Originally Posted by niffer
Confused what you mean about my "status", and clueless about what you mean about the demon-sending. Thinking you must have thought I meant something that I did not.
-
SEE ESFp
- IEE ENFp
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
*throws salt* Be gone!
Type is not related to region. Type is either 1) more or less evenly distributed throughout the global population, or 2) following a universal correlation with a few types far more common than others in every part of the world because of the personality traits evolution selects for (yes, some types are inherently superior to others).Alioth, I am not finding you annoying at all. Maybe when you consider types you could consider that at least one SLE finds you annoying and at least one IEE does not.Because we are all highly annoying to some types, and comfortable or amazing to others... Probably most people do not hate you on sight, either. Your world just might be overpopulated with types that view your type that way, and when you think about it, you realize there are people in your life who don't react to you that way.
Most of the people who find me irritating feel so because of passive traits I will never control, not stubborn or demanding behavior like I'm exhibiting right now, so I don't find it likely that interactions in this thread are that reflective of reality. IRL, probably no one would even be showing up in this discussion at all.
I think I'm in a relationship with either my Kindred or Identical, though she'd swear I was an introvert if she knew about Socionics. Barring a drastic long-term change to my life's course, we're realistically going to be married at some point because she's irreplaceable. But that's another story that goes not only beyond the reach of Socionics, but all of modern psychology as well. Psychological science is useless against me.Also, The Psychologist says that when you have unresolved issues with key people from your younger years, you can seek out approval/friendship with the same types to resolve the issues... (so you keep that difficult person in your life, vicariously).
Sometimes you even MARRY that type. I have seen this too much!
I agree type is not related to region (while regions take on a type-form that society encourages them to mold to). I was referring to the way we respond to certain types and not others, making us not have certain types very populated in our own circles. Also some types are more common and less common in some types of places, for examples, there are a lot of ESE's in the elementary teaching field. Or also I am thinking of a friend, when she worked as accountant for a top-ten firm, said wherever she worked people really liked her, because the field was populated with people completely different from her....
I disagree there are some types inherently superior to other types. All types shine in certain situations and struggle in others. All types have broken people as well as people who are secure and loved-enough to shine just as themselves, and they seek out places/occupations where they can shine.
Granted some types draw more people to them... but regardless, each type has types that will perk up and take an interest in them when they are just being themselves. .. I also notice that some people who do not win everyone's attention in a group situation also happen to be the types who do not like being center of attention and most of the time want to be left alone.
Aw. I am glad for you. Kindred/Comparitive is workable. So is Identical. Attraction, shared values, shared direction in life - that is the top of the list for a spouse. I know successful non-dual couples in much more difficult Intertype Relations (like Conflict! Supervisor!) who have learned to make it work - usually by discovering on their own the very same things I see recommended for improving those relations. They instinctively know what to avoid and what to step out and do more, after a long time together. Also by staying true to who they are and allowing their spouse to stay true to who they are.
You are a realist... some types, who have knowledge of Socionics Duality and aspire to duality are inclined to rename anyone who they like/aspire to be with as their dual...Its better not to have Duality expectations of someone who is not that. I think it would be a barrier to making a thing work, personally - because those expectations ruin it.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
My understanding is mostly not based on people I've met online, it's based on real-life interaction.
I haven't interacted much with Alioth but I have gotten a general impression over time. He also asked for input, so there you go.
edit: Also, maybe you could add something constructive to the conversation -- why does Alioth value Si for example? Comparison to other forum members doesn't count as good evidence.
Rather, this whole stereotype of "silly equals Alpha" is very superficial and misleading. EIEs can definitely be witty and comical for example, with leading Fe and demonstrative Ne, and joking is not limited to any quadra. (The association with Si and Ti is nonexistent here, btw)"Dorito or stop sign" is Alpha "infantile" humor in trying to be clever about what the symbols look like () while not taking them seriously at all as a source of humor (
). It doesn't match Delta humor obviously since Delta has rather different quadra values, never mind all the differing Reinins of the different individual types just due to changing the creative functions that accompany the lead (Process vs. Result, Positivist vs. Negativist, Constructivist vs. Emotivist etc.). This is why I have the whole "do IEs exist?" thing.
Role
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I understand that you were being serious, that's why I mentioned it as an example of your having an impact on the environment (in addition to the way you communicate on the forum). Se valuers are much more likely to stir up controversy.
So in other words the answer was "no" to all the questions I had. I am of course skeptical of the idea that LIIs interact with people in real life, especially if it's with any alleged Se egos who say things like they make a "slew of enemies upon entering the arena" , outside of your imagination, that is.
Why are you being such a jerk? I am pretty sure you are capable of making an actual argument, but if not I will just ignore you.
And read my post again, I did not say Alioth was Se ego. The quote in question does have an element of dramatism to it, so maybe Beta NF could work. Do you see ILEs saying things like this?
I've never heard beta NFs talk like that either. I do see and have seen ILEs saying things like that. If you really have met Se valuers who talk like that then I have no choice but to believe you, but your stance seemed so completely far-fetched and removed from reality IMO (you've hardly ever interacted with him and you're throwing a wrench in that overtly turns a blind eye on multiple people's opinions who have gotten to know him more) and nonsensically dragging out the thread in such an annoying way that I wanted to make you feel my point of view. I'm clearly not the only one who has felt frustration with this thread even though it's not really worth the energy and attention by now.
Just because I'm being a jerk and you don't like it doesn't mean I'm not making a good argument at the same time. I normally do not have any reason to "supervise" any LIIs but this was just getting too annoying for me. Feel free to ignore me though.
I never said silly = Alpha, it's just a certain sort of stylistic element. I'll post some non-silly examples of what I consider typical Alpha writing. Here's some Charles Dickens:
"A person who can't pay gets another person who can't pay to guarantee that he can pay. Like a person with two wooden legs getting another person with two wooden legs to guarantee that he has got two natural legs. It don't make either of them able to do a walking-match."
"Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed, in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused - in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened - by the recurrence of Christmas."
"I know I do not exaggerate, unconsciously and unintentionally, the scantiness of my resources and the difficulty of my life... I know that, but for the mercy of God, I might easily have been, for any care that was taken of me, a little robber or a vagabond."
"'Do you spell it with a 'V' or a 'W'?' inquired the judge. 'That depends upon the taste and fancy of the speller, my Lord'."
Somewhat more controversially, Franz Kafka (he just doesn't come off Gamma to me at all, sorry. His "cynicism" is largely ironic even though people don't expect that and often take it seriously):
“I am a cage, in search of a bird.”
“I write differently from what I speak, I speak differently from what I think, I think differently from the way I ought to think, and so it all proceeds into deepest darkness.”
“I cannot make you understand. I cannot make anyone understand what is happening inside me. I cannot even explain it to myself.”
“I have the true feeling of myself only when I am unbearably unhappy.”
Demo
Goethe (EIE, Shakespeare almost entirely writes verse so I'm picking Goethe first, deal):
"All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is all my own."
"The soul that sees beauty may sometimes walk alone."
"We will burn that bridge when we come to it."
"I never knew a more presumptuous person than myself. The fact that I say that shows that what I say is true."
Hemingway (SLE):
“Every day is a new day. It is better to be lucky. But I would rather be exact. Then when luck comes you are ready.”
“If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
“Every man's life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and how he died that distinguish one man from another.”
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
It might take bigger samples than that to really sort people based on writing style, but I think I got enough of an idea across. And just talking gets even more distinct, since people don't have so much time to contrive what they're saying.
Alpha and Beta are really most writers from what I've seen (which isn't too much of a surprise with
I sort of see what you're getting at, but to really understand what's going on you should try to put these qualities into words, and also compare them with other stylistic elements coming from Se, Fe, Ni, etc.I never said silly = Alpha, it's just a certain sort of stylistic element. I'll post some non-silly examples of what I consider typical Alpha writing. Here's some Charles Dickens:
"A person who can't pay gets another person who can't pay to guarantee that he can pay. Like a person with two wooden legs getting another person with two wooden legs to guarantee that he has got two natural legs. It don't make either of them able to do a walking-match."
"Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed, in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused - in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened - by the recurrence of Christmas."
"I know I do not exaggerate, unconsciously and unintentionally, the scantiness of my resources and the difficulty of my life... I know that, but for the mercy of God, I might easily have been, for any care that was taken of me, a little robber or a vagabond."
"'Do you spell it with a 'V' or a 'W'?' inquired the judge. 'That depends upon the taste and fancy of the speller, my Lord'."
Somewhat more controversially, Franz Kafka (he just doesn't come off Gamma to me at all, sorry. His "cynicism" is largely ironic even though people don't expect that and often take it seriously):
“I am a cage, in search of a bird.”
“I write differently from what I speak, I speak differently from what I think, I think differently from the way I ought to think, and so it all proceeds into deepest darkness.”
“I cannot make you understand. I cannot make anyone understand what is happening inside me. I cannot even explain it to myself.”
“I have the true feeling of myself only when I am unbearably unhappy.”
Demo
Goethe (EIE, Shakespeare almost entirely writes verse so I'm picking Goethe first, deal):
"All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is all my own."
"The soul that sees beauty may sometimes walk alone."
"We will burn that bridge when we come to it."
"I never knew a more presumptuous person than myself. The fact that I say that shows that what I say is true."
Hemingway (SLE):
“Every day is a new day. It is better to be lucky. But I would rather be exact. Then when luck comes you are ready.”
“If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
“Every man's life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and how he died that distinguish one man from another.”
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
It might take bigger samples than that to really sort people based on writing style, but I think I got enough of an idea across. And just talking gets even more distinct, since people don't have so much time to contrive what they're saying.
Alpha and Beta are really most writers from what I've seen (which isn't too much of a surprise with
Like, what information is "all proceeds into deepest darkness"?
Or what does "I cannot make anyone understand what is happening inside me. I cannot even explain it to myself." say about someone's type?
I never said silly = Alpha, it's just a certain sort of stylistic element. I'll post some non-silly examples of what I consider typical Alpha writing. Here's some Charles Dickens:
"A person who can't pay gets another person who can't pay to guarantee that he can pay. Like a person with two wooden legs getting another person with two wooden legs to guarantee that he has got two natural legs. It don't make either of them able to do a walking-match."
"Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed, in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused - in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened - by the recurrence of Christmas."
"I know I do not exaggerate, unconsciously and unintentionally, the scantiness of my resources and the difficulty of my life... I know that, but for the mercy of God, I might easily have been, for any care that was taken of me, a little robber or a vagabond."
"'Do you spell it with a 'V' or a 'W'?' inquired the judge. 'That depends upon the taste and fancy of the speller, my Lord'."
Somewhat more controversially, Franz Kafka (he just doesn't come off Gamma to me at all, sorry. His "cynicism" is largely ironic even though people don't expect that and often take it seriously):
“I am a cage, in search of a bird.”
“I write differently from what I speak, I speak differently from what I think, I think differently from the way I ought to think, and so it all proceeds into deepest darkness.”
“I cannot make you understand. I cannot make anyone understand what is happening inside me. I cannot even explain it to myself.”
“I have the true feeling of myself only when I am unbearably unhappy.”
Demo
Goethe (EIE, Shakespeare almost entirely writes verse so I'm picking Goethe first, deal):
"All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is all my own."
"The soul that sees beauty may sometimes walk alone."
"We will burn that bridge when we come to it."
"I never knew a more presumptuous person than myself. The fact that I say that shows that what I say is true."
Hemingway (SLE):
“Every day is a new day. It is better to be lucky. But I would rather be exact. Then when luck comes you are ready.”
“If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
“Every man's life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and how he died that distinguish one man from another.”
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
It might take bigger samples than that to really sort people based on writing style, but I think I got enough of an idea across. And just talking gets even more distinct, since people don't have so much time to contrive what they're saying.
Alpha and Beta are really most writers from what I've seen (which isn't too much of a surprise withSounds like the Alphan writers here seem to prefer more hypothetical, cerebral themes with a stylistic flair - whereas the Betan ones are focusing more attention on first-person experience and what they see in themselves as people (e.g. the use of an ultimatum to qualify what they know of themselves to be "true" in the absence of any proof more concrete).
IMO, Wyrd's actual examples are a lot more substantial and helpful than just slapping on this sentence-long description and expecting others to interpret it properly. Summarizing is one of those tricky points where the language of Socionics risks breaking down.
Last edited by Grendel; 03-20-2017 at 04:39 AM.
@thehotelambush
"Comparison to other forum members doesn't count as good evidence."
I'm glad I caught this.
Why not?
Because it presupposes that the typings of the other forum members are already known and agreed upon. I may not even have an opinion on their types. If you know that I agree with a particular typing then it may be of some communication value but it's still necessary to tie it back to the theory.
Also, you said "Is that something you've seen me, and most of the other Se egos on this forum say?"
Pretending for the moment that I did say Se ego (which I didn't), there may simply be a manifestation of Se ego that isn't present in other forum members. Typing by comparison only works when done in a positive way ("so-and-so is similar to so-and-so, therefore they are likely the same type").
Okay. And then what if they are?
Oh, so it's *your* opinion that predetermines the quality of the evidence I provide. At this point I'm realizing that your original statement of what qualified as "good evidence" was referring to something based on your own rule-making, while you worded it as authoritatively and definitively as if it were meant to be a general rule or fact.I may not even have an opinion on their types. If you know that I agree with a particular typing then it may be of some communication value but it's still necessary to tie it back to the theory.
Which I did do already, with the user Avalonia. So with all this are you saying that you disagree with Avalonia's typing of LII?Also, you said "Is that something you've seen me, and most of the other Se egos on this forum say?"
Pretending for the moment that I did say Se ego (which I didn't), there may simply be a manifestation of Se ego that isn't present in other forum members. Typing by comparison only works when done in a positive way ("so-and-so is very similar to so-and-so, therefore they are likely the same type").
There may be a manifestation of Se ego that isn't present in other forum members but I'd rather go off of reasonably solid easily referencable living evidence for how different types communicate online, rather than some dysfunctional combination of pure theory, imagination, and only a few very distantly similar IRL examples (in which case we have no retrievable proof here on this forum and people here would just be forced to take your word on it).
I read this more closely than before (also skimmed your member questionnaire now). Your depression makes it harder to analyze things but, based on your self-reporting at least, I can say ENFx for you, you coming at things from a strongly Intuitive pov is obvious and I would say stronger focus on Ne than Ni, with a very Ethics based worldview and low on Ti/Te with lack of feelings of confidence/very negative Control Emotions for both. I'd guess IEE based on the deltaish approach with quite a few Fi oriented things and seemingly unconscious Fe process. But your depression could conflate things here, so I could buy EIE actually, just I have not seen any real evidence for that. It's just not excluded due to the conflating factor of depression and most likely disintegrated aspects of personality (lack of healthy functioning). I hope you find the right direction to get out of this state, it doesn't look like fun at all.
Ne>Ni (in terms of strength, not in terms of valuation, these examples of a focus on object-oriented Intuition seem typical of your approach):
"People and their behavior completely escape me. I tend to view them as input/output devices to their experiences, with events of more significant “energy” leaving more lasting impressions (especially when they make their marks earlier). People both never change and constantly change: they spawn from the same handful of motivations and desires, but the contortions of time shape their desires into barely recognizable ones."
"The meaning of life is made, not found or given. When we began to increase our knowledge of this world, we both expanded our options on various levels and saw shifts in the human narrative. Before we can claim to understand the meaning of any existence in this universe, we must accrue all the raw knowledge we can of it, expanding our abilities as far as possible. This wouldn’t be such a pressing need if not for the looming death of both our world and the universe; even if we ascended to our highest possible state as a species and realized this world was inherently meaningless, we could still create our own meaning in the absence of one."
Possible Ep temperament: "I only grow antsy if I get the impression that nothing will ever change. I cannot deal with feelings of imprisonment for long."
Delta:
"But it is not society’s job to police what is acceptable and what is not. Society is fluid. A trend should either die of its own accord, linger on in the background, or displace the current norms; it is not our place to condemn a behavior if it does not violate the rights of others. The minute you begin to treat society as a single animal – rather than a de facto collection of parts that happen to work together – all semblance of freedom dies.
I identify most with the Deltan model of social interaction: smaller groups, minimal conversation, and parallel leisure. Sometimes I just need to have other people around me doing things so I can “feed” off their energy. Other than that, I’ve learned to enjoy solitude, preferring asocial tasks that don’t require me to meet the demands of others." (From your other questionnaire)
Fi:
"I feel a deeper, much subtler but more overpowering feeling when I see someone else express traits I see in myself, but these are so rare that I usually only feel this way over fictional characters."
"I believe what I believe, they what they believe. The only time systems of ethos need to converge is when it comes to the rights of individuals and how to protect them from violation. I am very in favor of Positive freedom, however it cannot exist until there is a solid foundation of Negative freedom."
"Again, it varies between ethical systems. I guess I consider the intrinsic value of any human life to be the most valuable part of the kernels of ethical systems throughout different societies. Take away one man’s humanity, take away the purpose of all societies that ever existed."
Comments here:
Also the flexibility of Fi shows it's a strong function. As per the bolded part.
It would be cool if you could explain what you mean by Positive and Negative freedom. It seemed like Fi concepts but it's interesting how you tried to derive one from the other.
Fe that's not a consciously controlled process in ego, see bolded parts (at least based on your self-reporting - big note here, it could also be just your depression making control harder):
"Mine would never be considered “acceptable.” I find it extremely difficult to keep them from escaping."
"I can unleash them with ease, but it’s never calculated. I can bitch and whine because I’m either bored, or I feel isolated and nothing I do ever gets me noticed. Rage is probably the single most powerful feeling I show, but I don’t think people take me seriously once they see it. Rule of thumb: people care more about shutting me up and restoring their precious harmony than they do about the good of a couple of outliers."
"No. The emotional state changes me. I can barely understand how my own emotions work, let alone control those of others."
EDIT: One last note. If your self-representing was distorted due to depression, I could still see Alpha NT too (like I originally typed you that, I don't remember though what tipped me off towards that despite your self-reporting showing both Ti/Te as weak). With devalued weak Se + depression causing the issues of distorted self-report on actual strengths.
Last edited by Myst; 09-16-2017 at 02:57 PM.
@Grendel I see you read my post already, I edited it now, with a last note at the end, do look at that too. You can tell me what you think about that possibility though I won't have time to analyze more in depth.
No... ILEs do it all the time with that stereotype of argumentative devil's advocate. Ne leads in general are very good at controversy really, it's just not for an Se agenda.
Jung: See the bolded, a pretty conscpicuous person who will definitely stir up controversy. I would say way more than Se, actually, because of all the unconventionality and disregard for everyday traditions.
"Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type. The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation. He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them. As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling. How- [p. 465] ever reasonable and opportune it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks in favour of stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison, the self-same situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly. Neither reason nor feeling can restrain or discourage him from a new possibility, even though it may run counter to convictions hitherto unquestioned. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are, with him, inferior functions, possessing no decisive weight; hence they lack the power to offer any lasting. resistance to the force of intuition. And yet these are the only functions that are capable of creating any effectual compensation to the supremacy of intuition, since they can provide the intuitive with that judgment in which his type is altogether lacking. The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.
Apparently this type is more prone to favour women than men; in which case, however, the intuitive activity reveals itself not so much in the professional as in the social sphere. Such women understand the art of utilizing every social opportunity; they establish right social con- [p. 466] nections; they seek out lovers with possibilities only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility.
It is at once clear, both from the standpoint of political economy and on grounds of general culture, that such a type is uncommonly important. If well-intentioned, with an orientation to life not purely egoistical, he may render exceptional service as the promoter, if not the initiator of every kind of promising enterprise. He is the natural advocate of every minority that holds the seed of future promise. Because of his capacity, when orientated more towards men than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and range of usefulness, he can also 'make' men. His capacity to inspire his fellow-men with courage, or to kindle enthusiasm for something new, is unrivalled, although he may have forsworn it by the morrow. The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate.
This attitude has immense dangers -- all too easily the intuitive may squander his life. He spends himself animating men and things, spreading around him an abundance of life -- a life, however, which others live, not he. Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest. In the end he goes empty away. But when the intuitive lets things reach such a pitch, he also has the unconscious against him. The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other's mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation. [p. 468]"
@Myst why are you still quoting Jung at me?
And yes of course, ILEs (Ne leading, Se role, Ti creative) can delight in being offbeat and "controversial". They still essentially lack the confrontational edge that goes along with that for Se valuers. In other words you are taking that particular word out of context.
(However I don't really agree that the same is true of IEEs, at least not to the same extent. They tend to prefer to maintain somewhat more of a soft and amiable attitude which is at odds with playing devil's advocate or being argumentative (which involves Ti).)
Because what I quoted actually works. I've seen enough Ne valuers go into trolly shit or other controversial shit. Yes, delta NFs included. No type is a saint.@Myst why are you still quoting Jung at me?
And are you trying to say you are just automatically not going to consider anything if it comes from Jung?
Yeah, controversy without the Se type of confrontational edge, it's just a different kind of controversy. I was not taking any words out of context. I personally tend to see no point to this type of controversy though lol.And yes of course, ILEs (Ne leading, Se role, Ti creative) can delight in being offbeat and "controversial". They still essentially lack the confrontational edge that goes along with that for Se valuers. In other words you are taking that particular word out of context.
Does this mean that no IEE can say anything controversial in any form of controversy (with Se edge or not), then?(However I don't really agree that the same is true of IEEs, at least not to the same extent. They tend to prefer to maintain somewhat more of a soft and amiable attitude which is at odds with playing devil's advocate or being argumentative (which involves Ti).)
In a discussion about socionics, yes. Jungian theory is not socionics.
What? No...that's why I said "not to the same extent". And I would never say a type can "never" do something, that's just silly.Does this mean that no IEE can say anything controversial in any form of controversy (with Se edge or not), then?
Don't tell me it doesn't have commonalities with Socionics theory. Where it may describe some aspects more closely than the available translated Socionics sources.
It was a rhetorical questionWhat? No...that's why I said "not to the same extent". And I would never say a type can "never" do something, that's just silly.Referring back to your original reasoning for seeing OP as a Se type.
A cat has commonalities with a cow but I still wouldn't milk it.
And no, I don't agree that it describes socionics categories better than good socionics sources. (There are tons of crappy Russian sources but I don't use those anyways.) So there is no point in referring to it.
The cat analogy doesn't apply here.
As for the Ne description I quoted, it's for sure a less idealized description than in some Socionics sources. : p So I find it useful due to that. And useful in terms of the original issue brought up here, too.
Read Russian sources on original language or in officially made translations, but not by crappy autotranslations to get the real opinion about them. I saw the examples when google distorted the senses in Russian texts.
Your good English sources are heretic bs. With so low quality texts that you came to exotic understanding of the core theory and your preference for baseless heresy instead of normal theory.
Those "good" sources are full of baseless Gulenko's delusions instead of Socionics, and of crappy theory descriptions by which you interpret the typology in crappy way. That after several(!) years of dealing with Socionics you exoticly claim that Si types become tired more quickly, that Socionics does not use original Jung's functions, that Reining's bs deserves the trust like more basic typology Jung's theory, you are using heretic dichotomies which are not from Augustinavichiute or Jung instead of normal theory appropriate there, etc. nonsense.
So crappy "reasonable" approach to the typology allows you to rationalize mistakes in front of evident controversion of your opinion to normal typology theory.
In the recent example, you assumed @niffer as T type based only on her emotional hooliganism and have ignored the rest of her behavior, including her logical issues and more expressive emotional behavior in general than T types have. Your overspeculative approach also allows you easily to reject own recent opinions, as you inclined to F type for her before. I see the traits of unreasonable thinking in you. This manifests in how much speculatively you deal with the typology, where your current caprices mean for you more than objectivity, the common reason and normal theory.
@Sol pretty please show me any conspicuous logical reasoning errors from niffer lol good luck
PS. Her disagreeing with your opinion is not a logical reasoning error. Her not wanting to continue analysis after a while is not a logical reasoning error (that's just her not being LxI).
PS2. But yeah... Jung >>> Reinin >>> most of Gulenko stuff (some basic ideas from him like communication styles ExFx/IxFx/ExTx/IxTx are cool and basic DCNH ideas have correlations with non-Socionics theories... rest of DCNH is eww Ne speculation though yeah)
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
