Your typing of forum members

[Bertrand]

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

you are so Se Fe its ridiculous, its like you don't even realize there's a deeper layer and you think comments like this are "where its at." anyway grats on scoring imaginary points I'm sure one day that will all come together for you

[ouronis]

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.

From what I've read, psych types is a lot worse than other jung books.

[Skepsis]

<3 confirmation biases <3 Best thread evah....

<3 <3 <3

[Chthonic Daydream]

This is the reason why this forum can't have nice things (or any more active members, for that matter).

[at sirac son of sirac]

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.

This is how I feel about saving money, sometimes I wonder if it's better to be broke because then the pain/profit ratio is in favor of getting out of bed and working Still, I would not like to put this theory to the test lol, I'll keep my meagre savings

[The Reality Denialist]

This would be the Jung quote:

Attachment 12648

You can find all Jung's type description here:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

It is not easy to read for eyes so I imported it into typora markdown editor which formatted it more readable html form (CSS magic).
You can download it here (just unzip the file and open it with your browser):
types.md.zip

[Sol]

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 improves understanding. That were more primitive relations.

[Chae]

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

I don't think it's stupid and find it premature to judge it as such on the surface, full offense intended. Of course people desire to have an ideal relationship, they want to match well because it makes them happy. It's a fundamental human drive and not hard to get, brains love comfortable lies. I understand that you'd pick the illusion of harmony and an unlikely/seldom dual constellation over accurately typed, less ideal ITRs anytime because it gives you a good feeling about yourself and your partner. It's done to counter cognitive dissonance. The mere thought that the two of you are not meant to be or technically don't work out spreads in the mind once you give it fertile ground of doubt which is always there in any relationship. People likely know how prone to self-fulfilling prophecies they are subconsciously and compensate. It's a move of anxiety. Which is natural, so I'd be surprised if people would not do this. How did you yourself type your S/O?

[ooo]

@Chae I'm quite amazed by how cute you are in the new pic tbh (is it you?! ) but I'm even a bit disappointed 'cause I thought you'd look like a korean meme boy, I'll deal with that though~

[Chthonic Daydream]

Chae is a cutie no matter their avatar, though.

[darya]

I don't think it's stupid and find it premature to judge it as such on the surface, full offense intended. Of course people desire to have an ideal relationship, they want to match well because it makes them happy. It's a fundamental human drive and not hard to get, brains love comfortable lies. I understand that you'd pick the illusion of harmony and an unlikely/seldom dual constellation over accurately typed, less ideal ITRs anytime because it gives you a good feeling about yourself and your partner. It's done to counter cognitive dissonance. The mere thought that the two of you are not meant to be or technically don't work out spreads in the mind once you give it fertile ground of doubt which is always there in any relationship. People likely know how prone to self-fulfilling prophecies they are subconsciously and compensate. It's a move of anxiety. Which is natural, so I'd be surprised if people would not do this. How did you type your S/O?

I get where it comes from, but I still think it's dumb or at least delusional, sorry not sorry. Having an ideal relationship has little to do with socionics imo. The latter is up for debate and you're allowed to disagree, but you have to admit first typing as LSE and your SO EII and then figuring out you're actually EIE and your SO thus must be LSI when you're looking at the same damn person for the whole time is delusional. The only other option is that you have no idea about how types look like and should not be trusted with typing anyone. The same goes for people who type themselves ESE and very suspiciously type their besties ILE , LII and SEI and then change their type to IEE and suddenly their friends conveniently change to EII, LSE and SLI. Unless you're a newbie to socionics, that's just stupid.

I type my SO by IE's I think he uses, and still think he's as close to ideal for me as it can get, even though I don't type him my dual. Maybe if I was a teenager without experience I could actually buy this, but doubt it. In fact - to the contrary, I believe that if you're really romantic, you believe that love and connection are magical and above math formulas such as socionics ITR's.

[squark]

I learned long ago that trying to fix other people's faulty perception of me is a losing game.

This is very true. You can tell people who you are, show them, but if they want to see you in a certain light, that is how they will see you.

On the forums, if you are well liked, you can type as anything you wish, no matter how ridiculous and people will agree with your typing. But, if you upset someone or disagree with them, then they will insist on typing you something else. In one person's typing thread, most of those backing up the girl's self-typing were guys who mentioned finding her attractive. A clear bias is evident, wishing to please her because of their attraction. On the other hand, my disagreement with a few people on the forum means to them that I must be SLI even though I have never shown even the smallest indication of being Si lead. There's no actual basis for many typings, they are justified after the fact. The reasoning goes: I like you --> I will agree with you, and find reasons to agree with you -or- I dislike you/you upset me/you disagreed with something I said --> I will find reasons to retype you.

People can present how they wish, and emphasize things that may or may not be real qualities of theirs in order to get a consensus from others on their type. It's easy enough to play up stereotypes, focus on certain words and phrases, present an image and be put into any box you want to play the part of. A lot of people quite successfully do this. I've known of people who under different accounts have achieved almost complete consensus on their types, as very different types. I won't say who this is lol, but it goes to show how easy it is to manipulate perception, and this can be inadvertent as well, it's not always on purpose.

The only benefit to having a consensus on one's type in my opinion is that it gives you somewhat more authority in speaking about that type, its functions and strengths/weaknesses. But, when you look at so many different things that are used and manipulated to justify completely different types, the value of typing itself is called into question. The only thing I'm the least bit interested in is how people think, how people perceive reality in different ways, and there's real evidence that we don't all see the same world, and we process in different ways. . . but typing ourselves and each other in these rather superficial ways gets nobody any closer to understanding what those actual differences are. And to assume that thinking differently immediately implies that you must conflict also does no good. Why do you see the world the way you do? Why do I see the world the way I do? What does that mean? I'm not sure many people here are even interested in these questions.

I've taken a break from socionics, and after more than a decade of waxing and waning interest and enthusiasm, I'm now having trouble finding any value in it at all. I see people using it to label and categorize and divide people, and the whole nation right now is so fractured that seeing even more of this disgusts me. The amount of hate people are carrying with them over stupid stupid things is ridiculous. Divisions over things like race and gender, the tension is so strong right now - the old adage of seeing not the color of someone's skin but the content of their heart is long forgotten. It kind of makes you think too -- you think of two people MLK Jr. and ******: both commonly typed as EIE (and I don't care about disagreements on this right now, whatever, they're common typings) with very different values, both charismatic, both leaders, both influential speakers but going in opposite directions, one pushing for harmony and peace, and the other for division and war, but both the same type. Which one has beta values? Well, around here on the forum these days only ****** is allowed to have "beta values" and MLK Jr. must be retyped as something else, probably IEE, when EIE has always in the past been the most common typing for him. Does anyone actually pay attention to what they're doing - how they are being carried along in these tides of bias and animosity, being pitted against each other?

Anyway, so I currently see typing itself when it is not used for understanding as detrimental, as a tool to tear people apart, to create friction, and as nothing more than a big cliquish game of popularity tag on the forum. And once a label has been slapped on someone, a whole slew of assumptions attached to that label get attached to that person as well. Most of them completely inaccurate. There's just so much garbage to wade through, and so many pretending to be experts lol, which okay, it's amusing, but really not adding any value.

All that said, I find it interesting to see people's genuine perceptions (not based on battletyping nonsense) regardless of what type they think I am. I think we're all at least somewhat interested in how we appear through other people's eyes just out of pure curiosity if nothing else. The fact that possibly more people type you LSI right now than they do me actually kind of tickles me, even though these are battletypings, the justifications are nonetheless interesting. It puts the entire forum in a comedic light to realize that there are a number of people actually serious in these suggestions. It demonstrates quite well how much it becomes some kind of social game being played. The explanations and justifications aren't real, they're a narrative, a story to believe in and tell each other, to write themselves and others into the parts they want, and cast the others into the roles of villains. Those who need most to believe, need most to have a part recognized will be the strongest forces for insisting on a person's type, and most upset by not having their type recognized. It may be part of developing an identity, finding one's place, idk, I think most people grow out of it eventually.

