considering LSI for the first time… maybe.
considering LSI for the first time… maybe.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
would you be willing to post pics of yourself? I've had a few LSI girlfriends and I notice their is a distinct look in their eyes.
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
It is fitting.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Yeah I've been saying LSI for a year now. More D/Je subtype though, since you're not as concerned with showing any analytical skills. D also fits with what some people (notably other Ds ) have perceived as a manipulative/bitchy personality.
Can't believe I ever thought SEE. Was still learning Socionics.
I doubt D/Je subtype, and think suggestions of bitchy aggressiveness are superficial and potentially projected (i.e. thepirate's hasty characterization based on an impression of one post). I would lean more C/Pe subtype, as it still possesses an interactive quality, without so much direct (emotional) control exerted, and a stronger reactivity.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I'm not talking about thepirate. I mean other more prominent members of the community/stickam.
When I said bitchy/manipulative I meant someone who plays political games, which she probably does or she wouldn't have come into conflict with others who do (ie. other Ds). She's been at the epicenter of forum drama for the past year and a half, so I doubt every accusation is being projected.
A C subtype of LSI would be far, far less interested in power, politics, social status or any other such mumbo jumbo, but which has been her entire motivation since she arrived. C makes no sense in the context of a classically stoic Ti-dominant; only D can explain her behavior.
She's also shown very little appreciation for analytical logic, which she wouldn't have if she was a static subtype. Chris Langan is IMO probably a C LSI.
LSI for her. Allie, you are an oddball. I dont claim to know LSI's well, Im just really starting to get acquainted with them. I do think you are one for reasons stated in another thread, among other things, but this is still a tentative typing to me. You seem to have contradicted yourself alot, all I know is ESI is a stretch of the imagination. You do or say things that would seem indicative of Fi, but then your reactions and the way you say things just aren't matching up. Maybe theres another piece of the puzzle I'm not seeing, but I'm betting that you just typed yourself wrong. I have yet to see a proper breakdown of why you are ESI, no one defended you in the gamma thread I made. A strong indicator that I feel points to LSI is your post in the forum identicals thread, about how you resonate with calenwen in a way you don't with others here; calenwen being a former ESI - now LSI. You also seem to relate to Diana to a good degree, who was also a former ESI gone LSI.
Last edited by thePirate; 01-26-2010 at 06:04 AM.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
I think posting a pic or a vid of yourself will determine alot more for people like myself who know very little about you. I think in that context, I could determine if I pic up duality vibes, imo.
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
After hearing about discojoe's picture hoarding fetish, I wouldn't be surprised at some reticence.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Could a C subtype possibly manage to leverage their social position in such a way that they weren't directly involved in conflict, though it managed to transpire around them? That could make more sense for an ignoring subtype (and Allie).
4w3-5w6-8w7
lol
4w3-5w6-8w7
If you want my opinion (which I won't substantiate), I think you and starfall are both N subtype. And that merky, Allie, scarletlux and Gilly are D subtypes.
Anyone can do that if they want to avoid conflict. But a C subtype wouldn't inspire so much around them in the first place unless it involved an attack on his theories. (At least according to Gulenko).
He's bitchy and aggressive, as well.Originally Posted by Parkster
4w3-5w6-8w7
Interesting. I definitely agree on scarlettlux and merky (unless he's C), and am somewhat inclined to agree on Gilly, despite considering H subtype for him.
I can see the commonality between myself and starfall – additionally, why crazedrat and I are so similar (as I believe him to be N subtype).
How about an enneagram 3?Anyone can do that if they want to avoid conflict. But a C subtype wouldn't inspire so much around them in the first place unless it involved an attack on his theories. (At least according to Gulenko).
4w3-5w6-8w7
I see what you mean.
4w3-5w6-8w7
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yeah, the blue eyes are uncanny.
4w3-5w6-8w7
What do you mean?How about an enneagram 3?
That's irrelevant seeing as how kindness and compassion is not a definitive trait of C subtypes.Would you retract your statement about Allie if I told you she was kind and compassionate?
Winterpark are you alright?
That another subtype could incite emotional drama because of enneagram motivations.
I was just mocking the Langan typing, and wondering to what degree you've observed the D subtype behaviors in Allie (as opposed to second-hand information).That's irrelevant seeing as how kindness and compassion is not a definitive trait of C subtypes.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Mario is clearly an SEI. This expression is proof.
What's with all the "whoo hoo" "it's a me!" It's Fe.
Get your facts straight. I don't want to have to come back here.
DCNH and enneagram correlate. Not nearly in all the specifics, but certainly where it concerns social interaction since DCNH is a theory about group behavior. There is no vacuum since they don't describe radically different traits. If you think exaggerating their differences is an argument, then you are an idiot.
In the case of Langan, I was only retracting based on the information you provided. I haven't studied him enough to know whether or not it's true. Just like I doubt you've studied the majority of celebrities you type with whom you only have a passing familiarity.I was just mocking the Langan typing, and wondering to what degree you've observed the D subtype behaviors in Allie (as opposed to second-hand information).
So, they (potentially) correlate on an external, behavioral level. Great. That doesn't mean that their premises are in any way alike, or that the patterns they seek to interpret are derived from similar motivational cores.
If you think you're going to pass this argument by with a statement about apparent theoretical correlation, then you are an idiot.
I didn't provide information; that statement was a joke. Goes to show how solid your typing was, though. I guess this should make me all-the-more confident about your assessment of Allie's subtype.In the case of Langan, I was only retracting based on the information you provided. I haven't studied him enough to know whether or not it's true. Just like I doubt you've studied the majority of celebrities you type with whom you only have a passing familiarity.
