forum consensus type list

[aestrivex]

this project has been resurrected from the long dead.


this list is intended to allow members share their contributions on what they think about other people's types. everybody is encouraged to participate, no matter how green or how insane.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Consensus_List


feel free to add yourself or anyone else to the list as well, and remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) after each comment.

[xyz]

Well what do you know, the ILI finally contributes.

[aestrivex]

it was salawa who started it. blame her.

[xyz]

<blames salawa>

[Logos]

I'm secretly a necromancer.

That's okay. I'm secretly a pet psychologist and milkman (only as a hobby).

[Gilly]

A forum consensus isn't going to mean shit until at least half of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Ezra]

This has opened up a whole new gateway.

[Joy]

A forum consensus isn't going to mean shit until at least half of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

While I wouldn't have worded it that way, I agree.

That said, it looks fun. Perhaps I'll contribute.

[FDG]

While I wouldn't have worded it that way, I agree.

That said, it looks fun. Perhaps I'll contribute.

Again, to me are your ideas that are incorrect. Who's correct between me and you? There's no available judge, so we'll keep on thinking the other is wrong. Still though, don't take yourself as the mouth of objectivity.

[Gilly]

Again, to me are your ideas that are incorrect. Who's correct between me and you? There's no available judge, so we'll keep on thinking the other is wrong. Still though, don't take yourself as the mouth of objectivity.

Oh please, this is getting old, Fabie. Joy understands this shit way better than you do

[FDG]

Oh please, this is getting old, Fabie. Joy understands this shit way better than you do

That's your opinion and I'm fine with it. I obviously disagree, but hey, there's no way to prove it.

[Gilly]

Yeah I Guess Only An Objective Consensus Will Tell Us What We Should Do Har Har Har

[FDG]

Yeah I Guess Only An Objective Consensus Will Tell Us What We Should Do Har Har Har

Nope, for that we'd need an empirical verification of socionics.

[Gilly]

Nope, for that we'd need an empirical verification of socionics.

I never said actual truth, lol. Get that PoLR in check.

[Gilly]

Hey why can't we type in all-caps any more?

[Joy]

Again, to me are your ideas that are incorrect. Who's correct between me and you? There's no available judge, so we'll keep on thinking the other is wrong.

From my perspective, the things you say consistently demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the information elements, the basis of Socionics. There are very few people here who understand them well, but there are a fair number who understand them in a somewhat functional capacity. There are many others, however, who have something of an understanding, but not to the extent that I would consider truly functional.

If I were to call the first group 5, the second group 3, and the third group 1, I would consider you to be a 1.5. At one point I think you were closer to a 3, but your understanding regressed when you started considering yourself LIE again because your point(s) of reference are incorrect. You can call me whatever you'd like. That's just my perspective based on your posts. I have no dislike or disdain for you at all, btw. (Though it can be somewhat frustrating at times to see you continually post inaccurate things about LIE's.)

But you are correct, we are both free to think what we wish.

Still though, don't take yourself as the mouth of objectivity.

Of course not. If you'll recall, I don't believe it's possible for any human to be truly objective (in the way that you're using the term). Although I've put a significant amount of time and effort into understanding the theory, I could very well be incorrect.

[FDG]

From my perspective, the things you say consistently demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the information elements, the basis of Socionics. There are very few people here who understand them well, but there are a fair number who understand them in a somewhat functional capacity. There are many others, however, who have something of an understanding, but not to the extent that I would consider truly functional.

If I were to call the first group 5, the second group 3, and the third group 1, I would consider you to be a 1.5. At one point I think you were closer to a 3, but your understanding regressed when you started considering yourself LIE again because your point(s) of reference are incorrect. You can call me whatever you'd like. That's just my perspective based on your posts. I have no dislike or disdain for you at all, btw. (Though it can be somewhat frustrating at times to see you continually post inaccurate things about LIE's.)

Well honestly when you say this I feel like that...either you are very "dumb" in the real sense of the word, or you are trying to purposefully shit me.

[Gilly]

You've only told us as much about...50,000,000 times? Everyone knows you don't like Joy, get over yourself already.

[FDG]

You've only told us as much about...50,000,000 times? Everyone knows you don't like Joy, get over yourself already.

