I don't see it.
And I'll be damned if I'm your beneficiary
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...
By the way, good luck finding any similarities in mine and Steve's actual personalities...
And seriously, using a POSED PHOTO for VI by expression comparison? Come on, even Ashton's cronies can't be that stupid...
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...
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
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...
Then learn how to VI.
Yeah
Who cares? Socionics has nothing to do with behavioral traits. Differences in environmentally-induced defense mechanisms are hardly type-related.
You mean yours was posed? Tbh I don't think it matters one bit how someone tries to make themselves look in a photo. A person can shape-shift into any superficial form they like, but their shadow will continue to loom behind them, and those who look closely will see the unchanging pattern generating these variations.And seriously, using a POSED PHOTO for VI by expression comparison? Come on, even Ashton's cronies can't be that stupid...
4w3-5w6-8w7
You both jack off in front of mirrors. Classic Ti-ENTp masturbation techniques.
Are you really so stupid that you think whether not someone is posing for a photo makes any damn difference in inborn features and facial expressions? It doesn't. You don't VI like any ENFj anywhere. Period.
And what do you call this Gilligan, "Beta Fe" > Alpha Fe? lol.
Looks more like a neurotic ENTp losing control of his super-id fuctions and simply not knowing when to stop. No actual, self respecting ENFj would repeatedly humiliate themselves in this way. You simply lack the control and directness of an ENFj. This shows in both pictures and videos.
Among other things, in the past, you've also seemed to be fond of mistyping blatant Alpha SFs (Jolie, Zeta-Jones, Bellucci) as "LSIs." Considering your highly and laughably erroneous self typing, this cannot be overlooked and further points toward Ti-ENTp > anything Beta. You seriously need to get over this "my enneagram is such and such, therefore I'm Beta" bullshizzle.
Winterpark is a dumb, ugly ****** who can't type > Winterpark is a smart, attractive ****** who can't type.
Other user whose name I can't be bothered with, your input is as uninformed and useless as usual.
Last edited by duality is cringe; 06-25-2009 at 09:13 PM.
This is exactly how it seems to me. I guess Gilly believes that his excessive displays of "Fe antics" -- which really just translates as emotional clamor -- somehow correlate to the stereotypical, confrontational emotionality that manifests in betas. But the Fe is not controlled or precise in delivery; it's scattered and rather frivolous at times. Likewise, there is no indication of any sort of underpinning awareness as to how the causal Fe reactions are occurring within an abstract realm, again due to their obvious disposition towards the immediate context/environment, and haphazard applications.Originally Posted by DeAnte
And where in the fuck is EJ temperament in the slightest? That line of "reasoning" about Fe-EJs seeming "irrational" is complete bunk, because irrational temperament has nothing to do with irrational behavior anyway! The energy levels are not there at all; even the most chaotic Ni-ENxj maintains a continuous state of psychic control and modulation.
Just stop typing off of apparent personality traits generally derived from the enneagram and somehow correlated with socionics (NeTi contextual systematizing) and face the reality.
4w3-5w6-8w7
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
god deante you're a terrorist, and just awful at typing.
oh
and you're a dick.
fuck, i just noticed. i feel like i'm really late on this.
asd
[IMG]http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8647/adolf******.jpg[/IMG]
It's not emotional clamor (not sure how you would even think you could deduce that from pictures); it's a directed attempt to produce a certain impact, often one of disgust, surprise, excitement, uncertainty, discomfort, or revulsion, at moments that I see as opportune. That's pretty classic Fe+Ni.
Sure, it's rather frivolous, and often spontaneous, but it's also very intentional, part of a very specific persona that I try to portray in some situations or to some groups of people.But the Fe is not controlled or precise in delivery; it's scattered and rather frivolous at times.
What do you mean "within an abstract realm?" I mean, I have a vague idea of what you're talking about, but give me an example.Likewise, there is no indication of any sort of underpinning awareness as to how the causal Fe reactions are occurring within an abstract realm, again due to their obvious disposition towards the immediate context/environment, and haphazard applications.
Also, keep in mind that part of the "image" I project for a lot of people IS one of frivolity, because I had experiences early in life that signaled to me that people had a hard time taking me seriously; therefore, I adapted in order to play to my perceived strengths. However, in my own self-image, I don't think of myself as a frivolous or silly person at all, and I rarely identify with other people who are "silly;" I see myself as more serious, romantic, and intellectual, and relegate my "silliness" to nothing more than a tool to entertain myself when I'm bored or to mess with people and get a reaction.
Again, the thing you are neglecting is that I AM in control of these perceived "outbursts;" it's not just some random emotionality welling up and needing to be expressed, but rather a targetted attempt to produce a specific reaction.And where in the fuck is EJ temperament in the slightest? That line of "reasoning" about Fe-EJs seeming "irrational" is complete bunk, because irrational temperament has nothing to do with irrational behavior anyway! The energy levels are not there at all; even the most chaotic Ni-ENxj maintains a continuous state of psychic control and modulation.
