Well i just think it's funny that you guys both feel i'm your supervisor, and yet you type me totally different types.Originally Posted by Chris Clearly
another Maritsa comparison! keep em coming, I know they make it easier for you to write me off
Well i just think it's funny that you guys both feel i'm your supervisor, and yet you type me totally different types.another Maritsa comparison! keep em coming, I know they make it easier for you to write me off
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey. A kiddley divey too, wooden shoe?
and that makes it easier for you to shove me under the rug
gotcha
well, i'm sorry that you take it that way, but it just demonstrates that something is not right with either one of your socionics, most likely with your own self typings as well as your implementation of it. Did you think that coming here and touting yourself as the authority without much to show for it would be tolerated well? Come on now... that's an insult to my Te-HA.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
allow me to rephrase: in this case there is only one correct viewpoint
by the way, I think ILE for you is a step in the right direction
or maybe it's just an entertaining coincidence
a coincidence that i supervise the both of you, as two different types? I would say that's the opposite of a coincidence. It's a divergence.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
How i see it is that in a field like socionics, it's good to keep one's mind open to possibilities. Of course some possibilities can be ruled out, but being wrong is not impossible.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
How i see it is that in a field like socionics, it's good to keep one's mind open to possibilities. Of course some possibilities can be ruled out, but being wrong is not impossible.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
clearly no, just a coincidence that we both named you as our supervisor
perhaps Maritsa is wrong about her self-typing
perhaps Maritsa is mistaken about the nature of supervisory relations
perhaps Maritsa doesn't know how to distinguish an en-tee from an ess-eff
wouldn't that be a huge coincidence that Maritsa mistyped herself as EII instead of IEE, AND mistyped me both from a quadra standpoint, rationality standpoint, introversion/extraversion standpoint, and club standpoint. wowee... meanwhile you are just squeaky clean perfect...
I dont always agree with Maritsa, and i think sometimes she is a bit stubborn with her opinions, but I do think she knows socionics a bit better than you. A lot better actually.
And it would be weird to say Maritsa is mistaken about the nature of supervisory relations when both of you cited the same reasons for naming me your supervisor. So if Maritsa is mistaken about it, then you are as well. My take on it is that the both of you are mistaken about this. In fact, it's more likely that YOU are my supervisor, as I have been irritated enough by your self-importance and trying to "teach" us all your erroneous "wisdom" enough to finally have this debate with you. The supervisor usually doesn't mind the supervisee (at first anyway, until the supervisee starts lashing out), while the supervisee can't stand the supervisor.
So LII for you, as someone had suggested earlier, actually fits well.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
"clearly no" says Chris Clearly, Chris Clearly clearly not Mozart, no Chris Clearly clearly not, can Chris Clearly be clearly Chesney, or Ken he not? Johannes you like to know, clearly...or clearly not.
it's a possiblity
clearly you don't think very highly of her, otherwise you wouldn't have mockingly compared me to her
Supervisee tries to resist and even to fight back: puts on a show of deliberate crudeness, orders the Supervisor around, gives him assignments. Things may even progress to use of physical force. In this manner, Supervisee can create a lot of problems for the Supervisor, but the effect in the opposite direction is much more devastating.
Supervisor speaks in the most offensive to the supervisee words, but himself also doesn't feel well in these relations. Supervisee is persistently and unconsciously annoying and frustrating his supervisor. Although they both feel stressed, since this is an asymmetric relationship, the supervisee suffers more.Supervisor suffers as well and is annoyed by the Supervisee.
These relations are characterized by the fact that the auditor, as a rule, is always dissatisfied with the actions of audited person.
Revisee seems stupid not because he is unable (which is how it actually is), but simply because it's as if he does not want to listen. This periodically causes frustration for the auditor.
But suppose that close to this man was a person of his audited type ... And it turns out that any harmless remark is perceived with great sensitivity, that he takes it all too close to heart, because here pressure is exerted on his vulnerable third function.
