Hypocrisy?Originally Posted by Slade
Well no I'm not on my period atm.
Hypocrisy?
Well no I'm not on my period atm.
You bully people all the time. You badger them with questions even when it's very clear that they don't want you to, and even when they ask you to stop. This is what you do. All the time. None of this is bs, and you know I'm not lying.
--------------
The reason my attack on you when you returned seemed to come out of nowhere was because I did my best to ignore you when you were here before. It was a relief when you left, so your return with your disinformation was very frustrating to me. The problem comes probably from my expectations. Someone says they are Ti lead, comments in almost every post how logical and Ti they are, and I expect them to actually fulfill this. I expect that they will be able to do what I do, and take a volume of information and put it together and draw their own conclusions from it. I don't expect them to need hand-holding, and have to ask question after question after question that could have already been derived from the original statement had they actually used Ti. And that's the part that's the most frustrating for me, that you just really don't understand things, and it takes you so long and so much effort and you miss so much. And then you think all of this is Ti: having people lead you to answers, demanding answers from people, demanding that they explain things to you that you should have been able to figure out yourself while you interject how this thing or that thing relates to you as an LSI . . . it just gets to be a bit much.
Anyway, I guess I shouldn't expect much from people, and probably shouldn't take them at their word. Someone saying that they are Ti, and how they love to "go deep into Ti" really doesn't mean anything. Their actions will show who they really are. And yes, you're a bully. And no, you don't understand much. But, I don't think you're actually malicious or anything. I think you're trying, and I probably shouldn't hold things against you that you probably can't help.
That's not how that works, lol. You made the claim it was a strawman, I refuted that claim. The burden is on you. What you are doing here is the equivalent of calling me a murderer, me saying 'I didn't do it', then you telling me that the burden is on me to prove it since I claimed I didn't do it. LOL.
Huh? Okay, yes I understand what happened, I was there. This doesn't explain how it was a straw-man. How is Ti not correlated with explaining according to what you said? From your sentence, I deduced that you think that asking for too much explaining is an indicator of Ti-devaluing. How is too much explaining related to Ti-devaluing? I genuinely want to understand what you meant, perhaps I got it wrong, but you haven't explained how yet. If you did create a correlation here, then it wasn't a strawman. If you didn't then there is a straw-man, though I don't understand why you would bring it up with Ti de-valuing if it wasn't related in your mind. If you aren't going to explain then don't waste my time trying to run me in circles.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
christ, your passive-aggressive insincerity. i mean, are you on your period too?
here i have something for you, courtesy of the unwearable fashion inspo thread, extra wide. you can stuff one end's half up yours and @Slade can use the other end, how romantic:
jesus you're transparent. "their actions will show who they really are" -- indeed.
you two are terrible people.
@mods
This is bs again, I'm sorry. If they ask me to stop asking or stop whatever else, I stop. Ask Slugabed for example, I never bothered her after she asked me.
I'm honestly baffled as to how you can let your view be distorted so much by frustration or whatever other emotional reactions you got going on.
Oh no, more distortions. I definitely don't run around posting in "almost every post" about how "logical and Ti" I am.The reason my attack on you when you returned seemed to come out of nowhere was because I did my best to ignore you when you were here before. It was a relief when you left, so your return with your disinformation was very frustrating to me. The problem comes probably from my expectations. Someone says they are Ti lead, comments in almost every post how logical and Ti they are, and I expect them to actually fulfill this. I expect that they will be able to do what I do, and take a volume of information and put it together and draw their own conclusions from it. I don't expect them to need hand-holding, and have to ask question after question after question that could have already been derived from the original statement had they actually used Ti. And that's the part that's the most frustrating for me, that you just really don't understand things, and it takes you so long and so much effort and you miss so much. And then you think all of this is Ti: having people lead you to answers, demanding answers from people, demanding that they explain things to you that you should have been able to figure out yourself while you interject how this thing or that thing relates to you as an LSI . . . it just gets to be a bit much.
