People on this forum are tired as hell of badly translated crap that gets them no-where. They hunger for their own working explanation and application. (namely thier quadra). Since all the research and such is like this and old.... plus the new moderation rules that are basically anti-beta, thats why the forum has died pretty much. The progress bar is stuck.
If people would stick to Jung, maybe things wouldn't be that unclear.Originally Posted by jughead
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That apparently hasn't helped you much. You're more confused than anyone else here, really.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Very clear to me
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I mean, yeah, what's sad and bodes poorly for you is that you have poor insight into your confusion. Which means your confusion will never improve.Very clear to me
It's apparent to everyone else though.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Also caught something where he claims thattypes generally can't be supervised—especially SXEs, for they are "too powerful."
Complete bs.
Woah, was this made by a mathematician? That math seems extremely complicated. And what exactly does loudness refer to?
...wow. Is there even one person here that can interpret all the details of the math and why it is done that way? If you can, you are amazing. I see square roots of pyramids and triangles pointing to the right.I'm not even going to try...
lol
Thought I'd never get around to this.
The Sensing/Intuiting Supervision was interesting, but I was more captured by the last section referring to intuition and hyperobjects etc.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I tried skimming it for 20 seconds. Most of it seemed like mathematical reifications of the usual ridiculous stereotypes that makes Socionics appear crude and childish. So I quickly lost interest.
I did catch something about how supervision supposedly goes LIE←IEI in favor of the IEI in a "sensing situation" and that LIE only has supervision leverage over IEI at a distance, such as over phone or e-mail. Which is patently untrue IME; if anything, it's the IEI who fares better at a distance.
Also caught something where he claims that
I always feel supervised by you at a distance. (Or maybe it's just subjective.)
And with SLE's and SEE's I guess we should observe how they interact with ESI's and LSI's here (respectively), although I don't think there are that many ESI's here. So I guess it would make more sense to pay attention to how SEE's and LSI's interact.
lol. I think Ashton supervises everybody.
It's the latent insecurity and self-reassuring internal aggression that leaks into everything he says and does. He's trying, though.
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...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