TBH the above constitutes a lot of personal insults mixed with Te "Facts" like summaries from chats and quotes. I don't think anything constructive will ever come out of this approach.
But maybe this is just another one of your crusades... that LII typing isn't that wierd in that light ;-)
Not sure what type of mediation would be required to get you guys all to see eye to eye but i'd like to provide it where possible.
So; now now kids, don't fight; pappa is here and anyone who calls names won't get dessert tonight!
If you're gonna continue to assign me derisive nicknames, I'd say this one is probably the best.
I like Ashton because he's intelligent, nondogmatic, and, most importantly, kind.
Did they?
That's because language is largely how we transmit information.
Yeah, that article is garbage.
I was talking about myself, bro.
Here's my method: by posting videos and pictures of various types, my hope is that the patterns I see but struggle to put into words will become clear. I don't think I'm smarter than everyone, I'm just better at typing than everyone (except Filatova, she basically taught me everything I know)
How is this "being a complete ass"?
Agreed, although I think you could say that about this entire thread.
hah, he ain't no LII, he's a punk-ass EIE.
Mediation would be great, I feel like I'm being attacked on all sides (probably because I am).
mmm dessert
omg! a socionics rape attempt on woof's mind!He tried to force a ILE typing on woof.
[My brain came up with a very interesting image when I read this quote.]
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
One thing to note is his instant liking towards maritsa soon after he showed up.
As I recall, Timmy also had a fondness for maritsa.
Very rare ime.
It was a quote from "Ode to the West Wind" by Shelley.
Hmm:
Yeah, I think "murder" is the right word in this case.: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Because they're misleading. I've met plenty of people who, upon first glance, would appear to be IP (slow-to-move, phlegmatic, contemplative, etc), but who actually turned out to be EP (I'm speaking mostly of SLE here). This is Meged and Ovcharov on Te-SLI:
I think intuition + Reinin is the best way to type. Intuition can tell you whether someone is logical or ethical, sensing or intuitive, and Reinin can help dispel any lingering confusion. Positivism/negativism in particular is just indispensable.This personality type is quite rare, and we noticed that for this reason that it gives the greatest number of errors in typing, not only for ours but also for foreign experts. Most often, this type of personality testing is confused with the type of Commander (because of secrecy and distrust of the latter, falsely taken as introversion, and criticism, which often overestimates its practicality and considers himself a realist because of the analytical mind, and developed business logic), and as with other types.
But back to your original question, it's also why I'm a fan of DCNH:
- Strengthening the linear-assertive functions
, whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
- Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions
leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
- Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions
gives a normalizing subtype (N).
- Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions
engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).
Oh god, please don't. I hate arguing with you, you're so hateful and precise.
lol, it's not really a theory, it's just a vague intuition, or possibly a "primordial image"
I think EIE makes a lot of sense for you.
I'm nobody who's been on the forum before, how's that? I'm just me, I'm just some guy who can type people really well and who is attempting to show people what the types actually look like because he thinks widespread awareness of them could lead to a better society:
Amen.One cannot underestimate the potential for the application of Socionics in personal life, and in other areas, such as in medicine. Unfortunately, for many physicians it remains a mystery why, despite the success of the surgery or treatment, some patients for a long time are unable to recover. This is often so because they are roomed with people who suppress them in communication which is morally depressing. Hopefully, the knowledge of the fundamentals of Socionics will help future generations in building more harmonious relationships in a more harmonious society.
are you frakking kidding me? she annoys the hell out of me
The irony
Originally posted by Chris Clearly:
honestly, if I could be any type, I would choose SLE
what a tangled web he weaves when he practices to deceive
@woofwoofl @WorkaholicsAnon
@allothers
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...37#post1016137
I think you are onto something there, @zap. Perhaps CC is ESI, in which case he may indeed be correct about feeling supervised by me. That would also explain him putting Ashton on a pedestal like that (DUALS!)You sure change your username a lot, Joblo aka Kechey aka CC. Disliked all the nicks woof came up with + the ubiquitous Joblo nick, didn'tcha? Then you realized the danger of "Kentucky Fried Chesney" so now we get Chris Clearly/CC... Unfortunately for you, several new nicks are available. The following aren't only made by me, btw: Chris Cunty, Cock Connoisseur, Chris Crazy, Chris Cloudy, Chris Cornered, Chris Clearly Wrong, Chris-chan, Chris Muddly.