Sigh, your old cart-blanche standby: "get real!" Give me some good rationale for your poorly conditioned view of my type, and I might consider it some day.Just stop typing off of apparent personality traits generally derived from the enneagram and somehow correlated with socionics (NeTi contextual systematizing) and face the reality.
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...
i am pretty sure gilly is an ethical type at this point. i was more tempted to say INFp after meeting him, but i think that a good case can be made for either beta NF. he does some odd (to me) swinging between coming off as very extroverted and reasonably introverted. i also briefly had some real problems seeing him as a rational type of any sort, but i guess that could be due to ethical type mood swings. i guess some things about gilly are ENTp-ish if you think weird al is ENTp. he could be an ENTp like weird al, i suppose (and i think that a weird al comparison is completely reasonable.) otherwise i don't have any problems with his self typing.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
lol @ Gilly having Ni/Se.
its cuz he's CEr-RAZIEkljsdflkj!#@
Your attempts at being EIE come across as empty and infantile. You lack the sort of subtle charisma, focus, and otherworldliness that beta NF's have.
With Beta NF's I feel like they are insubstantial. They move out of my radar and they're gone. Like there is a fog, or better yet a vacuum and they will just float away from my vision of the world. As if Beta/Gamma are ghost people who just don't stick to the setting. Alpha/Delta move in accordance to the setting. They are grounded in a tangible context and focused on manipulating it.
You Gilly, are not the same. You fit fine.
You're not a ghost person lol.
The end is nigh
My attempts at being EIE? What does that even mean? I mean, sometimes I try to project confidence even when I don't feel it, but I think that is actually rather characteristic of EIEs, if anything.
Heh, I have friends who would disagree...but I can see why you would think that.You lack the sort of subtle charisma, focus, and otherworldliness that beta NF's have.
Does numbers seem focused to you? Did you think Kristiina was charismatic? Does nick really seem otherworldly? Come on, seriously, you are romanticizing and sensationalizing in a pathetic attempt to prove your point; even you should be able to see that if you read what you're actually saying here.
This is entirely meaningless. ALL Beta NFs seem like this crazy foggy otherworldly steam of personality to you? 1 in 8 people you meet seem like that? SERIOUSLY, SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT.With Beta NF's I feel like they are insubstantial. They move out of my radar and they're gone. Like there is a fog, or better yet a vacuum and they will just float away from my vision of the world. As if Beta/Gamma are ghost people who just don't stick to the setting. Alpha/Delta move in accordance to the setting. They are grounded in a tangible context and focused on manipulating it.
You Gilly, are not the same. You fit fine.
You're not a ghost person lol.
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...
oh, well you are charming sure
The end is nigh
I edited, you might want to reread.
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...
I disagree. Alot of people do this and I don't think EIE's have any higher corellation to it.
okay.
By focused, I meant in overall demeanor. You just spurt about in a pretty haphazard, zany way. Similarly to Gulanzon. Very chaotic.
Numbers is pretty calm and solid. He doesn't put on a show like you do. Also, "spacey" is different than unfocused.
Gilly you're like a light show, that randomly shoots beams in different directions. In a short sequence you could not tell the pattern, but over long periods of time you can see that there is one. That's what I meant by "unfocused."
Yeah they do seem like that.
Strrrng, Starfall, BnD, Glam, Numbers, Crazedrat, Scarlettlux, Loki,...
Yep, I feel like I have occasional connections and parallelisms with them, but its brief before they disconnect and no longer share the same world. I just feel disconnected to them past a certain point. Like they're floating away.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Its not something I feel with any of the Alphas or the Deltas.
The end is nigh
So you relate to me? You think people see you and I similarly, as you see them similarly? You think we share some behavioral traits parallel to the highly nebulous and completely irrelevant ones you ascribe to those people? What, pray tell, might those be? What kind of superficial behavior traits to I share with you, or Steve, or 1981slater, or hkkmr, that make you think we are the same type? Even Nick thinks that such petty behavioral parallels are irrelevant to type.
The biggest mistake, however, that you are obviously making to anyone who actually knows how to type people, is that you are trying to fit people into boxes as opposed to finding the best explanation for their personalities. You say, "Ok, Beta NFs are like this and this and this;" that's not how accurate classification works when you are dealing with such huge numbers. 1/8th of the world's population (or thereabout) are not going to share this same mystic image that you project onto those people.
It's one thing to say, "Ok, x percentage of the people in the world have blue eyes." That's a concretely observable phenomenon: you can count it, you can measure it. Personality is not something you can just SEE, not something that we have any solid correlations between behaviors and internal mechanisms for. You can't just say "You're not mystical" and assume you've found the best explanation for why I'm ILE and not EIE. Why am I ILE? Because people post my picture next to Steve's and you get this vague "precise" vibe from me? PATHETIC. You refuse to look beyond your tiny fucking frame of reference, understand the actual theory, and categorize people by the actual terms you are pretending to use.
