Might as well

[Anglas]

This explains my weird "attraction" to you or this thread.

Does socionics explains why I want to kill you

[momental]

Are you secure or insecure; a neurotic or a confident guy?

Neuroticism's are a manifestation of many different things; it would be very difficult to say that one particular thought process could encompass them all. If your thinking that LSE's are more neurotic than LIE's. This being said I would like to point out that I'm not defending the lack of neuroticism within me as I can become obsessive, just as everyone else can. So yes, but not for the reasons you may like to believe.

[Beautiful sky]

Neuroticism's are a manifestation of many different things; it would be very difficult to say that one particular thought process could encompass them all. If your thinking that LSE's are more neurotic than LIE's. This being said I would like to point out that I'm not defending the lack of neuroticism within me as I can become obsessive, just as everyone else can. So yes, but not for the reasons you may like to believe.

I would say that both LSE and LIE are neurotic and not SLE. LSE have perfectionist tendencies so anything that they see that is a defect in themselves, their person or character, makes them feel bad. They don't like when they don't get things right.

SLE doesn't proceed from a place of insecurity; they want to whip the world in line with where they are. Self doubt doesn't enter into their calculation a lot; in film, they are not big on retakes of scenes; they are confident in their work, a certainty; not need to do things over and over again thinking that it's not good enough/or right. We can compare Clint Eastwood (who says "we're moving on") to Sean Penn in his acting role with Madonna (let's do it again).

[fairylights]

Yeah, you're not SLE, dude.

[momental]

So. Everyone agrees on the SLE?

In reading I have agreed with the creative subtype of both LIE and TSE descriptions.

Edit: that "So. Everyone agrees on the SLE" is actually LSE, and not TSE....

[Korpsy Knievel]

Too boring to tell.

[Beautiful sky]

questions:

Are you empathetic? and, towards what, why?

[momental]

questions:

Are you empathetic? and, towards what, why?

Not really. I would say that I am more sympathetic. I can understand when someone is having a difficult time and do things to help them, but to actually feel their pain, or relate to it... Not so much.

[Beautiful sky]

Not really. I would say that I am more sympathetic. I can understand when someone is having a difficult time and do things to help them, but to actually feel their pain, or relate to it... Not so much.

LSE

It's funny because what you said is a verbatim quote to how my boyfriend responded to my question.

[Beautiful sky]

LSE tend to put their own needs ahead of others and therefore they are likely to come off well to others if that person is in sympathy with what LSE wants. Carl Jung in here:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm


Te (Thinking in the Extravert):

At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity.

[momental]

LSE

It's funny because what you said is a verbatim quote to how my boyfriend responded to my question.

How would an LIE answer to the question you pose?

[Beautiful sky]

How would an LIE answer to the question you pose?

You need a bases of good comparison? ummm......I'll get an LIE to give me a response.

Are you empathetic? and, towards what, why?

LIE:
Hm, I suppose? I'm more focused on fixing whatever's causing the problem than just feeling a bunch of stuff for the hell of it... if the person doesn't do anything to correct the problem once it's identified, or doesn't have me fix it, let me fix it, go along with things or whatever, then there's really no reason for me to feel bad, there's bigger things to tend to that can get taken on with less effort...

Right now, I'm getting one buddy of mine to lose weight, another to get good at pre-algebra, another to get off the damn pills and exercise some, I have to get the bike together, and I just recently kicked through a bass drum, so I have to get a good one so I can make music with another buddy of mine...

They make a choice to feel something; an LSE don't make a choice to feel something; his emotional process is different than that of an LSE. LIE doesn't say why he's trying to do these things other than just saying that they are his friends an indication of Se valuing. Si is more of an emotional thing rather than a logical; on the to do list an LSE feels better, that's what they get/consider what they are getting out of it. The LIE statement above attaches no emotional / sensory connection to the activities being done for his friends; they are simply items on a to-do list. LIE is still an Te type because they proceed with a plan in mind rather than with whatever sense will lead them to experience other sensory things like Se are inclined to do.

[FDG]

That's a quote by woofwoofl, Maritsa don't be a tard.

[Brilliand]

That's a quote by woofwolf, Maritsa don't be a tard.

That is, woofwoofl, self-typed SEE (for the benefit of anyone not already familiar with that user).

[Absurd]

That's a quote by woofwoofl, Maritsa don't be a tard.

Hahahaha!

Woofwoofl is bipolar on Maritsa's list.

[Ver]

Hi I also think you are LSE. Bu to be sure you could check the information elements description on wikisocion
You can check http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...verted_sensing
and http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rted_intuition
for LSE.
And of course you can have a look at people you feel very comfortable with. That could help as well.

[blackburry]

This explains my weird "attraction" to you or this thread.

Lol, ...DUN....Dunnnn...Dun.

[momental]

In reading the Si and Ni descriptions I have come to believe that my bodily conditions mean very little to me most of the time. I'd say Ni is a good fit. LIE it must be then.

[Beautiful sky]

In reading the Si and Ni descriptions I have come to believe that my bodily conditions mean very little to me most of the time. I'd say Ni is a good fit. LIE it must be then.

Si and Ni has very little to do with one's bodily conditions.

They have their ideas of how things are and at extreme end of that their ideas become inflexible and dogmatic. LSE are educed to change by the influence of facts that disprove their previous thinking. Doesn't let the society judgements influence their thinking. An LIE will say "I believe therefore it is;" they don't say, I believe it but what if it's wrong and will hurt people; they bend what is notion of moral to suit a belief that they're not willing to bend.

When you have some time, you may read here:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Potter Steward, a supreme court justice; what defines pornography “I know it when I see it” that's someone that walks into it with preconceived notions; an LSE will say “What defines pornography is something that contains this, this and this.”

LSE says “we'll see;” and LIE walks into a situation with preconceived ideas; they have inflexibility of thought.

“It must be God's will that he got sick” “It must be God's will that they got better” they can determine any situation is twisted to suit preexisting beliefs an over arching message (so to say). If you go into that looking for that and they naturally find it, because that's ALL that they are looking for. An LSE going into a situation with “hay find this” and they don't find it will say “I didn't find it” because it wasn't there; this “experience before you know” is sensory perception – what goes in through sense not through idea.

[Beautiful sky]

If a person should ever end up on a trial by jury, they don't want an Ni type on their jury because they are not going to be impartial or they want an Ni type who is partial to them.

[Saberstorm]

I think the problem is that Martisa has not yet sucked any of that LSE cock she craves.

[momental]

Si and Ni has very little to do with one's bodily conditions.

They have their ideas of how things are and at extreme end of that their ideas become inflexible and dogmatic. LSE are educed to change by the influence of facts that disprove their previous thinking. Doesn't let the society judgements influence their thinking. An LIE will say "I believe therefore it is;" they don't say, I believe it but what if it's wrong and will hurt people; they bend what is notion of moral to suit a belief that they're not willing to bend.

When you have some time, you may read here:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Potter Steward, a supreme court justice; what defines pornography “I know it when I see it” that's someone that walks into it with preconceived notions; an LSE will say “What defines pornography is something that contains this, this and this.”

LSE says “we'll see;” and LIE walks into a situation with preconceived ideas; they have inflexibility of thought.

“It must be God's will that he got sick” “It must be God's will that they got better” they can determine any situation is twisted to suit preexisting beliefs an over arching message (so to say). If you go into that looking for that and they naturally find it, because that's ALL that they are looking for. An LSE going into a situation with “hay find this” and they don't find it will say “I didn't find it” because it wasn't there; this “experience before you know” is sensory perception – what goes in through sense not through idea.

I don't enjoy your perception of Ni. Why can they not doubt? I think the dogmatic Ni you are speaking of, which ignores facts, is more ego than it is creative. I feel as if Te in the ego will listen to the fact that they might not find the actual substance they believe exists. I am no Ni-ego I have definitely come to that conclusion, but I do believe that I very likely could be Ni creative. Even if I am predisposed to doubt at times, I'd consider it healthy. I think definition, or the simple fact of defining is more judging then perceiving anyway. Perception only recognizes, it doesn't "speak". So yes it may be harder to sway the Ni, in the creative spot, but it still follows behind logic and the outside world still commands them.

[Absurd]

Alright, I read some stuff by you this time. Haha.

You're considering ILE, ILI, SLE, LSE and LIE say this and that one fits. No offence, but you're unable to decide.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't enjoy your perception of Ni.

Well, just that you said that what I describe is something that you don't "enjoy" is an indication of Si valuing;

Why can they not doubt?

Why can't an Ni type doubt? Is this the question you are asking?

I think the dogmatic Ni you are speaking of, which ignores facts, is more ego than it is creative.

Both ego (aka base) and creative types and all of Gamma quadrant is influenced by Ni; this is one of the reasons why everyone in that quadra is complimentary in their values and beliefs.

I feel as if Te in the ego will listen to the fact that they might not find the actual substance they believe exists. I am no Ni-ego I have definitely come to that conclusion, but I do believe that I very likely could be Ni creative. Even if I am predisposed to doubt at times, I'd consider it healthy. I think definition, or the simple fact of defining is more judging then perceiving anyway. Perception only recognizes, it doesn't "speak". So yes it may be harder to sway the Ni, in the creative spot, but it still follows behind logic and the outside world still commands them.

Ni base type, the dogmatic idea supersedes Te an extraverted function which gathers and judges facts and information; a good example is my mother, a INTp NiTe; even though she is quite capable of reading and gathering pertinent health related information on her Arthritis, she nevertheless prefers to stick to her dogmatic idea(s) about her health saying such things as "we all die," "I believe in natural medicines," "people in the olden days didn't have medicines; I'm not going to take mine." Same holds true of TeNi when it comes to dogmatic ideas that influence their health; where Ni is a creative function it is used to create a Te outlook; an ENTj is, in mirror to INTp more out-verted in their tendencies to gather and read about facts, however, when it comes to the same idea about the divinity over their own body, the ENTj, despite their better judgement and awareness of external conditions and circumstances (that modern medicine is quite capable or advanced enough to treat and sometimes prevent certain occurrences) will tend to rush to nature stores to stock pile on such herbals as probiotics; an LSE, in such a case, is likely to read about things that have worked, take for example cholesterol and heart issues, they are likely to get things that common current masses have been taking and proven to work such as Niacin and Bayer.


Defining is not the same thing as an evaluation. Determining the nature of an object or person based on judgment is more of EVALUATION; while determining the same based on objective fact is what would be called DEFINITION. A dictionary "definition" is not what the person who compiled the dictionary BELIEVES that a word means; it's what it MEANS.

Anyway, if you want to be ENTj, then you can be.

[anndelise]

A dictionary "definition" is not what the person who compiled the dictionary BELIEVES that a word means; it's what it MEANS.

Not what the word itself means...but how people commonly use that word.
Which is why 'meanings' of a word can evolve and/or be diverse.

[Beautiful sky]

Not what the word itself means...but how people commonly use that word.
Which is why 'meanings' of a word can evolve and/or be diverse.

They revise dictionaries.

[anndelise]

They revise dictionaries.

Precisely.

So this

while determining the same based on objective fact is what would be called DEFINITION. A dictionary "definition" is not what the person who compiled the dictionary BELIEVES that a word means; it's what it MEANS.

is off.

A definition isn't determining something based on objective fact.
A definition is determined by various usages of the word.
Which means that a definition is determined by subjective meanings of a word.
A dictionary helps us find words that will help us communicate ideas and meanings to each other. But this is a far cry from 'definitions being based on objective facts'.

iow, if someone uses a word, and you want to know what they mean when they use it, you may turn to a dictionary, and that defintion might help you think you understand what they meant...what they had in mind when they said it. But if you actually want to know what the person actually meant, you would have to ask them, personally.

Which means...word meanings are subjective, not objective facts.

Take for example socionics words...and socionics meanings...and how often people argue over what the term means, as if it had some objective fact to its meaning. Rather than find common ground outside of those terms, their arguments over the meanings of the terms never get resolved... BECAUSE there is no 'objective fact' to the meanings of the terms.

[anndelise]

The only reason why I even said anything about definitions and meanings is because I believe that MrRTR is correct when he said

I think definition, or the simple fact of defining is more judging then perceiving anyway. Perception only recognizes, it doesn't "speak".

When we are trying to communicate to someone, we are constantly making decisions about which words to use to, hopefully, get across a certain meaning. The mere process of trying to communicate requires evaluating words to see if they might sufficiently get across our meanings. Which also means evaluating our meaning to try to find the right word.

When interpreting someone's attempt at communication, we have to evaluate the words they used and the meanings WE have for the words, to evaluate if the communication attempt even made any sense to us. (note: that doesn't necessarily mean that we actually understand what they meant.)

But I believe MrRTR is right in another way in that the mere act of defining something requires evaluating which parts are relevant to include in the defining process. In this case, we are not talking so much of words, but attempting to define an idea.

[Beautiful sky]

Precisely.

So this

is off.

A definition isn't determining something based on objective fact.
A definition is determined by various usages of the word.
Which means that a definition is determined by subjective meanings of a word.
A dictionary helps us find words that will help us communicate ideas and meanings to each other. But this is a far cry from 'definitions being based on objective facts'.

iow, if someone uses a word, and you want to know what they mean when they use it, you may turn to a dictionary, and that defintion might help you think you understand what they meant...what they had in mind when they said it. But if you actually want to know what the person actually meant, you would have to ask them, personally.

Which means...word meanings are subjective, not objective facts.

Take for example socionics words...and socionics meanings...and how often people argue over what the term means, as if it had some objective fact to its meaning. Rather than find common ground outside of those terms, their arguments over the meanings of the terms never get resolved... BECAUSE there is no 'objective fact' to the meanings of the terms.

A dictionary doesn't lie; they are not ambiguous which is the point of the statement. You seem to be uncomfortable with concrete things. Concrete knowledge derived from external concrete source like a dictionary arouses me. That's a fact by me, my terms, what arouses Maritsa...get that?

[anndelise]

A dictionary doesn't lie; they are not ambiguous which is the point of the statement. You seem to be uncomfortable with concrete things.

You seem uncomfortable with perceiving abstract ideas.
A dictionary may not be ambiguous, but people aren't dictionaries. And it's people who use words to try to get meanings across. Words don't have any true objective meaning outside of the subjective usage by people. This subjective usage requires evaluations....judging. Just like MrRTR said.

[Beautiful sky]

You have to interpret everything; you can't let things mean what they are; it's as if you're uncomfortable with that; either accept it or SHUT UP.

[anndelise]

You have to interpret everything; you can't let things mean what they are; it's as if you're uncomfortable with that; either accept it or SHUT UP.

If a person is attempting to understand another person, an idea, a communication...then they have no choice BUT to interpret.
'things' have no meaning outside of what we give them.
Period!

[Beautiful sky]

Let me define it for you some more so that you get it:

If I hold up a book and say, "this is a book."

Is that a fact or an evaluation?

[anndelise]

Concrete knowledge derived from external concrete source like a dictionary arouses me. That's a fact by me, my terms, what arouses Maritsa...get that?

I don,t care what arouses you.
But thank you for making my point. The meaning isn,t an objective fact...the meaning comes from your evaluations of it.

[anndelise]

Let me define it for you some more so that you get it:

If I hold up a book and say, "this is a book."

Is that a fact or an evaluation?

That is you telling me that when you say "book", that you mean the thing you are holding in your hand.
So that when you talk about 'book' later, then I will know what you are referring to.

[Beautiful sky]

That is you telling me that when you say "book", that you mean the thing you are holding in your hand.
So that when you talk about 'book' later, then I will know what you are referring to.

So you think it's an evaluation? but If I say "this is a GOOD book" is that a fact or an evaluation?

[Beautiful sky]

What if I hold the book up and say, "this is a table"?

My meaning is that we have defined objects to give them meaning; a book is a book and that is a fact. An evaluation is if we say "this is a good book" because that's open to interpretation.

[anndelise]

So you think it's an evaluation? but If I say "this is a GOOD book" is that a fact or an evaluation?

You seem to be using "evaluation" to strictly mean good/bad, like/dislike.
Ignoring other uses of "evaluation" such as works/doesn't work, and fits/doesn't fit.

[anndelise]

What if I hold the book up and say, "this is a table"?

My meaning is that we have defined objects to give them meaning; a book is a book and that is a fact. An evaluation is if we say "this is a good book" because that's open to interpretation.

If you hold up a book and tell me it,s a "table", then there would obviosuly be difficulties in communication between us, as we would be using different words to mean different things.

Maritsa, you are confusing
This [object] is this [object], which is a tautology...
And confusing this [word] is this [object]...which requires interpretation of what [word] means.

[Beautiful sky]

That is you telling me that when you say "book", that you mean the thing you are holding in your hand.
So that when you talk about 'book' later, then I will know what you are referring to.

Hence the book becomes a definition for that object; it defines it so that when we talk about it later on both of us know what we're talking about; hence it's a fact. An OBJECTIVE (derived from object) FACT.