Time for a 16t history lesson. ppl who thought or still think they're the shit at socionics during its history: aestrivex/niffweed, Aleksei, Ankh/ananke, Ashton & the model X crowd, dee, Expat, EyeSeeCold, Gilly, hitta, hkkmr, iSocion, Jack Oliver Aaron, labcoat, lifer, Maritsa, Olga, phaedrus, Raver, smilex, tcaudilllg, The Ineffable. This old quote is as appliable to The Ineffable/Bolt as it is to you (he had lots of sockpuppets... are you him?)r perhaps you're Phaedrus! Your absolutism sure bears a resemblance.Man, if k0rpsy was still around he'd made mincemeat outta you... or maybe you ARE k0rpsy... how about you just tell us who you really are already? Who the fuck are you? And why do you act so subservient towards Ashton? Could it be you recognize he's far smarter, faster, stronger, more aggressive & established than you?I guess the resemblance to Phaedrus could just be declaring intuition at work. The above 4 quotes supports EXFx typing of you as long as EXFxs are seen as fickle. OTOH I got other explanations for your fickleness. I believe you're a NA- in NPA theoryGenerally in your posts you display lots of aggression, but also narcissistic limelight-seeking, I'd say. You have weak sense of duty to others, so non-perfectionist. Your general depressiveness & lack of a certain type of confidence supports -/non-compliance.
George Gurdijeff is often typed SEE & he's the originator of the enneagram. You said Ti-polrs can't explain...If they're so frikkin rare how come Augusta, Jung etc even observed any number worth a damn? How can you be confident in your understanding of things if you've seen so few?Even 1-D functions do stuff, just poorly. One can also take the model X approach to things where every type can do any given action. Or model B where everyone values a + or - variant of every function.Yup. Surely you must know who wrote the following, CC...Sure, they're not identical, but I hope you're not saying logical aptitude doesn't correlate to intelligence... OTOH you may be referring to socionics logic only, while dissociating logic ability (in normal sense) from socionics logical types. Are you? Also, get some self-respect, you're making yourself out to be a bitch.Regardless of your arbitrary opinion of its classification, others will likely continue to refer to it as such, as they have in the past.Really? Seems you're struggling with low self-esteem. Perhaps socionics is your solution to this, a source of identity & security.One of your problems is your over-appliance of typing ppl by their language. Don't me wrong it's a good way of doing things but it can still be taken too far. Things aren't always cut 'n dry. Socionics doesn't confer an inability to say "to me" just cuz you're Fi/Te. It's a probablistic framework; not a set of iron laws. It's understandable a Fi-valuer would speak about systems in a thread focusing on exactly such. Also realize if WA is IEE her HP-cog would differentiate perspectivally, easily leading to what you see in here.Lets see how you respond to this article...I'd refrain from playing the age game if I were you. This site has many members who're older & more experienced in socionics than you.
Oh, I guess Strat ain't good enough for ya?Even if you still disagree, just trust me, I'm SEE & I just know ESI Stratiyevskaya is the shit. Don't ask me how I know I got Ti-polr so I can't explain shit ever I'm just smarter than anyone else here it's that simple kthxbye. Finally, time to show the forum just what you've been up in tinychat: the17th. @hkkmr . I got 4 summaries, this is chronologically...