Nah, there's really not a limit for how much time I can say that.

[Minde]

this project has been resurrected from the long dead.


this list is intended to allow members share their contributions on what they think about other people's types. everybody is encouraged to participate, no matter how green or how insane.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Consensus_List


feel free to add yourself or anyone else to the list as well, and remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) after each comment.

You surprise me, Niffweed. Well, maybe not really, not if I think about it.

Anyway, it sounds like it'd be interesting. (Thank you for the resurrection, Salawa.) I don't know what I could contribute, though.

[aestrivex]

From my perspective, the things you say consistently demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the information elements, the basis of Socionics. There are very few people here who understand them well, but there are a fair number who understand them in a somewhat functional capacity. There are many others, however, who have something of an understanding, but not to the extent that I would consider truly functional.

If I were to call the first group 5, the second group 3, and the third group 1, I would consider you to be a 1.5. At one point I think you were closer to a 3, but your understanding regressed when you started considering yourself LIE again because your point(s) of reference are incorrect. You can call me whatever you'd like. That's just my perspective based on your posts. I have no dislike or disdain for you at all, btw. (Though it can be somewhat frustrating at times to see you continually post inaccurate things about LIE's.)

But you are correct, we are both free to think what we wish.

i agree with 100% of this. FDG is not helping his own image any by refusing to discuss the IM elements either.

[Gilly]

Nah, there's really not a limit for how much time I can say that.

Ok, well nobody else gives a flying fuck, and you're just making yourself out to be an ass. Just so you know.

[aestrivex]

A forum consensus isn't going to mean shit until at least half of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

"at least half" does not necessarily constitute a consensus, in the full extent of the wiki sense of the word.


you should know that i know better than anyone else here how minimal the collective understanding of this forum is. however, the very purpose of this project is to consider multiple viewpoints.

[Gilly]

Better than anyone? You're one of a few, I'd say.

I don't see what the point of collecting multiple perspectives is if we can easily invalidate some (most) of them.

[aestrivex]

the point is that you can't take it for granted that you're going to invalidate all of them.

[Gilly]

Well you can certainly take for granted that I will invalidate most of them so as far as I'm concerned, this consensus is useless. There are people whose perspectives I value, and I'm already fully aware of what they think.

[aestrivex]

fine.

[Animal]

Someone add me cuz I don't know how to... yet. (I just want to belong.)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

Someone add me cuz I don't know how to... yet. (I just want to belong.)

done.

[aut0]

I added myself.

[Animal]

done.

Much obliged. Now I must figure out how to use it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

How does it work? How do you add yourself or make comments on other people?

it's very intuitive (no pun intended). just make an account (if you haven't) and edit the page. don't worry about the wiki syntax that much; if you need to add yourself, just copy and paste it.

for more instructions on wikiediting, see http://en.wikipedia/org/H2EAP.

[Joy]

niffweed, your link doesn't work

Okay, correct me if I am wrong... but isn't the purpose of a consensus to just see, you know, what the consensus is? In other words it isn't about figuring out what types people are to any degree of accuracy--it is more about figuring out what the "collective forum consciousness" thinks about the types of its members (and of course to be able to see everyone's pov, gathered as a whole). So, yes, it may well be highly inaccurate in the end, but that is fine because accuracy was never its purpose. Does this consensus thing serve some sort of functional, practical purpose? Not really. But who cares. It's interesting.

Also, it isn't like people can't change their minds.

Personally, I think it's useful information... useful, in that it is interesting.

I like you.

I also pretty much agree with what Gilligan was saying. Forum consensus doesn't mean much to me because I've personally witnessed more than a few times when someone challenged a person's claimed type, and the general consensus (who had believed that the person was their claimed type for a while) said that the person challenging it was crazy/wrong/stupid/insane/whatever, only to see the forum consensus swing to the type the challenger suggested a few months later.

Two points for the power of suggestion?

[aestrivex]

niffweed, your link doesn't work

works for me.

no idea.

[implied]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:H2EAP

[Blaze]

somebody add me i can't figure it out right now. thx

[Slacker]

Would someone please add me too. I was going to cut/paste but I wasn't sure just how much to cut and where to paste.

[Slacker]

Thank you!