And yes, I've drawn a lot of conclusions of my own from a lot of stuff. I've posted on the forum about these conclusions too but you don't notice those.
No, for you it's far more comfortable to stick to your biased little pov on what I do. Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance?
You are a prime example of that here. It's sad really. But not my problem tbh, I don't care what you personally think as long as you don't go around accusing me of bs.
I thought a bully has malicious intentions - the intention to harm innocent people and especially people the bully sees as weak. I do none of that. So please lay off of such accusations.Anyway, I guess I shouldn't expect much from people, and probably shouldn't take them at their word. Someone saying that they are Ti, and how they love to "go deep into Ti" really doesn't mean anything. Their actions will show who they really are. And yes, you're a bully. And no, you don't understand much. But, I don't think you're actually malicious or anything. I think you're trying, and I probably shouldn't hold things against you that you probably can't help.
I'm trying in terms of understanding what other people need, if you meant that. The people related side of things I don't understand well, sure. Maybe you as ESI, if you are that, are picking up on that as me not understanding things.
You didn't refute it. You simply said it's not a strawman, that's not refuting it.
It was a strawman because you claimed I equated Ti with "explaining". Correlation isn't the same as equating two things. And, it wasn't even simply drawing some correlation there, I was explaining further than that.Huh? Okay, yes I understand what happened, I was there. This doesn't explain how it was a straw-man. How is Ti not correlated with explaining according to what you said? From your sentence, I deduced that you think that asking for too much explaining is an indicator of Ti-devaluing. How is too much explaining related to Ti-devaluing? I genuinely want to understand what you meant, perhaps I got it wrong, but you haven't explained how yet. If you did create a correlation here, then it wasn't a strawman. If you didn't then there is a straw-man, though I don't understand why you would bring it up with Ti de-valuing if it wasn't related in your mind. If you aren't going to explain then don't waste my time trying to run me in circles.
In future, I will only respond to you if you can first see how equating A with B is not the same as saying A has something to do with B under C circumstances for D reasons.
And yes, I literally quoted from you on "Ti = explaining".
I have seen much evidence to the contrary. It's all over the forum.
Oh really? People can read you know.
1.
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator; persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate
Yeah, you do most of those things. I tried, and failed to make you aware of it.
No, I meant the logical side. You don't understand the logical part. You also don't read Fe very well, but that's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about understanding information. But, I'll try to be a little more patient.I'm trying in terms of understanding what other people need, if you meant that. The people related side of things I don't understand well, sure. Maybe you as ESI, if you are that, are picking up on that as me not understanding things.
Last edited by squark; 06-05-2017 at 05:16 AM.
wow i could never meet someone this PA irl. the stuff you can find on the internet!
In your imagination...
To clarify, asking me to stop means explicitly asking. Not giving hardly noticeable hints or whatever.
If this is where we were not on the same page.
Yes, people can read and most people on this forum I would hope do not have the bias you have out of whatever reasons.Oh really? People can read you know.
When I did describe my way of approaching Ti stuff in some (far, far from "almost every post") posts regarding my way of thinking, the intention was to provide more datapoints to what the theory says.
The definition you posted explicitly mentions harming and intimidating others. Now add to this the fact that bullying is commonly defined as doing these things intentionally.1.
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator; persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate
Yeah, you do most of those things. I tried, and failed to make you aware of it.
If I have ever made anyone uncomfortable by the arguments, it was not intentional.
It also doesn't help that I don't see people's reactions, just a computer monitor or a phone screen in front of me.
I think this judgment (too) is entirely misguided and I find it weird that you'd believe such things about me. But believe whatever you want about this, it's just a bit ridiculous. :shrugNo, I meant the logical side. You don't understand the logical part. You also don't read Fe very well, but that's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about understanding information. It's okay though, it's not something you can do anything about, and you're not trying to be dense, so I won't hold it against you. I'll try to be a little more patient.
