginative style even if the person has Ne PoLR. But again in the case of LSI cognitively it comes off as Ni to me, even if Ne's creative energy drives it, or something like that.

When you get the chance I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on the descriptions by Vera Borisova here. They seem a bit different than Gulenko's so figure I ought to check with an expert before running with it

I don't really buy the idea of correlating the DCNH to function positions. What do you find different for yourself in these descriptions?

[Sisyphean]

Well you decide for yourself in the end ofc.

For sure, but you're definitely being a big help in that endeavor.

Oh it was poorly worded, they meant the Fi type of moral consciousness... that's a very personally felt thing, and cannot be reasoned with explicit logic.

Can you flesh out your last sentence, I don't know what you meant about things not being true/false there.

Oh I just meant things valued in terms of good/bad or [morally] right/wrong, as opposed to verifiable/falsifiable. I think what I said before about Meaning can be logically demonstrated to be sound, but bottom-line "why does that matter" is a question of an assumption giving or denying subjective value to Meaning. Other cases there are things that I value & defend because they appeal to me, and when someone tries to tell me I shouldn't or that's bad or w/e they can go get fucked by a two-by-four with rusty nails in it. I like looking at Scarlett Johansson more than a 200lb woman with green hair, I like quiet tight communities with high social capital more than disintegrated multi-cultural metropolises, I like having a notion of brotherhood that can only extend to my best male friends more than an alienated atomized existence of consumption and lonliness. If someone demands I justify these things, or things like them, all they're going to get is a "fuck off."

The only asterisk I would put on a lot of that was that I used to try to come up with and present logical defenses, because I still played the Rationalist Logical Positivist game. Studying Discrete Mathematics, a fair amount of Sociology, and a dash of psychology (Dunbar's Number, Robber's Cave Experiment, Behavioral Sinks, group strategy simulations, etc) on my own time gave better explanations for why I do value the things I do and gave "permission" to just run with that as opposed to trying to justify why I should or shouldn't value something.

I'm still not completely sure if the chicken (Ti) or the Egg (some other function) came first in rewiring my thinking from the goofy autistic libertarian days.

Se/Ne and a bit of Fe supposedly. It would be in addition. Since two-subtype system would be working on the cognitive level. I'm not sure how DCNH C exactly works with PoLR Ne, but the LSI-C girl I knew before (also Se subtype) tried to create explanations for stuff a bit more freely compared to stereotypical LSI. But even if she would end up connecting two things too fast that turned out to be unrelated in the end and thus being speculative the wrong way, she was still going by formal logical reasoning on top of the ideas. We were both interested in cognitive psychology and I did like her attempts at associating things even if she was wrong sometimes. Also, these associations overall seemed cognitively more Ni than Ne to me. From my D subtype POV, it just looks pretty witty too, the ability to bring up special ideas in conversation in an almost colourful imaginative style even if the person has Ne PoLR. But again in the case of LSI cognitively it comes off as Ni to me, even if Ne's creative energy drives it, or something like that.

Interesting, thanks for the example and explanation. If that extra Ne energy manifests as wit in conversations I'm pretty cool with that lol. I sometimes feel like I leap without looking in some connections, or do so between things where the connection seems very strange, obscure, or strained to most people and have to go back and try to walk them through. I wonder if that had anything to do with people thinking I was just a very aggressive LII for a while.

I don't really buy the idea of correlating the DCNH to function positions. What do you find different for yourself in these descriptions?

Mostly the initial 'appearance' descriptions sounding extremely "blanket" or across the board. Saying that Dominant types look most like their base type descriptions (not seeing that for anything other than EJs), and saying Creative types look like their Mirrors (not seeing that for EPs, like how would an SLE-C look like an LSI?).

[Myst]

For sure, but you're definitely being a big help in that endeavor.

Glad if I could help

Oh I just meant things valued in terms of good/bad or [morally] right/wrong, as opposed to verifiable/falsifiable. I think what I said before about Meaning can be logically demonstrated to be sound, but bottom-line "why does that matter" is a question of an assumption giving or denying subjective value to Meaning. Other cases there are things that I value & defend because they appeal to me, and when someone tries to tell me I shouldn't or that's bad or w/e they can go get fucked by a two-by-four with rusty nails in it. I like looking at Scarlett Johansson more than a 200lb woman with green hair, I like quiet tight communities with high social capital more than disintegrated multi-cultural metropolises, I like having a notion of brotherhood that can only extend to my best male friends more than an alienated atomized existence of consumption and lonliness. If someone demands I justify these things, or things like them, all they're going to get is a "fuck off."

The only asterisk I would put on a lot of that was that I used to try to come up with and present logical defenses, because I still played the Rationalist Logical Positivist game. Studying Discrete Mathematics, a fair amount of Sociology, and a dash of psychology (Dunbar's Number, Robber's Cave Experiment, Behavioral Sinks, group strategy simulations, etc) on my own time gave better explanations for why I do value the things I do and gave "permission" to just run with that as opposed to trying to justify why I should or shouldn't value something.

Ok I see what you meant. Hmm, as an aside, for the Robber's Cave experiment you mention,

"Sherif noted that hostile and aggressive attitudes toward an outgroup arise when groups compete for resources that only one group can attain. Sherif also establishes that contact with an outgroup is insufficient, by itself, to reduce negative attitudes. Finally, he concludes that friction between groups can be reduced along with positive intergroup relations maintained, only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote united, cooperative action."

That's very much in line with how I view things too. Issues for people are determined a lot by available resources. Until humanity can have such superordinate goals for organizing united action, yeah, there'll be such opposition between people. Good question whether the latter can ever be achieved. I don't want to go off topic here though lol.

I'm still not completely sure if the chicken (Ti) or the Egg (some other function) came first in rewiring my thinking from the goofy autistic libertarian days.

Well if you get to have more thoughts on that, feel free to post anytime. Is anything in particular making you unsure, if you even care to think about that any longer?

Interesting, thanks for the example and explanation. If that extra Ne energy manifests as wit in conversations I'm pretty cool with that lol. I sometimes feel like I leap without looking in some connections, or do so between things where the connection seems very strange, obscure, or strained to most people and have to go back and try to walk them through. I wonder if that had anything to do with people thinking I was just a very aggressive LII for a while.

Hm lol LII for you really doesn't fit. By default you are way more concrete and grounded sounding compared to them. And sure, I did need to ask you sometimes what you mean but mostly I could follow your ideas/reasoning and you do seem to always have logical reasoning for it, so, I can see how you present some "obscure" connections but I can handle it fine and find it rather interesting actually.

Mostly the initial 'appearance' descriptions sounding extremely "blanket" or across the board. Saying that Dominant types look most like their base type descriptions (not seeing that for anything other than EJs), and saying Creative types look like their Mirrors (not seeing that for EPs, like how would an SLE-C look like an LSI?).

Yeah, I don't agree with those extra ideas either.

[Sisyphean]

You're talking Borisova's article? She explains creative types as having "watered down" type features. It's because both the introverted and extroverted elements need to be drawn upon for creative mindset. A creative SLE or ILE will accentuate the analytic features of Ti, the system-building of Ti. A creative SEE or IEE the interconnectedness of Fi, and so on, as extroverted elements expand outward, introverted elements draw connections between things, and both are necessary in a creative mindset, blurring the lines between types, making them look less like any particular type overall. While they overall have an EP kind of flavor (and the creative SLEs and ILEs don't look IJ, they still look EP) pointing to specific element usage becomes more difficult.

She also explains what she means by the D types looking more like their base types when she says In other words, they are more clear ego types. If they're Te lead, you'll see that Te lead pushed outward in EJ fashion. If they're Fi lead, they'll be blatantly Fi, in that same demanding kind of way. Heh, my bias may be showing lol, but looks like I'm not alone

Gotcha, I think got it. That sounds kind of different from Gulenko but still interesting to think about. In that vein how would normalizing and harmonizing subtypes be distinct from base types?

Btw, I'm going to go ahead and say something you're not going to like, since you're on the "Yay beta is the best" hype, but you might also want to consider LIE -- the glee you expressed at being considered somewhat badass or whatever looked a lot more Se HA than Se lead or creative. . . I see a possible E3 social instinct LIE

Interesting thought, though. I'll take a look into it. At face value I suspect I enjoy Fe way too much for that (one of my favorite people regardless of context strikes me as an Fe-ESE, Check the videos HERE) but I'll withhold judgement until I do some digging. Curious also what Myst thinks about this.

Glad if I could help

Well Squark may have just thrown me back into existential uncertainty lmao so your take on her impression will be appreciated once again.

Ok I see what you meant. Hmm, as an aside, for the Robber's Cave experiment you mention,

"Sherif noted that hostile and aggressive attitudes toward an outgroup arise when groups compete for resources that only one group can attain. Sherif also establishes that contact with an outgroup is insufficient, by itself, to reduce negative attitudes. Finally, he concludes that friction between groups can be reduced along with positive intergroup relations maintained, only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote united, cooperative action."

That's very much in line with how I view things too. Issues for people are determined a lot by available resources. Until humanity can have such superordinate goals for organizing united action, yeah, there'll be such opposition between people. Good question whether the latter can ever be achieved. I don't want to go off topic here though lol.

I mean not until we get invaded by aliens from space lol and engage in a Schmittian perennial conflict to continually re-establish the priority of the unified Earthling identity. Otherwise once we win and declare Exterminatus against the alien scum, the set of Mankind becomes the Universe of Elements, again, and (Schmittian) Political distinction must/will be re-established within.

Which oddly reminds me of what the Georgi Arbatov said to Americans at the end of the Cold War, "We [Russia] are going to do the worst thing we can do to you. We are going to take your enemy away from you." And so they did, and we've been kinda losing our shit looking for an external conflict to stave off the many latent internal conflicts in our society.

Well if you get to have more thoughts on that, feel free to post anytime. Is anything in particular making you unsure, if you even care to think about that any longer?

Just some introspective curiosity, mostly. Enough other things sounded pretty resoundingly lead-Ti to you as far as I could tell. So begins the process of consciously identifying manifestations of that to understand it better and spot them readily in others.

