People on the forum and socionics opinions

[Ezra]

lol, uh oh macysmama, get ready for the tourettes fit.

What, yours? I've never seen someone get so worked up about a forum's response to such a poor quality of life as yours, as I saw you.

[Elro]

Ritella has demonstrated not only a confidence in conflict (no one who is Se devaluing - let alone Se super-ego - has every told me to "fuck off" straight out like that before)

I don't think Se superego means inability to tell someone to fuck off, just that one is less likely to do so perhaps.

[Elro]

ahahha +123123123123123123

+1234123412341234

+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Ezra]

I don't think Se superego means inability to tell someone to fuck off, just that one is less likely to do so perhaps.

Exactly what I was thinking. What I said just made it seem otherwise.

[Ritella]

Ritella has demonstrated not only a confidence in conflict (no one who is Se devaluing - let alone Se super-ego - has every told me to "fuck off" straight out like that before), and an almost enjoyment of it ("LOL. That was beautiful."). I don't want to go as far as saying she is sadistic (although we all have sadistic tendencies, despite many of them being hidden to us, I think terming it as such would really cast my argument in a... "crazy" light), but she certainly likes the idea of an argument which essentially pwnz someone else. It's a Gamma SF thing; Fabio does it too.
Not so much so that you expressed your admiration for it as Ritella did. Plus, that straight-out comment she made about her sex life in another thread I made called "message for people" wouldn't be the kind of thing I would ever expect to come out of your mouth, Minde. And you are, in my eyes, the definition of an EII.

oh simpleton, think a little harder and you might realize why I made those 2 comments to which you referred in the first place.
And btw, I "enjoyed" Carla's comment because it was subtle, clever and unexpected. And not all arguments are of the physical kind.

[FDG]

I'm talking about the ideal of a rebelliousness within an individual or concept.

jxrtes is essentially sticking two fingers up at me and my methods (albeit respectfully) by posting what he did. Fabio likes this idea; he likes the idea of the common order being challenged, or of someone who thinks they're a clever, authoritative figure on a matter being "owned" by someone who basically does not care, or who gives off the air of not caring.

That's how I perceive the situation.

You're not a clever authoritative figure in my eyes, sorry Ez I mean I like you, but I really don't think of you like that I also doubt you think of yourself as the common order incarnate...!! (or at least, I hope so).

[aestrivex]

Ritella has demonstrated not only a confidence in conflict (no one who is Se devaluing - let alone Se super-ego - has every told me to "fuck off" straight out like that before), and an almost enjoyment of it ("LOL. That was beautiful."). I don't want to go as far as saying she is sadistic (although we all have sadistic tendencies, despite many of them being hidden to us, I think terming it as such would really cast my argument in a... "crazy" light), but she certainly likes the idea of an argument which essentially pwnz someone else. It's a Gamma SF thing; Fabio does it too.

this is an interesting point, though in ritella's case i'd probably interpret it as more pointing towards beta NF rather than gamma SF. i think you're somewhat misconstruing the situation however.

[Ritella]

this is an interesting point, though in ritella's case i'd probably interpret it as more pointing towards beta NF rather than gamma SF. i think you're somewhat misconstruing the situation however.

<sigh> i'm doing it on purpose to a certain extent so that I can demonstrate a point.
unfortunately, some people will never understand people.

[FDG]

this is an interesting point, though in ritella's case i'd probably interpret it as more pointing towards beta NF rather than gamma SF. i think you're somewhat misconstruing the situation however.

lol @ everybody being beta NF in your own little world. pathetic.

[strrrng]

lol @ everybody being beta NF in your own little world. pathetic.

lol

[Ritella]

Fwiw, I think I may be retiring from my short lived posting history of verbal mish-mosh. I find this forum too oppressive. I don't like that I can't express certain aspects of myself or my personality because I know that someone will call me out on not being INFJ. For the record: Minde /= INFJ and "super nice, good-natured person" /= INFJ (i.e. Munenori who ended up being ISFP. Ha!). I'm too talented and have too much to offer the world than to limit myself to some idiots' preconceived stereotype of an INFJ or subscribe to some "INFJ ideal." Sadly, however, I do feel as though this forum and socionics is done a huge injustice because rather than pause to consider possible variations in a type or the affect of <gasp> personal individuality (yes, not everything can be explained to Socionics), you label the people from whom you would most benefit to learn, make them feel as if they are not being true to themselves (when in fact they are doing exactly that), and ultimately force them to leave. I understand that due to people's misconceptions of socionics, you do have to challenge self typings. But try to consider doing it in a manner that's more open and, perhaps, not immediately after only 2 comments have been made to cause "alarm" about the person's type. For all the well touted logical skills that NTs and Ts possess (another stereotype imo), a few on this forum consistently shun the evidence that they have a very limited range for each personality type and a rather bad interpretation of how the elements translate into real life. How many times has someone posted something in which everyone saw the same element/type/whatever and it turned out to be wrong?
Give me a break...



EDIT: Also, please leave ChristyB and Eunice alone. Fuckers.

[implied]

i went looking for something to add to this thread but all i found when i google image searched for "no true scotsman" was a picture of jenny mccarthy with a waterhose. i'm sure you're all disappointed.

[strrrng]

Fwiw, I think I may be retiring from my short lived posting history of verbal mish-mosh. I find this forum too oppressive. I don't like that I can't express certain aspects of myself or my personality because I know that someone will call me out on not being INFJ. For the record: Minde /= INFJ and "super nice, good-natured person" /= INFJ (i.e. Munenori who ended up being ISFP. Ha!). I'm too talented and have too much to offer the world than to limit myself to some idiots' preconceived stereotype of an INFJ or subscribe to some "INFJ ideal." Sadly, however, I do feel as though this forum and socionics is done a huge injustice because rather than pause to consider possible variations in a type or the affect of <gasp> personal individuality (yes, not everything can be explained to Socionics) the people for whom you would most benefit to learn are labelled, made to feel as if they are not being true to themselves (when in fact they are doing exactly that), and forced to leave. I understand that due to people's misconceptions of socionics, you do have to challenge self typings. But try to consider doing it in a manner that's more open and, perhaps, not immediately after only 2 comments have been made to cause to "alarm" about the person's type. For all the well touted logical skills that NTs and Ts possess (another stereotype imo), a few on this forum consistently fail shun the evidence that they have a very limited range for each personality type and a rather bad interpretation of how the elements translate into real life. How many times has someone posted something in which everyone saw the same element/type/whatever and it turned out to be wrong?
Give me a break...

+100

[dbmmama]

Fwiw, I think I may be retiring from my short lived posting history of verbal mish-mosh. I find this forum too oppressive. I don't like that I can't express certain aspects of myself or my personality because I know that someone will call me out on not being INFJ. For the record: Minde /= INFJ and "super nice, good-natured person" /= INFJ (i.e. Munenori who ended up being ISFP. Ha!). I'm too talented and have too much to offer the world than to limit myself to some idiots' preconceived stereotype of an INFJ or subscribe to some "INFJ ideal." Sadly, however, I do feel as though this forum and socionics is done a huge injustice because rather than pause to consider possible variations in a type or the affect of <gasp> personal individuality (yes, not everything can be explained to Socionics) the people for whom you would most benefit to learn are labelled, made to feel as if they are not being true to themselves (when in fact they are doing exactly that), and forced to leave. I understand that due to people's misconceptions of socionics, you do have to challenge self typings. But try to consider doing it in a manner that's more open and, perhaps, not immediately after only 2 comments have been made to cause to "alarm" about the person's type. For all the well touted logical skills that NTs and Ts possess (another stereotype imo), a few on this forum consistently shun the evidence that they have a very limited range for each personality type and a rather bad interpretation of how the elements translate into real life. How many times has someone posted something in which everyone saw the same element/type/whatever and it turned out to be wrong?
Give me a break...

yeah ritella! i'm outta here as well

[Nexus]

i went looking for something to add to this thread but all i found when i google image searched for "no true scotsman" was a picture of jenny mccarthy with a waterhose. i'm sure you're all disappointed.

No True Scotsman would type themselves without help from Jenny McCarthy.

[strrrng]

No I disagree with this typing. I'm willing to hear a case for it, but I've read over enough enneagram material to believe that E6 is the least likely E-type for me out of the whole enneagram. It's pretty much like being a construction worker named Bosco is a closer description of me than any of the E6 descriptions I've read. Even E1, E2 or E8 are more likely typings for me.

Most online enneagram material is misleading - especially the 6 profiles. I suggest you read some of the books by Naranjo or R&H.

I'm typing myself currently as E7, taking into account, but obviously not limitted to, my basic life need to understand everything and to completely expand externally. Though I've developed certain introspective traits charactersitic of the E5 over the past few years, as a result of some deep-seeted neurological issues which I'd rather not get into.

The need to understand everything is not a 7 focus. It is not any enneagram type's focus (the 5 may appear this way, but they are really driven by a need to specialize, in order to feel in control enough to enter into physical reality). And expanding externally isn't the 7's core need, either. It is clear that you are still seeing the types based on superficial characteristics and not deep-rooted fixations.

[Hitta]

Most online enneagram material is misleading - especially the 6 profiles. I suggest you read some of the books by Naranjo or R&H.



The need to understand everything is not a 7 focus. It is not any enneagram type's focus (the 5 may appear this way, but they are really driven by a need to specialize, in order to feel in control enough to enter into physical reality). And expanding externally isn't the 7's core need, either. It is clear that you are still seeing the types based on superficial characteristics and not deep-rooted fixations.

There we go again.

[Gilly]

There we go again.

Actually he is completely right.

[Nexus]

Most online enneagram material is misleading - especially the 6 profiles. I suggest you read some of the books by Naranjo or R&H.



The need to understand everything is not a 7 focus. It is not any enneagram type's focus (the 5 may appear this way, but they are really driven by a need to specialize, in order to feel in control enough to enter into physical reality). And expanding externally isn't the 7's core need, either. It is clear that you are still seeing the types based on superficial characteristics and not deep-rooted fixations.

What do you believe are the fixations for each enneagram type?

[Hitta]

Actually he is completely right.

He's right that the internet readings suck compared to the books.

[strrrng]

There we go again.

Yeah, goddamn that Nick, spewing all this accurate information about the enneagram. Let's antagonize him to get a reaction and feel good about ourselves!

Actually he is completely right.

Correct.

He's right that the internet readings suck compared to the books.

No, hitta, I was right about everything. And if you disagree, how about pointing out where I'm wrong?

What do you believe are the fixations for each enneagram type?

It's hard to sum it up, but here's what I've got...

1: To be right/good, avoid being corrupt
2: To be loved, avoid being rejected
3: To be admired, avoid being unseen
4: To find their identity, avoid being artificial
5: To be competent, avoid being overwhelmed
6: To be secure, avoid being without guidance (hitta)
7: To be happy/free (vague, sorry), avoid being trapped (by inner pain)
8: To be in control, avoid being controlled
9: To have balance, avoid being fragmented

Again, there is so much more to enneagram types than just the basic fixations, but that is them in a nutshell.

[Hitta]

Yeah, goddamn that Nick, spewing all this accurate information about the enneagram. Let's antagonize him to get a reaction and feel good about ourselves!



Correct.



No, hitta, I was right about everything. And if you disagree, how about pointing out where I'm wrong?



It's hard to sum it up, but here's what I've got...

1: To be right/good, avoid being corrupt
2: To be loved, avoid being rejected
3: To be admired, avoid being unseen
4: To find their identity, avoid being artificial
5: To be competent, avoid being overwhelmed
6: To be secure, avoid being without guidance (hitta)
7: To be happy/free (vague, sorry), avoid being trapped (by inner pain)
8: To be in control, avoid being controlled
9: To have balance, avoid being fragmented

Again, there is so much more to enneagram types than just the basic fixations, but that is them in a nutshell.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that 6 description doesn't fit me.

[strrrng]

I'm sorry to tell you, but that 6 description doesn't fit me.

It wasn't a description; it was one generalization summarizing the core fixation.

Stop trying to prove you're not a 6; no other type fits. If you understand the social styles, harmonic styles, object relations and core triads, it is clear that 6 is the best fit for you.

[Hitta]

It wasn't a description; it was one generalization summarizing the core fixation.