Beta Fe+Ni isn't about being some sort of mystic or sage or having these elite perceptual powers that Socionixers relate to Ni. It's about being aware of emotional cause-and-effect reactions and interactions, projecting a consistent image, observing tendencies in people's behavior, predicting people's reactions to different situations, manipulating long-term attitudes or trends like memes or propoganda, . If you would take the time to understand the information element definitions, you would see this as clearly as day, and you would recognize that a lot of the superficial behavior you crack up to me having "bad Fe" is actually a manifestation of alertness to Fe+Ni.
The massive irony of the thing is that you have actually, unwittingly fallen prey to the image I project as an intellectual, a precise thinker, someone who is logically diligent, works within specific frames of reference, monitors consistency and bases conclusions on concrete, provable phenomena. My most basic desire is to be seen as intelligent and competent and to be taken seriously in an intellectual sense, and it's hillarious that you have fallen for it so completely that you refuse to see my type outside of how it reflects my intellectual nature and whatever socially awkward or confidence-lacking traits this produces in me. All this bullshit about me "having a precise feel," or "seeming so conrete" or not being flimsy or vague or obscurantist enough in my thought processes and rationale to seem like a Beta NF, well, that is exactly what my Beta NFery has tricked you into seeing, and behind it is a person who just wants to be taken seriously.
So there's your dose of vulnerability for the day. If you stop leaning on your crutch of faux-observed behavioral correlations that have been reinforced by people like Ashton and Nick to bolster their own confidence, and actually take the time to learn the theory, you will see that what I'm saying is true, and that the manner in which it applies to me is actually more shameful than any alternative you might try to project on me.
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...
Not often, though. Most of the time, I am fairly serious, controlled, and somewhat aloof or reserved; I have bursts of energy, and sometimes I like to toy with people, but for the most part I am pretty reserved and somewhat tense.
PS, I like the ad hoc comparison to Gul. Let's ask around: what ELSE, besides acting silly sometimes, do I share with Gul? Well, let's see...I'm prone to violent outbursts, whereas he's almost universally non-confrontational; I take intellectual matters and theoretical studies seriously, whereas gul takes one look and wanders off to something else; I focus on the task at hand, whereas gul kind of lays back and does whatever catches his passing fancy; gul is rather go with the flow, whereas I actively impose my will on my environment; gul likes to keep peaceful relations with everyone, whereas I don't hesitate to start riproaring arguments, even with people I like and usually get along with...you can try to stack all of these up to Ti/Ne sub differences, but if you had an ounce of insight you'd see that, more than anything, it is related Si/Ne vs Se/Ni quadra differences.
"In a short sequence" as in, in one isolated instance, and "over long periods of time" as in long-term consistency? That sounds like "less Si, more Ni" to me.Gilly you're like a light show, that randomly shoots beams in different directions. In a short sequence you could not tell the pattern, but over long periods of time you can see that there is one. That's what I meant by "unfocused."
What the fuck, you italicize things to make some kind of pathetic dramatic effect or directed poignancy? Come on, this isn't a fucking poetry contest; you're not going to bullshit me.Yep, I feel like I have occasional connections and parallelisms with them, but its brief before they disconnect and no longer share the same world. I just feel disconnected to them past a certain point. Like they're floating away.
Notice how you're basing this all on how YOU FEEL? Has nobody ever told you that your FEELINGS don't always reflect REALITY? WAKE UP YOU FUCKING CHILD.
Because I'm not a demented little kid who refuses to learn anything and feels safe going on instincts that have no basis in anything except how he feels.Why is this so hard to understand?
Oh, well that's convincing.Its not something I feel with any of the Alphas or the Deltas.
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...
One of the things I find MOST hillarious is that you think you and I are the same type, when you and Nick are using almost identical arguments, talking about the same kinds of things, and I'm here just trying to show both of you how stupid you're acting. The real shame is that you're both pretty smart kids, but you've been fucking duped into thinking that your "feelings" about people are any more than that, and that they somehow verify and vindicate this obscure typology theory that claims to understand how people's internal processes work...the greatest shame is that, as IEIs, you DO probably both have good insights into people's personalities, and you can probably tell a lot about them just from superficial interaction, even if it's not always easy to put into words. But that DOESN'T mean that your instincts and impressions always correlate 100% to the theory, that your gut reaction to someone, or the way you have become accustomed to seeing them, is necessarily the whole story, or even the best way to look at them. You both need to stop wishing that your natural intuitions about people would tell you the whole story about how Socionics works and actually learn the theory, so that you can apply your impressions productively, balance them with the objectivity of the theory, and actually find a usable middle ground.
