My (short lived) observations on this forum make me think:
Sol - SLI
hotelambush - LII
Bertrand - leaning EII?
Penny Dreadful - leaning slightly IEI, though EII is not impossible
Niffer - SXE
Olimpia - sometimes i think EIE, definite Beta
Chae - ESE
Subteigh - EII
Aylen - IEI
idontgiveaf IEE
S L I
L
I
C
When I studed in uni, I prefered one scheme to prepare to exams. In general, there were 3 days to prepare. The 1st 2 days I read written on lectures (they were dictated to us) and practics. The questions were shared on 2 equal parts. I started at morning - ~10:00 and tried to finish at ~22:00. This period of time had a break to eat ~1 hour. I tried to fit the understanding and making the remarks for every question to same limit time (~15 min), which was time period/number of the questions. On the 3rd day I read it all again, tried to remember and to answer like I'm on exam.Originally Posted by BFGDoomer
This was the most effective way for me. Stable and monotonous preparation during several days. It's J style.
People of P types I knew prefered to prepare in the last day + night. This style overloaded me too much and I got worse results - I tried seems a single time, have gotten lower mark and felt myself very tired.
I can't be P type. And dichotomy tests always gave me well expressed all, except E/I.
That my type is extraverted was not clear for me. I could to understand this only after using IR theory.
Often people think that LSI is my type. My arguments were not effective for them.
Mb they suppose LSE should express lesser of Fe jokes or mb to have lesser sympathy to USSR. Such secondary things. I got strong influence of LSI father + ESE mother. May to have lesser accentuated type than books describe. Non-types factors could predispose me some shift the behavior to what reminds them more LSI than LSE. Seems they do not notice my higher interest to Si region and that I'm lesser reserved, quiet or shy than LSI should be.
I know you're not into subtype, but I think thinking base thinking subtypes really start to blend together in the eyes of other types... strong rationality and logic kind of does share similarities that if you're not keen on the difference between Te and Ti it all starts to just look like the same rigid structure. at least N thinking types have quirks due to their imaginative nature, whereas sensing really converges on the same world further bringing those types together
i would say if you want to make convincing arguments to the naysayers maybe center on the differences between Se and Si creative, since if they are bad at logic at least some should distinguish sensing better
To type without video is not good and between close types is easier to mistake.
If to use subtypes, I could be related to LSE-Si.
It's doubtful to find arguments that may change this. I said that did not care about money and future for many years - hence Se and Ni are unvalued. That came on 1st date by own decision with a cake and jasmin tea - hence Si valued [the wish to care about friends by ego is common]. I prefer to type by Ne for own entertainment for years - hence Ne valued. I use for typing also IR and hence my examples lists would had many regular mistakes like EIE->EII.
This would be more meaningful for LSE version, than what I saw as arguments for LSI. While the most seems leans to this.
you are hyper rational bro and a lot of your self esteem seems to rely on being right about Ne topics. perhaps in real life you are different, but here people only see your online persona. base/creative subtype theory is weak, so its not my hill to die on, but i'm just sayin' that's one way to look at it, and i think it illustrates how LSE and LSI can appear similar under the circumstances. you are right, videos would go a long way in demonstrating differences, but that's a subset of sensing content so its sort of in keeping with what I suggested
I think it's mostly because they don't distinguish well between Te and Ti, or between Se and Si. Perhaps they are using some obscure or non-standard way of defining the elements, dunno.Often people think that LSI is my type. My arguments were not effective for them.
Mb they suppose LSE should express lesser of Fe jokes or mb to have lesser sympathy to USSR. Such secondary things. I got strong influence of LSI father + ESE mother. May to have lesser accentuated type than books describe. Non-types factors could predispose me some shift the behavior to what reminds them more LSI than LSE. Seems they do not notice my higher interest to Si region and that I'm lesser reserved, quiet or shy than LSI should be.
I also do that
Good to hear.
You are N type and type not so much and long like me. For LSI to do this for entertainment, having Ne as unvalued - it's much more doubtful.
you make it sound so difficult...
Te, objective external world
Ti, introverted logic
Se, extrovert stimuli
Si, introverted states
if one doesn't follow such parameters it's because they're not in a supposed type, not because the parameters are smth else
"introverted logic" is only a term for Ti
Te is about objective traits of objects
Ti is about links between those traits and objects
I'm obviously keeping it simple, Sol. Every function can have infinite shades but they stem from recognizing what the core is."introverted logic" is only a term for Ti
Te is about objective traits of objects
Ti is about links between those traits and objects
Te is not really "objective traits of objects", that's Se. (Te= external dynamics of objects; Se= external static of objects).
The objective world Te submits to is really in its approach, like in fulfilling one's deeds. "I have to do what is requested that I do". This is Te.
Ti is instead the ability to think for oneself, it needs the external link obviously, either by Se or Ne. But it still elaborates what to give out by its own elaboration. It's even called external static fields, in that it evaluates the outside in function of one's own logic.
Not sure how I made it sound difficult. A lot of people don't know the basics.
Sol has Ti defined correctly within socionics theory in the previous post btw. All the introverted elements in socionics theory are about connections between things. The reason Ti is called introverted logic is because it's the objective links, vs introverted feeling which are the subjective links. If you're going by basic element definitions within socionics that is, and a lot of people don't do this. Te is dynamic, and it's about HOW to do something - the actions and steps taken. Both extroverted (object oriented) and dynamic. Ti is field oriented (connections between objects) and static. What they have in common is that they are both objective(thinking and sensing are objective) rather than subjective (feeling, intuition)
It is foolish to think that P/J makes a difference in preparations for examinations.
If you study math – you wont need it really. The most important thing is practice.
If you study biochemistry (may God have mercy on your soul due to redundant memorization) that is also about (self directed) practice and preparations or photographic memory.
etc.
I can seize the time although it won't replace preparations. That means less structured approach with background work.
The key is to know yourself and then plan it again by knowing what kind of structure you can handle while thinking about weaknesses and strengths while also thinking about the topic. It is not too hard.
That said I never made actual schedule. I just took the estimates time gave me and adjusted myself almost automatically.
That actually has lots of background. It really is quite irrational stuff.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
See this right here? As long as there are people typing me Beta on this forum, my dreams will live on. Muahahah
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Penny seems extroverted to me
Certainly possible. Would still slightly lean towards EIE.
And this fits to what Jung said about Ti. Any links between known facts - it's what happens inside of a subject's mind, but not what is seen directly in the objective reality.
For example, we see a unique object, - we understand that it has objective traits (Te) like it's round, has specific color and smell and then we relate it to a category "apples" by Ti.
The planning of any work relates to J/P, except preparation to an exam. To understand such transcendental wisdom polr T is needed.
Last edited by Sol; 04-10-2018 at 10:43 AM.
@Sol goes MBTI
It was about moving oneself away from predispositions. Furthermore plan has time component and therefore it may include irrational not foreseen elements (LSI is usually bit OCD-ish about it btw) because gauging complete control is an impossibility and very good approximation at best. So put glasses in front of your frontal lobe. Your vision is shortsighted.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Socionics books and dichotomy tests use _same_ direct description for J/P (rational/irrational) trait.
That you still did not notice this reality - points on your weak T. While emotional pictures instead of reasonable argumentation - to your F type.
Also Jung used both terms for types, where rational types (which have rational function as leading) were called him as judging types, and irrational as perceiving.
Instead of blindly studing of the heretic sources, know the original materials and sources to then make correct conclusions. Though this approach is more common for T types.
Your sources seems were much under MBT texts influences, which write any bs to assert than Socionics is using other types than they, and hence Jung, and hence no one knows what those crazy Russians do there to pay them attention - just bring money to us and ignore that we say bs about functional model of introverted types, using worse functions descriptions and still using primitive MBTI based on 4 preferences as main typing way, seems due to hard practical issues of using wrong or bad understanding of 8 functions and functional models.
I suspect there should be Talanov's texts where he studed by his test the correlation of functions with dichotomies descriptions, mb also separately for E and I types. I suppose that would gave you the final argument.
O N L I N E
P E R S O N A
The same goes for you, Doomerboye.
Anyway, I'm flattered knowing people actually see me assertive enough like an EJ.
But I'm also offended.