Yes it is. One of the definitions for refute is 'to deny the truth or accuracy of': https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
What you don't realize is when you use correlations as criteria to type you have for all intents and purposes created a false equivalence. Yes you are right, correlation and equivalence are different so don't use correlations as criteria to type. Ti is concerned with understanding, there's a number of reasons why a Ti valuing type may have a problem with excessive questioning, same with an Se type and pressuring, and the others you mentioned. It doesn't neccessarily point to anything, nor is it of significant value in a type discussion. That was my point. They can be helpful as supplements, but not in the way you used them here.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Wow, okay, then I'll just deny the truth or accuracy of your claims about all my posts now and in future too.
We are done here.
(Btw obviously I originally meant the meaning as follows "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous"...)
(I should not respond to this after the absurdity above but I'll do so anyway just to finish this post. No, I did not create anything like "false equivalence". What are you even babbling on about? And, this was the criteria used, as per the Socionics model so it does have value: "if she regularly does not want to continue discussions that's full of the Ti information element (from me and from niffer too) then that's a pretty good basis for seeing her as devaluing Ti."What you don't realize is when you use correlations as criteria to type you have for all intents and purposes created a false equivalence. Yes you are right, correlation and equivalence are different so don't use correlations as criteria to type. Ti is concerned with understanding, there's a number of reasons why a Ti valuing type may have a problem with excessive questioning, same with an Se type and pressuring, and the others you mentioned. It doesn't point to anything, nor is it of value in a type discussion. That was my point. They can be helpful as supplements, but not in the way you used them here.
Quoting from a description: "The ESI is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grow tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by, the ESI attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.
ESIs see the value of logical consistency in systems for areas or tasks they see as useful, but do not see the point of lingering on that if the pursuit of such consistency deviates too long or deeply from practical reality or from concerns relating to individuals and their relationships, and they are not really interested in discussions by others who choose to do so.")
As an example, since already brought up, this is not a "hardly noticeable hint" imo. It's very clearly saying that the person does not want to get into an argument, especially with an LSI, and they'd appreciate it if you'd be considerate of that fact:You ignore, and bulldoze right through. Things shouldn't have to be explicitly spelled out in detail to be understood.there are a lot of SLI/LSI on mbti forums, but I'm really tired of them ... I'm too lazy for arguing with LSI-istx all the time. They've a fascination for imposing telling me what to do their opinions (as If I care) and misunderstanding all what I say.
That's actually more related to Ni if anything.I also have a hard time reading certain kinds of intention (Ne PoLR) btw
ok.but if I did describe my way of approaching Ti stuff in some (far, far from "almost every post") posts regarding my way of thinking, the intention was to provide more datapoints to what the theory says.
I'm sure it wasn't, but the definition didn't include intent.
It's because of the times you've asked me or others to explain very simple to understand things that shouldn't (imo) need to be explained, or repeated. I think I've told you this several times now, as an example. I will try to get less irritated with it, and be more patient.I think this judgment is entirely misguided and I find it weird that you'd believe such things about me. But believe whatever you want about this, it's just a bit ridiculous. :shrug
btw, as I pointed out multiple times already, I get annoyed with your lack of ability to understand what I'm saying, not with your imaginary Ti.
That to me is a hint at best. If even that. Since she was not talking about me personally there. (And, it was ambiguous: who knows what she sees as an argument, I find not everyone sees the same thing as an actual argument.) When she did address me, I instantly took note of it and respected her request.
And yes, hints do have to be spelled out to me. Sorry, that's how I am. I'm not good with reading between the lines.
It's definitely related to Ne. (It being an inner property of objects.)That's actually more related to Ni if anything.
If you want a source, a wikisocion example for that: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Ne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BullyingI'm sure it wasn't, but the definition didn't include intent.
"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations of such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size, or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4]"
I don't think you can say I do any of this.
I have been in conflicts before, note how this article distinguishes that from bullying.
Also same article goes on:
"There is no universal definition of bullying, however, it is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time."
Yeah, no, I don't meet those criteria. Again, as I said, it's up to intention among other things.