Hm lol LII for you really doesn't fit. By default you are way more concrete and grounded sounding compared to them. And sure, I did need to ask you sometimes what you mean but mostly I could follow your ideas/reasoning and you do seem to always have logical reasoning for it, so, I can see how you present some "obscure" connections but I can handle it fine and find it rather interesting actually.

lol Awesome. I hate when I'm boring the hell out of someone or making their eyes roll lol and some of this shit I could talk about all day if given half the chance.

Yeah, I don't agree with those extra ideas either.

Yeah, it sounds like in Borisova's concept energy is getting put into specific positions of functions rather than specific functions (lead or creative, rather than Fe/Te/Se or Se/Ne/Fe).

[Bertrand]

yes another way to think about it is D is analogous to using your strongest functions, and C your 3d functions and N your normative functions and H your 1d functions, whatever they may be. because in order to truly take charge in an environment you're going to issue information from your strongest functions (4d functions have the ability to structure and advance in time and control space--this is where the connection to EJ and Se come in), in order to be creative you will employ your flexible functions, and so on and so forth. dominance looks like a person in full command of their faculties. it can be kind of hard to imagine Dostoevsky dominator for example, but think of someone who has a strong handle on what makes people tick and what they really want, not just what they're aiming at. you have a person who is adjusting their environment (small groups or 1 on 1) on a psychological level and so forth. in the reverse direction think of normalizing hamlet, Solzhenitsyn, makes perfect sense when you think of it that way (influenced crowds but was introverted seeming--no ******). he could be conceived as being a Dostoevsky dominator, and this is how EIE N and EII D can look very similar, an introverted extrovert v a extroverted introvert.. people who get confused by mirrors are still at a low level of type discernment, with something like the above being much more of a pickle

[Myst]

Interesting thought, though. I'll take a look into it. At face value I suspect I enjoy Fe way too much for that (one of my favorite people regardless of context strikes me as an Fe-ESE, Check the videos HERE) but I'll withhold judgement until I do some digging. Curious also what Myst thinks about this.

Well Squark may have just thrown me back into existential uncertainty lmao so your take on her impression will be appreciated once again.

Well you seem far more "ideology-oriented" than any Te lead ever would be, as they focus more on the purely pragmatic side of things, they don't have much of a need for any overarching and consistent enough reasoning as a basis for their attitudes or views, they are far more interested in just doing what works in practice, focused on the working mechanics of objects to use them rather than a detailed deeper understanding of them.

I mean not until we get invaded by aliens from space lol and engage in a Schmittian perennial conflict to continually re-establish the priority of the unified Earthling identity. Otherwise once we win and declare Exterminatus against the alien scum, the set of Mankind becomes the Universe of Elements, again, and (Schmittian) Political distinction must/will be re-established within.

Which oddly reminds me of what the Georgi Arbatov said to Americans at the end of the Cold War, "We [Russia] are going to do the worst thing we can do to you. We are going to take your enemy away from you." And so they did, and we've been kinda losing our shit looking for an external conflict to stave off the many latent internal conflicts in our society.

Lol, well, another reason for uniting could be for pure survival reasons. Or in a less dark scenario, just simply for ensuring better progress for humanity overall. Of course it does not mean there can't be competition and conflict still, but it would at least not be on the level of actual wars.

Just some introspective curiosity, mostly. Enough other things sounded pretty resoundingly lead-Ti to you as far as I could tell. So begins the process of consciously identifying manifestations of that to understand it better and spot them readily in others.

I got that sense, that it's just introspective curiosity. My curiosity about it is also just on that level.

lol Awesome. I hate when I'm boring the hell out of someone or making their eyes roll lol and some of this shit I could talk about all day if given half the chance.

That kind of sounds familiar to me.

Yeah, it sounds like in Borisova's concept energy is getting put into specific positions of functions rather than specific functions (lead or creative, rather than Fe/Te/Se or Se/Ne/Fe).

Yeah and I guess there is one way to reason for why they'd be put into these function positions but this is getting so speculative at that point and doesn't all add up outside the Ego functions so I'm leaving the topic alone.

[Myst]

yes another way to think about it is D is analogous to using your strongest functions, and C your 3d functions and N your normative functions and H your 1d functions, whatever they may be. because in order to truly take charge in an environment you're going to issue information from your strongest functions (4d functions have the ability to structure and advance in time and control space--this is where the connection to EJ and Se come in), in order to be creative you will employ your flexible functions, and so on and so forth.

The "so on" part is where the consistency of the reasoning breaks down too much (for Normalizing and Harmonizing), at least for my taste it becomes rather speculative and arbitrary. Sure you could argue that e.g. fixing things for 1D (weakest) functions you reach overall harmonious flow that way but that seems too arbitrary to me to reason that way unless something really substantiates the logic for the phenomenon as a real observable thing.

As for the "ability to structure and advance in time and control space", that part is already a too far-flung connection to me, just a nice analogy at best.