Too much of an inexpressive pansy irl to have 4D valued Fe and 1D Si.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
EIE how bow dah
Call me little Oprah.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
@notsilke
Well sorry, I guess I didn’t like the call to an obscure theory as a justification for someone else's opinion. It’s really simple to me, I’d say Ti is analysis and Te is work.
We can use “objects”, “fields”, “dynamic”, “cyclothimic”, dichotomical”, “telotaktical” and what not, but in the end, at least for me, they create more confusion than good. A Ti type is the stereotypical definition of “thinker”, whereas a Te is stereotypical definition of an "executive".
But now comes the tricky part, because we can’t type people based on stereotypes, we have to type them based on functions. Someone may behave like a thinker, but not use Ti, and someone else can behave like a humanist and use Te. Stereotypes are not what define the type, they’re just the most probable expression of the function, the recommended one.
The other tricky part is that we’re talking of two T functions, so they have more in common than what is different, and even the fields that they can occupy for best expressing themselves can be really similar.
Te is not objective in what it evaluates, that’s Se. Te is objective in that it responds to stimuli based on what it’s objectively proper. That’s why it’s dynamic, and Se is static.
Ti is subjective instead because it’s introverted (all introverted functions are subjective), and even if it needs the outside material to work on (= external static fields), it still analyses it based on its own rational construction (=static).
It doesn’t “play” with the object (Te), but defines them based on what it knows (Ti).
Here you go, now it looks complicated.
lol shame on me, I meant @squark*
Last edited by ooo; 04-10-2018 at 11:20 PM.
On the forum, based on standard socionics definitions of the elements, Sol uses Te and Ne, and doesn't use much Ti. To type him LSI would entail using non-standard definitions of the elements. Many people don't use the basic definitions and invent their own, or don't use elements at all for typing and go off of feelings instead. I'm sure that some people may certainly feel like Sol is LSI, but evaluating his actual element usage doesn't support that at all. The SLI typing on the other hand makes much more sense than the LSI typing, and just based on the forum is about as likely as LSE for his type. We're missing information on his temperament though and he has to supply that information himself.
Edit: He also uses quite a bit of Fi. His video-typing method is Fi-Ne with some Te. There's no Ti in it.
Last edited by squark; 04-11-2018 at 12:11 AM.
do me lol
what kind of a request is that lol! right now I don't see any clues to disagree with your self-typing, but you need to post more. Sol's type is uncovering bc he writes so much about himself.
lol fwiw i agree with Sol being LSE too. he is just pig headed haha
I agree with @Sol being LSE. It seems obvious to me. His writing is a lot like the way I think but without Ni.
Oh well, to me he's just as LSI as it comes, exactly for the elements as they go by definition. with LSI you don't even need to call other functions to explain how he is: Ti already contains a vision to follow (not Ne), and Se evaluates things as they appear (not Fi). I can see elements of Ni and Fe for how he's attracted by the displays of proper feelings from others (Fe, not Fi), and the continuous reference to the mysterious N that moves his typings is actually Ni (inner vision). I'd even say his polr is definitely Ne because of how hard he is to new possibilities, and Fi can likely be his role. We all use role in a good amount, so Fi could be a good source for his evaluations/methods, rather than that coming from his DS, that is usually left untouched by most types. His demonstrative Si can as well be explained to support a resembling to SLI, but it's unconscious, he isn't really cool and aloof as Si types tend to be. Te ultimately looks more ignoring than base, the data he gathers is supposed to fit his theory, not gathered for the sake of it, or to respond to the external objective world in terms of efficiency. Te should ultimately be more knowledgeable and open to all kind of sources, especially in the subjects he favors or works in. You can see this side ignored everytime some socionics theory is brought up, he's close to all of them. He's even pretty ignorant in the very theory itself, while Te should be a source of material. If you use the Reinin dichotomies you can further see all the mismatches.
So yeah, if we go by the stereotype of arrogance, knowitall, autarchic LSEs, I agree Sol resembles that, but that doesn't make it his type.
I agree we're just speculating though because internet, lack of info, etc etc
ps, I'm sorry I know you're a LSI squark... I wouldn't want to be compared to him. I don't think he looks anything like you, but he doesn't even look anything like the LSEs I've seen in here. People really transcend types, aha
It is also worth considering just how well the very rigid dichotomous descriptions translate to text, especially the I/E split, although i recognize that there will be perceptual differentiation between the two.