I asked you about how you are, to get data to learn about people, basically, it was never about asking you to explain terms of Socionics theory. This is a pretty significant difference...It's because of the times you've asked me or others to explain very simple to understand things that shouldn't (imo) need to be explained, or repeated. I think I've told you this several times now, as an example. I will try to get less irritated with it, and be more patient.
And in arguments, I simply expect the other party to impersonally reason for their viewpoint as long as they do want to continue (it's ok if they say they want to quit it). Again not about asking you or others to explain terms of the theory. How could you even think that's what I would be asking for in arguments?
As for the patience - well if you mean patience with my not seeing the hints between the lines, that's appreciated.
As for "imaginary Ti", yeah well I guess I happen to say the same about you regarding "imaginary Ti" by thinking ESI fits you better than LSI.
Don't get me wrong, the typing is not about intellectual abilities, I simply think you primarily come from Fi and not Ti.
PS: As for what you argued about originally with this line of yours, if you don't think this has relevance in the context of the Socionics model then - rhetorical question following - what on earth is it that actually has such relevance to you that led you to conclude that I'm not Ti in Ego beyond our not understanding each other very well in arguments (and the erroneous assumptions about my thinking process that I've just corrected above). You don't have to answer this if you don't wish to get into impersonal reasoning in detail. That's really fine, I don't need you to.
Last edited by Myst; 06-05-2017 at 07:48 AM.
Can you provide examples where this is the case? Considering I have yet to see either of you demonstrate Ti, this is laughable.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
What do you type her if anything?
Let me be clear, I said I'm seriously considering ESI for her (I did before too along with SLI), but I didn't exclude SLI. The Fi/Te valuing is clear, the dimensionality of Fi beyond how she does seem to find it important and rely on it a lot, that can be argued still, or her approach to goals, etc. I don't have any more time for a while for typing her (or most other people) tho', so I'll end my input here.
One last comment on that is that I agree with you on her not demonstrating Ti, for example here:
"You can categorize without judging. It's done all the time, when you sort bolts, or arrange your closet, go to the library, find a parking place. Things have categories, places in which they go."
(From here, I've just read it now and remembered this thread.)
As for the examples you asked for, here's one off the top of my head where she got frustrated and ended the discussion.
This thread is bananas lol
@squark - Are you from a Guess culture?(link to a 30s read explaining Ask vs Guess)
Your example of a hint earlier wasn't clear at all to me, and I am capable to taking hints (ability tested in the field, all that). However I'm also from an Ask culture, as is Myst. That could potentially explain like 99% of this whole kerfuffle!
Quotes that seem to support this hypothesis:
Last edited by GuavaDrunk; 06-05-2017 at 10:08 AM. Reason: Tidied up the quotes, added bolding
Reason is a whore.
Y'all are all using terms wrong, btw.
Construction of logic is Ti+. Deconstruction of logic is Ti-.
Ti bases don't Contact with either.
This is why LII's are continuously anti-societal trolls (Contact Fi-).
LSI is Contact Fi+. They don't have nor like logical discourse, but rather discuss ethically.
That's Questim vs Declatim.@squark - Are you from a Guess culture?
Your example of a hint earlier wasn't clear at all to me, and I am capable to taking hints (ability tested in the field, all that). However I'm also from an Ask culture, as is Myst. That could potentially explain like 99% of this whole kerfuffle!
Quotes that seem to support this hypothesis:
It's pretty clear that he's referring to you and niffer, and not referencing me at all. Notice who you mentioned in your quote. Pay attention. This is an example of how to read and understand and make deductions and how instead you routinely come to the wrong conclusion by not noticing the details.
Except it was you and niffer that are being referred to as not demonstrating Ti. I wasn't mentioned. Again, just pointing out how to read a post and notice details so you don't continually misunderstand.One last comment on that is that I agree with you on her not demonstrating Ti, for example here:
Good example, because what have I been saying all along? That I get frustrated by your inability to understand things, yes, and wow, look at that, what did I say in your example?As for the examples you asked for, here's one off the top of my head where she got frustrated and ended the discussion.And what have I been saying all along?
I am frustrated because you need your hand held and need everything explained to you. And multiple times I've said that I'll try to be less frustrated and more patient and that should be the end of the discussion. Do you understand my words? Nope. You don't. No matter how clear I am, you will find a way to misread and misunderstand. You don't pick up on details, at all. You seem to have great difficultly even seeing the dots much less connecting them. And that is, and always has been my greatest frustration with you.
As for your lack of Ti - it's your lack of an ability to take words and concepts and draw an explicit, non-feeling-based connection between them. External statics of fields. For example when I briefly explained dichotomies and how they created cognitive styles, you couldn't understand what I was saying, and you thought they were equations. You quite literally could not see the explicit connections.
Last edited by squark; 06-05-2017 at 11:57 AM.
She's a girl. What do you expect? Lol
@Guava moving my posts from other thread here:
I already gave the answer lol. Well, two different ones, if you include "girl," but I still did give the answer lol.You're just going to wind up making her cry and feel bad about herself.
Non-reductionist
Absolutism
Deontology
Questim, Emotivist, Serious.
SEE or LSE.
How did you get from non-reductionist to questim? I understood it to be recognizing that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so that's how I answered. Did you mean something else?
And while I can see how you could connect deontology with serious, I think its actually the opposite. If deontology is having a moral code and basically the means justifying ends in contrast to ends justifying means Ti/Fe fits the first better and Te/Fi the latter, though I'm not sure I'd even divide the two along those particular lines without also considering the impact of Ne/Se. I haven't studied any of these in depth, this is from just a quick look-up of definitions to answer your questions. It would also depend on how the moral code was derived, as it could be Ti-like Kant for instance, or it could be Fi. And if it's an external moral code that one accepts on faith, that does lean Te/Fi.
My answer was based on the idea that I don't think the ends justify means, as some things are not okay regardless of the intentions behind them. The actions themselves should be moral imo, and following a consistent standard in regards to this is better than going purely for results or changing feelings based on circumstances.
Edit: I could also see an argument for absolutism vs skepticism fitting other dichotomies. I'll just look up your system to see where you're coming from with all of these, so you don't have to explain here.
Last edited by squark; 06-05-2017 at 02:58 PM.
That's the semantics of those 3 things aligned with the semantics of the reinin dichotomies.
Ok. I see where you're coming from now, but I don't think you're making the right connections between the Reinin dichtomies and the various philosophies. The approach itself isn't bad though.
I am. You wanting such to be the case, and answering accurately about yourself, are entirely different matters.
Fi->Ne->Ti->Se. Going from verbal to discrete.
Declatim is by definition reductionism. Utilitarianism is by definition Merry. Absolutism is by definition Emotivism.
I've already gone through this to a large degree.
Though I generally say that socionics = lunacy, I'm not sure how else you think things like Ti / Se can be identified in people except by arbitrarily associating them with things like Myst is doing - "explaining", "bullying", etc.. That's just the insanity of socionics.
Well, the problem is imo, that delaratim isn't the same thing as reductionism for example. I looked at the link you posted, the strat. one, and she redefines questim and declaratim into something that is quite different from the reinin definitions in order to come to process-result. Questim + extrovert = evolutionary, and declartim + introvert = involutionary etc. so I see why she's redefining questim/declartim (so it'll fit) but it's basically working backwards from process/result and redefining the others to work, when you could just deal directly with process/result. Anyway, because of the way she redefines it your interpretation of her definition has more process/result in it than it actually has questim/declaratim in it imo.
As for wanting to be anything - I don't care what you type me as, I was more curious as to your method than what type you arrived at using it.
Repost from here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1195073
So this one time I took an email to my counsellor to get their help in drafting a response. I was furious about the manipulativeness, the disrespectful attitude in it. I was about to write a long list of ad hominems and declare that their mother smelt of elderberries, all that.
Then when I read the email to the counsellor, their face stayed suspiciously blank. I slowly realised that in the cold light of day, there were some wonky phrasings, a couple of unfortunate words, but it also wasn't a Machiavellian piece of denigration, you know?
However I was still angry. I wanted justice. I wanted to send that email and hint that their father was a hamster. I went for a long run and didn't send it. As it happens, my emotions were not a true picture of the situation, they were just part and not whole of the data.
Look, I get that you hate the way @Myst communicates, you've made that *abundantly* clear. But frankly, seeing that your reaction to that is to hysterically "shit on everything", I've lost quite a bit of respect for you. I expected a better capacity for self-awareness from you.
Funnily enough, you're not the only one who tries hard to be clear, and many other people have managed not to generate some sort of cross-thread character assassination (cf this thread starting halfway down the first page.) whenever an internet communication hasn't worked out. Have the humility to recognise that just maybe you may be wrong. Then go buy yourself some class and knock it off. You don't like each other, end of story.
Firstly, fuck you.
Secondly, no. Myst has a very precise sort of brain and due to this can take a while to thoroughly digest a concept, but by no means is she deficient in understanding.
General notes re: Myst's type:
"But an 'LSI' is being subjective so they can't be Ti-dom" - have you *seen* the definition of introverted field elements? They are by definition subjective, all of them.
As I know her, Myst relates everything to her pov because her pov is the fundamental way she makes sense of the world. (Like basically any human you care to pick, incidentally.) She has mentioned in other places that her map of the world and the way it matches the world or not is her fundamental way of processing things, so while it may come across as a little heavy-handed in conversation sometimes, it makes complete sense that she would carefully measure everything she reads against her own experience.
"Myst is SLE" - One of the most striking qualities of her writing style is that she makes strong assertions everywhere. This is a large part of what bothers people who call her 'too subjective', if I've understood correctly. That's textbook Opinionated Rational(tm) behaviour. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. She may be comparatively vital and assertive, but note that her general worldview is rather more static. She outputs Se, not Ti - the same way an SLE would output Ti, and live through their Se. Myst does not live through her Se, even if she has a good command of it.
Last edited by GuavaDrunk; 06-05-2017 at 07:44 PM. Reason: Correction: there are four introverted field elements, not two.
Reason is a whore.
She didn't redefine them. Her definitions are the ones currently accepted amongst the Socionics community.
Process/Results is semantically different.
She's using declaratim/questim to arrive at process/result. evolutionary = process/deductive. They're different names for the same dichotomy. For example she writesThis is true, if you're an asker and an extravert you're also a process type - that's just how reinin dichtomies are arranged.In the structure of the models of QUESTIMES, all EXTRAVERT aspects (on the diagram they are denoted by black symbols) - EVOLUTIONARY
You're stating that reductionist/non-reductionist is semantically process/results. It is not. It is semantically declatim/questim.
You're stating that utilitarianism/deontology is serious/merry. It is not. It is semantically merry/serious.
Regardless if you agree with the dichotomies or not, they are currently the definitions of Socionics.
Notice you only mentioned the one which you fit, constructivist/emotivist, once as an edit. You've been biased from the beginning and are basing your acceptance on such. Had I stated, "yup, that's LSI alright," can you honestly state that you wouldn't have been like, wow I need to use these dichotomies more this is fantastic? No.
Yeah I could've assumed that Slade is still on your side so he must've meant niffer and not you, sure.
But if this is the only thing you can nitpick about, well, not my problem that you are this petty...
And I'm getting really annoyed with your pettiness and nitpickiness. Are you having your period or why won't you shut up your little stupid mouth already? What's the point? I couldn't care less what stupid little things you are frustrated about just because you are already having some other god knows what issue. Clearly no one can be bothered this much simply by stuff like you pointed out here. Or if it's literally true that my sometimes not parsing some less than grammatically exact sentences bothers you to the point of starting this tantrum about me in public out of nowhere, I don't know what that says about you.Except it was you and niffer that are being referred to as not demonstrating Ti. I wasn't mentioned. Again, just pointing out how to read a post and notice details so you don't continually misunderstand.