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...
All I did was describe my feelings towards you in contrast to Beta NF's. Perhaps you're projecting what others have brought up onto me?
Wasn't even saying they are "mystical". I said that they are detached from my world view. I was creating an analogy about how they do not fit in.
You're not mystical? Not only are those kind of stereotypes ones I've publicly disagreed with and confronted on this forum, but no one in "socionix" thinks these are relevent traits. Steve, Hitta, Mcnew, Tcaud, eldanen are pretty damn mystical and I type them all Alpha NT. So basically you're putting words in my mouth.
So nothing there affects my opinion because its untrue lol.
[quote=Gilly;535885]Beta Fe+Ni isn't about being some sort of mystic or sage or having these elite perceptual powers that Socionixers relate to Ni. It's about being aware of emotional cause-and-effect reactions and interactions, projecting a consistent image, observing tendencies in people's behavior, predicting people's reactions to different situations, manipulating long-term attitudes or trends like memes or propoganda, . If you would take the time to understand the information element definitions, you would see this as clearly as day, and you would recognize that a lot of the superficial behavior you crack up to me having "bad Fe" is actually a manifestation of alertness to Fe+Ni.
Umm, one of the main differences in "our" Ni descriptions is that we don't describe Ni in such a way (mystical sage, etc - sounds like how mainstream descriptions describe Ni). And the people in that community who profess to be Ni valuing hate that sort of description.
Its obvious you are confusing how I said I feel about those people with how I'd actually describe them if I was trying to be objective.
"bad Fe"? I don't believe there is such a thing. I like your less antagonistic Fe related behaviors lol.
Much of this rant is made of straw and shaped like a man.
Lol actually it is you who have fallen into the trap. I never thought you were like that, partly because I don't corellate intellect with the elements.
I don't think you have a precise feel at all.
imo Beta NF's are the opposite of vague and obscured. That's more of how I feel in terms of my relations to them. They are not foggy, what is foggy is my psychological distance to them. Do you see the difference?
Yeah, so, unless you are double lying then I guess I was right on about your intellectual motivations afterall.
To sum this all up for you:
You misinterpreted my opinion on Beta NF's which was hilariously the opposite of what I believe.
You re-validated my understanding of you in an attempt to catch me in the act of poor psycho-analysis.
okay, so think of something else and we can continue.
The end is nigh
Since I've been mentioned, I thought I would comment.Originally Posted by Alarion
I'm not sure that I'm a very good example of a Beta NF, especially considering I've been not feeling like one for a while (yes, this is my subjective feeling, and I could really be an amazingly self-confused Beta NF who doesn't realize she is a Beta NF).
I think that I might appear to float away in a couple of ways. For one I seem to often stay far away from the center of forum and Socionics interaction, as though keeping a safe distance. I don't socially "stick" in interactions and will abruptly drop any conversation that started. This is partially because I don't seem to have the follow-through for whatever reason to finish it, or because I'm concerned about the interpersonal aspects of the conversation, or because I am not willing to reveal anything more.
Another reason why I might appear to float away is that I may go back to reflecting on the matter, which could I guess take forever and I never return (for reasons listed in the last paragraph, most likely).
But I don't feel I am really very "floaty" irl, although I'm not sure how to evaluate that. I can vanish and disappear easily, which is to say I can easily go unnoticed. I know how to be invisible. And I do often feel like I'm "not even there." But I think that this isn't nearly as ethereal as I perceive some people's "not there-ness" to be. In fact, I would imagine that the average NF seems more "not there" than I do. (conjecture! )
And although I really do like the "invisible, not there" metaphor for Ni dominance (or rather for how Ni dominants appear), I rather agree with Gilly that I do not see 1/8 or even 1/4 of the world populated by ghosts who fade in and out of their surroundings. Unless of course they fade so much I never saw them to begin with. This, though, is rather nitpicking the metaphor. Beyond that, I do not see why an ethereal look is a requirement for being a Beta NF. Gilly is clearly a raving lunatic and surely that is the overriding matter here.
Not to mention that you Archon may be Ni dominant yourself, though I don't really know what type you are... you're one of those people who is obviously N-leading, and you do seem Fe valuing.
Anyway, you might have been referring to an internal, subjective feeling of connection with others (as in not if you connect with them in interactions, but more if the world they seem to inhabit clicks fully with the one you seem to be inhabiting), and if so, please disregard anything in the previous paragraphs that suggested otherwise (as it no longer applies). My point was mainly that however I may appear floaty in an online posting environment, I'm not sure it stands the test of Ni floaty-ghostness you seem to hold.
And also, fwiw, one of the reasons why I thought you were Ni dominant when you first got here was because there was something about the way your thought patterns seemed that reminded me of mine, and that rung as "Ni." This is far too "etheral" in itself to do much good, but I did see it, and whatever type I am it still rings as "Ni." What is confusing me though is that I just can't rule out Ne for you, Archon.
