3 people that will never be typed

[Creepy-krae]

implied, gilligan, isha

Yep

[Wynch]

TRUTH. Seriously.

[Creepy-male]

So what do I do to get promoted to untypable mess status?

[Gilly]

So what do I do to get promoted to untypable mess status?

You're flagrantly SEI, just accept it.

[Gilly]

I have pretty well settled on Beta NF, I'm just too fucking bipolar to stick with one

Just watch: I'm about to start a new job, and I'll probably be dead sure that I'm 3w4 sx/so EIE within 2 weeks. I start school soon after that, so I will probably stick with that typing for about 2 months, then become thoroughly disenchanted with higher education and revert back to 4w3 sx/so IEI. I'll probably stick with that until the end of the winter. I tend to have an upswing in energy around March/April, so I'll probably swing back to EIE 3>4 then...rinse, recycle, repeat.

[Wynch]

So what do I do to get promoted to untypable mess status?

You aren't even close to the untypable calibre of Implied or Isha. It's like comparing a ghost to a cloud on a scale of insubstance.

[implied]

You aren't even close to the untypable calibre of Implied or Isha. It's like comparing a ghost to a cloud on a scale of insubstance.

absolutely.

[electric sheep]

I don't understand what's so difficult about settling on a type, but if the only way you can maintain a sense of self is to be without a type then go for it.

[Creepy-male]

That said, I think Ishy is very typable.

It's just that, in all her Niney glory, she's enough of a blank canvas for people to project things on. I'm probably guilty too

In Gilly's case, he's an EIE. Enough said. [Later thought: while I'm on an opinion-dispensing spree, actually, I don't think "enough said". It's just in my dealings with another EIE, she refused to be typed, basically. I see a similar pattern with Gilly. I think the other EIEs on the boards sidestep this issue by being less visible. "You think you know me?"]

As for implied, I think it's an issue with this community attempting to deal with the socionics types as personality types. In other words, when a weird mix (like implied, ann, or myself) pops up, there's a commotion.

My 2 pi.

Being a nerd != Ti ego/valuing.

[Jarno]

I don't understand what's so difficult about settling on a type, but if the only way you can maintain a sense of self is to be without a type then go for it.

hehe, yeah.

[Gilly]

o_O I don't think implied is really that unorthodox; the opposite, if anything. She's very 6ish in this sense.

[Gilly]

I'm thinking relative to the typical forum personalities.

OH, in that case then yes, certainly.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

Gilly and implied are both typed.

But if you're going to take some antisocion approach, then sure, I guess nobody is really typeable.

[Hitta]

I will never be typed.

[Logos]

hitta

It wasn't that challenging to type you.

[electric sheep]

hitta

It wasn't that challenging to type you.

too bad he said "I" couldn't be typed.

[electric sheep]

About implied we got a clue: she's a pack alpha female in Allie's subconscious. The chances of Allie posting in one thread grow proportionally with implied involvement in it.

I wonder if we could start collecting statistics like this? Would it show more trends?

[aestrivex]

what the shit is this. all three types are pretty obvious.

[Gilly]

what the shit is this. all three types are pretty obvious.

And what are they?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

About implied we got a clue: she's a pack alpha female in Allie's subconscious. The chances of Allie posting in one thread grow proportionally with implied involvement in it.

ahaha... clever

what the shit is this. all three types are pretty obvious.

Yes, in your myopic multiverse, they are.

[Gilly]

ahaha... clever

I know; it's not something I've noticed, but it seems entirely plausible. I'm almost enticed enough to investigate.

...But not quite.

[strrrng]

I know; it's not something I've noticed, but it seems entirely plausible. I'm almost enticed enough to investigate.

...But not quite.

It's called attachment object relations, babe.

[Gilly]

It's called attachment object relations

Yeah, but in this context I think 6 makes more sense for her than 3.

, babe.

FAG

lol

[strrrng]

Yeah, but in this context I think 6 makes more sense for her than 3.

Not Maria, fool.

FAG

lol

I'm feeling feisty.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Implied: Typical good-natured humanitarian woman that will end up marrying a professor/intellectual type of man. She's like the females in my family, and she feels like a sister to me.

Gilly: Spoiled mama's boy that has good social skills with his peers. Should get a job in a group home or something helping the loser outcasts feel better about theyself. Feels like a brother or kindred spirit.

Isha: One of those idealistic fat lesbian dykes that likes to tell other people what to do in academia setting. Thinks her problem is her self-esteem but really her problem is lack of empathy for others. (Sorry but I had to say it) Self-satisfied and has the potential to go very far in whatever career she chooses.

Okay, fine just to be fair, I'll do myself:

Sam: a good-natured slacker that understands people well but hates showing any effort. Rants and whines but is frequently his own worst enemy. Can manipulate people into taking care of him with gay man cuteness. Would benefit from a physical presence instead of just having a keen psychological insight, but that's a superpower hard to give up. I just really, really want to be understood- just like everybody else.

[Logos]

too bad he said "I" couldn't be typed.

Except that the letter "I" is present in the first word of my sentence.

You never typed you. You typed hitta.

See the last word of my statement.

People, people, people! I covered the contingencies in my statement.

[Khola aka Bee]

I should be added to this list.

[strrrng]

yeah, if 90% of the people in this community didn't agree you were SEI.

[Gilly]

Not Maria, fool.

...I'm talking about Allie.

[Gilly]

Gilly: Spoiled mama's boy that has good social skills with his peers. Should get a job in a group home or something helping the loser outcasts feel better about theyself. Feels like a brother or kindred spirit.

I really don't have great social skills in a lot of settings And ugh, there's that spoiled shit again...how many times do I have to tell people that I'm poor? And no, helping people feel better about themselves for a JOB would feel incredibly contrived to me; I can only do that when I genuinely care about someone and/or truly empathize with their plight.

Sam: a good-natured slacker that understands people well but hates showing any effort. Rants and whines but is frequently his own worst enemy. Can manipulate people into taking care of him with gay man cuteness. Would benefit from a physical presence instead of just having a keen psychological insight, but that's a superpower hard to give up. I just really, really want to be understood- just like everybody else.

So you're a 4, basically.

[strrrng]

...I'm talking about Allie.

Well then, I disagree. I don't see how, in this context, posting more prominently in threads that someone whom you identify with (i.e. 'maria is gamma lol') is involved in, is indicative of a 6 fixation; such a thing would have to be intellectually-based somehow, with an emphasis on the respective person's knowledge and/or authority, not the social status they offered through alliance. A 3 would be much more inclined to mold themselves around images portrayed in others to augment their own self-image, and thus would exhibit the sort of clique'ish exclusivity apparent in this, and other, situations.


You do not want to debate me on this topic, lol.

[Gilly]

Ok, I see what you're saying. I was looking at it more from the perspective of Allie seeing her as a "reliable Gamma," someone who could offer potential reinforcement, but in the whole context I suppose it makes most sense as a combination of 2 compliance and 3 attachment, considering the obvious image triad overtone.

[Gilly]

Yet, upon closer inspection of merely the wording, it is clear that the thing which is reliable, is the image itself -- gamma -- and thus, that any subsequent "reliable" individuals are mere byproducts of the construction, allied with (lol pun) in order to solidify it.

Right, this is the crux of it.

[Gilly]

I dunno though, I think the compliance is more obvious in that she was "sucked into" the idea of Gamma, that she saw it as a valid hierarchical structure within which she could obtain some kind of position, rather than a more 3w4 approach - mostly assertive combined with withdrawn and frustration - which would be to make her own "branch," start her own hierarchy, and build it based on what she saw as of utmost importance to her image, rather than molding it to fit an existing "rewards system."

[strrrng]

I dunno though, I think the compliance is more obvious in that she was "sucked into" the idea of Gamma, that she saw it as a valid hierarchical structure within which she could obtain some kind of position, rather than a more 3w4 approach - mostly assertive combined with withdrawn and frustration - which would be to make her own "branch," start her own hierarchy, and build it based on what she saw as of utmost importance to her image, rather than molding it to fit an existing "rewards system."

Yes, that makes good sense, actually. Obviously the 3 attitude brings with it an implicit sense of aristocratic relevance; but I have noticed that 2s in general do seem to view the social realm as a give-and-take governed set of rules and interpersonal values. Add that onto the relentless image seeking of 3, and it becomes pretty obvious. I also agree about the w4 thing. Aside from even just branching off into their own version, I think they would take a more indifferent stance towards it, to let people know that, despite the fact that they were completely in control of this image, it wasn't entirely 'them' -- up to their standards -- and that they could redesign themselves in any way. But this obviously wasn't the case here, as she exhibited nothing more than a frantic mouse-chasing-cheese search for the most pristine image possible.

[Creepy-male]

Can't I have poor self-esteem and a lack of empathy for others?

*points at self*

This forum ain't big enough for the two of us.

There is only ONE solution!

HUG FIGHT!

[strrrng]

Can't I have poor self-esteem and a lack of empathy for others?

No. That would be an easy way out for you. He's saying that you try to explain things away by the fact that you have low self-esteem, to avoid, whether wittingly or not, facing the more difficult reality, that it is due to your lack of empathy. Such a thing is better veiled in some temporary self-loathing, no? Believe me, I know all about that sort of thing A person with both would basically be an avoidant hermit who wasn't even interested enough to figure it out; a person with solely low self-esteem wouldn't be egocentric enough to concern themselves with entertaining the matter, but would reticently accept input from others, due to their ability for empathy. Now it should be clear that you lack empathy.

Also, I can be an fat lesbian dyke for extremely loose definitions of fat lesbian dyke, especially if they don't need to be lesbians or dykes.

That is true. Although, I would suspect that the fat, lesbian dykes are at least partially the perpetrators of these very 'loose definitions.' For, if there isn't something explicit and integral that defines a fat, lesbian dyke, then they can preserve their semblances of self-esteem, letting others go back and forth on what determines who they are, which inadvertently enhances their distorted self-esteem, and ultimately precludes them from finding a snug fit!

Therefore, it should be clear that you are in fact a fat, lesbian dyke

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request