Discussion split from Katharine's thread
Thank you for that lovely bit of spite, Diana.
Ritella, while obviously INFj, might not be the best to explain this to her, so I suggested looking outside just that one person for input. And though comparing yourself to someone to try and nail down a psychological match seems pretty outlandish, it may come in handy.
WL, while BG and Mune both self-type as SEI, I think they're both certainly Ne INFj. They also both don't seem to care much, which is both lovely and highly admirable.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
You won't be saying that after I punch you in the throat and shit! But, yeah, not getting where TeSi brightens up my life or whatever. Nother thread I'm sureOriginally Posted by Tom
WL, while BG and Mune both self-type as SEI, I think they're both certainly Ne INFj. They also both don't seem to care much, which is both lovely and highly admirable.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
lol Mune I'm not going to try to convince either you or BG with more than the occasional "you knowww... lol". Its the relation that matters.
Diana I'm sorry if it sounded like I'm a spawn-o'-the-devil "Ashton clone". I agree with Ashton a good deal and use the dreaded Model X (/shock;/awe)! But just because both of these things are true doesn't mean we agree on everything, nor is this a "social game". I like telling people what I believe to be true, because it benefits me and (I believe) everyone if they listen and learn. I'm not out to prove that I'm the all-knowing god of correctness (contrary to my title); I want everyone to be as close as possible to correct, exact knowledge. Offering both my opinion and any help I can to someone new to this field is, I believe, a good thing to continue doing. So I'm going to.
And thanks Glam; I didn't know what Rick selftyped as
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
.
Dualization probably shouldn't feel so annoying.lol Mune I'm not going to try to convince either you or BG with more than the occasional "you knowww... lol". Its the relation that matters.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Does whining like this really help anyone? I realize you don't care about others' feelings, but must you really go out of your way to insult them? Or me specifically, someone you've never even spoken to? I'm sorry I don't agree with your selftyping, but that's really no reason to get so upset. Calm down, none of this is big/bad enough to get upset over, nor was any of it negative. And as to rick, I knew he selftyped as delta NF, but I wasn't sure which. GEEZE.
At least we have you to yell and sort out the truth for us.The forum has largely become a role-playing game. I agree a lot with what electric posted on his wiki page, about people playing the part of the type they've chosen. Searching for a scrap of the genuine here and there is becoming increasingly difficult because so many people are sucked into playing the game, fitting their role, and trying to force-fit others where they'd like them to be, reinforcing false ideas, for purely SOCIAL reasons.
I love how nobody who disagrees with you can have come up with what they've thought on their own. I suppose you came up with all of your socionics theory before reading anything on the topic and talking to anyone else about it as well? Wish I was that insightful. And in case you wanted to know, people spend time talking to each other and "gossiping" on stickam because they like each others' company, not that you would understand any of that; you're too insightful for amiable chat.Forget that. I'm not interested. Not interested in the "display your friends" thing, not interested in the "let's gossip on stickam" crap, not interested in the type merry-go-rounds and groupiness. Make your little categories however you'd like, but be aware that they're meaningless, unhelpful, and completely without intelligent thought, from you, or those you've copied them from.
Good. I would like for you to do that. I don't believe I ever said otherwise, or that you even had a bad idea. I simply said to look outside of that one box.As for this new girl Katherine, or anyone else who is actually interested in learning the theory in a way that it can be used and beneficial, I'll give whatever suggestions I think might help, but whatever type they, or anyone else settles on as fitting for them, makes no difference to me.
Are you actually that upset about this, or are you transferring your anger from something else?
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
No glam, I mean in the same area as Ritella, who, convinced we were duals, hears Niffweed call me LSI and immidiately changes her opinion with absolutely no hope of turning it around. Which is another reason why she isn't a good person to hear about socionics from. Everyone who met me and has known me for a long time (who knows socionics) agreed that I was LSE, or at least thought it plausible. Untill they all changed their minds when Niff said otherwise.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Do you understand the difference at all? Dual-->60 in 3 seconds? With no convincing? I'm not saying you do, and my point was that not many do just blindly follow. But that situation is a bit ridiculous.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
.
I have done all that. Myself.
I believed Ashton's typing of you because I've seen a good deal of your posting and he made a very good case for INFj. Is this a problem? Does it mean that I don't think for myself? No, and you shouldn't assume so.
I assumed you were angry because without knowing me or how I operate at all, you directly insulted me and called me a lickspittle. Sort of angry behavior, really.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
.
/sigh^2
I don't, though this case in particular I know.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Which only means they did not know what they were talking about - and more to the point, did not think they knew what they were talking about, if all it takes (according to you) is someone else's view to change their minds.
Which only means they knew nothing - despite your assertion that they "knew socionics" (if they did, why would they change from LSE to LSI just on anyone's say-so?). Therefore, the most logical path is to give no value to their views at all.
On Rick's self-typing. Rick doesn't really like participating in forums very much. On the other hand, he has two sites on socionics, apart from Wikisocion. It's not difficult at all to discover his self-typing the moment one bothers to read something by him. If you say that you were not aware of his self-typing of IEE, that can only mean that you never really bothered to read much of anything he wrote. So it's difficult to see on the base of which knowledge, which information, which facts you decided he was INFj. So, to guess that you just swallowed whole the INFj typing from someone else is logical.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I suggest this thread be split and moved into the Everyone Argues forum.
You have a point.
This tool is supposed to be used to understand the motivation of others, especially those that are different from you, because like Christopher Hitchen said (I think it was him) -- not knowing how other people think is dangerous to your *own* well-being.
All information is the same. You can't argue facts, or at least ideally- you shouldn't. So we have facts. So it's all in how information is processed. You can get somebody do to something that is good for them, if you present the information in a way that they like. To me, that's really the whole point of socionics. (Or at least a very big one)
How you process information relates to your body posture, your structure- everything really, how you appear. I have the social worker glaze/romantic vibe, because I'm an IEI. You can see it on my face. So VI isn't everything, but there's some truth to that because it's nice and objective.
People need to stop stretching the functions to mean whatever they want them to mean. They need to stop self-appointing themselves as professionals when they have yet to undergo any training or expertise whatsoever. Yes, there is room for interpretation and such, and you should always question professionals and those that study this more rigorously than you, that's very important in life. But still, they took the time and research to study people in the theory, sooo you should listen and learn first before you blabber and belabor on about your weird perceptions that only confuse people. I'm just saying.
Warning: This post is long, and each portion is dependent on the preceding one; thus, either peruse it or ignore it.
This seems to be the classic criticism from most people here, when it comes to those who agree with Ashton on some things. It's funny that the first conclusion they jump to, is some notion about blind social following.
To address Diana -- whom I have no personal issues against -- I feel is important in this situation, and I will try to be as succinct as possible.
This would be called two-fold. You're posting a criticism in a manner which can only suggest anger to anyone who doesn't see you typing it, yet when called out on it, withdraw into some shell of avoidance and dismissal, to maintain leverage in the situation. This as opposed to simply correcting them, and responding to what they said.
Inference: motivations aren't communication; there's some moralism simmering here.
Aren't we all*considering*
There we go. I knew it would come. First the withdrawal and now the abnegation -- that being, the apparent abnegation of pride by downplaying your post into a "these are just my thoughts, you don't have to waste your time" statement.For the benefit of anyone who might want to read this and understand my point of view, I'll attempt elaboration.
Inference: you have just built the first truss of sanctimony.
Oh, indeed! And surely, you can't simply mistake someone like Ashton for being the only culprit here, simply because he asserts his views more voluminously and definitively. Can you not forget the fact that Expat is viewed as a complete authority on the subject (this was more apparent in his old posting days), but is revered more, simply because of his "unassuming," paternal attitude? Or how about how niffweed has subtly constructed his own matrix world with this shit, molding everyone within his *perfectly established* parameters of understanding. It goes both ways.There is a difference between looking at something and sorting it out (and making friends in the process of doing so,) and instead using something to create an artificial social structure.
This is all true. Yet I doubt you see the full magnitude of what you're pointing out; if you did, you probably wouldn't have pointed it outWe have here a social structure. Often suggestions made for people's types are not based on the person in question, but instead on maintaining the divisions, making people fit, and attributing to them things that are not true. Other times, you'll get actors, people who want to be considered such-and-such a type putting on a great show of what they think that type is about.
Yes, this happens in most social groups, to varying degrees. I'd be curious to hear you explain how this dynamic occurs in the "Ashtonian clique." And I would urge you to contrast this with the more tacit social hierarchy that exists on this forum (i.e. "core gammas" and how they were established). It seems that a good amount of people who come here as certain types (more so Te/Fi), and balk at the suggestions of people like niffweed, get relegated to the melting pot that is beta; subsequently, if they find more coherency in Ashton's assessment, they are deemed another adherent. Who's part of this social ladder again?Why does agreement matter to people? Does anyone really believe that what a forum of people thinks about you makes any difference at all? Does it change who you are? And yet it does matter to people how "the group" sees them. It becomes a system of social ordering. They know their place and their pecking order. Many of those who try to step out of their assigned role get attacked, knocked down, and attempts to forcibly shove them back into their assigned spot ensue.
I believe this, too. What's your point? Didn't you used to self-type INFj? Wasn't it through talking to Expat that you re-typed as ISFj? Weren't there non type-related factors in existence that affected your decision, and subsequent ideas about the types? How about when niffweed was considering INTj and INTp (yeah, I read the history here), and has somehow managed to concoct a consummate framework in the time following his conclusion of INTp? Everyone does this shit; we all relate things back to subjectivity.There is extremely little disagreement regarding my type, but what if tomorrow everyone decided unanimously that I'm now SEI? Have I changed any? Or would suddenly my words be read as though from the point of view of Si and Fe? I believe that not only do in some cases people make themselves fit their assigned types by acting in concert with the predominant view of what that type is like, but also people read a person as though they are the type they've already decided the person is.
Shall I cite threads and posts where you've expressed the very things you're criticizing here? Type debate with Ashton at socionix where you incessantly promoted Se being about willpower and Ne about potential; comment on Allie "exploring possibilities" in a criticism of UDP as a sign of Ne ego, not to mention the bullshit claim about ENFp based on moral relativity; and so on.I do miss the old days of the forum, when people paid a whole lot less attention to what type a person was when they said something, and more to what was being said. None of the "you said the word 'possibility' you must be Ne!!!!" or "he said 'power' he's Se valuing!!!!" None of the "you're just that type, lol, no matter what you say, lol" either.
So, you're above this? A wistful observer noticing the inevitable trends occurring from a distance. Reminiscing on the "good old days" as a contrast to the new dissonance that presents itself, referencing some "shift" that apparently only you (and maybe a few other old-timers) are able to perceive.I like quite a few people here. I don't like the masks people wear. I don't like the fakeness, don't like the positioning and ordering. And I don't like that there are some who would like to impose their own social structure either, realligning how they believe people should fit, whether or not it makes any sense at all. Already I feel the shift. I see reallignments happening, and some falling into line. I also see some cracks and breaks, and don't know if they'll be able to hold it together.
You sure this isn't about your social ordering? This sounds like Fi noticing the shifts in internal state and connection, as the Ne aspects of a situation branch out and redivide themselves up, but that's just a hunch of mine, based on past experience with INFjs.
You just made yourself a part of it, by claiming not to be. Taking down your type list is a direct result of this:I won't be a part of social ordering and reordering. I've taken down my typelist, and won't put it back up. I will be helpful when I can re. understanding socionics and the theory. I won't participate in retyping people against their will, or insisting that someone is a type that they do not identify with. I will not make socionics into a social game, won't play the game that others have made it into, and will point it out when it's interfering with people learning or discussing the theory.
And you are now -- very transparently -- attempting to reposition yourself within your own subjectively-defined social ladder (even though not explicit, which lends even more credence to FiNe). You proceed to renounce all the bad qualities you have noted previously, as a sort of 'step up' from the negative behaviors occurring. By doing this, you are essentially removing all burdens off of your back, placing yourself in a position of unassuming moral rightness, all-the-while blocking out the threat of being criticized for any involvement you may have.
Now you just completed the fucking boat, and are sailing off to the moral high ground.
You don't "care" but you express concern for it, in regards to your own enjoyment and fulfillment. Disclaimer to relinquish responsibility.I don't care much about socionics itself. It's a hobby, and it's interesting. If someone has a screwed up understanding - so what? But, I do like learning about and discussing it, and don't like my ability to do that messed up for me, or other people. If it goes too far in the direction of people posturing, drama, and cliquish activity. If it becomes too much of a rigid social structure rather than a place of interacting and sharing ideas with real, genuine people. If the gossip and plastic role replacements for the real people get too overbearing, I guess I won't see much point anymore.
And I thought you already saw all these things going on, so what's the point in even responding to them? What's the point in involving yourself with individuals like that?
Sounds like one last final hoorah.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I agree with Diana 110% that Se is willpower though. I just think sometimes Ashton likes to criticize because it's fun to criticize, but the 'Se as willpower' thing always made sense to me. I've always had trouble with feeling all that willpowered about anything. I just want to feel the inner fire in myself, and somebody that can provide me with that- well I like it a lot.
I already know what to do, I'm very smart in most cases. That really isn't ever the problem, the problem with me is just a lack of motivation or drive or 'fire under my belly' and if I can get that, then I'm all set. *Shrug*
Se as willpower makes sense, because I've heard people attribute Se as some sort of purely tactile, non-psychological function, which is absolutely ridiculous, because all functions are psychological and in our heads and hearts. Or I heard people describe Se as mere 'Power' which is also ridiculous, because all functions are powerful in their own way. But add the will to it, and as a psychological motivation and function, it makes perfect sense. Until the experts provide any good evidence to the contrary (I'm not holding my breath) that's always how I'm going to see the function. =D
No. That's not true at all (and this could even be supported by tracking down old posts, assuming that anyone would actually want to bother to do that). I didn't even talk much to Diana privately at the time (or to many people here, for that matter). If any one person (apart from Diana herself) can be credited with first suggesting the ISFj typing, that would be Joy, rather than I. Obviously I agree with the typing, but the idea that Diana reached that conclusion "through talking to me" has no truth to it whatsoever.
ETA: and as far as I know, it wasn't through talking to Joy or anyone else, either.
Last edited by Expat; 07-22-2009 at 10:23 PM.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest that you were the sole cause. I wanted to give perspective to the idea about reaching a better understanding of your type through talking to others. I doubt she did it in a box, and the point is that people who have listened to Ashton's ideas about their type are not necessarily any more deluded or brainwashed.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Well, pardon me for concluding that you were meaning to suggest precisely that, based on this:
It seems to me that you find it easier to twist what you, yourself, said just one post previously, rather than say simply "ok I was wrong in my assumption" (no harm in that, btw).
I realize I was wrong in my assumption (was that not clear a post ago??), in terms of the extent of veracity. My elaboration was merely to give a better context to the statement.
So, now I am saying: I realize my error in making a simplified statement without being fully clear about my meanings. Apologies.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Tom is ESTj, if you cant see that then you are blind
.
I sincerely appreciate this in the spirit I think it was written; but I must be pedantic and anal and reiterate that it's not a question of "extent of veracity". Please just accept that Diana changed her typing from INFj to ISFj without needing me for that. As simple as that.
I suggest that you consider the possibility that your "simply because" explanation is just your own subjective impression of how others perceive me, that is, you are assuming that others will be susceptible to being impressed by something as trivial as my "attitude" - but your assumption is not necessarily correct as far as many others are concerned. That is to say, some people actually think that what I have to say makes sense, regardless of my "paternal attitude".
I did accept it – was that not evident in the first words of my post, "Fair enough." Honestly, do you want me to get on my knees and repent? This is absurd and moralizing as hell.
Oh, I fully realize that my subjective impression of your status and respect could differ widely from many others. I also realize that those others may have certain motivations for claiming to respect you for this or that reason, and am thus inclined not to care about their perspectives much (similar to how you and others are inclined not to care about why people may respect Ashton, due to your opinion of him and those who are drawn to him). I wouldn't assume that all people would simply be impressed with your attitude, but I would assume that such an attitude would win more favor than that of Ashton's; and thus my point was to differentiate the attitudes, in regards to the respect received from other people. And lastly, some people think that what Ashton has to say makes sense, regardless of how shitty his attitude may be. So... the point basically lies in that comparison, because my motivation was to demonstrate to Diana that people could just as equally well follow you around, or simply respect Ashton's opinions without becoming inoculated in a social hierarchy.I suggest that you consider the possibility that your "simply because" explanation is just your own subjective impression of how others perceive me, that is, you are assuming that others will be susceptible to being impressed by something as trivial as my "attitude" - but your assumption is not necessarily correct as far as many others are concerned. That is to say, some people actually think that what I have to say makes sense, regardless of my "paternal attitude".
4w3-5w6-8w7
.
Jesus Christ, what a waste of time this thread is.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
You implied it quite well through your criticisms of Tom being a follower, in reference to the model-x context and such.
And lol -- you "don't know" who he copies from. Saying this basically gives you free reign to accuse him of copying, without ever having to take responsibility for the claim -- since you can just pick and choose who you were or weren't referencing when others accuse you. Dumb.
And if "any one of that group" could be his ghost-writer, as you claim, then would it really matter who you were criticizing, since they are "all very much in agreement"? And wouldn't this stem back to a gestalt judgment of "Ashton," since he would undoubtedly be the "leader" of that group?
Equivocation ftw.
I wasn't saying that you were only claiming that because you were angry; it was more that you dismissed comments about your delivery, which removed a responsibility for your words and their effects, and allowed you to sit back and claim "this is just my opinion, take it how you want" -- regardless of how your intentions really were.No. I'm sorry if people assume that, but I can say quite dispassionately exactly what I think about someone. I don't have to be angry to give my honest opinion. So, none of that is about avoidance or dismissal. I said what I thought about Tom, because I think it, not because I was angry. Sad, happy, angry, gleeful, none of that changes my opinion of him. However, suggesting that it was just some angry rant because I was upset or personally offended DOES change how people read what I wrote, and can even change the meaning. It was important to me to point out that it wasn't an angry rant for this reason. (btw, CAPS doesn't mean I'm yelling - it's used for emphasis, like italics, but italics show up poorly on-screen)
I didn't imply anything, though. If I was implying something, I would have phrased it like, "you're seeming this way" or something similar, to indicate that there was a vaguely perceived process I saw occurring, whose implications I wasn't completely sure of yet, but which I would continue to monitor. This is how Fe operates. And I am reluctant to draw conclusions on things, so the fact that I did with you only betrays my certainty. It has nothing to do with someone thinking "these are the person's motivations, therefore I interpret them this way" -- that is an Fi way of thinking about things, aligning intentions and determining interpretations based on the qualities perceived. Fe is causal, which is more like, "this person demonstrated this reaction, within this context, and continued to act in this way, which ties back to this motivation." Essentially, Diana's words —> Established context of conversation —> motivation behind wordsimplying motivations to someone can change how the message they're giving is received. I want to avoid that.
Look, you presented it in the form of: "If anyone else is interested in comprehending me, I will elaborate." It's a disclaimer to alert people to the fact that you aren't just mindlessly ranting, but are *genuinely concerned* with communicating a *real message* -- one which shameful tom boy couldn't grasp, thereby implicitly elevating the general observer above him intellectually -- that you just *hope* will be understood correctly by someone.Wrong. I neither withdrew, nor abnegated. I was not suggesting people shouldn't waste their time!! Quite the opposite. I was saying, "Although Tom doesn't seem to be able to comprehend, perhaps some people will. I'm going to lay out my thoughts in the hopes that SOMEone will be reached."
Classic jaded martyr tactic.
It would help if you stopped stepping back and claiming some sort of unawareness to the obvious allusion to "Ashton" -- as a general idea which encompasses a group of people -- that seeps through every one of your passive-aggressive, demeaning comments.It'd help if you'd stop reading "Ashton" where it's not written, my comments were broader than that, and included the socionics workshop as well.
That you're just as guilty of the thing you are reproaching others for. TheNot sure what you're getting at here.
You're talking about this, you're talking about that, you mean this, you mean that. You're like some glass cylinder that reflects fucking light through it at whatever angle it needs to, to get the brightest shine. This is already included, but that isn't, so I don't have to clarify, but can restate that. You know what I was getting at, because it was relevant to the criticisms you made of Tom (remember the disclaimer about how each comment was dependent on the preceding one?).I'm talking about the16types, strrrng. There's absolutely no need for me to contrast any of that, because it's already included. The "core gammas" thing, the delta groups, the reassigning of people to other types and quadras by MANY people.
I don't think you're solely speaking about him, just that his group/realm was the main focus of your criticisms.Why can't you read what I'm saying without assuming I'm narrowing in on just Ashton? Why would I make a point of saying that I've removed MY typelist? What do I have to do with Model X? How could I possibly be contributing to the problem if the problem is only in Model X people?
You would make a point of talking about removing your typelist to reposition yourself within the social hierarchy you're decrying, to avoid facing the responsibility of being in it and the consequent criticisms that would ensue from doing so
Sigh.
Everyone goes through stages in life that make them re-evaluate themselves. This, I will concede, was an assumption (based somewhat on knowledge of the history of this forum's social development) referring to other, life-related factors that could have induced a reformatting of your socionics perspective.Such as?
You Just. Fucking. Ordered. Things. Socially. Do you not see that? Is your social hierarchy so naturally implicit, that you can't even hold a cognitive mirror up and realize how amorphous you're being with all of this?Yes, I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with my social ordering. So, conveniently I'm FiNe now? That's fine. For your purposes, I'm FiNe, for Cyclops' and Smilingeyes, I'm Se with barely any Fi at all, each resorting to better fit their own purposes. This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. You know me? They know me? You both think you know where I belong in your social system? You're all right. I belong EXACTLY where you've put me in your own social arrangement. Now you can be happy and secure, another cog in place.
There are no "purposes" to my typing (or lack of) of you -- you assuming so only betrays your insistence on this invisible social hierarchy you are both constantly claiming removal from and remolding to your fancies. Why can't I just type you based on what I see? Why can't the content that I'm staring right at be self-encapsulating, a beautifully salient variable that embodies a wealth of contextual information? Why must there always be some latent meaning, some way of reformatting to make it more palatable to your own context?
As dolphin said (I believe): Add a point for Diana being Ne/Si.
You mean now that you've arbitrarily interpolated little context shifts with the miniscule variables you think you're referencing, we are on a level playing field?Now that's settled, are you at all interested in socionics?
Don't be ironic.No. You're wrong. You continue to attach motives to my words rather than read them.
What chokes the life out of real discussion, is your patronizing remolding of situations to fit your whims. You never respond to what is directly manifest at hand; it's like you're looking at things through a fog, and have to define all the variations of what *could* exist, in order to account for the lack of explicit visibility. I can't simply reference something with you, because it gets turned into several different things.If it's possible to get rid of the crap, the clutter, the stuff that chokes the life out of real discussion, if it's possible to move beyond the junior-high mentality, that'd be great. If it's not, then it's not. That's all.
So... I don't see where this is going. I can only go as long as there is entertainment in insouciantly calling out what people are doing
4w3-5w6-8w7
.
<3 Never stop doing that. Ever.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I don't care much for this exchange but something caught my eye:
If you want to be consistent with what you have characterized as Ne/Si above, then add a point for you being Ne/Si as well.
But, really, it is not unique to Ne/Si, nor Se/Ni. This is a characteristic of a sociological phenomenon that is much larger than Socionics/Enneagram/MBTI/etc. We are all constantly vulnerable to and frequently a victim of it.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
and yet i'm selective with my own typing...
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
lollerskates... "screw it" -- the final abnegation, throwing pride and your sedulous efforts to the wind, in the face of this abhorrent misinterpretation, over-analysis. Following critique about "believing a fantasy" and "pretending to know hidden motivations" only points back to this deliberate ignorance.
Honestly: don't blame me for calling out these blatant behaviors you're engaging in. It's not my fault people aren't attuned enough to their own intentions to take a step back and avoid falling into a foolish pattern -- which you did.
More like:Diana says: "X"
strrrng says: She really means, Y, Z, and Q, because of L, R, and N
Diana says: I said "X", I mean "X"
strrrng says: I know what you REALLY mean, and I'm absolutely sure of it.
Diana says: "X"
strrrng says: "X stems from Y, i.e. your disposition"
Diana says: "No, I mean what I say -- X, and also don't claim Z"
strrrng says: "bringing in Z only relates back to Y again"
and so on....
I don't particularly care about your intentions on any deep level; everything I've pointed out in this thread is simply about this thread. The theme underpinning your posts repeats itself constantly though.
If that's precisely your mind, you may want to read up on objectivism or something -- gain some solidity to these amorphous context-shifts you try to pass off as judgments and such.Fine. I speak precisely my mind, and you determine that you apparently know what it is better than I do. Sucks to be you. I'd hate to base everything on lies and conjecture. Just admit that you're wrong. You'll be a lot better off when you can start doing that.
And lol @ the passive-aggressive retort and desperate, middle-school'esque attempt to impose some final grain of appraisal on me. If that didn't self-envelop things nicely
4w3-5w6-8w7
Or I forgot and now you're hanging on the words "didn't know" like it's some life-nectar....
I'm Sowwy Wita; you just don't talk to me no more
and yet i'm selective with my own typing...(and that is what happened..)
ANYWAY...
Why is any of this even a problem? Is there a problem? I just don't like being insulted, so please don't Diana. Thanks I hope.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
