FTR

[JRiddy]

Riddy, I never liked you, and my indifference has grown from distaste since seeing how pretentious you can be, to outright dislike since you've been suckered into Model X bullshit. I guess I have an air of superiority sometimes, but if you want to call me pretentious, I can only laugh.

Then do something about it, Mr. ENFj.

[Gilly]

Then do something about it, Mr. ENFj.

What?

[strrrng]

This is a fair point of contention. However it relies upon exclusive criteria, which I see as an inferior method of typing; what matters is the best fit.

Why not compare me to some cp6s? Do you really see me as being like discojoe? Christopher Hitchens? Or, lol, House?

Or fours? I know we have our similarities, which I personally am willing to chalk up to comparable upbringings and Socionics types, but what do you see me as having in common with other fours, like starfall, glam, anielka, kam, christy, etc?

Fair enough. On mention of those 4's, it made that typing very unlikely in my mind. As for the 6's, eh.

Also I think it's fair to say that, at least to my knowledge, I have more varied life experience and have faced a good deal more adversity and personal challenges in my 20 years than any of the people you mention as benchmark 7s have, which could lend to the obvious outward differences.

I doubt you would know, and I think it's presumptuous to make such assertions about people. And how would experiencing more/harder things make you seem less 7'ish? Because of the happiness thing?

I think that both my flexible interpretation of semantics and my inability to accurately categorize what I experience subjectively is mostly due to weak Ti and an over-focus on Fe. The only truth that I see is that my subjective reality changes significantly over time, and I exhibit motivations and external characteristics of many types; the "dominant" mode is hard for me to isolate, but personally I think 7 works best.

Your "flexible interpretations of semantics" are nothing more than subjective, ego-driven distortions which you use to justify whatever type you currently have latched onto. And your inability to accurately categorize subjective experience isn't weak Ti; I have no problem doing that. Seems to be more like lacking self-awareness or something.

It has nothing to do with anyone else's type. My falability in self-typing is due to my constantly changing self-perception; I think I have proven over time, at least to myself if not you, that my perceptions of other people are actually rather reliable. Was I not the first to pin both unefille and Mimosa Pudica as Beta NFs?

I don't know about you being the first to "pin" them lol (not even sure on mimosa's type), but whatever.

And stop defending Allie. Unless you admit that she's a noob and can't fend for herself.

I would have responded the same, regardless of who it was. You were using ad hominem to try and discredit her position, even though her points were valid. It was also another one of your pathetic attempts at inciting one of the emotional games you love to play, trying to drag someone down to your level.

*sigh* 6s, wanting to defend and be defended...oh nicky....

lol, even if my sole motivation was to defend her, it had nothing to do with being a 6. Nice skewing of semantics again, bud. That seems to be the only thing you've proven you can do consistently with types. I find it ironically humorous how you're attempting to project all the insecurities I obviously effectuated in my previous incessant comments about you being a 6, as if by doing so you are making me doubt my self-typing or "belittling" me - which is what you said I did to you lol. Not everyone else's self-concept is as precarious as yours, Gilly. And lol @ how you were the most consistent defender of my 4 typing in the past, rivaled only by Ashton, but now suddenly you're trying to call me a 6. It's all too transparent, Gilly. Go find someone else to indulge you in your self-loathing, emotionally-unstable games; you only look like a fool to me.

[Lotus]

I never claimed to be flexible, so don't put words in my mouth. I don't see what this has to do with me having object attachment relations. Show me?

I tried. If you're trying not to see it, you won't.

I choose something that works for me, I get disenchanted, I move on; you're just furthering the case for frustration relations.

You move on because you get disenchanted by a typing?

Oh, and if you wanted to establish a pattern, you might want to start by actually giving a coherent example rather than cherry-picking threads and placing them out of sequence.

I believe I mentioned in my post that I was showing examples of each step, not necessarily one cycle. I'm not going through all of your 9587340t9842y09 posts to get them in chronological order, etc. I don't care that much.

Maybe you're right, but you sure don't know how to show it.

Sigh. I never do. Nor do I care enough to try.

[strrrng]

I choose something that works for me, I get disenchanted, I move on; you're just furthering the case for frustration relations.

Frustration object relations is about searching for an ideal, and always becoming disenchanted with the present reality. How the fuck would this translate over into a socionics type? Was your past self-typing of INFp some attempt at fulfilling an ideal?

The reason that it demonstrates attachment object relations is because socionics types are not about future/past ideals, but rather, present realities. Being able to conclude on a type for yourself more or less produces a good, secure feeling, which is exactly what attachment types search for. The fact that it is typically transient does not detract from the motivations at all. It only demonstrates an internal sense of insecurity, lack of self-confidence in assessing things, and a strong emphasis on public approval and the opinions of others - all traits that are common in so 6's.

[JRiddy]

What?

You heard what I said. Bring it, bitch.

[JRiddy]

You heard what I said. Bring it, bitch.

And I say this because I have no fear of your challenging my convictions. This is because I don't take shit like that personally. It is usually more annoying than anything else. I am not defined by a system...I am defined by my experiences, and you have no ability to take those away from me.

[Gilly]

Fair enough. On mention of those 4's, it made that typing very unlikely in my mind. As for the 6's, eh.

As I thought.