Stop trying to prove you're not a 6; no other type fits. If you understand the social styles, harmonic styles, object relations and core triads, it is clear that 6 is the best fit for you.

I'll be whatever you want me to be if the money is right.

[strrrng]

My typing for 7 was largely inspired by several descriptions I've read which seem to accurately reflect my frenetic mental state. That's really the best way I can describe the core motivation of my personality as I know it. If the enneagram doesn't describe my ego properly, then t.s.

Frenetic mental state, lol? That isn't a core motivation; it's called ADD.

Then I agree mostly with the 5 description, if I've interpreted it correctly. The 7 description is too vague... am I supposed to be aware of this internal pain, what does it constitute? Aren't we all running from or covering up something? How much do I need to be doing this to consider my self a 7? I feel a slight need to be secure I guess, I like having a constant supply of money to spend, I like being correct. I don't really care about being secure in social situations, with friends or any of that, and more often than not I even aggravate matters accidently and don't care. I've never been loyal to anyone or any kind of institution nor would I want to be, and I think something like that would limit my freedom. The idea that someone should I need someone to look up to in what I do and how I think sounds ridiculous, and diminishes me as a person. I don't identify with the phobic thing except maybe in some social situations where it'd be nice for someone to like me.

But if you have a full argument for why you think I'm a six, based on your observations, start a new thread about it. I'll check back on it as soon as possible.

Just read the wisdom of the enneagram lol. I'm not starting a thread, although I am 100% certain that you are not a 7. One very salient thing that comes to mind regarding this issue is your propensity for attaching yourself to "experts" and validated sources - something you did repeatedly in the Fe thread a while back.

[Nexus]

It's hard to sum it up, but here's what I've got...

1: To be right/good, avoid being corrupt
2: To be loved, avoid being rejected
3: To be admired, avoid being unseen
4: To find their identity, avoid being artificial
5: To be competent, avoid being overwhelmed
6: To be secure, avoid being without guidance (hitta)
7: To be happy/free (vague, sorry), avoid being trapped (by inner pain)
8: To be in control, avoid being controlled
9: To have balance, avoid being fragmented

Again, there is so much more to enneagram types than just the basic fixations, but that is them in a nutshell.

Thanks; you have confirmed my own self typing as an autopreserving E5 with a counterphobic E6 wing. The desire for security fits in well with the 'Guardian' temperament (XSXJ) in MBTT and the 'Well-Being' stimulus (ISXx) in socionics.

[aestrivex]

i think jxrtes is probably a 7. i also think that most of the ILEs that are routinely typed as socionix 6s are probably 7s.

[JuJu]

One very salient thing that comes to mind regarding this issue is your propensity for attaching yourself to "experts" and validated sources - something you did repeatedly in the Fe thread a while back.

This is one thing that a lot of colleges grind into ppl... "Cite your sources" etc... In other words, this might not be a natural inclination on some ppl's part, rather learned behavior. (In this particular case, i don't know.)

[strrrng]

Thanks; you have confirmed my own self typing as an autopreserving E5 with a counterphobic E6 wing. The desire for security fits in well with the 'Guardian' temperament (XSXJ) in MBTT and the 'Well-Being' stimulus (ISXx) in socionics.

Yeah, I saw your video, and 5w6 makes sense. sp/sx probably.

i think jxrtes is probably a 7. i also think that most of the ILEs that are routinely typed as socionix 6s are probably 7s.

Do you even know him, or are you just basing that off of the fact that he is an ENTp?

BurntOrange (Ti) {6w7p so/sx}
Discojoe (Ti) {6w5cp ?sp/so?}
Eldanen (Ti) {6w7p so/sx}
hkkmr (Ti) {6w5p sp/so}
Steve (Ti) {6w5p so/sp}

Regardless of socionics type and instinct stacking, these all seem correct.

[strrrng]

This is one thing that a lot of colleges grind into ppl... "Cite your sources" etc... In other words, this might not be a natural inclination on some ppl's part, rather learned behavior. (In this particular case, i don't know.)

Nah lol, he was just referencing the "experts" at every given opportunity, as if he believed that it would make his argument infallible.

[Lotus]

Do you even know him, or are you just basing that off of the fact that he is an ENTp?

Niffweed also thinks IEIs can be sevens.

[UDP]

Fwiw, I think I may be retiring from my short lived posting history of verbal mish-mosh. I find this forum too oppressive. I don't like that I can't express certain aspects of myself or my personality because I know that someone will call me out on not being INFJ. For the record: Minde /= INFJ and "super nice, good-natured person" /= INFJ (i.e. Munenori who ended up being ISFP. Ha!). I'm too talented and have too much to offer the world than to limit myself to some idiots' preconceived stereotype of an INFJ or subscribe to some "INFJ ideal." Sadly, however, I do feel as though this forum and socionics is done a huge injustice because rather than pause to consider possible variations in a type or the affect of <gasp> personal individuality (yes, not everything can be explained to Socionics), you label the people from whom you would most benefit to learn, make them feel as if they are not being true to themselves (when in fact they are doing exactly that), and ultimately force them to leave. I understand that due to people's misconceptions of socionics, you do have to challenge self typings. But try to consider doing it in a manner that's more open and, perhaps, not immediately after only 2 comments have been made to cause "alarm" about the person's type. For all the well touted logical skills that NTs and Ts possess (another stereotype imo), a few on this forum consistently shun the evidence that they have a very limited range for each personality type and a rather bad interpretation of how the elements translate into real life. How many times has someone posted something in which everyone saw the same element/type/whatever and it turned out to be wrong?
Give me a break...



EDIT: Also, please leave ChristyB and Eunice alone. Fuckers.

For the record, there may be some disclarity about the Minde=/INFJ remark - she meant that Minde is not the only form an EII can take - it was not a comment about Minde being INFj or not. (I was unsure what she meant so I asked Ritella).


As for the general content of the message, it's something that I've felt for months now, so I agree with it very much.

a few on this forum consistently shun the evidence that they have a very limited range for each personality type and a rather bad interpretation of how the elements translate into real life. How many times has someone posted something in which everyone saw the same element/type/whatever and it turned out to be wrong?

mhm

Not only that, but "a few" seem very active in promoting their own opinions of the forum, as if it must be socionics facts.

And, there are still portions of "typing people by faction", as in, how they relate to you, how the favorably or unfavorably interact with you, and how they seem to support or refute your method of thinking. It's a bit like pretending you use political tactics as a means to justify socionical analysis.

As I said before, though, good job to the people who are trying to really understand things as best they can. They are many who seem to be doing that - at least, as per conversations I have here and there with some people. I'm very busy with things "irl", but when I do come here it seems even more of a reminder as to why I don't feel invested in the forums. I come here, as today, to see what some people are doing, a few relationships, and a few posts other people have asked me to look at - and I'll continue to do that.


I would suggest that the people who care actually make an analysis of what is actually going on in the forum, and just have open contributions to what is happening, so people can understand or voice their opinions. This may be already going on, but I don't know. There seems to be an increase in the number of complaints I hear about the forum, so perhaps people are ready to get more vocal about what they see as "bad socionics practice", and so on. Or even, good socionics practice. It might be helpful to try to create some active, upfront discussion about it, rather than little comments here and there (again, this may already be happening - I don't know enough about what's going on to say). If it is happening, or people are finding other means or avenues to talk about socionics, that's great.


PS: If people want to learn they can learn - my last bit of advice for anyone, especially someone new, reading this, is that you can listen to the advice of other people but ultimately it's up to you to figure out what's going on. "Critical thinking", perhaps. The best someone else can do for you is try to explain their grasp on "the system", which is actually their own personal system. Keep in mind that everyone, even the founder of socionics, and Jung, and everyone else, is just trying to make their own personal system - their own understanding of things, more and more aligned with reality. Only you can determine how much truth, how much reality, there is to anything - that's your responsibility, for better or worse.

[tcaudilllg]

It's hard to sum it up, but here's what I've got...

1: To be right/good, avoid being corrupt
2: To be loved, avoid being rejected
3: To be admired, avoid being unseen
4: To find their identity, avoid being artificial
5: To be competent, avoid being overwhelmed
6: To be secure, avoid being without guidance (hitta)
7: To be happy/free (vague, sorry), avoid being trapped (by inner pain)
8: To be in control, avoid being controlled
9: To have balance, avoid being fragmented

I'm all nine of those, depending on the situation. (although only 9 takes absolute precedence). Are these positions one enjoy being in or performing, or positions requisite for self-confidence? I'd say John McCain is a 1 all the way. (and let me point out, I've correlated positions of confidence for several of those directly to inter-aspect relation patterns: corrupt types; pure types; just types; unjust types, etc.)

[aestrivex]

Do you even know him, or are you just basing that off of the fact that he is an ENTp?

i have interacted with him a bit. not a lot.

Regardless of socionics type and instinct stacking, these all seem correct.

other than discojoe, a non-ILE, i would dispute all of them except eldanen, who i don't know.

Niffweed also thinks IEIs can be sevens.

ashton and allie think ESIs can be sevens. srsly.

[Gilly]

It wasn't a description; it was one generalization summarizing the core fixation.

Stop trying to prove you're not a 6; no other type fits. If you understand the social styles, harmonic styles, object relations and core triads, it is clear that 6 is the best fit for you.

I don't think hitta is a 6. 4>6, IMO, but 5w4 might not be an awful typing.

[strrrng]

No idiot, a frenetic mental state where I attach myself temporarily to an external object like a theory and explore all its with my entire being. Achieving this external form of gratification is my core motivation in life. A high energy mental state where I'm focussed on exploring all external possibilities.

blah blah, just some more jargon from the noble alpha NT to convince himself he's a 7. You realize what you just described is what 6's do, you stupid fucking cunt whore lol. Attaching yourself to something and exploring it entirely? Jesus christ, you're stupid. And the last sentence was merely Ne. Thanks for doing my work for me.

This is bullshit. Your typing people by extremely superficial characteristics. Everyone cites sources. But no where did I cite them as ultimate prima facie truths. The few times I did cite them was to tell Ashton to read them so he can stop being an idiot.

Yeah, convince yourself of whatever you want

Should make up my own bullshit theories so I wouldn't be considered a 6 then?

I may not be a 7, but it's still a likelier typing than 6.

And I still haven't heard any arguments why you thought I might be a six.

I never said I was going to make an argument. I briefly considered making a thread, but I only do so for people whom I care about or view as worthwhile in this type of situation. You simply don't match that criteria. Now be a good little 6 and go attach yourself to some more ideas

He knows more about me than you probably do dipshit.

Talk about reactive harmonic style. Do you even know what that is, lol? I doubt it. And yeah, attach yourself to niffweed - make him your trusted source - since he agrees with your position. lol indeed at you.

[Expat]

A lot of people seem to be typed as 6 these days, and to resent it.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

A lot of people seem to be typed as 6 these days, and to resent it.

It seems to me that a 6 is an enneagram type that you can call someone and come up with any reason to fit it, even if the person doesn't agree, cause end of day you can just say to them "you are acting out of fear but you don't know it" which could be a way of neutralising anything they have to say, and simply forcing the type on them.

[strrrng]

I don't think hitta is a 6. 4>6, IMO, but 5w4 might not be an awful typing.

Hitta is not a 4 lol. His bullshit about feeling like he's here to do something amazing reeks of 6'ness. A 4 would never be so overt about their uniqueness; their fantasy self is internal, and they want other people to come to them. Hitta, however, uses any opportunity he can get to profess some philosophical idea he has deemed satisfactory that day, tell us how gulenko's system is right, or, of course, talk about how he is here to do something great. It's like the noble 6 wants to fill the role he was destined for. A 4 would never consign themselves to any "role"; everything with them is based internally. Also, withdrawn social style makes no sense; hitta is quite interactive and amiable in stickam. I believe his social behavior alone is enough to nullify the possibility of him being a 5. Look at someone like blackadder or marianorajoy; they just have that detachment about them that hitta does not. Reactive harmonic style makes a lot of sense IMO and attachment object relations works better than frustration (i.e. his belief that Gulenko's system is the ultimate socionics truth).

[strrrng]

It seems to me that a 6 is an enneagram type that you can call someone and come up with any reason to fit it, even if the person doesn't agree, cause end of day you can just say to them "you are acting out of fear but you don't know it" which could be a way of neutralising anything they have to say, and simply forcing the type on them.

I agree.