And nice presumption about my typings. Your ad hominem is transparent and pathetic.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I never said their premises or natures were remotely alike, you've diffracted from the main point in your usual style. I only implied that behaviorally they're very similar.
DCNH was created by Gulenko specifically as a tool to categorize type behavior, since he doesn't believe that sociotype correlate to behavior at all (only to the ability to solve problems). So yes, DCNH is something very palpable that's readily observed. Motivation is almost irrelevant (for typing). There is no deep meaning to it and it should correlate (by some reasonable extent) to whatever passes for group behavior in the enneagram. Assuming the enneagram makes true predictions in this area.
If it was a joke, I'll be sure never to trust your information in good faith again. I only know enough about Langan to give a speculative typing, I don't read every article about him I come across, nor would anyone want to. If trusting you makes my typings less reliable, then that says a lot about you doesn't it.I didn't provide information; that statement was a joke. Goes to show how solid your typing was, though.
What would labcoat say? An inductive step of tcaudillgian proportions. Well not nearly, but if Langan's typing turns out wrong, that still in no way reflects on Allie's typing.I guess this should make me all-the-more confident about your assessment of Allie's subtype.
No ad hominem. I've seen you type on as little as VI. Your twisting of the facts is idiotic and entirely self-serving.And nice presumption about my typings. Your ad hominem is transparent and pathetic.
I'm getting tired and I don't see the point in further continuing this discussion with someone as pathetically mired in their own ignorance. Someone who has absolutely no sense of elementary logic or even intellectual decency.
ESI seemed fine from my perspective, especially from camera-VI. You had a shyer vibe than the LSI girls I know, which seems to project a more assured aura. Of course tho, you know yourself better than anybody else.
Obviously though, in DNHC she isn't a dominant subtype. That's glaringly obvious. Her life-goals are completely opposed to those of a D-subtype (thank god, imho).
It seems that many ESIs are changing their type to LSI. That must mean I'm not posting enough
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
But if they're only behaviorally similar – at best – then you writing off my enneagram suggestion (as a respectively differing explanation for her motivations toward political conflict), is flawed. Thus, back to the suggestion that enneagram could account for aspects of her observed behavior that DCNH cannot.
Re the bolded: that was the entire point of bringing up the enneagram – because I think underlying motivations are stronger beacons of, say, a person's inclination toward conflict, than behavioral descriptors.DCNH was created by Gulenko specifically as a tool to categorize type behavior, since he doesn't believe that sociotype correlate to behavior at all (only to the ability to solve problems). So yes, DCNH is something very palpable that's readily observed. Motivation is almost irrelevant (for typing). There is no deep meaning to it and it should correlate (by some reasonable extent) to whatever passes for group behavior in the enneagram. Assuming the enneagram makes true predictions in this area.
If you read the previous posts, you may have been able to pick up on the fact that parkster and I were joking back and forth. No need to blame your flimsy opinions on me.If it was a joke, I'll be sure never to trust your information in good faith again. I only know enough about Langan to give a speculative typing, I don't read every article about him I come across, nor would anyone want to. If trusting you makes my typings less reliable, then that says a lot about you doesn't it.
No, but it reflects on your methodology.What would labcoat say? An inductive step of tcaudillgian proportions. Well not nearly, but if Langan's typing turns out wrong, that still in no way reflects on Allie's typing.
Cute.No ad hominem. I've seen you type on as little as VI. Your twisting of the facts is idiotic and entirely self-serving.
I'm getting tired and I don't see the point in further continuing this discussion with someone as pathetically mired in their own ignorance. Someone who has absolutely no sense of elementary logic or even intellectual decency.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Not exactly, I never said that at all. It could still correlate to whatever the enneagram says about intrinsic motivation. But the most palpable (and hence verifiable) correlations will be to behavior.
Or I just ignore this enneagram sideshow altogether, since all I care about typing her in is DCNH where IMO D is the most consistent typing and C is out of the question.
No. Behaviors are the strongest beacons of someone's behavior.Re the bolded: that was the entire point of bringing up the enneagram – because I think underlying motivations are stronger beacons of, say, a person's inclination toward conflict, than behavioral descriptors.
Honestly, this and the fact that you mix socionics and enneagram so haphazardly is why LSI is a dumb suggestion for you. Your Ti is atrocious.
Hardly. My opinion is back to what it was now that I realized you were joking.If you read the previous posts, you may have been able to pick up on the fact that parkster and I were joking back and forth. No need to blame your flimsy opinions on me.
Not in any meaningful sense.No, but it reflects on your methodology.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Palpable ≠ substantial.
Once you know someone's underlying motivations, you have a ~strong beacon~ of behavior, as a potential capacity. From this point, you can extrapolate patterns regarding the ways in which behavior can manifest. If you simply observe behavior and register an array of patterns, without ever grasping their roots, simply relying on external correlations, you fall prey to a wasteland of misinterpretation.No. Behaviors are the strongest beacons of someone's behavior.
(This sounds like another Ni/Ne conflict, as you are more concerned with establishing explicit relations between common qualities in things, whereas I am more concerned with underpinnings in peoples' behavior).
Right, because making an enneagram suggestion about the motivations behind behavior manifest by someone I know, is so much more superficial than proffering a DCNH subtype opinion based on peripheral observation.Honestly, this and the fact that you mix socionics and enneagram so haphazardly is why LSI is a dumb suggestion for you. Your Ti is atrocious.
Trusting someone with information only applies if they are actually attempting to provide information; I wasn't. You trusted me with information based on a misinterpretation of my joke; that makes you ~stupid~Hardly. My opinion is back to what it was now that I realized you were joking.
Last edited by strrrng; 01-26-2010 at 08:29 PM.
4w3-5w6-8w7