[Chae]

I get where it comes from, but I still think it's dumb or at least delusional, sorry not sorry. Having an ideal relationship has little to do with socionics imo. The latter is up for debate and you're allowed to disagree, but you have to admit first typing as LSE and your SO EII and then figuring out you're actually EIE and your SO thus must be LSI when you're looking at the same damn person for the whole time is delusional. The only other option is that you have no idea about how types look like and should not be trusted with typing anyone. The same goes for people who type themselves ESE and very suspiciously type their besties ILE , LII and SEI and then change their type to IEE and suddenly their friends conveniently change to EII, LSE and SLI. Unless you're a newbie to socionics, that's just stupid.

I type my SO by IE's I think he uses, and still think he's as close to ideal for me as it can get, even though I don't type him my dual. Maybe if I was a teenager without experience I could actually buy this, but doubt it. In fact - to the contrary, I believe that if you're really romantic, you believe that love and connection are magical and above math formulas such as socionics ITR's.

Not the point Have mercy on them, we've all been there. Of course such typings are convenient, for the reasons I elaborated. So you gotta deal with it and teach instead of just dismissing it with claims of stupidity which doesn't help whatsoever. Calling them dumb won't move us nowhere near making people type themselves correctly. Contra-growth mentality. It's obvious that when this pattern shows up in someone's typing they need improvement and you have to second-guess the types, that's a given.

Note how you contradict yourself and demonstrate exactly what I called the comfortable lie: "Having an ideal relationship has little to do with socionics imo." "I type my SO by IE's I think he uses*, still think he's as close to ideal for me as it can get". I see how it is now You didn't dare to state his typing because you know you fell into the precise trap that you critique and can't cope - so you blame others. Only thing I know, be careful there and make sense of your personal ITRs first before going after others when they make a mistake because they want a good relationship. Surprise surprise, just like you. You ain't different from the people you call dumb and delusional, embrace it or continue blocking people from improving their skills.

*duhhhh!

[Chae]

@Chae I'm quite amazed by how cute you are in the new pic tbh (is it you?! ) but I'm even a bit disappointed 'cause I thought you'd look like a korean meme boy, I'll deal with that though~

Chae is a cutie no matter their avatar, though.

~<3 Thank you! Yes, it's moi Ah, well I usually use Jungkook from BTS with his funny faces, credits to him not me in this case.

[ooo]

silke, you nailed it. this part of the forum reminds me of the ancient roman gladiators, it's quite amusing to notice the ones who supposedly should value Si/Fi/Te/myass/whatnot are always in the front line when it's about establishing who's the better gladiator of the forum

[at sirac son of sirac]

I'm surprised because I'm almost excited about this socionics. For a while I was thinking there's nothing to it, but recently a lot of it is starting to make sense. People, past relations, and me. Typing too. I don't type, or battle type, if battle type means you type someone you don't like as another type. Those who do, or see it like that, are in it for the ego.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Call no man ESE until he is dead.

[dormeur]

I think that typing ourselves could be very helpful to improve our skills and relations with others. We know then how it works and why (or why not works ). Sometimes I'm relly surprised, that some people talking about types other people behind their neck, cause they are bored and don't do that with good feelings, but only through their subjectivity emotions about like/dislike that person (and it isn’t connected with socionics at all).

[at sirac son of sirac]

@domr is probably EIE.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I don't kiss ass so no I am not an EIE.

that's your victim/aggressor side coming out.

No fun for cute little caregiver/infantile.

[at sirac son of sirac]

yes because of ignoring + demonstrative

I already encountered you, and addressed this to you http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1255512

In the thread we're in just now, you've gave some weird 'J' type ethical judgements, continue to show down valued Fi and poor intuition (Ne), instead preferring to explain your weird behavior and victim fantasies as using non valued functions (ignoring, demonstrative).

If it walks, talks, looks like a duck, it's because it's a duck, not because of 'demonstrative ignoring' which is really a Ti structural approach.

Of course now you're using your ignoring, your demonstrative, and your PoLR, such a strange IEE.

[at sirac son of sirac]

You are completely correct. I do not speak your language and it's damn near impossible for me to read your writing. So I'm pretty sure you aren't Delta.



This is an Fi judgement.

Na, it's not an Fi judgement, Fi is expressed in ways such as love, affection, morality, closeness. What you expressed was a judgement based on objective norms (Fe) without looking further - Fi is something like, 'try walking in my shoes', without the full picture of what's occured, you're in no position to describe someone especially with such vulgarity. Delta ST expressing emotions and sentiments are handled with more tact (Fi).

I would recommend for you a typing thread, preferably post a video, or at least some photos, but the indicators are that you are not IEE.

[at sirac son of sirac]

My rational was that he was a dick because he showed a lack of consideration for the other person. That other person expressed how they completely rescheduled their day for the plans and the instead valuing their effort, he viewed it as guilt tripping. He was proud of being inconsiderate and defined that as being Fi-whipped. Really disgusting and shows a huge lack of character. This was my rational behind why his decision was immoral. Fi.

Fe would be, "Oh wow I made that person unhappy therefore I am bad because it's bad to make people unhappy." Much more shallow and simplistic.



This writing sample feels Ni.

It was written by an LII

introverted feeling (). Introverted feeling is love, affection, morality etc. ....., to have an object of affection, to like people

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm

Although it was written to distinguish ILI from LII, Fi is Fi. Of which you do not understand (not valued by you.)

[at sirac son of sirac]

That's a terrible description of Fi.

^ It's a terrible description if you don't value Fi - which is what I've been telling you all along, that you don't On this thread and the other one

Or maybe you're just going through a difficult patch? Make a video and hopefully we can get to the bottom of it.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I don't know. I could see that too, yes. But I still believe that UDP must've had a reason to do that, it's just that they didn't feel obligated to share it with an online forum, maybe.
Although when saying something like that, leaving the reason why you did such a thing aside isn't really a great choice either.

I wouldn't worry about it too much if you are, he's likely just came online for a while to project his own insecurities, letting off some steam in an Fe way, then fell back on his Ti valuing to redefine socionics from the established literature to fit his own requirement to be 'IEE'. It happens.

[Bertrand]

fwiw I feel like penny is beta and think its telling you two have instant rapport. posting to support domr: i think you are correct in your assessments of this entire dynamic as well as your definition of Fi. don't let these imposters poison your time here, people reading know what's up, even if they don't want to get bogged down in a controversy with these expansive betas

[at sirac son of sirac]

fwiw I feel like penny is beta and think its telling you two have instant rapport. posting to support domr: i think you are correct in your assessments of this entire dynamic as well as your definition of Fi. don't let these imposters poison your time here, people reading know what's up, even if they don't want to get bogged down in a controversy with these expansive betas

Haha nice try troll. I'm well aware penny is beta and I'm sure he'll recall I was the first if not one of the first to type him so. However I'm also aware he's a young man going through a difficult time and in a certain amount of at least emotional pain. If I can help or be kind to him in some fashion even in my clumsy way I will. You could try taking a leaf out of my book But I speak to you of caregiving and kindness (Si and Fi) things you've yet to understand, if ever.

[Bertrand]

you just gave the most Fe justification for siding with a person ever, while conviniently ignoring it cuts both ways because you have no idea what domr is going through; all in order to cast yourself in some kind of benevolent light while being an asshole. anyway carry on

[Chthonic Daydream]

`fwiw I feel like penny is beta and think its telling you two have instant rapport.`

As do a lot of people on this forum. Think the general consensus on me is Beta for now, but I beg to differ. I didn't came here to argue on anyone's behalf, these two can rip themselves to shreds over their type for all I care, as long as they keep me out of it. And they did, until you showed up, Bertrand. Also, that must be some deep-rooted Beta hate in there if you think that they are all tyrants who want to estabilish a dystopian government. I'm flattered, but not really.
@at sirac son of sirac Thanks for the kindness, really. But it's near-useless. I shouldn't have posted in this thread in the first place, if i knew that expressing my opinion on UDP's attitude would lead to me being called an 'imposter' and interpreted as piling up on domr.

No wonder this place is reffered to as being a dump even on the IEE page of the wikisocion site: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=IEE_domain

[Bertrand]

alright smell ya later

[Bertrand]

yeah he kind of reminds me of retsu77, not so much writing style but how he goes about things

[at sirac son of sirac]

I agree that was hella Fe and his use of the function is very poor too.
My guess is @at is ILE because of how argumentative he is, maybe SLE if he is Beta because they can sometimes be knowitalls as well.

I have used functions from established literature which you have rejected as 'nonesense' in favor of your self invented (Ti valuing) and wrong.

[Pallas]

@tela 5w6 9w1 2w1 Sp/So

This is her least favorite type because she is projecting

[at sirac son of sirac]

@Sol - most likely LSI. Defines himself as LSE, but frequently tests as introvert (LSI) which is a contradiction. Also confuses Ni mobilzing with Ni PoLR. Describes LSEs as unhurried, taking their time due to weak N. In reality, LSEs are known for being early and starting things early, because they are worried about their poor judgement of unfolding events (Ni PoLR). It's LSI with Ni mobilizing who are happy to wait for the right moment, for the signalling of their duals EIE creative Ni function. Could of course be LSE anyway, it's confusing why he'd be here for so long and be wrong, yet, it's also confusing why an LSE would be here for so long. Has a sort of static feel too him too, which is further evidence for what might be likely, LSI. Still, it's tentative because of his unusual status here, so, i'm keeping an open perspective regardless.

Video is required for a more definitive answer.

[Bertrand]

Ni polr doesn't mean you rush everywhere. its like saying Ti polr is you can't think in a detached logical manner. rather it is characterized by low res apprehension of that IE as well as resistance to putting loads on it. this is characterized more by swings that are insufficient in either possible way: could be too slow to move on some stuff and too fast on others. Ni isn't entirely about plans either, its about viewing the world's meaning at the level of perception in an introverted manner, which is a lot of seeing or not seeing what you want to see, as a way of limiting attention to possibilities in the world so as to move like an arrow through time toward your objective without being sidetracked. but its at the level of perception. LSEs can get tunnel vision but its a product of Ni weakness meaning they don't want to be tunnel visioned they just happen to fall into it. someone like LSI wants someone to focus them, LSE wants someone to expand for them possibilities. this concern for the outer situation could easily lead to "taking it easy" and its precisely how Ne "protects" Ni polr. in other words, an LSE who doesn't rush everywhere is doing it right. Ni polr doesn't mean you rush everywhere. its like saying Ti polr is you can't think in a detached logical manner. to characterize LSE in that way is to assume the worst about them. its like saying all IEEs must be idiots. its a low res Ne picture itself

[FDG]

Video is required for a more definitive answer.

I loled.

[The Reality Denialist]

In case I make a video I'm going to wear non-anti-reflective glasses in it.

[Chae]

In case I make a video I'm going to wear non-anti-reflective glasses in it.

Non-anti is double negative so you wear super sparkly ones that will conceal you?



(This gif is so funny what do I do xD)

I would try a double charade. Like this

[The Reality Denialist]

Non-anti is double negative so you wear super sparkly ones that will conceal you?

That is double positive.

[Chae]

That is double positive.

Then good luck