(This post was populated with random emoticons that don't mean anything. In my own warped sense of humor, it was barely amusing.)
I was thinking that actually is the realm that Te and Ti operate in: taking raw insight and being able to tie it constructively to logical frameworks, and evaluate it against other aspects of how things work.Originally Posted by Gilly
No. Stop deflecting. I'm asking you what similarities we share that are parallel to what you ascribe to Beta NFs that gives you a hint that we might be the same type. Is this just a weaker person latching onto a stronger person?
Wasn't even saying they are "mystical". I said that they are detached from my world view. I was creating an analogy about how they do not fit in.You're missing the point. Whatever words you want to use, your methods are flawed in exactly the way I detailed in that post.You're not mystical? Not only are those kind of stereotypes ones I've publicly disagreed with and confronted on this forum, but no one in "socionix" thinks these are relevent traits. Steve, Hitta, Mcnew, Tcaud, eldanen are pretty damn mystical and I type them all Alpha NT. So basically you're putting words in my mouth.
Way to reassure yourself.So nothing there affects my opinion because its untrue lol.
How is that a difference? What "mainstream" descriptions are you talking about? If anything, Jung is the one who ascribes "mysticism" to Ni.
No, I wasn't. READ.Its obvious you are confusing how I said I feel about those people with how I'd actually describe them if I was trying to be objective.
You're missing the point."bad Fe"? I don't believe there is such a thing. I like your less antagonistic Fe related behaviors lol.
Yes, but you're missing the point. I think your METHODS are phony altogether, not just the words you use, or whatever relative context you place them in. I think the way you base your typings on emotions is pathetic and pitifully subjective.imo Beta NF's are the opposite of vague and obscured. That's more of how I feel in terms of my relations to them. They are not foggy, what is foggy is my psychological distance to them. Do you see the difference?
Care to elaborate?Yeah, so, unless you are double lying then I guess I was right on about your intellectual motivations afterall.
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...
Sounds like Ji Ep. And what I've seen on stickam points to Ep.
At the most, Gul has accepted his Alpha-ness. To be absolutely honest I had a brief moment today where I forgot I wasn't speaking to him and was actually addressing you.
Lolwut? first of all no. I meant that what appears chaotic at the short interval, follows a pattern at the larger interval.
I was repeating what I said in hopes of any insight you might have once you had read what preceded it.
Uh, this is dumb for two reasons.
1. If I think someone is unlikably annoying, than I do not like them. So If I have feelings towards a group of people, of course my feelings are "real". You might argue that I'm lying, but thats going to go nowhere.
2. Socionics is largely about how you feel towards others, so i feel its legitimate to discuss it.
?
I do feel safe about feeling.
Gilly nothing you do hearkens back to any sort of abstract worldview. Its obvious that you are grounded in tangible interactions and contexts. Day dreaming, the future, memes, prediction, imagination none of that has to do with Ni.
You may use abstractions in little Ne bits, but none of it is any sort of internal dynamic field. The contexts you describe are explicit.
Just because you say "I predict how things will evolve" that has nothing to do with Ni. It could be Te, Fe, Si, or Ni. Ni gets unexplainable glimpses that imply a change or development in subjective experience. Its not something you can sit down and detail out. Its not a process you can "see". Thats why Ni-ers are symbolic.
Si shows a process you can see. Si unfolds and evolves just like Ni. the difference is that Si shows things explicitly, shows things in a way you could paint an actual picture of.
Ni is like echolocation. You just get pings of information that come from some latent process that is unfolding. You'd have trouble describing the information and would need to do so by symbolism, and metaphor.
Si is like a video tape. You get juicy detailed information that is explicit and ostensible. You can say things how they are, because the process that is unfolding is tangible. It could be an epic process with battles, magic, etc. Whats important is that it remains explicit and observable with lots of detail, and "realistic" interactions between the variables at hand. Ni being internal does not act in such a way.
The way in which you act/speak is not based on Ni "pings".
Just because you care about the meaning of life, epicness, the future, the big picture, imagination, etc does not mean you are Ni valuing. In fact, Ni-ers are often overtly "real world" and while they are concerned about symbolic connotations aren't interested in some sort of mental world creation/fantasy. The whole idea of creating fantasy settings (such as in DnD) is Si related. You are detailing specific environments, each having physical characteristics, and sensible features. Ni-ers are not attuned to such aesthetic creation.
So when Nick and I say you value Si, we are looking at the way you act/speak and comparing it to how the irrational subjective elements manifest and observing that you are mute to Ni and describe things in the Si way.
While we may advocate the same model and element interpretations, Nick and I are not much alike. I don't know what you see that's similar besides being young intellectual males who advocate the same model and the Ti/Fe dealio.
The end is nigh
Everyone and their mom is missing the point of what I meant by floating away goddamnit.
Beta NF's are like an illusion to me. At times they seem like they fit into my view of how the world should be. However, they are always looking for something else, that I can't offer them. They just float away, striving for some hidden experience that I just don't really care about. Hence, if I was to make my interactions towards people into a world, the Ni-ers feel like ghost people who don't go by the laws that my world operates on. They don't care about it and they are not attached to it.
Now everyone has their preferences, but I feel this is a pretty good description of an SLEOriginally Posted by Strrrng
It is also nothing at all like what I want. If we are supposed to be the same type, than why am I repelled by the idea of having a person like that as a partner?
I'm not IEI god damnit and I'm not going to be just because certain people need me to be to validate their self typings.
The end is nigh
Just by your contextualized view of the types though. Not according to the theory. Because Ep temperament has nothing to do with that, according to how Ep functions are defined.
Right, it's all about your subjective impressions. No real analysis, though.At the most, Gul has accepted his Alpha-ness. To be absolutely honest I had a brief moment today where I forgot I wasn't speaking to him and was actually addressing you.
No, it's NOT about how you feel towards people. Not at ALL. It's about how clear communication is. NOT whether you LIKE them or not. FUCK.1. If I think someone is unlikably annoying, than I do not like them. So If I have feelings towards a group of people, of course my feelings are "real". You might argue that I'm lying, but thats going to go nowhere.
2. Socionics is largely about how you feel towards others, so i feel its legitimate to discuss it.
Actually everything does. Even my interest in Socionics.Gilly nothing you do hearkens back to any sort of abstract worldview.
Prediction, memes, yes. Day dreaming, imagination, not so much.Its obvious that you are grounded in tangible interactions and contexts. Day dreaming, the future, memes, prediction, imagination none of that has to do with Ni.
blah blah blah, you don't know what those words even mean with regards to socionics, and anyone who does, and reads this, can read it like a book.You may use abstractions in little Ne bits, but none of it is any sort of internal dynamic field. The contexts you describe are explicit.
True, in the thought process, it's not explicit; it's just a feeling, an "intuition." That doesn't mean it can't be explained. Everything can be explained, even if you can't see it.Just because you say "I predict how things will evolve" that has nothing to do with Ni. It could be Te, Fe, Si, or Ni. Ni gets unexplainable glimpses that imply a change or development in subjective experience. Its not something you can sit down and detail out. Its not a process you can "see". Thats why Ni-ers are symbolic.
Si is Involved, Ni is abstract. That means that Si refers to and deals with specifics, particulars; Ni refers to and deals with abstractions. Language is an abstraction, just so you know; the word "dog" is not a dog. That's what "abstract" means. Explaining things in language is an abstract process; abstract doesn't mean unnecessarily vague or obscurantist, like Nick seems to believe.Si shows a process you can see. Si unfolds and evolves just like Ni. the difference is that Si shows things explicitly, shows things in a way you could paint an actual picture of.
In terms of the internal process that GIVES that information, yes. But that DOESN'T mean that the rational thought process can't be elucidated in language.Ni is like echolocation. You just get pings of information that come from some latent process that is unfolding. You'd have trouble describing the information and would need to do so by symbolism, and metaphor.
Again, Ni thought processes can be explained and elucidated just like Si ones. Not always as obvious, true. But it's possible. They don't have to be vague.Si is like a video tape. You get juicy detailed information that is explicit and ostensible. You can say things how they are, because the process that is unfolding is tangible. It could be an epic process with battles, magic, etc. Whats important is that it remains explicit and observable with lots of detail, and "realistic" interactions between the variables at hand. Ni being internal does not act in such a way.
Oh please.The way in which you act/speak is not based on Ni "pings".
Well it's a good thing I don't give a shit about the aesthetics and focus on pushing the quest forward, seeing what will happen instead of focusing on the particulars, because otherwise we'd never get anywhere I provide the Se for the whole fucking group.Just because you care about the meaning of life, epicness, the future, the big picture, imagination, etc does not mean you are Ni valuing. In fact, Ni-ers are often overtly "real world" and while they are concerned about symbolic connotations aren't interested in some sort of mental world creation/fantasy. The whole idea of creating fantasy settings (such as in DnD) is Si related. You are detailing specific environments, each having physical characteristics, and sensible features. Ni-ers are not attuned to such aesthetic creation.
I know, and it's pathetic, because you think people who can actually explain what they think are just being boring and concrete, when we're actually just more intelligent and skilled at explaining how we think. When Nick talks about these abstractions, the only difference is that he isn't willing to sacrifice broad application and intepretability in favor of clarity. If anything, it's because I value Te more and am stronger in it than either of youSo when Nick and I say you value Si, we are looking at the way you act/speak and comparing it to how the irrational subjective elements manifest and observing that you are mute to Ni and describe things in the Si way.
Yeah you are. You both rant about your vague impressions that are useless as long as you pretend to know what you're talking about and act like they are infallible instead of trying to reframe your perspective in a useful theory. That's a similarity that I relate to TiSe valuing and NiFe ego.While we may advocate the same model and element interpretations, Nick and I are not much alike. I don't know what you see that's similar besides being young intellectual males who advocate the same model and the Ti/Fe dealio.
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...
wow, that dual description written by strrrng is perfect, just perfect. yowza.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Your behavior is not Ej. Not in the slightest.
Its all wild, sporadic, haphazard. You fit Ep quite well actually.
In that example, sure
I find this turning out to be an amusing cliche.
When someone yells and raves about an issue and then eventually someone turns back years later with "You never cared about that issue."
I know its not about how much you like them. But how you feel about them is relevent. For instance, there is a gap in communication with Beta NF's that I have, which makes me feel a certain way about them
No no no. Let me elaborate.
Your worldview (gathered from your text and behavior) does not reflect any interest in an overarching symbolic context. Your overarching view of the world is tangibly based.
No. "Memes" are an Alpha conception and this is a good example of your Si valuing.
You might be thinking to yourself "But hey, memes are a dynamic abstract thing right? Shouldn't that be Ni related?"
Memetics takes something intangible spreading culture and analogizes it to genetics in an organism. This is classic Ne seeing systems as applicable to one another/corellated/connected. The society becomes an organism. That's Si stuff. Its not symbolic or metaphoric in anyway. Its the musings of an Ne-er.
"Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."
- Jung, Psychological Types.
Si connects processes together and sees them as a summation. Society becomes a living breathing organism, as does the earth, and as does the universe.
This involved/abstract dichotomy is contrived and obnoxious.
Being an NT I'd expect you to write abstractly like myself. And if you were to expound in an Si way I'd expect your language to be more involved.
The involved/abstract dichotomy is about language. Just because you use concrete words to describe Si, that doesn't mean Si suddenly becomes unimaginative, petty horseshit. The involved language would detail the unfolding environment.
It will be elucidated in language you do not use.
Sorry Gilly, but your writing is not like Nietzche, Strrrng, Jung, or BnD.
Let me ask you this, why do you play DnD, Gilly? Be honest with yourself.
I don't think being concrete is boring. It could be, I guess... but I never said this.
and that Te comment is bullshit lol.
Is Steve IEI? He's pretty impressionistic. I don't mind of course because there is extremely easy communication between us and I get what he's saying.
Alot of this is coming across as projection, Gilly. I wish I was infallible, but I doubt I am from my experience.
Its not like I don't consider what you say, I just disagree. I mean, if you think I'm wrong and I don't than you might believe I'm being stubborn. Now maybe I am, but you can't know that. Maybe I'm actually wrong, but think I'm being absolutely logical. Or maybe I'm right, but am actually irrationally stubborn. Its not fair to project motivations on me like that.
This is what I know about my version of socionics:
Its logical to me. I would not stick to a theory if I knew it was wrong. I've learned that its better to admit your mistakes sooner than later (for instance when i first came here)
I have at times been vague partly due to laziness partly due to socionics being a currently impressionistic theory. You may think its nice and easy and ready to ship off, but I don't. Doesn't mean I'm wrong about the progress of the typology, just unhelpful as of now.
I don't give out all of my theories and ideas on the forum (where you'd see them) partly due to laziness and partly due to fear of being harrassed even more then I already am. I do have ceratin things in the works however, which you can disbelieve and scoff haughtily at.
@Redbaron: I'm sure it is and I also do not find it appealing. Maybe a fun person to hang around, but not my dual.
The end is nigh
But see, if you knew what the functions REALLY WERE, and weren't just deferring to jungian/MBTI maxims, you would know that "EP temperament" does not mean sporadic or haphazard behavior. Is 1981Slater haphazard and sporadic? No. He seems like a pretty stable guy. And he's much different from me.
No, the way you FEEL about them is irrelevant. Your FEELINGS mean NOTHING in the context of this theory. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD. LEARN TO FUCKING READ YOU DRIVELING IDIOT.I know its not about how much you like them. But how you feel about them is relevent. For instance, there is a gap in communication with Beta NF's that I have, which makes me feel a certain way about them
What makes you think you know this? Give me an example. Show me why you think this. I mean, you're wrong, believe it or not; my interests and worldview ARE geared towards an overarching symbolic context. How do you think I tie philosophy, psychology, mathematics, physics, poetry, and novel writing together in my little world where everything makes sense?No no no. Let me elaborate.
Your worldview (gathered from your text and behavior) does not reflect any interest in an overarching symbolic context. Your overarching view of the world is tangibly based.
But I want to see what you think is Si and Ni, so I can make you look like a total idiot by ACTUALLY explaining this using the information element definitions.