Good example, because what have I been saying all along? That I get frustrated by your inability to understand things, yes, and wow, look at that, what did I say in your example? And what have I been saying all along?
I am frustrated because you need your hand held and need everything explained to you. And multiple times I've said that I'll try to be less frustrated and more patient and that should be the end of the discussion. Do you understand my words? Nope. You don't. No matter how clear I am, you will find a way to misread and misunderstand. You don't pick up on details, at all. You seem to have great difficultly even seeing the dots much less connecting them. And that is, and always has been my greatest frustration with you.
Please stop fucking around about this while I still have a shred of respect for you.
At least now I see what kind of thing you got hung up on. This is just ridiculous though. Yes, clear, unambiguous sentences are a good thing for me. I think a few people do know that about me, that in written communication I do prefer unambiguously worded stuff. Also if you think I would never notice that something is off, that's ridiculous and unrealistic, as a conversation goes on, I'll of course notice like anyone else that something is off. Even more ridiculous is if you think this example demonstrates anything deeper about understanding things that you tried to use this as an example for.
And exactly, they didn't have to be explained, which can be very well seen if you read on about the convo at the link I gave. Stop your bs.I feel like these things shouldn't have to be explained as it's part of the basic theory
What's again ridiculous is that you thought I needed that summary of yours on cognitive styles and dichotomies even though it should've been clear that I already read Gulenko's article on that stuff since I was explicitly telling you my conclusions on cognitive styles so it should've been clear that I know and analyzed that material already. But you, as a reply, without being asked, launched into a boring summary of Gulenko's article. I did not ask you to.As for your lack of Ti - it's your lack of an ability to take words and concepts and draw an explicit, non-feeling-based connection between them. External statics of fields. For example when I briefly explained dichotomies and how they created cognitive styles, you couldn't understand what I was saying, and you thought they were equations. You quite literally could not see the explicit connections.
And equations, you misunderstood that too, I was talking about it in the sense Gulenko meant the dichotomies, and I reject his conclusions, or any ideas on drawing connections there, yes, and I have reasoning for it.
So who is it who doesn't look attentively and understand what's in front of them? Except I don't get bothered about it like you do. I just don't have the need for that. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex for your feeling the need of still babbling on about how you think I don't understand things? Without ever stopping to think and realizing that maybe you misunderstand me in quite some places. Or is this about getting rid of your PMS issues? I can't see any other possibly existing point to it. No one else on the forum has ever had the need for this, just you. So it's some issue with you.
So. I ask you to stop nitpicking about how I am. I don't have any more time to waste on this crap. If you continue despite my asking, I'm going to see that as an aggressive jerk thing like you had that problem about me earlier. End of story.
Last edited by Myst; 06-05-2017 at 06:24 PM.
I just took the first thing listed on the link which happened to be asking/declaring to use as an example. Her definitions were different from what I've seen elsewhere, and I saw how she was connecting it with process/result through introvert/extrovert. Based on Strat's way of defining constructivism/emotivism in the link, I'd say I fit constructivism better than emotivist, so feel free to retype me based on that if you'd like.
Oh, and no, I really prefer going straight with process/result rather than using asking/declaring to arrive there. It's one of things about Gulenko's cognitive styles paper that I like is his discussion of process/result as deductive/inductive etc.
Last edited by squark; 06-05-2017 at 06:19 PM.
You have very weird fantasies.
Actually, there are more complex ways of operationalizing the Socionics model than that but there are issues even then. I recently posted about this topic actually.
Her definitions are correct. Utilize source material, not stuff emo nerds on forums think up.
Fourth Tier -> Third Tier -> Second Tier -> Individual Determination. That is the reasoning.
There was a 4th question in the original set of questions I presented you. That question was "are these answers accurate?" I never said you were any of the three you stated, nor the opposite, did I?
Posting Permissions
