Your typing of forum members

[Bertrand]

People will talk about what they want and maybe it's good intellectualizing material or whatever but ftr I'm kinda over extended public discussions about my type and don't need to be 'defended' or whatever. I responded to sirac cuz I was on the bus and I get bored with tri-peaks solitaire.

yeah the peanut gallery doesn't interest me because I care what they think, its more the broader intellectual point the situation presents, because it represents a dynamic that plays out a lot irrespective of the particular players in this case

[ashlesha]

yeah the peanut gallery doesn't interest me because I care what they think, its more the broader intellectual point the situation presents, because it represents a dynamic that plays out a lot irrespective of the particular players in this case

Yeah, I get that. I've talked about people's types for the same reason.

[lavos]

He typed himself ESI so he can be duals with Joy when he lived with her because she typed herself LIE at the time, but she was SEE all along. His original typing was LSI.

I won't argue with that, but I assume you understand that he could be ESI regardless of what he typed himself as, right? In fact, that behavior of his might point to being ESI.

My opinion is based on witnessing him interact in real time, and seeing him supervise an SLE, have Activity with an ILI, etc (among other things).

[Sol]

I think Sol just expects the serious ethical consistency of EII over the more gregarious on-and-off as required sociality of ESI.

Both types are similar in F region behavior according to the theory. Lungs does not fit to base Fi. I communicated with both types.

[Raver]

I won't argue with that, but I assume you understand that he could be ESI regardless of what he typed himself as, right? In fact, that behavior of his might point to being ESI.

My opinion is based on witnessing him interact in real time, and seeing him supervise an SLE, have Activity with an ILI, etc (among other things).

Fair enough, I would not rule out the possibility of ESI completely.

[Bertrand]

Both types are similar in F region behavior according to the theory. Lungs does not fit to base Fi. I communicated with both types.

I feel like the chances are high this is wishful thinking because you don't want base Fi to be anything other than what you find immediately pleasing and un-challenging, which is precisely where Gulenko and Aushra part ways

G: "The long-term experience of monitoring dual relationships show that duality is not a panacea (the opposite of what Aushra thought). Although without any doubt, duality has a very great psychological condition, the question is how to work with it correctly."

Would you tell us about the modern ideas about duality and how it is different from Aushra's teaching and how our school understand that?

G: "First of all, duality, how it is described by Aushra as a recipe for happiness is ofcourse an exaggeration. The modern person is very hasty and wants to get the quick result and duality is a slow process. It's very difficult to understand your dual using only your mind and logic, however you can feel your dual."

allow your adherence to a pleasant orthodoxy to distort the truth, but you do so at your own peril

I think at the root of your orthodoxy is the rejection of every development that would complicate Aushra's simplistic myth, that duality is a panacea. all the developments since then that you reject can be traced to that source. it appears to me, what you allow in are only those things that don't threaten that sacred cow

i think inasmuch as those orthodox elements are still valid (undisturbed by subsequent developments) you have a good grasp on socionics, but this is one of those areas where your weaknesses are showing. I think if you ever want to overcome this you have to address this issue head on and not just dismiss whoever disagrees, whether it be forums posters or the theories of new socionists like Gulenko himself. until you can formulate a real reason for that rejection its just fear not knowledge, and the plain shortcomings of your typings as a result of that fear are what hurts your credibility. people notice these shortcomings even if they can't articulate the reasons for it, and its what creates conflict, not because everyone who disagrees with you is illogical or ignorant (although sometimes that is the case)

[Sol]

I feel like the chances are high this is wishful thinking

It's just reasonable thinking according to the theory and my experience.

[Raver]

From what I remember, he was self typed as ILE when he first came to the forum, then changed his self typing to ESI when he got with Joy.

Love can do that to people, man.

Haha! Yeah, I think you're right. He switched to LSI after they broke up if I remember correctly.

[Adam Strange]

From what I remember, he was self typed as ILE when he first came to the forum, then changed his self typing to ESI when he got with Joy.

Love can do that to people, man.

Love changes people into their conflictors? Very scary.

[darya]

He typed himself ESI so he can be duals with Joy when he lived with her because she typed herself LIE at the time

People retyping themselves or their SO to match duality must be the stupidest phenomenom in socionics community.

[FDG]

@ashlesha - At first I thought ESI, but now I'm realizing it's LSI. On a forum with above average intelligence, her Ti doesn't seem quite so apparent. What's lacking though for an Fi lead is her callousness in relations and a poor focus/ability in creating pleasant interactions. Further to this, as stated by her - frequently tests as ISTJ on MBTI, which is LSI in socionics.

Ftr, this is what socionics.com lists as "minus points" for ESI (ISFj):

"You often limit your contact only to people who you feel are useful and when working in a team you prefer to maintain your sense of individuality. You often try too hard to appear logical and consistent. You cope badly with ambiguous situations. In such cases it is difficult for you to maintain self-control and patience. You have difficulty seeing situation in its embryonic state. Your often stereotypical thinking does not help you to see the whole picture. You are impatient for people's disadvantages. "

[at sirac son of sirac]

Ftr, this is what socionics.com lists as "minus points" for ESI (ISFj):

"You often limit your contact only to people who you feel are useful and when working in a team you prefer to maintain your sense of individuality. You often try too hard to appear logical and consistent. You cope badly with ambiguous situations. In such cases it is difficult for you to maintain self-control and patience. You have difficulty seeing situation in its embryonic state. Your often stereotypical thinking does not help you to see the whole picture. You are impatient for people's disadvantages. "

I could write a lot about this, but instead i'll write a little. Previously, there was some 'discussion' (a word for argument) taking place, where it was said that ashlesha did not recognize bertrand as a troll, because she was one herself. It was further recognized that the people she disagrees with, for instance her 'dual' Adam Strange, are the people she's afraid of: they're more successful, capable, etc. than her.

At the time this was put down to, or rather, explained away, by being type 6.

But, it's not: it's aristocratic stance. It's Beta. She's mostly friends with people who she can feel superior to, could be their age, social status, and mostly frowns upon people with their own initiative, who have abilities and perceived (by her) as superior.

What's really going on is a Beta heirarchy, it's not type 6, and it's not ESI.

She dresses well, wears expensive clothes, to show she's "made it" (quote). Beta Fe/Ti/Se valuing.

There's plenty of quotes I could show you how she has no respect or real understanding of interactions (Fi). She may not like some people, sure, but that doesn't mean she has to relentlessly go after them, which she does with me, or attack things that are of personal importance to them (she does this too), except for seeing the world primarily through structure and not , which is factors such as love, affection, morality etc.

Edit: Just to say, I don't have anything against her. It's true, she's not my type of person, but many people aren't and they're still fine.

The choice here though, is, be an ESI and misrepresent the type, or be an LSI and appear to have less to offer. The first options chosen because it gives her more self perceived status, and it's already been established that status is important to her (by herself too, to be perceived as important) It's all Beta hierarchy stuff for her.

[ashlesha]

She may not like some people, sure, but that doesn't mean she has to relentlessly go after them, which she does with me.

I literally avoid you except in instances where you've addressed me. You're wacky.

Most of the rest of what you've said about me is bullshit too, and I haven't said anything that confirms it except for the thing about dressing well. Though you've taken even that out of context. But that's to be expected.

Just wanted to let you know you won't feel so victimized if you don't talk to or about me. Since if you look back you'll notice that I don't talk to you otherwise.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I literally avoid you except in instances where you've addressed me. You're wacky.

Most of the rest of what you've said about me is bullshit too, and I haven't said anything that confirms it except for the thing about dressing well. Though you've taken even that out of context. But that's to be expected.

Just wanted to let you know you won't feel so victimized if you don't talk to or about me. Since if you look back you'll notice that I don't talk to you otherwise.

I've had you on ignore from more or less since I joined, but, don't think it's not been noticed (not just by me) that whenever someone says something negative to me, you like the post, if I make a post in a thread which is off topic you ask for it to be moved (you don't ask when someone else does it).

Anyway, here's an example of your nonesense, addressed by you to me:

jesus Christ on a cracker. suck it. ooga booga

Let's say you have a problem with me, that's fine, but that sort of comment ^ would never be made as an 'insult' to me, at least publicly, by an Fi base, because with Fi in base position, it's aware of dealing with information on the basis of it's interaction - that's relationships, Fi.

Why wouldn't they say it?

They wouldn't because ... how many Christians are on this website? Quite a few, and probably some you would class as friends.

That's why you have a user such as @aster having politeness and diplomacy, because is aware of such things.

You just stomp about like an ST troll, oblivious to the nuances of Fi, but it's there as your role.

[ashlesha]

I've had you on ignore from more or less since I joined, but, don't think it's not been noticed (not just by me) that whenever someone says something negative to me, you like the post, if I make a post in a thread which is off topic you ask for it to be moved (you don't ask when someone else does it).

Liking posts is your idea of relentless attack? Lol, okay, you can definitely keep expecting that.

I can't believe you're alienating all these anti-religion atheists by the way. They could have been your friends.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Liking posts is your idea of relentless attack? Lol, okay, you can definitely keep expecting that.

I can't believe you're alienating all these anti-religion atheists by the way. They could have been your friends.

This is how LSI argues, pushy with a play of structural logic, ignoring the unpleasant facts and your lack of interpersonal ethics, instead focus on your strengths, logical manipulation and pushing for an argument with force.

As for anti-religious atheists, perhaps you mean you. Yet when I see shout box I see you talking about yoga, which is a religious activity: Hinduism and so forth, so, no.

[ashlesha]

This is how LSI argues, pushy with a play of structural logic, ignoring the unpleasant facts and your lack of interpersonal ethics, instead focus on your strengths, logical manipulation and pushing for an argument with force.

As for anti-religious atheists, perhaps you mean you. Yet when I see shout box I see you talking about yoga, which is a religious activity: Hinduism and so forth, so, no.

I was focusing on the terms of interaction between the two of us at the expense of logically deconstructing your arguments, lol. But I honestly kind of like being typed LSI, I'm 100% unbothered by that.

I learned long ago that trying to fix other people's faulty perception of me is a losing game. I'm not going to break down everything you've said.

[Chthonic Daydream]

@ashlesha If you're LSI, might as well come here and put that typing to good use and appease my Se DSness.
I've been a good boy.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I was focusing on the terms of interaction between the two of us at the expense of logically deconstructing your arguments, lol. But I honestly kind of like being typed LSI, I'm 100% unbothered by that.

I learned long ago that trying to fix other people's faulty perception of me is a losing game. I'm not going to break down everything you've said.

It's not a perception, i'm only providing quotes of things that you have said yourself, about yourself, or, things you have done.

There is the further problem of how you consistently test as ISTJ on MBTI. I say: If it acts as an LSI, shows devalued as an LSI, and tests as an ISTJ (LSI), then it's LSI.

[FDG]

I could write a lot about this, but instead i'll write a little. Previously, there was some 'discussion' (a word for argument) taking place, where it was said that ashlesha did not recognize bertrand as a troll, because she was one herself.

Bertrand and Ashlesha are identicals, so it's quite normal for them to defend each other.

Just like I never saw a problem with Adam's behavior (I still don't).

She dresses well, wears expensive clothes, to show she's "made it" (quote). Beta Fe/Ti/Se valuing.

Many SEEs do this too, whereas many EIEs can be pretty shabby or minimal (think Steve Jobs). More related to than anything else.

There's plenty of quotes I could show you how she has no respect or real understanding of interactions (Fi). She may not like some people, sure, but that doesn't mean she has to relentlessly go after them, which she does with me, or attack things that are of personal importance to them (she does this too)

It's quite typical ESI behavior. It's one of their biggest weaknesses - listed in that socionics.com minus point as "You are impatient for people's disadvantages.". In the LIE-ESI couple, it's actually the LIEs who are somewhat more emphatetic towards people's misdeeds.

, except for seeing the world primarily through structure and not , which is factors such as love, affection, morality etc.

Fi is love affection to those Fi likes. Just like Te types can be terribly lazy when there is no incentive (monetary or otherwise) for them to work hard.

In short: I think you have an idealized understanding of ESIs. They can be vicious, unethical, obsessively competitive and blind to their own weaknesses. It's something Jung wrote about in his Fi description - if you give me a couple of minutes, I will find it for you.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Bertrand and Ashlesha are identicals, so it's quite normal for them to defend each other.

Haha OK

[FDG]

Haha OK

I actually really believe that...(and I don't change my mind easily, and am quite confident in my typing abilities, so).

[ashlesha]

It's not a perception, i'm only providing quotes of things that you have said yourself, about yourself, or, things you have done.

No, you put forth a long post of conjecture based on cobbled together things mostly said by other people (including yourself lol, and people generalizing about e6 in conversations where I happened to be present) about how I'm only friends with people I feel superior to. I respect my friends and their abilities. But they know that.

[Bertrand]

me and lungs are actually the same person which is why you never see me in chat or us otherwise interact in real time

[FDG]

me and lungs are actually the same person which is why you never see me in chat or us otherwise interact in real time

But she seems smarter than you...

[FDG]

In short: I think you have an idealized understanding of ESIs. They can be vicious, unethical, obsessively competitive and blind to their own weaknesses. It's something Jung wrote about in his Fi description - if you give me a couple of minutes, I will find it for you.

This would be the Jung quote:

INTROVFEELING.jpg

[Chthonic Daydream]

me and lungs are actually the same person which is why you never see me in chat or us otherwise interact in real time

You just liked your own post. Such scum, tsk.

[at sirac son of sirac]

No, you put forth a long post of conjecture based on cobbled together things mostly said by other people (including yourself lol, and people generalizing about e6 in conversations where I happened to be present) about how I'm only friends with people I feel superior to. I respect my friends and their abilities. But they know that.

I quoted you:

What you said to me
What you said about yourself
What you said you type as (ISTJ).

And:
What you do (not really 'ignoring me', but liking posts which are negative towards me, this sorts of behavior.)
Others: Who have agreed in the past in regards to your behavior, attacking people who you perceive as a 'status threat', but it was explained as type 6. It's better described as Beta hierarchy, not democratic quadra.

[Bertrand]

It's better described as Beta heirarchy, democratic quadra.

aka delta

This would be the Jung quote:

INTROVFEELING.jpg

lol I guarantee you have no idea what's going on here. 10 bux if you can go back and explain what Jung is talking about beyond "lol introverted feeling types can be mean"

[ashlesha]

I quoted you:

What you said to me
What you said about yourself
What you said you type as (ISTJ).

And:
What you do (not really 'ignoring me', but liking posts which are negative towards me, sorts of behavior.)
Others: Who have agreed in the past in regards to your behavior, attacking people who you perceive as a 'status threat', but it was explained it by type 6. It's better described as Beta heirarchy, not democratic quadra.

As for what's not directly quoted - I get ISTJ in mbti tests, I buy name brand clothing, and I like posts that I agree with. That's all you've got out of the horses mouth. The rest is bullshit as far as I'm concerned, but I'm sure you can make leeway with the peanut gallery.

[FDG]

aka delta



lol I guarantee you have no idea what's going on here. 10 bux if you can go back and explain what Jung is talking about beyond "lol introverted feeling types can be mean"

I guarantee you that I understand Jung's points very well.

My guarantee vs your guarantee.

Ftr, I don't think Ashlesha shows that behavior, but it's a specific neurotic side of Fi which can creep out in specific situations, even during their standard behavior.

Since you're the judge for the 10 bucks, I have to decline.

[Adam Strange]

This would be the Jung quote:

INTROVFEELING.jpg

This is a great example of why I have never read Jung. @FDG, how on earth did you extract any information from that? You would be a genius at data-mining.

[at sirac son of sirac]

As for what's not correctly quoted - I get ISTJ in mbti tests, I buy name brand clothing, and I like posts that I agree with. That's all you've got out of the horses mouth. The rest is bullshit as far as I'm concerned, but I'm sure you can make leeway with the peanut gallery.

Oh I should a lot more than that and you know it!

[Bertrand]

I guarantee you that I understand Jung's points very well.

My guarantee vs your guarantee.

Ftr, I don't think Ashlesha shows that behavior, but it's a specific neurotic side of Fi which can creep out in specific situations, even during their standard behavior.

Since you're the judge for the 10 bucks, I have to decline.

yeah your guarantee v my guarantee, think about that for a second

[FDG]

This is a great example of why I have never read Jung. @FDG, how on earth did you extract any information from that? You would be a genius at data-mining.

Ahahh well I do find Jung unreadable except for his Chapter X of psychological types.

Btw I originally read it in german (OV), his writing is far more comprehensible there.

[FDG]

yeah your guarantee v my guarantee, think about that for a second

I'll go with mine

[at sirac son of sirac]

This is a great example of why I have never read Jung. @FDG, how on earth did you extract any information from that? You would be a genius at data-mining.

It's only one Chapter - Chapter 10

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

It's not that hard to read, even I managed it, and I wouldn't say theoretical reading is my strong point.

Socionics descriptions are better - the Ti Ne ones, but problems arise when people make the socionic descriptions grow arms and legs, eg Elon Musk is LIE because he 'invents things', which I've seen by experienced users.

But ... that is a different story, happy reading if you ever get round to it

[Adam Strange]

It's only one Chapter - Chapter 10

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

It's not that hard to read, even I managed it, and I wouldn't say theoretical reading is my strong point.

Socionics descriptions are better - the Ti Ne ones, but problems arise when people make the socionic descriptions grow arms and legs, eg Elon Musk is LIE because he 'invents things', which I've seen by experienced users.

But ... that is a different story, happy reading if you ever get round to it

Thanks, @at sirac son of sirac, but I doubt that I’ll spend the time reading Jung. The Pain/Reward ratio makes that an unprofitable activity.

[Bertrand]

I'll go with mine

I don't think you realize how foolish you look, quoting stuff you don't understand, making baseless assertions, relying on yourself as an authority. you lack self awareness to the extreme. its pretty obvious you get by on a kind of empty confidence but most people can see through it. you add literally no substance but try to cash in on some imaginary credibility and throw out judgements as if you had any, when you can't even contribute a single thing that isn't just an extension of your puffery in one way or another. anyway, just fyi, no one is fooled except perhaps people just as bad, which is why you and scarper just come across as a couple of knuckleheads who can relate only on the basis of their common disconnect with reality

Although in the normal type, the tendency, above alluded to, to overpower or coerce the object once openly and visibly with the thing secretly felt, rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads to a serious attempt in this direction, some trace of it, none the less, leaks through into the personal effect upon the object, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define.

Jung is talking here about Fi's "hidden (introverted) judgements" that normally do not "reach" the object, in the sense of Fe. in other words, he's saying they feel these sentiments but they don't express them--they don't convey them to the object. But he says that their lack of a visible reaction produces its own form of Fe. you could say he's talking about Fe subconsciously realized in its various forms

It is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds the immediate circle under a spell.

this is most obvious in demonstrative Fe when the Fi type is feeling something and bringing the entire group down (or otherwise being mysterious) by refusing to hide it, but neither coming right out and saying what's on their mind

It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

typical "cheer up!" and "smile!" (or worrying) behavior from extroverts in response to this kind of demonstrative Fe (by demonstrative I mean a byproduct of Fi ego, not necessarily Fe in the 8th slot, it could well be 7th for our purposes here)

This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny.

the extrovert when interpreting the influence the Fi has upon them treats it with its own conscious functions, in other words it projects. you could say they read intent into the effect it is having upon them, making a tyrant out of the other inasmuch as they feel controlled by this effect. alternatively Fi types who know they can pout, so to speak, and manipulate others can turn it into a tyranny. jung here is describing if a Fi type uses their Fi as if it were Fe intentionally (whereas Fe types are controlled by the field, it becomes tryrannical when Fi types manipulate the field as if they were a part of it when they're really not--i.e.: self centered). Fe types tend to assume its intentional

But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and [p. 495] petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty

jung is saying here that when you project in this way on Fi it comes across as ambition/vanity/tyranny. "regrettably distinguished" is saying how these women are villainized unfairly. standard scarlet letter type stuff. Fi types are tyrannical in this fashion only when they're not being true to themselves, so to speak, and letting their Fi be Fi. this can be accomplished by being unhealthy (this flows both ways, a hamlet is viewed as unhealthy on the basis of projections for the inverse reasons) but its also just attributed to them on the basis of projection. by this I mean hamlet is viewed with suspicion from say Dostoevsky and yesenin from Huxley, because its precisely the kind of stuff that if they were doing it it would be symptomatic of unhealth, which isn't to say that no one is ever unhealthy and its all projections, but you first have to understand projection to ever get to the ability to make a fair assessment on actual health, which is precisely the role of the psychotherapist. very few people can actually achieve this ability to see past their own projections and be of help to someone else for whom it doesn't come naturally. in the old days this was the qualification to be a good priest


anyway good job on conforming unwittingly to the dynamic Jung is pointing out here, in awesome ironic fashion as you try to present yourself as on top of it when you're a total unconscious slave to it

[FDG]

I don't think you realize how foolish you look, quoting stuff you don't understand, making baseless assertions, relying on yourself as an authority. you lack self awareness to the extreme. its pretty obvious you get by on a kind of empty confidence but most people can see through it. you add literally no substance but try to cash in on some imaginary credibility and throw out judgements as if you had any, when you can't even contribute a single thing that isn't just an extension of your puffery in one way or another. anyway, just fyi, no one is fooled except perhaps people just as bad, which is why you and scarper just come across as a couple of knuckleheads who can relate only on the basis of their common disconnect with reality

So my comment on your smarts hit home, I assume?