I doubt you would know, and I think it's presumptuous to make such assertions about people. And how would experiencing more/harder things make you seem less 7'ish? Because of the happiness thing?

That, too, but mostly I was trying to account for the obvious external differences between myself and the people you mentioned. And now that I think about it, yes, it is mostly because I am probably a bit more jaded than they are.

Your "flexible interpretations of semantics" are nothing more than subjective, ego-driven distortions which you use to justify whatever type you currently have latched onto. And your inability to accurately categorize subjective experience isn't weak Ti; I have no problem doing that. Seems to be more like lacking self-awareness or something.

Well, your Ti would be stronger than mine as an IEI. As for the rest, obviously you're entitled to your own interpretation.

I don't know about you being the first to "pin" them lol (not even sure on mimosa's type), but whatever.

Well, I was, as far as I know.

I would have responded the same, regardless of who it was.

Sure.

lol, even if my sole motivation was to defend her, it had nothing to do with being a 6. Nice skewing of semantics again, bud. That seems to be the only thing you've proven you can do consistently with types. I find it ironically humorous how you're attempting to project all the insecurities I obviously effectuated in my previous incessant comments about you being a 6, as if by doing so you are making me doubt my self-typing or "belittling" me - which is what you said I did to you lol. Not everyone else's self-concept is as precarious as yours, Gilly. And lol @ how you were the most consistent defender of my 4 typing in the past, rivaled only by Ashton, but now suddenly you're trying to call me a 6. It's all too transparent, Gilly. Go find someone else to indulge you in your self-loathing, emotionally-unstable games; you only look like a fool to me.

I didn't skew anything; I'm harassing you, and given that this is the longest part of your post, it obviously worked. Take a freaking chill pill. I don't think you're a 6, so you can sleep soundly.

I tried. If you're trying not to see it, you won't.

I see what you're trying to say, and the reality is that most of what object attachment relations entails does not apply to me. Superficially, yes, I "attach" myself to a type, but the reason and the process are both better explained by frustration relations.

You move on because you get disenchanted by a typing?

Yup. It's an identity thing. The reason I got into typology is because I was unsure of what behavioral traits were consistent in me, who I "really am," because I feel that I am different things to different people.

I believe I mentioned in my post that I was showing examples of each step, not necessarily one cycle. I'm not going through all of your 9587340t9842y09 posts to get them in chronological order, etc. I don't care that much.

Sigh. I never do. Nor do I care enough to try.

Ok, you don't care enough to be right. Fine by me.

[Gilly]

Frustration object relations is about searching for an ideal, and always becoming disenchanted with the present reality. How the fuck would this translate over into a socionics type? Was your past self-typing of INFp some attempt at fulfilling an ideal?

The reason that it demonstrates attachment object relations is because socionics types are not about future/past ideals, but rather, present realities. Being able to conclude on a type for yourself more or less produces a good, secure feeling, which is exactly what attachment types search for. The fact that it is typically transient does not detract from the motivations at all. It only demonstrates an internal sense of insecurity, lack of self-confidence in assessing things, and a strong emphasis on public approval and the opinions of others - all traits that are common in so 6's.

I don't see what my self-typings have to do with public approval. See my post to Allie.

[Gilly]

And I say this because I have no fear of your challenging my convictions. This is because I don't take shit like that personally. It is usually more annoying than anything else. I am not defined by a system...I am defined by my experiences, and you have no ability to take those away from me.

What on earth are you talking about? You want me to challenge your convictions about Model X?

[JRiddy]

What on earth are you talking about? You want me to challenge your convictions about Model X?

I don't know. Challenge me on my opinion that you are not Ni-ENFj and not a 7. Challenge me on my opinion that you spew bullshit constantly and find neat little ways to tie it together with ad hoc hypotheses. And challenge me on socionics or "model x" or whatever.

Btw, why does everyone on 16t seem to think it's the model that's the big difference? It's not. It's the overall interpretation but w/e.

[JRiddy]

-- quote removed --

I have no desire to actively convert people to "model X," because I don't want to dogmatically dictate my interpretations to someone else and have them accept them because they see me as some kind of expert or authority. I find it telling that you see some of the socioniX people in very 6-ish terms, as though we were all attached to some leader or belief system. Honestly, Nick, for example, would make one shitty acolyte if you think about it; he's way too reactive and aggrandizing for that.

I do however want to get people to critically evaluate what they believe, and I think the phenomenology and methodologies that are commonly associated with so-called "model x" provide a much better environment for this than "classical" socionics. (Thanks go out to Expat for that term.)

I'd like to get you to critically evaluate what you think, Gilly, and I don't just mean your type. I mean to really dig and find what you think is true about socionics and not just appeal to "authorities" like Rick. I honestly think you are smart enough to do it, and I don't want to promote myself as superior in this regard. If you, after an open and honest inquiry, come to wholly different conclusions, I could respect that. But I can't respect what appears to me to be nothing more than thinly-veiled anxious counter-phobia.

[Gilly]

Fair enough.

Where do you suggest we begin?

[strrrng]

Honestly, Nick, for example, would make one shitty acolyte if you think about it; he's way too reactive and aggrandizing for that.

lol

Btw, why does everyone on 16t seem to think it's the model that's the big difference? It's not. It's the overall interpretation but w/e.

Model-relativizing ftw! It saves you the energy necessary to evaluate what you really know and gives you a security blanket. yay.