q2
q2
Last edited by squark; 01-22-2020 at 10:41 PM.
I love you Squark
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Sexual innuendos everywhere!
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
OK I see. I just was surprised because when I read that link I thought it was crap, from the standpoint of sx-first. I mean maybe it works for sp-first types or something but definitely not for me. When I am alone, I do have myself as a main priority, which is a conscious rule for me really for protection purposes, but I also have no problem with the idea of losing myself with someone else. I see no problem with it, it does not have anything to do with self-esteem and self-respect for me. For me the priorities for the partner mesh with my priorities for myself in a neat, almost mysterious way, though I am able to consciously reason for it as well, and I like that the way it is.
As for your new link. I don't care for this gifted crap, yeah, I do have some of the so-called overexcitability but I'm not willing to call it that, it's only "over" from the standpoint of worrywarts that want to shoot down all excitement. So I relate to this but not to the idea of being gifted and being in conflict with how things are. I'm smart and have talents but not this kind of "gifted". So this part would not relate to sx but the excitability and introspection qualities may.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I relate to the excitabilities part. Apparently that's the only thing you relate to too. So I see no difference between us. If you didn't get it the first time then let me repeat, yes, I have been told shit like, I should tone myself down, be careful, don't overdo it, blahblahblah. That's why I referred to these people as worrywarts.
PS: did you ever see my last PM?
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Um I think you misread accidentally
Hmm ok just the whole thing seemed very intuitiveish (in the jungian sense) and that's what I didn't relate to. I don't think I have much inner conflict myself, no, I've got peace with myself pretty well, while I'm still willing to change what needs to be changed... so, I do relate to some parts about improvement etc.
I'm not sure I fully understand the article tbh but I only skimmed the rest after it talked about the excitabilities and the introspective process which I do relate to. I just don't do the introspecting by questioning everything unnecessarily. I just observe my internals without any expectations, live through that observation, come to an understanding then or sometime later. Repeat process. And so on. Also I have no problem with many society related expectations, I don't try to be different for the sake of being different. That to me is slightly too... aimless. Trying out extreme diets and religious beliefs as external solutions to inner disharmony is something I'm totally NOT interested in, lol.I don't like the term "gifted" because it sounds pretentious, like you think you're better than other people or something, and don't want to label myself with something like that, but I fit the descriptions, and always have. And it's not some emo thing, like "oh I am so special and misunderstood" either. But some things I've read lately on the subject (not this particular link) made me cry, because it was just a "Holy shit, that's me and maybe I'm not as fucked up as I thought," and then a lot of questioning and evaluating, and considering and asking things like, "How much is real, and how does this help me? What does this mean? Can I use this or not?"
As for PM, I thought I had responded, will double-check.
Ah, btw, I'm not trying to say it's shit or stupid. I just can't relate to that part, is all.
PS: thanks for the PM check
You still knew what love was here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...naire-(squark) ?
(Not nitpicking, just wonder why the change in opinion if that's OK)
Hm before you only two people were considering 1 for me. Couldn't make anyone else see it as even a remote possibility. I myself think it's not as simple as that - enneagram really oversimplifies things.
I don't really see how that has to do with this post of mine tho' since as I said it wasn't nitpicking
I couldn't read the last part of your long line Can you rewrite it for me please.