Sometimes you are more emotional than me. More sentimental. Sometimes lesser strict logical, like to write something and at the end "I may be wrong". We have a difference. Abby reminds me in a style more, you are some softer. It's mb due to types or other.
Would be interesting to hear those personal anecdot examples.
Last edited by Sol; 04-11-2018 at 09:57 AM.
As I suspect you assume yourself as not "pig headed". Then taking into account IR, that base Fi are more polite than you, that you wrote alien perception and mistunderstanding of LSE there. It would be sequentially and reasonable for you to change the opinion about your type from ESI to what fits you much better.
Especially in case you as being "not pig headed "assumed your type as wrong ESI by following heresy like Reinin's bs, subtypes or other.
Neither IR, nor your personal traits fit to my holly ESI. You are weird and alien.
I wish you'd stop using terms like 'heresy' and 'propaganda' to describe ideas you simply disagree with.As I suspect you assume yourself as not "pig headed". Then taking into account IR, that base Fi are more polite than you, that you wrote alien perception and mistunderstanding of LSE there. It would be sequentially and reasonable for you to change the opinion about your type from ESI to what fits you much better.
Especially in case you as being "not pig headed "assumed your type as wrong ESI by following heresy like Reinin's bs, subtypes or other.
Neither IR, nor your personal traits fit to my holly ESI. You are weird and alien.
Its funny calm your se polrI wish you'd stop using terms like 'heresy' and 'propaganda' to describe ideas you simply disagree with.
Look at his video-typing thread. It's really not about how things appear at all. He asks people to consider how they feel about the people in the video, whether they feel like they could have good relations with the people they are seeing. This is Fi. He asks you to try to evaluate the kind of people you are looking at, their inner characteristics (Ne) not their outer visible characteristics (Se). He requires video, not still pictures for his evaluations and has a method that he requires to be followed (Te/Si) It's not a true system, there are no guidelines built into the system itself (Ti), it's based instead on his own intuitive impresssions and feelings of what types these people are (NeFi), and made objective only in that he uses these same people that he's evaluated to have other people evaluate themselves by. No Ti here and very little in his posts.
What inner vision? Vision connects things, pulls from past and stretches into the future. . . where is there any vision?I can see elements of Ni and Fe for how he's attracted by the displays of proper feelings from others (Fe, not Fi), and the continuous reference to the mysterious N that moves his typings is actually Ni (inner vision).
Where is the Ti? Who says that Te is open to ALL sources (they aren't, they find those that they find to be dependable instead.) And considerI'd even say his polr is definitely Ne because of how hard he is to new possibilities, Eh and Fi can likely be his role. We all use role in a good amount, so Fi could be a good source for his evaluations/methods, rather than that coming from his DS, that is usually left untouched by most types. His demonstrative Si can as well be explained to support a resembling to SLI, but it's unconscious, he isn't really cool and aloof as Si types tend to be. Te ultimately looks more ignoring than base, the data he gathers is supposed to fit his theory, not gathered for the sake of it, or to respond to the external objective world in terms of efficiency. Te should ultimately be more knowledgeable and open to all kind of sources, especially in the subjects he favors or works in. You can see this side ignored everytime some socionics theory is brought up, he's close to all of them. He's even pretty ignorant in the very theory itself, while Te should be a source of material. If you use the Reinin dichotomies you can further see all the mismatches.I think that explains Sol better than Ne polr would. The way Sol talks suggest he thinks that there are certain right ways of using socionics and typing, don't change them or add anything else.
Actually, I like Sol, and don't care if I'm compared to him or not. We probably are more similar than not if we're both enneagram 1s, we just aren't using the same elements.ps, I'm sorry I know you're a LSI squark... I wouldn't want to be compared to him. I don't think he looks anything like you, but he doesn't even look anything like the LSEs I've seen in here. People really transcend types, aha
I use them by other way. So your wishes are not appropriate, as I say the truth.
By the word heresy I say here it's something not related to classical Socionics.
While by propaganda - any public info stably pushed to your heads with an emotional escort. Propaganda itself is neutral term, it can push useful, good and correct things too. It's also can be not about politics, like some commercial advertising.
No u.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote