SEI got a bad wrap and LSI got a good one. What you think?
Worst and best reputation
SEI got a bad wrap and LSI got a good one. What you think?
ESE gets it the hardest and ... yeah LSI the best.
Forum, work, society, America, England, Germany, Japan, The Republic of the Congo, politics, tv shows...?
I'd say LIEs get the worst rep and LSIs and IEEs the best. You can't hate on alphasbut they also don't have a good reputation.
LSI the best? Why?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Reliable, simple, relatable, no bullshit, able to be both reasonable without being a passionless pansy that doesn't know where he/she stands on things. I dunno, they just seem to stand on their own confidently without bothering anyone else or inflicting their suffering on others or trying to get anyone to do something they don't feel like doing. Idk, they are just respectable in that they are independent and know what they want but aren't too idealistic.
Best rep in socionics circles: LSI indeed
Best rep IRL: ESE
Worst rep in socionics circles: SLE
Worst rep IRL:
LSI relatable? Simple? We know very different LSIs...Originally Posted by Fvaelynn
LSIs can be really demanding and prone to sudden outbursts of anger, and they also often enjoy being part of that ST "underground" scene, if you know what I mean.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Lol. I meant more like, biker gangs and so on...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If you're talking about reputation in socionics circles this is a very interesting question.
Initially in the socionics community intuitive types were heavily favored - everyone typed as "ENTp" etc. Now the situation is much more complex. ESI and EII seem to be favorites among mistyped people, especially ESI. Arguably it's easier for an IEI to mistype as these however, like EIEs as IEE or LSIs as LSE or SLI - especially if they're influenced by MBTI or don't use values to type. I have a hard time putting my finger on any type that in itself seems taboo on the forum, though there may still be a slight intuitive bias.
well I'm IEI... deep down I'm a good person and I'm able to mediate between people. That's usually the thing people compliment me on the most irl, the times I'm able to use my Fe to help people get along with each other. (I have strong area-of-effect healing spells lol) That improves my reputation.
Objectively my reputation is shit tho because I refuse to be a LSE/LIE successful businessmen... I need to be more of a Jew less like a goyim.
In Socionics circles, Delta types tend to be given the highest amount of respect. Alphas and Betas get the least. Especially alphas.
In real life, I think it's kind of the same way. Gammas get some respect, but not as much as deltas, because they are often not quite as savvy socially and tend to use a hammer where a scalpel is necessary.
You think? ;p I think beta and gamma kind of get the best wrap. And within those probably LSI, EIE (the legendary type noone knows) and SEE are just the big sweetheart.
to me it seems like:
beta & gamma gets it better because se/ni is seen as like, intense, deep, exciting, badass, whatever. and ne/si is perceived as childish and boring.
of beta/gamma, esi and sle get it the worst for being prissy naggers and violent knuckledraggers, respectively.
of alpha/delta, iee and sli get it okay for being cool, laid-back hippies.
alpha just gets the short end of the stick.
Yeah. There's a bit of confusion about Ni and depth somehow being associated. One of America's biggest authors was Hemingway, an LSE. He seemed to understand things you would stereotypically expect an Ni type to get, like the cyclical nature of civilization and human life. He was also the American master of understatement. Ni PoLR. Go figure.
Although, if I'm honest, I still like Saramago better.
Beta and gamma get the most status, but they aren't necessarily respected. Does that make sense? Reputation is more closely connected to respect than status. People try to fuck with betas and gammas more because they do so more often themselves. It kinda hurts their reputation but increases their status. Deltas don't fuck with people as often, and they can often be pretty subtle about it when they do. So people don't notice it in deltas so much and their reputation remains intact.
Hm, I think this varies. I'd argue EIE, they're more the dynamos. At least in my culture (the US) Ni-Se and Se-Ni are much more valued as a whole. EIE is strong in Ni and has Se HA so people love that shit. Si PoLR is probably the least objectionable in US culture. It's very idealized to be "goal-focused", "determined", etc. Being comfortable and aware of your own mind and the ways of the world is deempathized. Why know the ways of the world... when you can change the ways of the world?
LIEs also have a good rep in the US, but of a different sort. EIEs have more mass appeal, LIE is more respected.
Phobic So/Sp 6w7 3w2 9w1
Bit of a comic books nerd, bit of a fashion nerd, a lot of a generalized nerd
I do not think it is that well connected to the type itself really but what people of that type is doing for the community and such.
More like EII
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Hemingway has been almost universally typed as sle by people for years. He's on benchmark lists
This thread is victimy
That's crazy
EDIT: Really really really bad typing, sorry but that's how it is
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Depends what socionist is describing then. Alpha is described very positively by most of the literature.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
What about him makes him SLE to you, lungs? I'm willing to concede, because I can see him as a possible SLE.
i haven't thought about his type. i only care insofar as its a little frustrating when everybody seems to be using the same framework and seeing the same things, and then they're not lol. my only thought is that his simple and direct prose strikes me as ST in style.
It is rather direct. He uses a lot of short, simple sentences. But he's being sneaky lol. Don't be fooled by the apparent directness of his writing.
If he was more of a womanizer in his personal life, I'd say SLE was more likely. The LSEs I've known tend to be fairly genteel. They often have the same end goal, which is to get some. But the LSE uses the nice urbane, progressive attitude to get it while the SLE is more of an out and out aggressive abuser. The LSEs win quite often, especially these days, because they've learned how to appeal to the idea of the modern woman to get what they want.
Now that I think about it, the differences between them strike me as very yin/yang almost lol. Hemingway had a hidden soft side, while I would say that LSEs tend to hide their toughness more. Okay. SLE it is then.
Check this out for detail on Hemingway's hidden soft side:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/even...-life-him.html
there's this idea where the type attaches a certain status to the person wearing it when in fact I think its the exact opposite. Hence LIE and IEI are the 2 biggest scrub types, here at least. The quality of the personal representation is what makes a type reputable, not vice versa
i think the number of people with a given type is sort of inversely correlated with its reputation, like it's pointed out that iei was a popular type to be in the past and esi is a popular type to be now, but i don't think its because people thought iei was better then and esi is better now. both types have kind of stood in as a placeholder for "nondescript sensitive female" during the times of their popularity and i think the principle of supply & demand kind of applies, like its harder to be accepted as a 'better' type. but i think gatekeeping is a rarer phenomenon now than it has been in the past.
edit: I don't know why I quoted you for this. your post just prompted my thinking about something else lol.
Could you rephrase that? I'm not quite getting the first sentence.
people think label x makes them cool
I feel like its just gone underground
actually, yeah, I can see this. and I can think of at least one person who is fairly blatant about it.
I think I would like some of the gatekeeping attitude. People challenging your type gives you the opportunity to see what others think more often, about your own type and about Socionics in general. It would probably make for livelier discussion.
Yes, and I think this is the secret behind the (in)famous SLE typing. It's based on a huge misunderstanding. Simply associating that style with ST is understandable, but then thinking that's his actual type. That's when things go wrong. And ignoring all the intuition and feeling in his work. As if you wrote books using sensing (you don't).
Many EII authors have similar style. The concrete reality of the story and characters.
Strong Se is expressed in concrete action. Weak conscious Se is aligned under the stronger functions. Like in Hemmingways concrete style of writing.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Most typings of Hemingway probably appeal to his lifestyle and character outside his work. If it were just writing style, there might be even more disagreement about his type. Can you show how Hemingway was EII by using biographical knowledge? There's an article I linked above. Read that and tell me what you think.
I feel like typing people who predate socionics is generally problematic for a lot of reasons, the same way typing people you don't personally know is, but to an even greater extent. at best you type the image of them, or their work product, or some other secondhand impression but its all via some distorting lens or another, which means you need to identify what peculiar effects that medium would have on the transmission of personality in order to unwind it, which is so incredibly speculative on top of typing being speculative to begin with
so while I think its sort of a lost cause to worry about Hemingway because at best you're typing people's projections onto a limited amount of data. I mean how much does anyone here really even know about Hemingway. at best its like saying "I think hemingway stands for xxx" which is personal psychological disclosure not a real typing of an individual. that said, he represents the ST style in writing, but typing specific acts or words or instances is a far cry from the man himself. which of course has already been agreed upon I'm just reiterating I guess
His private letters are available to the public these days. It's not what he might have liked, but that's how it is.
I disagree completely with the idea that typing people that predate Socionics is problematic. Indicators of character and essence are the same as they have always been and always will be. Yes, people try to put forward a public image of themselves to look better, but even that image is the product of the person's type. Type is pretty impossible to escape. Even distortions still carry that underlying signature that one can use to tell a person's type. The only problem is whether or not the person doing the typing has the observational skills and experience necessary to identify it.
I haven't read that yet (But I will). But I already know something. He wrote fiction. A lot. And he became world famous for that. You don't do that with weak functions. You need strong intuition for that.
He travelled around and liked hunting. Many intuitives do that. So I don't see that as relevant.
You have to assume that a person who devotes his life to writing has suitable functions for that. Se base is not suitable for writing.
There is a sometimes a tendency to type people by too unstrained association. Like concrete writing style means ST type, instead of looking at the actual activity (creating fictional worlds with people and their lives)
And I kind of just consider it common knowledge that successful writers are almost always intuitives. I repeat: You don't write books using sensing. No matter how much "sensing" is found in the text.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I don't think we disagree I just think the answer to this is no one. the highest level socionists including ausra disagree on the typing of the people the types themselves are named afterThe only problem is whether or not the person doing the typing has the observational skills and experience necessary to identify it.
which isn't to say typing is impossible, just that you need to know someone and socionics well to accurately type someone, and that is almost always lacking in one way or the other. true people can speculate and maybe they get it right, but even if they're right, its not going to convince anyone because its just subject to disagreements by as many people who can do the same thing and come out with a different answer. in other words, their typing right or wrong is always a private piece of information and belief, so its like why bother? maybe cause its fun, fair enough but at the same time its sort of meaningless except as an exercise in entertainment
You're making the mistaken and shallow assumption that sensors could not have literary inclinations.
Please read this:
http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...hov_and_Tsypin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote