Or Beta ST?
Or another non ILE type?
discuss
Is Epheremos / Pinocchio an ILE?
Or Beta ST?
Or another non ILE type?
discuss
Last edited by Banana Pancakes; 09-19-2009 at 05:15 PM.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
sorry he's ILE 6w7 so/sp.
The 6 makes him stubborn, absolutely nothing to do with beta ST
Does mercutio, jwc3, herzy, or jimbean act like him?
ime Alpha NT's with 6 in em are some of the most stubborn types here.
and Im focusing on his stubborness and assertyness because that's what gets him into trouble.
The end is nigh
don't you have me as ILE 6?Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
It's clear to me now that he and I don't think alike, there's a block between our conversations. One of us is typed wrong.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
He seems Intuitive to me, what with all his talk about concepts that he can't fully express. After ILE, I'd most easily consider him LIE... then LII. Anything outside the Researcher club seems off, considering the sorts of discussions that I've had with him.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
@BP: Yes I have you down as 6w7 sx/sp.
Type does not cover everything.
Keep in mind that he seems to struggle with interpreting the subtle meanings conveyed in posts. I'm not trying to insult you, Ephemeros, but your ability to catch undertones in english conversations is awful. This is probably throwing off his already literal and hair splitting typing methods.
The end is nigh
Nah, pinocchio is 6w5
Bill O'Reilley is a 6w5--about as stubborn and dogmatic as they come.
BP is 6w7, he's way more open about his doubts while Pin tries to cover it up by being obnoxious and claiming to serve some higher purpose.
The saddest ESFj
...
Yeah i couldnt really decide 6w7 6w5, but i went with w7 because i didnt think he was as withdrawn as w5, but then again i probably dont come across as too withdrawn on here either.
eh I think my brain is saying w5 now. okay fine i change my enne typing of him! 6w5 so/sp!
The end is nigh
You kinda flip back and forth. Sometimes you're withdrawn, sometimes you'll just start screaming stuff and let the caps lock fly.
The saddest ESFj
...
Come on guys, pinocchio and I just came to an agreement on this. One of us has to leave the quadra. I guess since no one has commented on banana pancakes is ESI that I'm winning though.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Removed at User Request
What are you trying to defend? We already think you're ILE.
The saddest ESFj
...
Uhg i care too much about this shit. its 2:00 why am I not in bed? I have an addictive personality. My addiction: seeking out new systems to entrench myself in and do battle.
its all dawned on me.
I need a life!
Fear of sleep is my new guru.
The end is nigh
w00t I get my own padawan
sleeeeeeep
The saddest ESFj
...
Learn your ways, I will.
The end is nigh
I think Banana Pancakes is less unproblematically an ILE than Epheremos. That doesn't mean that I think Epheremos isn't an ILE, or even that I think that they are both ILE.
In the case of Epheremos, he seems keen on closing things down rather than expanding upon them, and there may be some method he follows, but I myself cannot determine what it is. If others do not follow his "logic", often for good reason in my opinion, he just continues on and on with his quest while attacking those who don't agree with a type change!
Didn't someone suggest EIE for Epheremos at one point? From my perspective, that is about as probable for his type as ILE is, but that's not to say that there's a lot for me to go on for any particular type.
Epheremos, do you agree that you and ArchonAlarion are alike?
I'm sure you didn't say what you mean here.
Perhaps "Banana Pancakes is more unproblematically an ILE than Ephemeros"?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
yes, I meant to say "less problematically"
I think he's ILE so far.
I agree with Brilliand. Pinocchio is an NT type, at least; his posts are all logical discussions of very abstract concepts. Brilliand's assessment of his probable type seems about right to me as well: ILE > LIE > LII
Quaero Veritas.
I think it's because Ephemeros is a more interesting character then you are that people talk about him.
I do not think you two are the same subtype if you two are ILE or what not.
I think it's more probable that Ephemeros is a logical sub-type then you are.
Removed at User Request
As I recall, Loki is IEI.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Removed at User Request
What type do you think he is, and why?
Edit: I just noticed in the poll you say he is SLE, why?
1. Do you think that 2 people of the same type (or quadra) can't disagree? (and if yes or no, could you elaborate)?
2a. Why is is a competition? 2b. Do you think that people bothering to respond on a forum thread(s) has any bearing on a persons type, or what they think those peoples types are (and why they think that)?
Last edited by Cyclops; 09-19-2009 at 11:32 AM.
Removed at User Request
Well Pinnochio obviously doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks Phaedrus is an IEE. And he doesn't seem very Alpha anyway. And if AA (can't remember the username) thinks he's ILE, he is almost certainly something other than ILE in model A Socionics, as the two versions seem almost entirely incompatible.
But then, maybe neither of them is ILE.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Phaedrus is no IEE. Your method of typing may well be logically correct certainly in the system you have constructed. However people cannot be classified logically and this may explain why your typing of people is incorrect.
(I am only commenting on Pheadrus on this matter as I do not know about any other individual concerned.)
Antogonising someone, then taking their Se tinted responses as a sign of Se valuing shows absolutely no understainding of your subject. I have read the quotes you used against the person you are arguing against as evidence of Se and Fi, however you show no understanding of the context in which these responses were produced. Your certainty on these matters is misplaced. People cannot be reduced down to logical certainties.
Ah OK. I would still be curious to hear why he votes you as SLE (and also to the first question).
Indeed. It would be interesting to hear his take on it also. I'm curious as his reasons/reasoning might indicate towards particular ego/valued functions.I'd like to answer in his defense a bit, at least what I know that belongs to both of us.
We agreed that we are different types. It is obvious in almost every aspect, from perception (for example the opinion of the forum members) of others to rationalizing. It is true that people of the same type can disagree, but this is not our case, IMO.
I don't see this as a competition, but rather a full-scale try to clarify things. The problem is that we're different types and we try to convince the other that he's a different one.
These were just my remarks, IMO my typing is not so important but his (in the other thread), as long as having a Fi typed as ILE is far away from reality.
Without giving too much away of my curiousity as to how BP responds to things in this thread, this is my analysis of yourself:Btw, some people asked me why I talk so confidently, as I compulsively want to impose I am right no matter what.
Take this above example: "as long as having a Fi typed as ILE is far away from reality". Correctly would have been "as long as having a Fi typed as ILE (if I am right) would be far away from reality".
The problem is how people interpret things and my method of protecting from them. In the first case, it is interpreted that I already think there can't be another view than that BP is a Fi type. While I agree inside that some people may have other view, they should not expect their view to be equal by default with mine. Without researching and having any clue, someone can easily come and claim the same right to opinion as me, disregarding my correct observation and analysis while he/she comes with complete bullshit out of nowhere! Is this fair?
You may ask why can I tell so confidently that so many people come with "bullshit". Simple and logic: in a lot of cases we observe over five people with as many different opinions on something which is strict, as one's type. Only one or none can be right, but obviously all pretend they possess the correct view!
You are quite vigorous in your thoughts of some peoples types when you write them down, however - what I see is that when (perhaps) some people respond to you, they do not look to answer your arguments, your logic, based on the logic you have demonstrated to reach your conclusion. Perhaps a more suitable method of response would be (for yourself from others) is that they respond to your arguments to show how they can be incorrect logically, offer different interpretations, present other informations about themselves which may support something else than you are suggesting.
Fair enough, I can understand that, I do tend to become somewhat guarded myself when it comes to expressing my thoughts/ideas for those reasons.The second case instead, exposes to opportunist opponents (meaning the ones which don't use facts but any opportunity to get you wrong) an non-existing weak point: they think (and say) that I don't have necessarily all the reasons to consider my assertion, that I see the possibility I am not right because I am unsure on my analysis, or this conclusion was reached randomly.
To take this opportunity away of their reach, I decided some time ago to be careful with offering potential vulnerable points in expression, things that have nothing to do with correct typing but rather speculations. So, you find out this is no mystery.
---
Well, I don't know about anyone specifically doing it, but I suppose that the other thing to consider for a native English speaker is that possession of a second language is a good skill. No harm in asking someone (English as 1st language or not) to clarify their position, instead of nit-picking.There are other little things I don't want to talk about, for the simple fact people try to put you in a box and then attack you on the matter which is, in most of the cases, unrelated to the reality. For example English skills.
It is obvious for the most that my understanding is very good, also they never objected that I misunderstood them for the matter, or anything, but there come idiots like ArchonAlarion recently who think they can get over their inferiority before me (inferiority of arguments on specific issues, of course) with these little excuses. Not only that they *somehow* are unable to say what actually I misunderstood, but they try to generalize the issue to the desired extent of labeling me as one who can't understand. Of course that I will annihilate any such perfidious attempt without thinking twice.
---
For instance, I remember having someone nit-picking my argument on the basis of my punctuation. It's completely irrelevant and I can't see it as anymore than an attempt to rile a person.
I have views on which types are more likely to do that - but it depends on their motivations. IE some Fi types (especially ISFj's for some reason) try to sound logical by deconstructing someones argument on the basis of their spelling or grammar - they then conclude the person is stupid, and therefore dismiss their arguments (instead of tackling the arguments themselves) [and such an action - the methods and such - can be a product of an aspect of Fi - which I elaborate a little more in this post]. Of course other types can do it for different reasons - which is something I think is important in socionics - looking behind the reasons for an action can often point more towards the functions than "behaviour" - a simple example of "behaviour" is to say - oh you talk a lot, you are E - which although true in some cases - is obviously b/s too which I think most people would agree on.
Again, any type can appear aggressive - in short - you appear aggressive with defending logical principles shows Ti. What's more is that you explain and defend these logical principles, instead of just saying "no, you're wrong" - you demonstrate you're Ti by the method you analyse and you demonstrate you're method of analysis in text.On my aggressiveness and insistence:
There are so many methods people use to get away with their mistakes that they can't be counted: from bare assertions and all the spectrum of fallacies to simple lies. Admit one thing: there is no way of debunking them, of proving them wrong. There is no authority that can hold back these dogs. Except brute force, determination and persistence - torrents of arguments. This will slowly but steadily incline the scales to your favor. No one would be crazy enough to compete against you without a serious reason. How can someone have a serious reason and such determination since his supposed conclusions come from simple ego bursts, laziness in thinking or passive-aggressiveness?
But I have one and only one: reality. There's no need to re-evaluate it periodically, it is there, it proves itself continuously. It is like a wall: you have it behind, you can't step back, simple as that. I have absolutely no problem in arguing indefinitely because there's no way of giving up reality.
Phaedrus applies the same strategy and he's not an Se Ego as well, but an IEE. He is truly convinced he's right. This type of IEE male I know very well, I know at least three such persons in real life.
[no time to check this long post for typing errors]
I've already covered your Ne in a seperate post when your type was questioned previously (more of an expansion on you're Ti - i'd be suprised if anyone really doubted you're Ti), but I can quote and expand on that if necessary on this thread.
This is a reasonable example of a particular type of IEE. What is happening here is that Slacker Mom is dismissing Ephemeros entire take on socionics without even seeing his reasoning for Phaedrus being an IEE. Then she dismisses you're typing by dismissing someone else - ie dismissing AA first of all as knowing about socionics, dismissing AA's typing, and then dismissing your typing based on someone else's opinion of your type!
This is a reasonable indicator of Fi in action - to an extent it's making a value judgement of a persons type, their knowledge of socionics etc, and the result is that because these people have been dismissed (ie they don't meet some subjective criteria) then their typing and any opinions they have are dismissed (also noting how the opinion relates to the relations of others - you [ephemeros], archon, phaedrus etc).
This is exactly the sort of thing that Phaedrus does. He dismisses your conclusions without considering them - which dismisses you - which dismisses any arguments that you can make.
Which sort of relates to what Pinochio is talking about above. I suppose it remains to be seen of whether BP approaches things in such a fashion - but I haven't read through all his recent posts - but what i've seen is their could be an indicator so far. Note I say indicator - not definite.
Anyway, regards to the Phaedrus, there is somewhere else where I made an analysis of Phaedrus' type, and I believe ENFp is the most likely for him. (Also remembering he is autistic, and despite that - and his attitude - he still manages to be a somewhat popular figure in socionics. A T type with such an attitude and such a condition would likely not have lasted as long). Oh, the last sentence isn't something to conclusively say he is ENFp btw - it is just more so a side piece of information.
Edit: I also haven't the time/inclination to read through and check spelling or phrasing etc, hopefully my point comes through as it is, although for the sake of clarity I will try a little! :-).
Removed at User Request
I currently "type" myself as Ixxp, basically... pending relationship information from real life. I kind of think that my temperament is really the clearest thing about me. I used to type myself as IEI until I started seeing more and more things that led me to really doubt that possibility to the extent that it would feel dishonest to say I was that type... I currently don't see it, but it does sometimes re-enter my considerations. I don't have any opinion on Banana Pancake's type or really any concept of who Banana Pancakes is ("the man behind the internet postings I haven't read").
Removed at User Request
I apologise, I did not make myself clear there. It is my belief types are fixed (however I am open to the idea they could change if someone could convince me effectively), however behaviours change depending on context, so if during a heated debate you take a quote with Se within it without looking at the full picture this cannot be used as reasonable evidence for determining ones type. For this reason I believed any internet typing will always be provisional due to the limited context in which individuals interact no real conclusions can be made.
If a person makes a comment and you are unable to see their face, understand their current emotional condition, observe their posture and body language, it is impossible to determine with any kind of accuracy the intended meaning behind it.
Even with this information - there are many things that an individual may not reveal that can make the typing process difficult - for example I grew up in a household dominated by Ti and as it was valued by my surroundings I became quite proficient in this way of thinking. Up until recently my behaviour would have more than likely got me typed as a Ti ego, although I am clearly an Fi ego.
If someone is typing themselves incorrectly, arguing with them or trying to pigeonhole them or forcing them out of your quadra is not productive.
People will find their own type in their own time. If one of you is typed incorrectly, this will rectify itself when the time is right for you as individuals, not when someone else tells you.
With regards to Phaedrus' type, if the fellow is autistic, that does change things a bit. Perhaps I spoke too soon on that one.
Everything points towards ILE being pinoccio's type.
I'm also not a man.
Sorry - didn't mean to do that - I certainly didn't think I was 100% right I just gave my perception on the matter, which we had already agreed was different to one anothers. The purpose of the pm was that although you had a different viewpoint that it would maybe broaden your perspective and perhaps shake off a little the belief that your Ti systemisation of matters will always be correct in all circumstances (which it will not be - Fi is not the best tool for understanding physics - Ti is not the best tool for understanding people). Anyway I don't know if your correct in your assertations, you may well be and I agree that alot of people would have no problems having their types challenged uninvited. So yeah I wasn't entirely correct there.@somavision: I just read your PM (sorry for the delay) and now I know where your post is coming from.
I thank you for the advice, which actually I asked for, but I'm afraid that's actually what hurts me most: it's impossible to accept it. What you wrote me there is a horror for me and probably for any Fi PoLR type. I mean it, it stands against my nature. Is like saying "you'd better be bone glue".
That's unacceptable and imo you're right only to an extent: the people who don't want do have their type disputed should not present it on a Socionics discussion forum. These types are used to exemplify, we need accuracy, it is anyone's problem what he things with the condition to keep it for himself if involved in (psudo)scientific discussions.
Mistyping others is the greatest problem anyway.
If you think someone's mother is a whore, it is your right to personal opinion. But to go publicly to say it is trouble except she really is and you can prove it! I hope you can figure this out yourself.
@Loki: ok man, thanks anyway!
I'll leave you guys to it. I've stuck my nose in far enough I think. All the best.
Just to add on
With regards to the mother whore thing. I respect that you say it how you see it, I hope you understand my reasons for doing the same.
final thing you do seem very ILE so I ham happy to vote with that. Bit crazy (from my point of view), but interesting.
Last edited by somavision; 09-19-2009 at 02:25 PM.
Removed at User Request
I've said Ephemeros was SLE for a long timeUntil recently I had reverted to ILE for various reasons, but I'm beginning to see a Beta tinge in his attitude of wanting to set up a hierarchy, standardized typing procedures, etc; he wants it to be more "official."
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
How on earth is this Si-valuing? "Brute force, determination and persistence"? I would think I'm interpreting you wrong.. except it seems that that is the way you operate. How do you think an SEI would appreciate that style?I would have thought that your talk of reality in this context was Se-valuing. I thought that Ne-leading types tended to re-evaluate things periodically.But I have one and only one: reality. There's no need to re-evaluate it periodically, it is there, it proves itself continuously. It is like a wall: you have it behind, you can't step back, simple as that. I have absolutely no problem in arguing indefinitely because there's no way of giving up reality.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
This morning I thought a bit and I think this is a bit more of the problem than I thought. Perhaps we are identicals after all
Thanks for your input, sub. I don't see EIE for him, I think there is a Ti structure to his comments.
Fair enough, I can't see myself as Ne sub but someone has commented about that before.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
