I think LIE for himOriginally Posted by crAck
I think LIE for him
You are really stupidly fanatic if this is why you keep attacking Adam in a personal way... speaking of fanaticism, do you even have a type thoughmy opinion on adam is he's a dopey goofball who misrepresents the nature of socionics to anyone who will listen so I like to call him out every chance I get. inasmuch as it gives my life purpose you could say I love him
In all fairness, I started it. I shouldn’t have made that crack about his GF and alternate realities.
Truthfully, everyone should have someone.
Maybe there is an alternate universe where Bert has a type. It might be a stretch, though.
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
In an alternate universe:
...People read Bertrand's posts and he is a well-regarded member of the forum, known for his kind nature.
...N9 writes actual sentences in response to others.
...Myst and thehotelambush will have come together to agree on an ineffable typing system that will be used for generations to come
...Sol meets an authentic EII and moves to the Scottish Highlands where they'll have a girl named Anastasia, EII too.
...Oli will type people IEI
...Adam will have a harem full of girls of any type, besides ESI.
...and Feathers' posts will actually contribute with something to discussions.
“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
Where does Bert live? Was it California? Los Angeles? I dont remember were I read it. If I ever travel there I will contact him and hopefully type him and post my conclusion in this thread.
Last edited by Tallmo; 08-07-2018 at 05:58 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think Bertrand's posts are generally well thought out. I think that the main problem is that they are very, very subjective perceptions loaded with very subjective interpretations of specific aspects of the topic at hand without much filtering. There is not any search for 'common ground' with regards to his vocabulary and the way he presents his thoughts. His posts lead me more to subjectively develop ideas myself not necessarily towards a understanding of concrete Socionics than to understand what he is writing from the perspective he probably wants - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when trying to unify and develop a system that depends on the perceptions of others put into general categories which demands some sort of consensus, that needs some kind of accessibility with regards to how we think of the IM's, the functions etc. I actually have the same exact problem in communication of my thoughts, and i think he has some sharp insights towards the form and representation of the system from a singular, individual perspective, immersed in its rules - how they appear to us and how we interpret them through Socionics, and how we relate to each other and communicate through those rules that we've established to categorize and conceptualize our interactions.
Last edited by para; 08-07-2018 at 03:32 PM.
Bert seems ILE to me.
He very well might be. Hard to say much more than extroverted and Te valuing really.
ha I would love to meet tallmo, I'm originally from California but Im in Tennessee now
Base Te are not conformists. They feel as own duty and rule to say what they think as correct and trust to own opinion or some authority. It's not what he does by rejecting to opposing to what people think as own types here.
Base Te with role Fe avoid to express the look of a brick for not close people, while he accepts this as personal norm.
He does not look to have choleric temper which most L*E may to have.
He described suggestive Fi traits closer to Fe, while that relates to what he thinks about himself.
There are significant contradictions with L*E types. He mb ILI or other easily.
Ok. I dont know where i got los angeles from.
problems
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think hes sli
Sure, and anyone can say anything about themselves. I said extroverted and Te valuing not based on what he explicitly says about himself regarding his type, but rather his actions, the things he says that are not intended to be about type, and way he speaks and so on. I don't really care what his type is, just saying that yes, he very well might be some other type within that range.
When it comes to DCNH Gulenko describes it as follows:
1) D is supposed to try everything to take it over. Multiple approaches and does not give up.
2) C is supposed to be a resource for new solutions. Work performance is usually on lackluster side consisting of few exceptionally high moments that might make the investment in person worthwhile.
3) N is the dude with stability, calendars, neatness and everything like that.
4) H is the corrective signaler usually the weakest link in any group. Keeps things tolerable over longer time frame.
It seems to me that Bert most certainly can not be D or N. It is like lots of C's and H's are born losers when weighed against modern western standards with some potentiality to make big time breakthroughs.
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
A basic rule of thumb in science is that the best description is the one which explains the most phenomena with the least number of postulates/categories (i.e. answers more questions than it raises). I dislike Gulenko's DCNH categories because the themes of each correlate too closely with the IEs - meaning that it's hard to conceive that a person of every Sociotype could fall into each category. For example - C closely correlates with many Ne themes such as novelty and potentiality.When it comes to DCNH Gulenko describes it as follows:
1) D is supposed to try everything to take it over. Multiple approaches and does not give up.
2) C is supposed to be a resource for new solutions. Work performance is usually on lackluster side consisting of few exceptionally high moments that might make the investment in person worthwhile.
3) N is the dude with stability, calendars, neatness and everything like that.
4) H is the corrective signaler usually the weakest link in any group. Keeps things tolerable over longer time frame.
It seems to me that Bert most certainly can not be D or N. It is like lots of C's and H's are born losers when weighed against modern western standards with some potentiality to make big time breakthroughs.
But that's somewhat an aside.
If I was to determine Bert's core Sociotype, I would start by analysing his syntax, which is very different to most other forum members. It is noticeably copious, rich in academic jargon and highly generalised (he'll often contribute valuable information but rarely will he explain his reasoning for doing so, so he must assume the latter is somehow implied by the former). This strongly reminds me of how people are encouraged to write in sociology journals; deliberately obtusely. I suppose you could assume valued Ni and Te / devalued Ti from the above so perhaps ILI? Another (if slightly more subjective) way to tell would be to assess the quality of his information flow with any supposed duals/semis who would be SEE/SLE members if ILI.
can your environment change? i think therein lies the key to "multiple" DCNH manifestations... its basically a tautology to say how you show up in DCNH is based on your relationship to the environment. I believe a person has some control over that, but perhaps it is a form of "acting".. in real life I try to be more accommodating and gentle with people. if you watch my videos I think that comes across. ive learned to assert myself better on the internet, perhaps because of the low risk involved. although ive been in fights in real life, I try not to let it come to that
Other members may disagree, but I think the best analysis is done in real time where you can't rehearse and spontaneous, instinctive reactions come through. (This is why musicians are expected to improvise in an audition.) If you have a Discord account, I can send you a link and we can chat about your type there over voice. I have about 1 1/2 hrs free.
It is easier for me to analyse Bert's posts because there are more posts of his to look at. But I can try.
I would say you are:
Ti devaluing. Why? You seem indifferent to grammatical rules - e.g. not capitalising the first letter of a sentence.
An Ethical type. You seem to have strong emotional reactions and use emotion primarily to make sense of things, I noticed this when you responded to my trolling with personal attacks a few days ago, but that you also changed your mind once you understood what my intentions were.
So this means ESI, SEE, IEE or EII.
Lastly and this is just an anecdote, I've noticed that a lot of self-typed Fi-doms express themselves similarly. I do believe that form reflects function (meaning that the way you communicate an idea reflects your cognition). So ExI for now; perhaps you should try to figure out whether you relate more to the themes of creative Se or creative Ne.
not eternally, but often all types are not sure in weak regions
> people insist Taylor Swift is ESFj, i like the idea she has Ni Inferior (Seeking)
ENTP
Not sure if this is type-related:
I have struggled a lot socially because I find it much, much easier to articulate my thought process in text than I do verbally. That is because there are so many unrelated ideas competing for space in my mind, and often they are not of the same nature either - meaning one may be purely abstract like a contour combining with its inversion and then retrograde of that, another may be a visual image like a mountain valley with waterfalls or a flowerpot with yellow daffodils in it, another some aural melody in my head. I can connect them together to make sense of the nonsensical but this requires some time to detach, focus and invent the solution.
This is why I find it easier when I've the ability to explore each possible arc for an idea's development uninterrupted, meaning that in a real-time online conversation I default to a brief answer. If you want me to explain why I got an idea and how it will work, sure that's fine, but I need some time to formulate a response because there a number of possible reasons for each concept and you can't identify a single one on the spot or you are pedalling BS.
Also learning Kundalini yoga has helped me become more aware of the potential each individual object has as it is (due to its constituent parts, you can zone in with more and more detail to identify more possibilities), rather than just seeing the object holistically as what it could become in some other state when combined with something else. I now practice focusing on something like say a leaf and noticing more and more aspects of it, and I apply this principle to my music, noticing the potential inherent in each individual note rather than constantly creating disparate motifs as means of variation.