[Sisyphean]

She's putting her own spin on Gulenko's idea, so with normalizing she's suggesting a focus on the role fxn (presumably bc it operates in the realm of norms, but so does the activating so I'm not sure the origin of this) but really I think it's just a greater focus on establishing or enforcing standards that distinguishes the N type, and I don't think this has to particularly be in the realm of the role fxn. I think she's creating an explanation iow where none is actually needed, just like I don't think the creative type literally looks like their mirror. The types are still the types they are, neither their IEs nor functional preference changes. . . so anything seen beyond that is like I said earlier something separate and on-top of the type. Deciding on a DCNH type iow won't help you find your socionics type.

Whenever an IE is mentioned in reference to DCNH, like I did when trying to explain where Borisova may have been coming from in my previous post, it's not an actual IE, but an attitude that emulates that IE. IOW, a dominant type isn't literally drawing on Te,Se and Fe together -- but it can look that way because their attitude matches one associated with those elements. The D-EII is pushy and demanding with Fi, but that doesn't make them an EJ or Se or Te or anything, because they're still using Fi with Ne in their ego (or else they wouldn't be EII) Etc and so on.

yes another way to think about it is D is analogous to using your strongest functions, and C your 3d functions and N your normative functions and H your 1d functions, whatever they may be. because in order to truly take charge in an environment you're going to issue information from your strongest functions (4d functions have the ability to structure and advance in time and control space--this is where the connection to EJ and Se come in), in order to be creative you will employ your flexible functions, and so on and so forth. dominance looks like a person in full command of their faculties. it can be kind of hard to imagine Dostoevsky dominator for example, but think of someone who has a strong handle on what makes people tick and what they really want, not just what they're aiming at. you have a person who is adjusting everyone on a psychological level and so forth

Alright, thanks. Assuming this (link) is accurate for function dimensions

Type	LSI	SLE	LIE
4D	Ti	Se	Te
3D	Se	Ti	Ni
2D	Fi	Ne	Fe
1D	Ne	Fi	Si
1D	Fe	Ni	Fi
2D	Ni	Fe	Se
3D	Te	Si	Ti
4D	Si	Te	Ne

DCNH	LSI	SLE	LIE
D	TiSi	SeTe	TeNe
C	SeTe	TiSi	NiTi
N	FiNi	NeFe	FeSe
H	NeFe	FiNi	SiFi

That look right for what you guys are talking about or completely hosed? If that's on the right path is there anything out there with descriptions of what these subtypes look like for different base types?

[Bertrand]

that looks right.. systems socionics is not totally onboard with DCNH but I know they cross talk with gulenko and have somewhat similar theoretical understandings. I think they would agree big picture that "dominance" as a social manifestation in any given type flows from their strongest functions. the thing is with a D LSI for example, theyre going to influence their environment in a Fe Te Se way, its just through their own strong functions Ti Si. Thus Stalin or whatever, you can see the Fe Te Se effects, but those are ultimately effects that are created as a consequence of his very strong Ti Si oriented mental processes. a good example is compare putin to Trump, you see trump actually trying to directly implement Fe Te Se way more than Putin, and yet Putin is issuing just as many Fe Te Se effects, even outstripping Trump, who is ultimately almost a cog in Putin's process. yet Trump tries to present himself as the dominator Putin actually is. in other words, you get into the room with them as you see Putin actually dominating Trump, but Trump acting more overtly Fe Te Se. this is the difference between DCNH and base type. Trump has base type more in line with Fe Te Se but Putin is actually D in that interaction. now in other interactions Trump may actually dominate, but the point is here is theres a difference between base type and DCNH, what gives Trump his "try hard" character is often his direct attempt to create a D interaction, because of the closeness of D with SEE base type. You could say the Trump/Putin interaction is a good example of two D types, one supervising the other. and each creating D "effects" in term of Fe Te Se in their own unique way based on base type. Putin in a cold calculating sense, Trump in a bombastic maneuvering, some might say idiotic, sense. yet each can dominate. clearly there is not only one base functional profile for domination

[Sisyphean]

Well you seem far more "ideology-oriented" than any Te lead ever would be, as they focus more on the purely pragmatic side of things, they don't have much of a need for any overarching and consistent enough reasoning as a basis for their attitudes or views, they are far more interested in just doing what works in practice, focused on the working mechanics of objects to use them rather than a detailed deeper understanding of them.

Basically the really shitty Si is the only thing that hits home about LIE descriptions I've seen so far. Having a hard time seeing Fe be unvalued, or Ne being a strong function.

Lol, well, another reason for uniting could be for pure survival reasons. Or in a less dark scenario, just simply for ensuring better progress for humanity overall. Of course it does not mean there can't be competition and conflict still, but it would at least not be on the level of actual wars.

lol Maybe, countries cooperate pretty well any time some new potential pandemic finds its way out of China but how would that be maintained once the crisis passes. I just have a hard time seeing Uzbeks, Chileans, Congolese, and Americans all finding that degree of common cause short of some sort of cataclysm or extra-species/-planetary. It took Ottomans at Vienna just to get Germans, Poles, and Spanish on the same side lmao.

But I'm also not all that averse to the idea of wars to begin with, though. Not necessary a fan of it (though I tend to side with Ernst Junger*) but the potential and option has to be there for a (Schmitt**) political distinction of any meaning to matter. When it happens, minus an Other, genuine unity seems have a pretty short shelf-life past a certain scale. America is politically contained but internally that "unity" is more like ranchers keeping livestock from escaping the pen, depressingly. Sociologists tend to argue that the US actually contains 7-9 different nations, and they aren't much fans of each other--at all--until some Saudis flew planes into our towers.

*
junger.png

**
schmitt.png

I got that sense, that it's just introspective curiosity. My curiosity about it is also just on that level.

I'm pretty okay with however all the digging and questioning goes lol as long as there's hopefully some answer. As for me when I stopped trying to pidgeonhole what I should believe or support into another person's framework and said "fuck it" it came as a huge relief and made a lot of topics a lot more fun. Whether that's Ti, Se, or some other damn thing I'm a-okay with it lol

That kind of sounds familiar to me.

lmao Nerd rants all day every day.

Yeah and I guess there is one way to reason for why they'd be put into these function positions but this is getting so speculative at that point and doesn't all add up outside the Ego functions so I'm leaving the topic alone.

Yeah I get that. I personally lean towards the ideas that can give me an example. An instantiation of X, Y, or Z class of something, which Gulenko seems to be able to do. Dunno about the other way.

[Sisyphean]

that looks right.. systems socionics is not totally onboard with DCNH but I know they cross talk with gulenko and have somewhat similar theoretical understandings. I think they would agree big picture that "dominance" as a social manifestation in any given type flows from their strongest functions. the thing is with a D LSI for example, theyre going to influence their environment in a Fe Te Se way, its just through their own strong functions Ti Si. Thus Stalin or whatever, you can see the Fe Te Se effects, but those are ultimately effects that are created as a consequence of his very strong Ti Si oriented mental processes. a good example is compare putin to Trump, you see trump actually trying to directly implement Fe Te Se way more than Putin, and yet Putin is issuing just as many Fe Te Se effects, even outstripping Trump, who is ultimately almost a cog in Putin's process. yet Trump tries to present himself as the dominator Putin actually is. in other words, you get into the room with them as you see Putin actually dominating Trump, but Trump acting more overtly Fe Te Se. this is the difference between DCNH and base type. Trump has base type more in line with Fe Te Se but Putin is actually D in that interaction. now in other interactions Trump may actually dominate, but the point is here is theres a difference between base type and DCNH, what gives Trump his "try hard" character is often his direct attempt to create a D interaction, because of the closeness of D with SEE base type. You could say the Trump/Putin interaction is a good example of two D types, one supervising the other. and each creating D "effects" in term of Fe Te Se in their own unique way based on base type. Putin in a cold calculating sense, Trump in a bombastic maneuvering, some might say idiotic, sense. yet each can dominate. clearly there is not only one base functional profile for domination

Awesome. Huge thanks for the example. That's a big help in framing all this in my head.

[Bertrand]

that whole page is gold, I occassionally go back and reread SSS and I feel like I learn new stuff every time

multidimensional function, as opposed to a normative one, can confidently function in different situations, including difficult ones. It faces a failure as normal thing - there is no reason to get upset, it is rather an occasion to correct a mistake, change the approach (according to the situation), to learn from the result . Unpleasant? Yes. But nothing dramatic. The function 7 is a kind of "hard-nosed" self-righteous one

[Sisyphean]

that whole page is gold, I occassionally go back and reread SSS and I feel like I learn new stuff every time

That's a way of thinking about it that never occurred. I'll have to sit back and try to think of a few occasions like that and see what I can glean from this...

[Bertrand]

yeah that's a super information dense couple of sentences

[Myst]

Basically the really shitty Si is the only thing that hits home about LIE descriptions I've seen so far. Having a hard time seeing Fe be unvalued, or Ne being a strong function.

Shitty Si like?

lol Maybe, countries cooperate pretty well any time some new potential pandemic finds its way out of China but how would that be maintained once the crisis passes. I just have a hard time seeing Uzbeks, Chileans, Congolese, and Americans all finding that degree of common cause short of some sort of cataclysm or extra-species/-planetary. It took Ottomans at Vienna just to get Germans, Poles, and Spanish on the same side lmao.

Oh it could be more long-term concerns of humanity surviving due to limited resources unless we cooperate better about sorting out this issue. But yeah I don't expect that to happen fast.

But I'm also not all that averse to the idea of wars to begin with, though. Not necessary a fan of it (though I tend to side with Ernst Junger*) but the potential and option has to be there for a (Schmitt**) political distinction of any meaning to matter. When it happens, minus an Other, genuine unity seems have a pretty short shelf-life past a certain scale. America is politically contained but internally that "unity" is more like ranchers keeping livestock from escaping the pen, depressingly. Sociologists tend to argue that the US actually contains 7-9 different nations, and they aren't much fans of each other--at all--until some Saudis flew planes into our towers.

I just see war as starting to stand in the way of progress at one point. I do think war is a necessity at this point (in the present) tho'.

Again, I don't expect they would disappear all that fast even if we wanted to go towards this, it would be a longer term process.

Mind elaborating on the bolded, i.e. why did you use this analogy?


"Courage means to let oneself be nailed to the cross for one's cause. Courage means, in the last moment of life, to still show allegiance to the thought for which one stood and fell."

I'm going to be cynical, nice way to brainwash people into going into war eh? Not saying it's not good to stand up for causes and fight for them, quite the opposite actually, but... why do we agree the cause is good? And why or when must one's life be given to it? Other than, e.g. in the case of war, another country attacking? (Or ok, the other example I'm willing to accept is if you/your country really needs to get access to resources this way, i.e. no other choice at all.)

"But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party."

And that's such an overly emotional way of looking at things lol. Was this writer EIE or something, lol.

Overly emotional: it's not even considered what kind of stuff is different and why and whether that is actually a problem. Sometimes yeah it can be. But no, I would never make a general concept out of this.

Lol btw idk your opinions on this, this stuff just caught my eye, you don't have to enter into any discussion with me over it. I don't mind if you want to, though, ofc.

I'm pretty okay with however all the digging and questioning goes lol as long as there's hopefully some answer. As for me when I stopped trying to pidgeonhole what I should believe or support into another person's framework and said "fuck it" it came as a huge relief and made a lot of topics a lot more fun. Whether that's Ti, Se, or some other damn thing I'm a-okay with it lol

Oh, for me what seems to help is when I get the "other" logical framework, but I guess I do it the same way as you described it - stop temporarily to place my own opinions onto what the other person is saying (as a filter), though my own understanding still has to be used to be able to pick up theirs, so it has to be all-encompassing enough first - and yeah it actually can make things more fun sometimes. Except that I put my own opinions back pretty fast in the game and then if I just see the other pov as silly, then yeah not gonna stay engaged.

But yeah, digging, questioning, all that is effortful so yeah there needs to be some goal for it

lmao Nerd rants all day every day.

Yeah I get that. I personally lean towards the ideas that can give me an example. An instantiation of X, Y, or Z class of something, which Gulenko seems to be able to do. Dunno about the other way.

Ehm, yeah unless stuff is too abstract to illustrate with just a few examples and Gulenko can go off towards that far end too much in some cases

[Sisyphean]

Shitty Si like?

I'm not organized, almost at all. All packing for travel for work is done around midnight the night before the trip. The "place" for most things tends to be where I left it. I take almost no notes either in study or in work tasks or document projects/tasks. It's a strain to remember to get a haircut every 3 weeks or to remember to do laundry. Generally shaving happens once I notice it feels like steel wool on my face. If I'm not meeting anyone I give a shit about (like a client or friend or family) I'm very content to wear the same shit several times in a row. My apartment is completely sparse with just a bed, dinner table, workout gear, bed, and a dresser being most of what wasn't already here. I can get a perfectly good sleep on the floor, and when I lived elsewhere for a year and a half I couldn't be bothered to buy a comforter so I just slept under sheets. The paperwork portion of my job is half of why I applied for a related but different position. Haven't been to a doctor in probably 10 years, either lmao

Oh it could be more long-term concerns of humanity surviving due to limited resources unless we cooperate better about sorting out this issue. But yeah I don't expect that to happen fast.

This is why we need to colonize other planets, so we can have more resources to keep fighting each other over resources

I just see war as starting to stand in the way of progress at one point. I do think war is a necessity at this point (in the present) tho'.

Again, I don't expect they would disappear all that fast even if we wanted to go towards this, it would be a longer term process.

For sure, nothing about you so far gives me the impression of being some crazy pie-in-the-sky hippie lol. I can certainly see that wars can cause backwards progress or inhibit it (though that begs the definition of "progress"). Just as a general rule I view struggle as an animating element of people and peoples, and that too much comfort drives us crazy, and that war is an instance of extremely vital struggle.

Mind elaborating on the bolded, i.e. why did you use this analogy?

Just the mental image that came to mind. The federal government of the US in its current social circumstances is more or less hurriedly trying to just corral its various different internal groups with zero-sum conflicts of interest and prevent them from killing each other or bolting out of the fence. It's all they can do just to stop a stampede at the moment because socially in multiple difference instances America is on the hairy-edge of what Schmitt considers a revolutionary state (ie. subjects determine their own friend-enemy distinction irrespective of the sovereign/state).

"Courage means to let oneself be nailed to the cross for one's cause. Courage means, in the last moment of life, to still show allegiance to the thought for which one stood and fell."

I'm going to be cynical, nice way to brainwash people into going into war eh? Not saying it's not good to stand up for causes and fight for them, quite the opposite actually, but... why do we agree the cause is good? And why or when must one's life be given to it? Other than, e.g. in the case of war, another country attacking? (Or ok, the other example I'm willing to accept is if you/your country really needs to get access to resources this way, i.e. no other choice at all.)

lol I'm prone to cynicism in many things so cynic away. To American ears "propaganda" carries a connotation of cynical media put out by people that don't believe it to manipulate the citizenry. If you had a different meaning plz correct me.

