Till Lindemann

[Rick]

Yes, Phaedrus, I am well aware that I have had the same disagreements about Te vs. Ti with you, too, and I believe the reason is basically the same -- you are a Ti type parading as Te and adjusting your functional understanding to remove the systematic contradictions. The result of altering your functional understanding is that the proposed intertype relations become hopelessly mucked up, but you choose to turn a blind eye to that. Or, you change your understanding of all the functions to allow your real-life interactions to retain logical consistency, but then encounter serious problems when discussing socionics with people on the forum.

Just a brief demonstration -- I am 100% sure that other IEEs and EIIs on this forum would have the same aggressive reaction to the statements I cited as being Se + Ti, which you and Smilingeyes see as Te. In Russian language socionics these statements would be almost universally attributed to Se + Ti, which makes far more sense when their affect on different types is observed in real life. Some types take such statements as normal or as signs that the other person has gotten a little worked up, and that's perfectly fine -- they just need to be appeased a little bit. Other types take them as a personal attack and get very defensive or aggressive in return. If you look at how different types react, it would make no sense at all to call that Te. I almost never hear such things from LSEs and SLIs, and yet as soon as the SLEs and LSIs on this forum get a little worked up, these statements start coming out naturally.

Out of interest, Phaedrus, what do you think Lindemann's type is?

My other challenge is to provide a functional analysis of my argument with Smilingeyes and/or past ones with you that explains what about each person made the other angry.

[Expat]

I find the preceding expressions of disagreement educational.

I do too.

You have seen the full horror of the Delta quadra. The precariousness of your candyass comfort.

[discourse]

Deltas can be social bad asses too. Take Kerry Catona for example. She's extremely annoying and thinks she is ESFj.

[Tov]

Here's a thought, what if it is Se+Ti as Rick says. Can LSEs not use it; it is their 7th and 8th function, and it would make sense that they would poke fun of it like smilingeyes points out.

[Smilingeyes]

The conversation seems to move on, so maybe I'll return for an afterpost, not to speak to Rick since he hardly reads what I write and certainly doesn't answer to any of it. As background information for anyone not yet knowing this, Rick typed me as an INFp some time ago and at that point he acted if that typing was obvious for anyone and everyone. This is habitual of him. Now he calls me Ti+Se because I use strong vocabulary. Whatever... As he is unable to actually analyze anything and only uses analysis to support decisions he has already made I can't really support his habits of typing.

In this thread he continues to talk about anything but the subject matter. That is because his position is that to talk about your private heartaches has the same imagery as inciting grand scale violence. That this is not true should be obvious to everyone, but probably isn't. I'm going away from the forum again for awhile soon, and will leave Rick here to do his demagoguery. I sleep well at night knowing I have done my best to give information. I doubt Rick can say the same.

I'll just leave you with the lyrics of Metallica and Rammstein's first singles. See if you just might be able to find a small difference in them?

Metallica
Late at night all systems go
You have come to see the show
We do our best You're the rest
You make it real you know
There is a feeling deep inside
That drives you fuckin' mad
A feeling of a hammerhead
You need it oh so bad

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac
Whiplash

Bang your head against the stage
Like you never did before
Make it ring Make it bleed
Make it really sore
In a frenzied madness
with your leather and your spikes
Heads are bobbing all around
It is hot as hell tonight

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac
Whiplash

Here on the stage the Marshal noise
is piercing through your ears
It kicks your ass kick your face
Exploding feeling nears
Now is the time to let it rip
To let it fuckin' loose
We are gathered here to im and kill
Cause this is what we choose

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac
Whiplash

The show is through the metal is gone
It is time to hit the road
Another town Another gig
Again we will explode
Hotel rooms and motorways
Life out here is raw
But we will never stop
We will never quit
cause we are Metallica

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac

....

And now Rammstein



Insanity
is only a narrow bridge
the banks are reason and desire
I'm after you
the sunlight confuses the mind
a blind child that crawls forward
because it smells its mother

I find you

The track is fresh and on the bridge
drops your sweat, your warm blood
I don't see you
I only smell you, I sense you
a predator that screams of hunger
I track you for miles by scent

You smell so good
you smell so good
I follow you
you smell so good
I find you
- so good
I'm after you
you smell so good
I will have you soon

Now I have you

I wait until it is dark
then I touch your wet skin
don't betray me
oh don't you see the bridge is burning
stop screaming and don't resist
because otherwise it will break apart

You smell so good
you smell so good
I follow you
you smell so good
I find you
- so good
I'm after you
you smell so good
I will have you soon

You smell so good
you smell so good
I follow you
you smell so good
I find you
- so good
I touch you
you smell so good
now I have you

You smell so good
you smell so good
I follow you

Both have ST imagery, but the first one is about a collective experience of thrashing violently in a group, the second one is an account of personal obsession to something that causes intense pleasure. Again, Rick's position is that these two issues describe the same type, his and 100% of his companions. Right. Good luck with that.

Rick's case builds on the following: 1) He reacts badly to Rammstein and he is delta so every delta must react badly to Rammstein.
2) Rammstein talks about difficult subjects using harsh vocabulary.
Everything else he has said is a repetition or another formulation of these.

To contradict this: I react badly to Metallica and I react well to Rammstein. I can not see much similarities at all.
Thus 1) is contradicted and 2) is much weaker evidence than everything I've brought forth. I doubt anything anyone says will actually make Rick become objective or admit his failure anymore than he already has but if someone else actually has a good case for claiming Rammstein as beta I'd like to hear it. As I said in the beginning I could see someone making a decent case for Lindemann being ESTp. It remains something I find possible but not without good evidence. And it is in my opinion proven as much as it can be proven that the imagery of the two bands is quite different.

As for musical analysis. Rick's case is that a repeating beat must be beta. This claim must then also be applied to techno, trance, house and such, also to tribal african rhytmic music and japanese taiko music. If you happen to have any experience of the techno scene of ... well any country that I know of, you will know that the scene is not beta rendering that suggestion null and void.

On a level of purpose, delta is not only about maximizing comfort, but also minimizing discomfort. Thus delta is not only interested in comfort but also in discomfort. Rammstein's music is about discomfort and attempts to purge it. It sings about subjects it generally opposes. Rick's mistake is in that he sees any talk of a subject as proponing that subject, he is shooting the messenger, equating the opposition to an action with the action itself. I personally am currently focused in minimizing discomfort around me. I do that by taking the most difficult tasks around me and trying to do them well, so that I would not have to repetitively be bothered by these issues. Comfort does not exist by its very nature, it is something that has to be created actively. I do a lot of work by day so that I can afford to be comfortable by evening. No doubt Rick will again try to paint this focusing on minimizing discomfort as some esoteric form of Ti+Se, but I will attempt not to care. For your own safety and I suggest you think about these issues thoroughly before choosing your opinion. I too am obviously blind to where I fail, so pming me about where if anywhere I went wrong would be viewed as a friendly action.

As for what made me angry in this thread: lying and misleading. This is easy. I dislike foul play. I also find Rick to be a bad ENFp in the sense that he isn't using much of his Fi and he is using Ti almost as much as he does Fi. What I say is naturally not pleasing to his Ti. Neither do I give out as much Si as he would like. There's the functional analysis of the events. I would also like to remind everyone that since Rick is only trying to prove that Rammstein is beta since he doesn't like it, that there are other factors than socionics that are also quite possible as explaining factors of why one doesn't like a certain musical sound or message. Good night to everyone, sleep tight.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

The mythical sandman, 'enter sandman', i'm not a huge fan of their music, it's ok. I always thought that song was about child abuse. Is this correct or is it just a bunch of mythology and metaphors that sound good? Or is it about something else?

[leckysupport]

I almost never hear such things from LSEs and SLIs, and yet as soon as the SLEs and LSIs on this forum get a little worked up, these statements start coming out naturally.

I've seen Delta STs (including myself) act out like smilingeyes just has in grass roots politicial movements. These movement usually include a lot of ass kissing, straight out lying and misrepresentation of ideas for political gain or for the sake of the movement.

I find these movements tend to be very heavy populated with Beta quadra members, even in a situation where the orginal ideal of the movement is a Delta conception Beta types always move in and make the waters mirky.

So if smilingeyes is a LSE and he sees you as someone horribly misrepresents the truth for your own gains (or a annoying Beta type) then yeah it makes sense.

Edit: Also there's a feeling of complete and utter blind delusion and following in these movements that tends to irritate me to the nth degree.

[Smilingeyes]

Of all Rammstein's songs, only a few seem to be about "single events" in the way you talk about them. The themes you speak of are far from common (and as for not singing about the mythical Sandman, what do you suppose the "voice from the pillow" is in Mein Herz Brennt?)

To compare, even "personal violence that is romanticized and pictured with broad archetypical brushstrokes" is more common.

• Personal violence (usually too removed from "normal" to really be a problem of society) appears in the following songs, just to start!
  • Wollt Ihr das Bett in Flammen sehen?
  • Weisses Fleisch
  • Du reischt so gut
  • Laichzeit
  • Tier
  • Bestrafe mich
  • Buck dich
  • Klavier
• The following songs are rich with archetypes and mythological references
  • Der Meister
  • Asche zu Asche
  • (perhaps) Laichzeit
  • Engel
  • Bestrafe mich
  • Mein Herz brennt
  • Dalai Lama

...though I'd say that neither of them is the most common theme. The vast majority of their music uses the themes of death, sex, violence and loneliness to illustrate the point (which is sometimes social, but much more often to demonstrate the patheticness of human relationships).

The most obvious failure in this list is Dalai Lama. That one is about a single event, a plane crash. It is also a reference to the current Dalai Lama and his personal dislike of flight. Mein Teil should also be added to the list of obvious personal violence.

The character of Sandman exists in the song again as a parody. The song Mein Herz brennt is a commentary on an existing nationally popular tv show. It uses the imagery of that tv show and turns it into a mockery. This is another example of seizing upon a theme chosen by another and turned into Rammstein's own, also another example of them seizing on a singular existing phenomenon.

Asche zu asche is as far as I know about Lindemann's masochism and the christ myth. It is not actually full of strong metaphorical imagery in my opinion but I can see how it could be construed as an example of this.

Bestrafe mich is also about Lindemann's masochism. Much of the same applies here.

Again, the song Engel, doesn't talk about angels as powerful mythical characters, it talks about how the concept of angels in unpleasant.

If there is one song on this list that supports this idea it is Der Meister. This song does have large scale religious imagery in something of a role that is supportive of it. So I would like to clarify my position. My case is that Rammstein is mostly about Te. The small scale stories that I described are more evident than large scale ones, much more so and is indicative of preference of Si over Ni. But I would not say that Ni is completely nonexistent in their work. Thank you.

[FDG]

I almost never hear such things from LSEs and SLIs, and yet as soon as the SLEs and LSIs on this forum get a little worked up, these statements start coming out naturally.

Also to be considered that there tends to be a positive feedback of this kind: "these statements"->typed as beta ST->"these statements"->reinforcement of the beta ST typing->on

[Expat]

Also to be considered that there tends to be a positive feedback of this kind: "these statements"->typed as beta ST->"these statements"->reinforcement of the beta ST typing->on

That is far from being all that Rick does.

If you look at the wiki, there are very long lists of words, and phrases, attributed to , , , etc etc. If you read those, it's clear why Rick thinks that some phrases, some uses of language, are + and not . And if you read what he, and others, wrote about what those functions are, it's also easy to see why those associations are made.

If you actually read what he, and others have written there, it's clear as water as to why we think it fits together. Of course it's possible to argue that we're all wrong, that what we call "Ti" is actually not Ti, etc.

But I suggest the argument needs to be better than just say, as you are implying, that he's starting from "Beta STs say this" for no reason whatsoever.

[FDG]

That is far from being all that Rick does.

I never said all, it only happens in some instances.

If you look at the wiki, there are very long lists of words, and phrases, attributed to , , , etc etc. If you read those, it's clear why Rick thinks that some phrases, some uses of language, are + and not . And if you read what he, and others, wrote about what those functions are, it's also easy to see why those associations are made.

The mechanism would be exactly the same, actually (the positive feedback cycle). In any case, of course Delta STs will use Se terms when they are in the course of a verbal sparring "match".

If you actually read what he, and others have written there, it's clear as water as to why we think it fits together. Of course it's possible to argue that we're all wrong, that what we call "Ti" is actually not Ti, etc.

? Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't dismantling a whole system. Only pointing out a possible source of errors.

But I suggest the argument needs to be better than just say, as you are implying, that he's starting from "Beta STs say this" for no reason whatsoever.

I wasn't making a case.

[Smilingeyes]

That is far from being all that Rick does.

If you look at the wiki, there are very long lists of words, and phrases, attributed to , , , etc etc. If you read those, it's clear why Rick thinks that some phrases, some uses of language, are + and not . And if you read what he, and others, wrote about what those functions are, it's also easy to see why those associations are made.

If you actually read what he, and others have written there, it's clear as water as to why we think it fits together. Of course it's possible to argue that we're all wrong, that what we call "Ti" is actually not Ti, etc.

But I suggest the argument needs to be better than just say, as you are implying, that he's starting from "Beta STs say this" for no reason whatsoever.

The wiki, as all wiki projects, is far from being an authoritative source. The fact that Rick wrote something down previously on the subject does not give credibility to the same opinion later on. That you are collaborating in this project does not give you credibility either. Neither are you a definition of ALL as you represent yourself. YOU being wrong does not mean that everyone is wrong. You have simply formed a small circle within which you have taken upon yourself the right to decide what is true and what is not to the exemption of of other opinions. This is a reasonable political strategy, a very effective one I might add, but your decisions do not actually alter reality or any facts however much you try. Things are as they are and you say what you say. Occasionally these two are even in sync. This thread is not about you, though, so if you have something to say about Lindemann, please do so. I applaud you for your carefully crafted statement. Just the correct amount of uncertainty sown to the right places, turns of the word that imply without really saying anything. You would be a great asset to any political cause and any campaign of disinformation.

I particularly applaud your use of the word "we", as if you were speaking for a great collective instead of a couple of people who happen to agree in a few points while disagreeing in others.

Also, if anyone has actually bothered to read that list of words in wiki they may have noticed that it's full of standard forum stereotypes and void of any analysis or reasoning. At least this was true when I last read it.

[Expat]

The mechanism would be exactly the same, actually (the positive feedback cycle). In any case, of course Delta STs will use Se terms when they are in the course of a verbal sparring "match".

The "positive feedback cycle" argument can be used for anything in socionics. We start from some definitions, see confirmation/correction in reality, and on and on.

As for Delta STs using Se: the main disagreement, as I saw it, was about what precisely Te and Ti are, as functions; not whether Delta STs can use Se or not. Rick's argument about "conflict" was centered on the functions being used; now, whether he (or anyone else) should then conclude that that's already a clear indication of precise types, fine, that's another issue.

? Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't dismantling a whole system. Only pointing out a possible source of errors.

What I was taking personally is the implication that he (or I, since we agree on most things and work together in the wiki) would go for a kind of simplistic circular reasoning as you were illustrating, without explaining why such statements would be most typical (but not exclusive, there I agree) to Beta STs. If that's not the case, fine, I over-reacted.

[Smilingeyes]

[QUOTE=Expat;322611]The "positive feedback cycle" argument can be used for anything in socionics. We start from some definitions, see confirmation/correction in reality, and on and on.

It can't. And even if it can be used for many things this is an attempt to misconstrue what was said. The argument is that anything that seems contradictory is labeled as beta. When a person who is beta is labeled as beta they reasonably become angry because someone has just lied about who they are and what they represent. This anger is then used as proof of being beta. Any resistance to idea that one is beta is labeled as proof of being beta. This is something YOU do consistently, you personally. You do this a lot. This is the typical case, not just a random example of some great overarching theme or phenomenon, it is a choice you reenact consistently and are responsible of.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

As far as I'm aware the team at socionics.com also contribute to wiki. What i'm wondering is, for someone looking to learn, what sources then should we (or I) rely on? Perhaps it is a case of taking on board what I read and then formulating my own interpretations and views on it. But surely there must be a correct consensus on such things that are say, Beta ST or Delta ST that can be put down in words and recorded?

[Expat]

As far as I'm aware the team at socionics.com also contribute to wiki.

What is the socionics.com "team"? There's only Ganin as far as I know and no, he hasn't contributed.

What i'm wondering is, for someone looking to learn, what sources then should we (or I) rely on? Perhaps it is a case of taking on board what I read and then formulating my own interpretations and views on it.

Personally I think that some Russian sources like, say, socionics.org and socioscope.com are fair representatives of what we understand as "classical socionics", and anything written by Augusta herself (which is not to say that that's some sort of "holy scripture").

And yes, at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what makes the most sense to you.

But surely there must be a correct consensus on such things that are say, Beta ST or Delta ST that can be put down in words and recorded?

What is a "correct consensus"? And by the way, a "consensus" is not necessarily "correct" since many people can agree and still be wrong.

Personally I think that the "correct consensus" as far as classical socionics is concerned, is what we've tried to describe, and refer to, in the wiki. Now there are two big questions: (1) whether what we are doing really reflects classical socionics and (2) whether or not classical socionics really works and is valid, or if you should go for a different model. Sometimes the two questions get confused.

[Smilingeyes]

As far as I'm aware the team at socionics.com also contribute to wiki. What i'm wondering is, for someone looking to learn, what sources then should we (or I) rely on? Perhaps it is a case of taking on board what I read and then formulating my own interpretations and views on it. But surely there must be a correct consensus on such things that are say, Beta ST or Delta ST that can be put down in words and recorded?

Why should there be? You say that it must be so. Why? There are no two socionists with the exact same opinion on everything socionical. There is no consensus on all topics and there is nothing that isn't repudiated by someone or another, in most cases at least one prominent socionist as well. And even if there was this consensus, what possible guarantee could you have that that consensus was also true on the level of actual reality, not just social reality? Just because something is a prevalent opinion does not immediately make it the correct opinion.

Now making the wiki and reading the wiki is a good and defensible idea, since it is as good a starting point as any, and the existence of an illusion of collective opinion makes it more difficult for crackpots to claim that they are representatives of all of socionics. And as such I support the actual project of the wiki, just not the image of infallibility and inevitability that Expat is trying to pass off.

What then should you trust? I suggest yourself and your own experience. Create a hypothesis (potentially accept a hypothesis someone else has created. Test it. Analyze the results. The argument of socionics is that our brain naturally without us cognitively doing it, analyzes socionics constantly. You already have these patterns within you so you are already an expert on what works for you. The gift socionics can give you is it can give you names for things so that you can further analyze your experiences and share them with others. It is this last reason that is particularly important for the task of creating consensus about socionics, that makes it a valuable goal, even if there is currently little success.

As for what is delta ST, there is one block of people who stress the Te aspects and claim they are hard-working serious people who are adept at martial issues and make the best warriors though not good conquerors.
The other block stresses Si and claims that delta ST are lazy softies who are relaxed and always nice. The truth is somewhere in between. I consider both the groups to be correct. Wisdom that you should strive for is how this is possible. One should learn from both these opinions.
There are probably other blocks and opinions as well but this is the prominent dividing line.

[implied]

i'm also quite a bit concerned about the idea that deltas absolutely and positively cannot be angry at any point in time at which point they cease to be delta and become beta. it's odd, as one of the most emotionally controlled people i've ever met i've typed as ESTp. i don't think i've ever seen him become angry. it seems like ISTp descriptions paint them as much less controlled. i don't see why expressing anger has to be inconsistent with being delta. i wouldn't really want to pinpoint expat as the only person guilty of anger = beta type typings, but i have noticed that it's come up quite a bit more than really seems fair or even accurate.

[Expat]

i wouldn't really want to pinpoint expat as the only person guilty of anger = beta type typings

Can you point me to a case where I've actually said that anger=beta?

[implied]

Can you point me to a case where I've actually said that anger=beta?

i can't think of a specific instance. i'm not even really into talking about the subject anymore mostly because, as per smilingeyes' observations, i feel like anything i say that disagrees with you all will further pigeonhole me into a beta typing. heh.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What is the socionics.com "team"? There's only Ganin as far as I know and no, he hasn't contributed.

I do not know who the 'team' is, or how large it is, but I know that for instance he is not the only person who updates and moderates his q&a section, as he told me this in his forum, so at least it shows that it is not just him involved, and is suggestive of another person moderating who Ganin sees as knowledgable in socionics?

In regards to contributions to wiki, it's true that I don't know if he actually does, however, recently on adding a post to his q&a section, i was presented with this:

http://www.socionics.com/fy.html

Although it doesn't say 'i'm involved' it does to me suggesting some sort of involvement, or at least support of it, which I found interesting as in turn it suggestive to me of more involvement than I realised. Perhaps they're not involved at all, but then I don't know why he would redirect me to it at all then?

Personally I think that some Russian sources like, say, socionics.org and socioscope.com are fair representatives of what we understand as "classical socionics", and anything written by Augusta herself (which is not to say that that's some sort of "holy scripture").

And yes, at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what makes the most sense to you.

Something along the lines i've thought also.

What is a "correct consensus"? And by the way, a "consensus" is not necessarily "correct" since many people can agree and still be wrong.

Personally I think that the "correct consensus" as far as classical socionics is concerned, is what we've tried to describe, and refer to, in the wiki. Now there are two big questions: (1) whether what we are doing really reflects classical socionics and (2) whether or not classical socionics really works and is valid, or if you should go for a different model. Sometimes the two questions get confused.

fwiw, I think that it's difficult to define a correct consensus, however I think a lot of wiki is fairly close to one for my take.

Why should there be? You say that it must be so. Why? There are no two socionists with the exact same opinion on everything socionical. There is no consensus on all topics and there is nothing that isn't repudiated by someone or another, in most cases at least one prominent socionist as well. And even if there was this consensus, what possible guarantee could you have that that consensus was also true on the level of actual reality, not just social reality? Just because something is a prevalent opinion does not immediately make it the correct opinion.

Well, as an initial thought, I know that people will always disagree with descriptions and semantics, and I cannot be sure that what is generally held as the general consensus is the correct one, but if opinions become really polarised on some issues (not saying it necessarily has here) but in general, then it seems that the whole concept can become too vague to be anything but a personal interpretation. So maybe thats the correct way? But if personal opinions become so polarised, then can socionics ever be fully explained and presented to people? Scientific approaches usually come to an overall 'consensus' due to actuall observable datas. But then when it comes to people..maybe it's only natural that there will be different takes and interpretations. Maybe thats what makes socionic discussion so interesting

As for what is delta ST, there is one block of people who stress the Te aspects and claim they are hard-working serious people who are adept at martial issues and make the best warriors though not good conquerors.
The other block stresses Si and claims that delta ST are lazy softies who are relaxed and always nice. The truth is somewhere in between. I consider both the groups to be correct. Wisdom that you should strive for is how this is possible. One should learn from both these opinions.
There are probably other blocks and opinions as well but this is the prominent dividing line.

I think ISTp is a mixture of both.

I guess overall, my current view of socionics is to take what makes most sense to me from forum and wiki and what have you, and to ultimately observe what I see as really is in RL, and make the whole thing applicable to see how it applies to me and the people I see round about me. One thing i've thought is that I'm looking to see how socionics can improve people..ie it's ok identifying a PoLR and saying..oh thats why you behave a certain way etc., but is it possible with that knowledge to improve on your HA agenda weaknesses for instance or find some way to fufill your own accepting functions? Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps as we all see things differently through the 'eyes' of our own types then it's difficult people in general to come to a conclusion as to what really is correct, cause maybe it's subjective not objective in all this?

PS Sorry if I sort of stepped in here, wasn't looking to de-rail things, and thank you for your replies Expat and Smilingeyes.

[Expat]

i can't think of a specific instance. i'm not even really into talking about the subject anymore mostly because, as per smilingeyes' observations, i feel like anything i say that disagrees with you all will further pigeonhole me into a beta typing. heh.

1) Then you really don't understand me, despite all our discussions;
2) The last occasions I actually expressed a strong opinion on your type, they were actually ESI or ILI; I didn't even express an opinion on your wiki discussion, because I don't really know; I certainly don't recall making any strong case (except perhaps musings, as I sometimes do) on your being Beta;
3) Why the "indirect character assassination" tactics? You accused me of saying that "anger=beta"; I asked for evidence, which is fair enough, isn't it? If that's some sort of vague "impression you get", then there's nothing I can do about it, but admission of that would be nice. To further say "if I disagree with you you'll call me Beta", is a further indirect character assassination atempt, especially foolish since (1) there are quite a few people who disagree with me and I've never suggested they are Beta and (2) those whom I've typed as "Beta", against their wishes, have also been typed so by others, of all quadras. But I guess they're just blindly following me, aren't they?
4) Thank you for clarifying a few things, even in this indirect way.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

i can't think of a specific instance. i'm not even really into talking about the subject anymore mostly because, as per smilingeyes' observations, i feel like anything i say that disagrees with you all will further pigeonhole me into a beta typing. heh.

This is something I agree on. The functions are dynamic of course, and this can lead to quick decisions AND pidgeon holeing. So with a non static model, where we each have all the functions, we are all capable of demonstrating a multitude of behaviours. Someone could be angry not because they've got beta Se, thats just silly.

It's what we're more comfortable with, or externally demonstrate the most which leads to a preference, over internall and external time, and hence, a type, is probably the best way to come to a decision.

[Smilingeyes]

Did you miss the obvious reference to Der Erlkoenig? It may as well be a modernisation of Goethe's poem.

No, I didn't. It is also a modernisation of Goethe's poem. Using multiple references and multiple meanings for their songs is typical of Rammstein. There is no uniform message for most of their songs, they are personal and open to personal interpretation. Despite the in your face sound, the songs are actually quite subtle.

[implied]

1) Then you really don't understand me, despite all our discussions;
2) The last occasions I actually expressed a strong opinion on your type, they were actually ESI or ILI; I didn't even express an opinion on your wiki discussion, because I don't really know;

it was a rather indirect way of defense! i don't see you as being the biggest perpetrator of this sort of "must be beta!" typing. the only instance i can directly think of where you might be accused of such is perhaps the phaedrus typing. and to be quite honest, he's so farfetched from any ideas of what i currently *think* an INFp can be like, that i have difficulties seeing him as one. i still don't really have an opinion on his type or pay enough attention to his ramble to really care about his type. i do actually appreciate that you and niffweed have not blatantly said i was INFp. i still believe it's a bad typing for me, but at this point i feel like expressing that i disagree with this typing is ever more reason to call me INFp. especially after my own experience with the wiki.

I certainly don't recall making any strong case (except perhaps musings, as I sometimes do) on your being Beta;
3) Why the "indirect character assassination" tactics? You accused me of saying that "anger=beta"; I asked for evidence, which is fair enough, isn't it? If that's some sort of vague "impression you get", then there's nothing I can do about it, but admission of that would be nice.

it is a rather vague impression, not something i'd really want to out and out accuse you of. to be quite honest, i think that particularly you and, to a slightly lesser degree, niffweed have been pretty careful about not jumping to conclusions or jumping the gun on typing everyone as beta. i think joy and perhaps discojoe are the worst for this, really, which is what i was attempting to refer to in a polite-ish manner without out and out getting pissed.

To further say "if I disagree with you you'll call me Beta", is a further indirect character assassination atempt,

i need to clarify that i didn't mean "expat will call me beta!"

4) Thank you for clarifying a few things, even in this indirect way.

yw.

[Smilingeyes]

@Cyclops: Glad you stepped in. It's usually good to have a person with a legitimate concern around. (Even if it wasn't really on topic but I guess the whole thread has been hi-jacked by now, so whatever.)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Cyclops: Glad you stepped in. It's usually good to have a person with a legitimate concern around. (Even if it wasn't really on topic but I guess the whole thread has been hi-jacked by now, so whatever.)

Yeah thanks. I was thinking after I posted that threads do digress at times, and sometimes for good reason, so yeah it's probably a good thing that here and there it happens and perhaps to do.

[Smilingeyes]

1) Then you really don't understand me, despite all our discussions;
2) The last occasions I actually expressed a strong opinion on your type, they were actually ESI or ILI; I didn't even express an opinion on your wiki discussion, because I don't really know; I certainly don't recall making any strong case (except perhaps musings, as I sometimes do) on your being Beta;
3) Why the "indirect character assassination" tactics? You accused me of saying that "anger=beta"; I asked for evidence, which is fair enough, isn't it? If that's some sort of vague "impression you get", then there's nothing I can do about it, but admission of that would be nice. To further say "if I disagree with you you'll call me Beta", is a further indirect character assassination atempt, especially foolish since (1) there are quite a few people who disagree with me and I've never suggested they are Beta and (2) those whom I've typed as "Beta", against their wishes, have also been typed so by others, of all quadras. But I guess they're just blindly following me, aren't they?
4) Thank you for clarifying a few things, even in this indirect way.

Number 2) is a misrepresentation. You are again only presenting the case that not everyone is against you but sorry, even if you portray yourself as the leader of everyone not everyone agrees with you, happily. Examples of the aforementioned tactic of yours are rife in the conversations we had about my behaviour and your discussions with ezra and Phaedrus. 3) Speaking truth of you is not character assassination even when it is inconvenient to you.

You are a liar and a hack, though a very intelligent one, and very adept at your social game.

This is the reason why I singled out Expat previously. He consistently avoids being singled out, consistently representing himself as a personification of some huge group putting peer pressure on everyone else. He avoids being personally responsible of anything and avoids being charged for this by giving a random apology about something insignificant and immediately continuing the same old. With regard to truth, our positions differ in that I consider myself to be a servant of it whereas he considers himself to be the arbiter of it, and it is everyone else's role to bend to his will. Bah, though fact is that this is a social role that tends to be taken up by someone, and Expat really isn't any worse than anyone else that might fulfill the same purpose, so I guess it's a good thing that he's here, but believe him at your own peril, he certainly will take no responsibility, because if there's bad consequences, "it's just your fault for misunderstanding him"...

[Expat]

it was a rather indirect way of defense! i don't see you as being the biggest perpetrator of this sort of "must be beta!" typing. the only instance i can directly think of where you might be accused of such is perhaps the phaedrus typing. and to be quite honest, he's so farfetched from any ideas of what i currently *think* an INFp can be like, that i have difficulties seeing him as one. i still don't really have an opinion on his type or pay enough attention to his ramble to really care about his type. i do actually appreciate that you and niffweed have not blatantly said i was INFp. i still believe it's a bad typing for me, but at this point i feel like expressing that i disagree with this typing is ever more reason to call me INFp. especially after my own experience with the wiki.

Please note that (unless they've changed their minds) the Alpha Logos types Phaedrus as INFp and reached that conclusion independently, and thehotelambush types him as ISTj; whatever is going on here regarding his type, whatever the "truth" on his type is, is far from being just "my" thing. Unless someone wants to suggest that those two guys are just following my lead, which is a totally preposterous suggestion since we very often disagree on many things. They're just two examples, btw. I wasn't even the first to suggest that typing, ftr.

Those who'd say, or suggest, that "because you disagree with INFp that is more reason to call you INFp" are just fools, and I don't know that anyone has even followed this kind of reasoning, with you or anyone else. It seems like a straw man to me.

it is a rather vague impression, not something i'd really want to out and out accuse you of.

Thanks for clarifying this then. Of course, "vague impressions" expressed like that can be very effective, sometimes more so than "out and out accusations". Precisely because, later, nobody remembers anymore who said what, but "it must be true" somehow.

On the "Beta and anger" thing: classical socionists associated Beta with "fire" instead of "air", "water" or "earth", and with "adolescence", rather than "childhood" or "adulthood" or "old age", for a reason, however corny those images may seem at times. Beta is the most "passionate" quadra, for "good" and "bad" reasons. As far as that goes, there is sense in associating "Beta" with "anger". Now, of course, everyone gets angry.

[Smilingeyes]

Please note that (unless they've changed their minds) the Alpha Logos types Phaedrus as INFp and reached that conclusion independently, and thehotelambush types him as ISTj; whatever is going on here regarding his type, whatever the "truth" on his type is, is far from being just "my" thing. Unless someone wants to suggest that those two guys are just following my lead, which is a totally preposterous suggestion since we very often disagree on many things. They're just two examples, btw. I wasn't even the first to suggest that typing, ftr.

Those who'd say, or suggest, that "because you disagree with INFp that is more reason to call you INFp" are just fools, and I don't know that anyone has even followed this kind of reasoning, with you or anyone else. It seems like a straw man to me.

Thanks for clarifying this then. Of course, "vague impressions" expressed like that can be very effective, sometimes more so than "out and out accusations". Precisely because, later, nobody remembers anymore who said what, but "it must be true" somehow.

On the "Beta and anger" thing: classical socionists associated Beta with "fire" instead of "air", "water" or "earth", and with "adolescence", rather than "childhood" or "adulthood" or "old age", for a reason, however corny those images may seem at times. Beta is the most "passionate" quadra, for "good" and "bad" reasons. As far as that goes, there is sense in associating "Beta" with "anger". Now, of course, everyone gets angry.

This message by Expat is slightly less filled with lies than the previous ones. Please do note his avowed ignorance of anyone ever using that pattern though he consistently uses it himself.

I make one more point about what is happening here, then I really need to go, and will probly be away for a couple of months again. Expat keeps ignoring me purposefully, which is again, a good strategy since no good would follow a confrontation as has been previously demonstrated. This is the correct thing to do, I suppose. Nevertheless, ostracism is another tactic that is common in his arsenal. In lists of high-school behaviour or work place bullying ignoring and ostracism are regularly listed as forms of bullying as well. This habit is not benevolent. Also, Expat quoted me in this thread though he didn't use the quote function, so he seems to be aware of what I'm saying, he's just presenting himself as unaware. Anyway, so long, believe the consensus! NOT.

[Minde]

You have seen the full horror of the Delta quadra. The precariousness of your candyass comfort.

Don't be sarcastic with me. Not here.

You are a liar and a hack, though a very intelligent one, and very adept at your social game.

This is the reason why I singled out Expat previously. He consistently avoids being singled out, consistently representing himself as a personification of some huge group putting peer pressure on everyone else. He avoids being personally responsible of anything and avoids being charged for this by giving a random apology about something insignificant and immediately continuing the same old. With regard to truth, our positions differ in that I consider myself to be a servant of it whereas he considers himself to be the arbiter of it, and it is everyone else's role to bend to his will. Bah, though fact is that this is a social role that tends to be taken up by someone, and Expat really isn't any worse than anyone else that might fulfill the same purpose, so I guess it's a good thing that he's here, but believe him at your own peril, he certainly will take no responsibility, because if there's bad consequences, "it's just your fault for misunderstanding him"...

Smilingeyes, I think you've misunderstood and misrepresented Expat's character. I don't think he's lying or playing a game or trying to pass of an "image" or even trying to be a leader. I think he's sincere in what he says and that he does what he does out of a desire to either learn more / solidify his own opinions or help other people understand concepts that he's already grasped.

[Rick]

Smilingeyes, I'd appreciate a link to my typing you as an IEI. I don't remember such a thing or ever having had an opinion on your type before this thread. Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else?

I have had various kinds of conflicts with many different types, (including all the types in my quadra), so I am far from assuming that any conflict that arises such as this implies that the other person is such-and-such a type. But conflicts tend to take specific forms, conflicting parties choose to pursue certain strategies, and most of the time you can see what function or functions the conflict is resolving around. In this case, Smilingeyes has been rejecting insight-and commonality-based typing (i.e. "Tindemann is like Hetfield") because the analytical process is absent or concealed, and I have been rejecting his definitions because he invented them himself. He has used bullying and strong, condescending language to try to gain the upper hand, and I have used sarcasm and more subtly condescending means such as discussing of his own type to fight back. So, IEEs can be "evil," too. But I feel it's fair to retaliate with equal artillery, just as you would if attacked on the street (if they try to hurt you, you can hurt them, but if they try to cheat you, you are only justified in chewing them out or lying to them).

When people are coming from different systems, as is the case here, conflicts are more likely to happen in the first place, so there is a chance of mistaking system conflict for type conflict. I have had socionics arguments with an LSE before, but it's hard to maintain the spirit of conflict for long, because when they revert to their "normal" state, they cease to be antagonistic to the other. In this case I have been more or less myself, and have annoyed Smilingeyes very much. Even now, as I try to take a broader view of the situation to find a new perspective in a way that's completely natural for me, I'm sure he perceives it as once again "dodging the issues" he has raised and thus showing that I have nothing to say to his logic. Things like this convince me that this is a type-related conflict. Furthermore, Smilingeyes has been saying things that I consider characteristic of the Ti + Se combination, and the system he has created and the way he has outlined it is pure Ti in my book.

When I said "angry men" in describing some singers I type as LSI, I was speaking of my
own perception, not of their objective qualities. Of course LSEs and other Delta types get angry and make other people fear them. I worked with one LSE lady who many people feared because she constantly talked about how poorly things were being done. I did not see her as an "angry lady," though obviously she was to most other people. EIIs around her, I'm sure, would see her as someone who is trying hard to make things happen effectively. Likewise, many EIEs around the "angry LSIs" I mentioned would see them as people who care about the truth, and that's an admirable quality.

I knew an SLE once who I helped around Kiev for a few days, then tired of him and had him meet an EIE-LSI couple I knew. He was very controlled and with-it, but the way he would pause and look at things critically with a stern face, and some of his occasional strong comments made me perceive him as a potentially angry person, even though he seemed to control himself very carefully. The couple, on the other hand, thought he was great and spoke very highly of him.

Then you might meet some ILEs and IEEs who have very little self-control and are highly irritable. Which is more "angry" -- they or the controlled SLE? To an ESI an irritable ILE might seem angry and reckless, but to an SEI -- just a bit irritable and imbalanced.

I'm saying Smilingeyes seems angry to me, and that many LSIs seem angry to me as well (except Potatospirit, who I have met in person, and quite a few other LSIs who were not antagonistic toward me). That's my subjective response to them, not a declaration that all LSIs or beta types are angry, violent, aggressive, etc. There are LSI artists and musicians who I don't find to be "angry."

Back to Smilingeyes. He has consistently misunderstood what I have said, for instance about repetition in Rammstein's music, my internal response to Rammstein (yes, and what about the numerous other Beta groups that I like?), and perceiving everything I have said as some kind of logical argument when it was usually just presenting information. And from his perspective, I have been lying, which I find preposterous. I can't even fathom why one would ever assume that people one has ideological disagreements with are liars. I would never suppose that he is lying, but I do think he has a system of understanding that is essentially a whole new typology because it has a new theoretical basis and different definitions. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes arguing about types pretty pointless, with differing views of the functions, types, and quadras.

I'm surprised that he considers me to be in the same quadra as him, because the way he presents information is not at all like people whom I am friends with in real life. In real life I don't have friends who build complex thought systems or who express themselves harshly. One such statement like "stop saying..." would be enough for me to break off the friendship (if for some reason I didn't recognize this trait beforehand), unless it were an obvious joke or said in a playful way (like an SEE friend I had would do). All the IEEs I know would have the same reaction, which suggests that such statements are related to their Super-Ego functions (OR that my entire typing system is whacked and that these people are actually Beta or Alpha types, including myself).

Blah blah blah, sorry for the long-winded post.

[Expat]

I'm saying Smilingeyes seems angry to me, and that many LSIs seem angry to me as well (except Potatospirit, who I have met in person, and quite a few other LSIs who were not antagonistic toward me). That's my subjective response to them, not a declaration that all LSIs or beta types are angry, violent, aggressive, etc. There are LSI artists and musicians who I don't find to be "angry."

Hmmmm -- perhaps the simple answer is that PotatoSpirit is a good and decent guy, and not a vicious, malicious asshole who can't conceive that others might have motivations very different from his own? Sometimes, with socionics, we do make it too complicated.

[Expat]

Don't be sarcastic with me. Not here.

You weren't the target of my sarcasm at all, but I can see how it could be seen that way. Sorry.

[Rick]

Hmmmm -- perhaps the simple answer is that PotatoSpirit is a good and decent guy, and not a vicious, malicious asshole who can't conceive that others might have motivations very different from his own? Sometimes, with socionics, we do make it too complicated.

From a Fi standpoint, definitely, but there is always the danger of projecting personal values onto other people, so you'd have to take a poll. Even if it were shown that most people thought he was an asshole, some people would respect him for his courage and independence of thought, while others would condemn him for his closedmindedness. Also, some of Smilingeyes viciousness is almost certainly related to the fact that he is constantly fighting majority opinion. I have been in that position (years ago, attending Gulenko's school of socionics), and I was constantly bitter and irrationally negative about Gulenko.

[Phaedrus]

I think he's sincere in what he says and that he does what he does out of a desire to either learn more / solidify his own opinions or help other people understand concepts that he's already grasped.

Two out of three. The one desire he doesn't show much of is the desire to learn more.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, Phaedrus, I am well aware that I have had the same disagreements about Te vs. Ti with you, too, and I believe the reason is basically the same -- you are a Ti type parading as Te and adjusting your functional understanding to remove the systematic contradictions.

If I would -- purely hypothetically -- seriously suggest that you are not an IEE but some other type, would you then take me seriously? Would you then seriously start to question the correctness of your self-typing as IEE? I strongly doubt that you would, and why should you? It doesn't make any sense, because you know that you are an IEE. Nothing anyone says could convince you that you were wrong, because you have already reached the point of no return. Your understanding of Socionics has become so solidified, that if you would start to doubt which type you are, you could as well start to doubt your mental sanity.

Then one could ask this question: Why should I take you seriously when you seriously suggest that I am not an ILI but a type? Does that makes more sense than the scenario I just described? If you really believe that, then why should I have a serious discussion with you? It would be degrading on my part to accept such a behaviour from you, a behaviour that I think could be correctly described as insulting. Now, since people often perceive what I say as insulting, even though I almost always do not intend to be insulting, I don't bother to much about such things. But the result is of course that I loose some of my respect for your intellectual capacity.

If we are going to have a serious discussion, where we both could potentially learn something new and advance our understanding of the types, then you simply must accept that I am an ILI without questioning it. You are not in a position to determine which type I am with any reliability, at least not nearly as accurately and reliably as I can do myself.

If your understanding of my behaviour does not match the fact that I am an ILI, then there must be something wrong with your interpretation of the situation, and you should be interested in trying to understand, without prejudices, why you perceive me as a type, despite the fact that I am an ILI.

We can both question each others typings of other people, but now it's time to stop this ridiculous questioning of the other person's type. If we can agree on that, Rick, then I think we could have a fruitful debate. If not ... well, then I can only hope that someone or something will open your eyes to the truth some day in the future. I can't force you to realize your mistake if you refuse to be open-minded.

Out of interest, Phaedrus, what do you think Lindemann's type is?

The truth is that I don't know anything about Lindemann. Right now I have no idea what type he is. I have zero knowledge about him and his music. If I would get to know more about him, maybe I would be able to form an opinion, but it is way to early for that.

[Park]

This thread reminds me of the time when Rick thought Matt Damon was ISTj, who is clearly a Te type in my opinion.

[Phaedrus]

You could learn a bunch of new things if you never questioned any of it, but there's no guarantee that any of it will be correct.

Do you have any idea how many times I have questioned my self-typing as ILI? Do you have any idea how many attempts I have made to falsify that hypothesis? Do you have any idea from how many different angles I have looked at the types, how many times I have tried to make the empiricial evidence fit other types than ILI? If you did, you would be feel embarrassed by your own post.

[Rick]

...
We can both question each others typings of other people, but now it's time to stop this ridiculous questioning of the other person's type. ...

I understand your position and have nothing new to say on the topic. I'm not that interested in the types of forum members I have never met and only brought up my opinion because of what I see as a systematic misunderstanding of some functions on your part. If you ever get around to writing up your views on the subject or on what you see as my misunderstanding, I will take a look and comment on it.

I'm always open to the possibility that I let subjective emotions influence my typings of people, and I'm aware of the risk of branding someone I disagree with as a certain type, but at least some of these feelings are extremely useful for typing, and ideally we should be learning to separate non-type-related feelings and impressions from feelings and reactions that arise as a direct result of the kinds of information other people are emphasizing and giving us.