Dont get me wrong, I like Ashton myself, he actually was one of my key trusted socionic mentors back when i first started. I still trust his opinion a lot, though he seems to have become bored by socionics (or by me
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
this may have costed me dessert, but I'm baking cookies after midnight again
@Reficulris, most of my frustration here stems from there being precious little external or internal consistency from CC/KC/JB, and even less in terms of explanation. Wild approaches to theory are things I love to see; even if there's dissonance between my results and someone else's, the rationale used to get there will reveal to me things I'd otherwise never be able to find out. At the end of the day, I expect to learn a hell of a lot about Focal Ti from all of this. Anyone bringing "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" is going to be asked to supply some form of "why".
In absence of a "why" from CC, it would unfortunately be on everyone else to supply a "why". Looking for a form of consistency in the typings is one way to try to reverse-engineer an approximation of the CC system. Bringing all of the rationale together in clear sight. Finding pieces of consistency and coherence in what's very shrouded. Aggression is met with aggression; when one person spreads it around towards various other people, especially without prompting, the next step is for all of that aggression to go from those various recipients to one concentrated location, which is the person who started all of the aggression. Looking at that final part in isolation sure would paint a picture of a lot of people ganging up on someone, but the prelude shows who organized the gang in the first place.
I'd love to see a CC system fleshed out by its creator, and I'd love for it to stand high. I'm hellbent on not destroying anything without building something of my own, and I'd wanna shoot beyond whatever standards I might have for anyone else, which are pretty relaxed anyways; this is a large part of what got me off my ass to flesh out a Model W. It sure is hell for me to show my work, to systemize a previously piecemeal and case-by-case approach with DCNH interconnecting everything beyond my current explanatory and notational power, all manner of cross-references and visual and audial cues that go beyond what I see and hear at the moment, well into abstract imagery that one day I'll have to write out; but it's all on me now. I ain't gonna accept a "PolR"-related excuse out of myself either.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Thank you, I appreciate your humaneness. However, I actually think woof makes a good point here:
All I can say is that I regret being so aggressive, not just because I've met with a powerful multilateral response, but also because I don't think it's very much helped my cause. Perhaps socionics can help us to understand why I chose this approach:
- IEE: Logic of anti-intergration. Dysfunctionality. Lets denote it by +<Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes "objectively known" facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct". In contrast to Subjectivists, Objectivists are not inclined to compare and verify concepts. They assume that these can have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one)—often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework.With enthusiasm defends his views. The enemy hierarchy, and servility. Before the command is not shy, boldly defends his point of view and interests. Impressionable and easily offended. Sometimes irascible, unrestrained, sometimes even aggressive.Or maybe I'm just an assholeA few words about the indispensable role of the harmonizing personality in a stable group. The Harmonizer is designed to ensure feedback in the communicative system. It sends the signals of correction, being an indicator of the psychological atmosphere. H-subtype at first sharply and even violently resists forcible demands, but then gradually submits and adapts to it. On the one hand, he is the weak link, but on the other hand, without his contribution the system loses vitality under conditions of the lack of energy resources.
It's not a system, it's an instinct. It's like, I can easily distinguish a logical person from an ethical person, and I can almost as easily tell whether a logical person uses introverted logic or extroverted logic and whether an ethical person uses introverted ethics or extroverted ethics. It's also really easy for me to distinguish between between sensors and intuitives. The difficulty lies in providing a list of traits or tendencies that help me make those determinations, because the process is pretty much automatic in my head; I simply look at a person and think, "who are they?" I've said before that logical types are more "deliberate" and "seamless" in their speech, and that intuitive types tend to have more extensive vocabularies, and I still stand by those two observations. Another huge component of my method is "social dynamics", i.e. how do people get along with each other and how do they get along with me. Certain Reinin dichotomies like positivism/negativism have also proved extremely helpful.
Ultimately, though, I pretty much just go by the text; the only reason I redefined the information elements is because I felt they didn't match my experience. I still think that Fi is "Implicit Object Statics" and that Ti is "Implicit Field Statics", but I honestly don't care much for those kinds of definitions anymore; I think the true nature of the functions extends beyond "explict", "implicit", "objects", and "fields".
Nah brah, keep dreaming.
The reason I feel supervised by you is because you are LII and I am IEE.