Did I say I was interested in or particularly aware of memes? No.No. "Memes" are an Alpha conception and this is a good example of your Si valuing.
blah blah blah blah. Nothing to do with IM definitions.You might be thinking to yourself "But hey, memes are a dynamic abstract thing right? Shouldn't that be Ni related?"
Memetics takes something intangible spreading culture and analogizes it to genetics in an organism. This is classic Ne seeing systems as applicable to one another/corellated/connected. The society becomes an organism. That's Si stuff. Its not symbolic or metaphoric in anyway. Its the musings of an Ne-er.
WOW WAY TO QUOTE ALMOST ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT SHIT."Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."
- Jung, Psychological Types.
Jung is irrelevant to Socionics. Get it straight. Socionics is Socionics.
What's your point?Si connects processes together and sees them as a summation. Society becomes a living breathing organism, as does the earth, and as does the universe.
Actually it's part of the theory you idiot.This involved/abstract dichotomy is contrived and obnoxious.
Blah blah blah, more ejaculation. You're still avoiding my main arguments, and vastly misrepresenting the elements.Being an NT I'd expect you to write abstractly like myself. And if you were to expound in an Si way I'd expect your language to be more involved.
The involved/abstract dichotomy is about language. Just because you use concrete words to describe Si, that doesn't mean Si suddenly becomes unimaginative, petty horseshit. The involved language would detail the unfolding environment.
It will be elucidated in language you do not use.
Maybe I should post some of my poetry.Sorry Gilly, but your writing is not like Nietzche, Strrrng, Jung, or BnD.
Because it's fun. Because I like having an excuse to do something imaginative and creative with people from the forum. It doesn't stimulate the higher levels of my imagination, but it's a fun little jog around the block.Let me ask you this, why do you play DnD, Gilly? Be honest with yourself.
I don't care what type steve is; you're both idiots when you act like impressions dictate the theory.Is Steve IEI? He's pretty impressionistic. I don't mind of course because there is extremely easy communication between us and I get what he's saying.
Nice try, idiot.Alot of this is coming across as projection, Gilly.
I'm not projecting. I'm telling it like I see it. I think you're an idiot who has been conned into thinking that his vague impressions dictate personality types that are logically systematized.Its not like I don't consider what you say, I just disagree. I mean, if you think I'm wrong and I don't than you might believe I'm being stubborn. Now maybe I am, but you can't know that. Maybe I'm actually wrong, but think I'm being absolutely logical. Or maybe I'm right, but am actually irrationally stubborn. Its not fair to project motivations on me like that.
What makes someone a type is NOT how YOU react to them; at best that is a hint. What dictates a type is the set of functions that best exlpains someone's methods of thinking and motivations.
Let's talk about ******.I have at times been vague partly due to laziness partly due to socionics being a currently impressionistic theory. You may think its nice and easy and ready to ship off, but I don't. Doesn't mean I'm wrong about the progress of the typology, just unhelpful as of now.
I don't give out all of my theories and ideas on the forum (where you'd see them) partly due to laziness and partly due to fear of being harrassed even more then I already am. I do have ceratin things in the works however, which you can disbelieve and scoff haughtily at.
****** is an indisputable EIE, right?
Ok, what did ****** do? ****** essentially propogated the meme of German superiority to the people of Germany by talking about their lineage, their history, the way Germany came to be as it has come to be. He didn't refer to some insanely abstract mythos; he talked about the series of events that had led Germany to be as it was to inspire the imagination the German people. He helped them to feel like an "organic whole" of people, just like in your Si description, by uniting them based on their history of humiliation and shared desire to be a great and powerful nation.
Was this just some trick to pwn German Alphas and hypnotize them into becoming his puppets? NO! He didn't hack their minds with some abstract jibber jabber; he manipulated them by appealing to their aspirations, their dreams of how Germany could be, of how it was "destined" to be, how they were justified in pursuing these goals because they had been treated unjustly. He put in people's minds the picture of Germany as a successful, powerful nation, that ruled the world. That's pretty concrete, right? Ruling the world? But it's Ni! It's his vision, based on the causal series of events that led Germany to become as it was, its history of greatness. He accomplished this by projecting the attitude of a confident, emotional leader who was empassioned to acheive his goals and bring Germany to power. There's nothing abstract or mystical about it. It's easily explainable. So it must not be Ni, right? Fuck, ****** was a sociopathic ESE, because he manipulated the German people into seeing a concrete vision of how their nation should be! Right?
NO. He was a fucking EIE to the max. He used ardent emotionalism, rhetoric, and appeals of national unity to appeal to the German nation. Lots of parallels to your Si description, and yet he was an Si PoLR. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.
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...
I wish I was an octopus.
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
Yeah, well, I wish I was a pterodactyl, but we can't always get what we want.
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...