If I didn't know much about Junger I'd probably this was propaganda, as well, but he was a veteran of WWI wounded while un-reluctantly following orders in the twilight of the war to try and take land from the Entente Powers. In the post-war years he was one of the few not writing depressive morality plays of reflection about the war, and was a big proponent of "Heroic Realism" in the post-war years.

"why do we agree the cause is good?"

I'm not necessarily sure agreement is implied, just the celebration of the commitment to follow something to its utmost ends. There are a lot of things I disagree with but that kind of commitment is still impressive. (eg. 3 Brazillians given a burial by Germans that resisted until they ran out of ammunition and then were shot in a bayonet charge LINK)

"And why or when must one's life be given to it?"

When the circumstances require, I would suppose. As for why, I'm inclined to something along the lines of John 15:13 LINK

"But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party."

And that's such an overly emotional way of looking at things lol. Was this writer EIE or something, lol.

Rofl he could be. I see no results for him in MBTI or socionics when I search google (just this thread comes up lol). He's almost certainly Beta quadra. I know he was a follower of an EIE, though.

Overly emotional: it's not even considered what kind of stuff is different and why and whether that is actually a problem. Sometimes yeah it can be. But no, I would never make a general concept out of this.

Lmao well just for clarity, it's from his book "The Concept of the Political" where the main thesis is to reduce the definition and function of a political community to its most fundamental and inescapable principle and necessities, the concept of the "political." This sounds Ti going for a core truth build upon to me, but I'll be curious what your take is. His tone may be EIE-seeking if he isn't one himself lol.

Just a couple excerpts for the purpose of illustration more than to try and make any point
schmitt3.png schmitt2.png

Lol btw idk your opinions on this, this stuff just caught my eye, you don't have to enter into any discussion with me over it. I don't mind if you want to, though, ofc.

lmao like I said some of this shit I could talk about all day long, so if I see a discussion offered I'm going to enter into one. Most often it's a question of if things get too uncomfortable or intolerable to my interlocutor.

Oh, for me what seems to help is when I get the "other" logical framework, but I guess I do it the same way as you described it - stop temporarily to place my own opinions onto what the other person is saying (as a filter), though my own understanding still has to be used to be able to pick up theirs, so it has to be all-encompassing enough first - and yeah it actually can make things more fun sometimes. Except that I put my own opinions back pretty fast in the game and then if I just see the other pov as silly, then yeah not gonna stay engaged.

But yeah, digging, questioning, all that is effortful so yeah there needs to be some goal for it

Oh yeah if there's an acceptable framework that already exists pre-formed, by all means, gimme lol. Socionics is great and works as far as I can tell

With political cliques, though, in my case it was more a wandering trying to find a good fit, and any attempt to try and conform to or adopt placed certain kinds of constrictions or burdens that just made it hard to "breath," so to speak. A lot of pretend or forced positions for the same of consistency with something I thought sounded nice and true, but ultimately weren't and weren't something that really resonated in me. Then I finally got fed up and stopped playing that game.

Ehm, yeah unless stuff is too abstract to illustrate with just a few examples and Gulenko can go off towards that far end too much in some cases

lmao I feel that. When things start to get into the really abstract and speculative my eyes start to glaze over and I start just skimming everything instead of really reading it.

[Myst]

I'm not organized, almost at all. All packing for travel for work is done around midnight the night before the trip. The "place" for most things tends to be where I left it. I take almost no notes either in study or in work tasks or document projects/tasks. It's a strain to remember to get a haircut every 3 weeks or to remember to do laundry. Generally shaving happens once I notice it feels like steel wool on my face. If I'm not meeting anyone I give a shit about (like a client or friend or family) I'm very content to wear the same shit several times in a row. My apartment is completely sparse with just a bed, dinner table, workout gear, bed, and a dresser being most of what wasn't already here. I can get a perfectly good sleep on the floor, and when I lived elsewhere for a year and a half I couldn't be bothered to buy a comforter so I just slept under sheets. The paperwork portion of my job is half of why I applied for a related but different position. Haven't been to a doctor in probably 10 years, either lmao

Lol sp-last chaos... Looks like you do have strong Si if you don't actually feel stressed out by any of this bc that means you are able to deal with your bodily sensations without a problem.

I relate to some of this btw but I'm not like this THIS much. Maybe I'm sx/sp over sx/so after all...

It's also ofc that you are a guy, so you'll be less tidy than women about some of this stuff lol.

I'm personally not housewife material either but still, a tiny bit more focused on these matters than you.

But I beat you at chaos at one point, I pack for travel the absolute last minute.

And I can sleep on the floor just fine too yeah, or in broad daylight etc. I attribute that to good Si in my case because I just know how to adjust my body with the circumstances + the circumstances too ofc if needed.

This is why we need to colonize other planets, so we can have more resources to keep fighting each other over resources

Well that's an option too but I prefer to stick to more realistic scenarios lol

For sure, nothing about you so far gives me the impression of being some crazy pie-in-the-sky hippie lol. I can certainly see that wars can cause backwards progress or inhibit it (though that begs the definition of "progress"). Just as a general rule I view struggle as an animating element of people and peoples, and that too much comfort drives us crazy, and that war is an instance of extremely vital struggle.

The definition of progress is another long and deep topic.

Yeah, fighting, it's animating and whatnot, and I think we deeply agree on that part again lol, but I prefer it to have a truly good point if it's really about giving a lot for something, such as my life, and it should be the best solution as well. If it's just about finding a way to fight, I can see other ways to do that than doing it in war.

Just the mental image that came to mind. The federal government of the US in its current social circumstances is more or less hurriedly trying to just corral its various different internal groups with zero-sum conflicts of interest and prevent them from killing each other or bolting out of the fence. It's all they can do just to stop a stampede at the moment because socially in multiple difference instances America is on the hairy-edge of what Schmitt considers a revolutionary state (ie. subjects determine their own friend-enemy distinction irrespective of the sovereign/state).

America in revolution, that was an interesting image for sure. Is it really that close to being that?

lol I'm prone to cynicism in many things so cynic away.

To American ears "propaganda" carries a connotation of cynical media put out by people that don't believe it to manipulate the citizenry. If you had a different meaning plz correct me.

Oh no, we have that connotation for it here too, possibly even stronger.

If I didn't know much about Junger I'd probably this was propaganda, as well, but he was a veteran of WWI wounded while un-reluctantly following orders in the twilight of the war to try and take land from the Entente Powers. In the post-war years he was one of the few not writing depressive morality plays of reflection about the war, and was a big proponent of "Heroic Realism" in the post-war years.

Interesting

"why do we agree the cause is good?"

I'm not necessarily sure agreement is implied, just the celebration of the commitment to follow something to its utmost ends. There are a lot of things I disagree with but that kind of commitment is still impressive. (eg. 3 Brazillians given a burial by Germans that resisted until they ran out of ammunition and then were shot in a bayonet charge LINK)

"And why or when must one's life be given to it?"

When the circumstances require, I would suppose. As for why, I'm inclined to something along the lines of John 15:13 LINK

Yeah I was asking rhetorical questions Your commitment orientation is very Ni HA btw in the way you put it, idk why you didn't relate to the descriptions

Anyway yes I find commitment impressive too like that. I just do not want it to go over the other extreme with it becoming a brainwashing issue when the goal is not actually all that good or sensible or even worse than that.

So for example for the example of the Brazilians, yeah, you can give a good statement by that kind of commitment, but I can't say I would necessarily prioritize making that statement over other goals if I have them in life, it depends if the other goals I find even better. (And yes they can still be goals for other people too, so it's not simply about being 100% self-centred, not at all.)

The last link of yours there, yeah, I was gonna call it a touchy-feely link lol, so anyway sure that's a valid thing too. But do it in a way that it really ends up at the best possible results (i.e. best of all implementable ones) overall.

Rofl he could be. I see no results for him in MBTI or socionics when I search google (just this thread comes up lol). He's almost certainly Beta quadra. I know he was a follower of an EIE, though.

Lmao well just for clarity, it's from his book "The Concept of the Political" where the main thesis is to reduce the definition and function of a political community to its most fundamental and inescapable principle and necessities, the concept of the "political." This sounds Ti going for a core truth build upon to me, but I'll be curious what your take is. His tone may be EIE-seeking if he isn't one himself lol.

Lol I didn't really think about the type, just that bit seemed like it. I read the texts you posted here, I think all I can say is just that the writer is definitely a Ti/Fe type and yeah could be "EIE seeking tone" or "Fe seeking tone". If it really was about elaborating on fundamental principles, that's either Ti or Ni but it does sound more Ti than anything.

lmao like I said some of this shit I could talk about all day long, so if I see a discussion offered I'm going to enter into one. Most often it's a question of if things get too uncomfortable or intolerable to my interlocutor.

I don't think it'd ever get too "uncomfortable or intolerable" for me lol

Oh yeah if there's an acceptable framework that already exists pre-formed, by all means, gimme lol. Socionics is great and works as far as I can tell

It's actually weird with Socionics

I only find it an acceptable framework for myself if I integrate it with some other contexts of systems but then yeah it seems to really offer things in terms of what its model is about that I have not seen anywhere else and that says a lot because I majored in cognitive psychology so I do have a background somewhat in other psychology theories.

With political cliques, though, in my case it was more a wandering trying to find a good fit, and any attempt to try and conform to or adopt placed certain kinds of constrictions or burdens that just made it hard to "breath," so to speak. A lot of pretend or forced positions for the same of consistency with something I thought sounded nice and true, but ultimately weren't and weren't something that really resonated in me. Then I finally got fed up and stopped playing that game.

Lol again that's so familiar to me, about the wandering part. Uhm, I was never strongly part of any "cliques", but otherwise yeah, nothing really made sense beyond a point. (I also didn't worry about constrictions or burdens but that's beside the point, just being precise here lol.)

mao I feel that. When things start to get into the really abstract and speculative my eyes start to glaze over and I start just skimming everything instead of really reading it.

Yeah, since we are in your type thread, I'll say that that pretty much excludes N types (as for the LIE suggestion you asked about).