I'm not putting him on a pedestal, I just think he's smart and decent. Furthermore, I disagree with his self-typing
Oh gawdDont get me wrong, I like Ashton myself, he actually was one of my key trusted socionic mentors back when i first started. I still trust his opinion a lot, though he seems to have become bored by socionics (or by me
all your little screenshot proves is that I'm open to collaboration and receptive to kindness, but that doesn't mean I "took a liking" to Maritsa
No, I like their subtype descriptions. Some of their other stuff is a little wacky, though.
You've got to recognize the existence of intratype differences.
Spreading it won't do any good if there's nothing behind it.
lol, she had me do a TinyChat session with her (I was hoping she was a closet camwhore) and it basically turned into her telling me that she is my mirror and that I have much to learn from her and that I need to listen and all sorts of other annoying shit.
COOOOOOKIIIIEEEEES!!!
I know and understand this. I'm not opposed to this at all. Not sure the nature of the questions don't influence the possible answers but still.
again agreed. I've spoken out against the initial agression as well. Taking your analogy and hijacking it for my purpose, i'm the guy who disperses that gang and gets everyone to fight the monsters instead of eachother!In absence of a "why" from CC, it would unfortunately be on everyone else to supply a "why". Looking for a form of consistency in the typings is one way to try to reverse-engineer an approximation of the CC system. Bringing all of the rationale together in clear sight. Finding pieces of consistency and coherence in what's very shrouded. Aggression is met with aggression; when one person spreads it around towards various other people, especially without prompting, the next step is for all of that aggression to go from those various recipients to one concentrated location, which is the person who started all of the aggression. Looking at that final part in isolation sure would paint a picture of a lot of people ganging up on someone, but the prelude shows who organized the gang in the first place.Just a different stage in the progression of this conflict ;-)
You and me both. One thing I think though, is that if Johannus is going to give us something to work with, it'll be something different from a structured system. He has admitted to not being good at that and I think that trying to filter his approach through such a lense might distroy its value. I'm not saying he should be excused for polr (no-one should) but maybe we need to work with him and find a way for him to communicate his intuitions. I thought about for instance, him using poetry or other types of art (without a need to justify the details) to show what type qualities or information elements are. I think that would be more suited to his style than logical arguments. The inability to explain consistency does not prove inconsistency.I'd love to see a CC system fleshed out by its creator, and I'd love for it to stand high. I'm hellbent on not destroying anything without building something of my own, and I'd wanna shoot beyond whatever standards I might have for anyone else, which are pretty relaxed anyways; this is a large part of what got me off my ass to flesh out a Model W. It sure is hell for me to show my work, to systemize a previously piecemeal and case-by-case approach with DCNH interconnecting everything beyond my current explanatory and notational power, all manner of cross-references and visual and audial cues that go beyond what I see and hear at the moment, well into abstract imagery that one day I'll have to write out; but it's all on me now. I ain't gonna accept a "PolR"-related excuse out of myself either.
excellently put.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Nah brah, keep dreaming.
When you find yourself needing to retype everyone to make your intertypes fit and own self-typing fit, that's when you should suspect you are the mistaken one.
I'm not putting him on a pedestal, I just think he's smart and decent. Furthermore, I disagree with his self-typing
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I believe you are being very honest about this.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
That makes a lot of sense.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
That's not why I retype people, though.
Great, hopefully we can realise that the purpose of socionics isn't really to brand people with types, but rather to understand people more completely and that you can't do that by enforcing opinion either through individual force or through group consensus. Accoringly, that means that the aggression and force isn't valuable and can be destructive, from yourself and others.
There is a point at which I hope you will see that those instincts actually do derive a rigorous system and that with more rigour there is the opportunity to understand that the information can often be too limited to provide a outcome with high certainty which is why these discussions drag on and on.
figured you'd say that, slick
afterall, liars are like leopards.
they never change their spots.
Come forth socionists, liars and leopards and direct thy gaze towards my conclusive collection of 404 links not found!
sure you did
so dramatic
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