Plus, I want to become a guru so I can create my own harem of adoring females who seek enlightenment
Yeah well I am a proud penis stroker; twice a day and at least once to hentai.
Both Te and Ti types might be punctilious but their reasons for it would differ. So let's flip this question around and ask why you are not. Why are you not concerned with punctuation? Do you consider it to be a little, well, anal - a dispensable feature unnecessary to get your point across? This would be an example of devalued Ti and valued Te thinking, as efficiency is valued over correctness. A Ti valuer by contrast might not capitalise the first word and might not use conjunctions if the system of language they follow does not use them. But they will have some system because that is how they make sense of (order) reality, through categorisation, even if those categories are unique to every problem.
I hope this makes sense.
(FTR if you are ExI you are Ti Role not Ti PoLR.)
No problem.
Abstract, messy ideas are difficult to explain, even worst when people just want it NOW. Though, one can learn superficial talking, just giving answer with no depth so people are happy and shut up. Or just jokes, works too. -w-
I do have that going on too. @Spermatozoa
I see a similarity, yet a difference in how you describe it and how I live it.
You sound more in tune to it than I am...
There's more in my mind on the subject, but it eludes me right now... idk...
e'ryone trying to trace punctuation usage to a thinking attitude when I think its more about where sensing falls. also there's a difference between syntax and punctuation. role is more about being "%100 correct by normative standards" mobilizing is more about trying fulfill a norm, but having a specific style in mind [1]. sensing role is therefore likely to aspire to thoroughness in presentation, whereas sensing mobilizing is less likely to care... strong sensing in general incorporates norms more or less automatically. by my theory then the types least likely to pay attention to (concrete) presentation are the intuitive creatives. note: pay attention means from the first person perspective. these types' duals are likely to also be forgiving and look to the ideas themselves in them same way these I creatives do in constructing it (their expectations for one another mirror their own expectations of themselves). they are likely to be more forgiving if they can follow the basic contours of the ideas, although they may offer advice to improve it. the types that actually expect punctuation and think less of a product for that reason alone are the sensing (role function) normative types, which is all the irrational types (accounting for their dual orientation). in true irrational fashion they care more about how something looks than what it says.
if for whatever reason someone, as a matter of mobilizing, makes perfect punctuation a matter of personal style, they would be an exception to the rule, and may go nuts with it in true (puerile) mobilizing form. thus you may have your LII grammar nazi or whatever, but they are less likely to be baseline pedantic in that particular way in comparison to ILI
syntax are those linguistic signs that have a logical function in structuring a statement, the complexity and elegance in syntax when expressing or implying logical relations goes to strong or weak thinking. lots of punctuation for its own sake is more like Fe + Sensing, something like tons of exclamation marks!!!
[1] All that is said above about the characteristic signs of normative functions is completely valid for mental normative function 3 , which is also called the "function of social norms". Function 6, as you already understood, differs from the vital way of processing information, it is called the "function of individual norms." Too norms, too inflexibility, but the norms are not social, but their own, those that are suitable "for individual use." This does not mean that they are formed in isolation from society, on the contrary, these norms are formed in childhood, under the influence of the family and the school. But a person, as it were, chooses from all the norms proposed by the society, those that suit him are needed, with which he exactly agrees. It turns out that the norms are formed individually, the way a person has learned them. Therefore, individual norms can both coincide with social norms, and differ.
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-07-2018 at 10:44 PM.
This is what @Adam Strange is doing:
(Jung's Extraverted thinking as dominant function)
"Even their own intuition is checked up in this way by people of this type. As regards the intuitions of others, one frequently finds in them a peculiar manifestation. If, for example, in a debate, another opinion is opposed to theirs, they will regard this too with great objectivity, simply placing the two judgments side by side, and thus giving the impression that they really have no opinion of their own. In reality, they think of judgments as facts, so as to be able to include as many as they possibly can in the thought-system they are elaborating."
(Van der Hoop, Jung's student https://www.scribd.com/document/5024...ousOrientation or https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....ation_djvu.txt)
@crAck I was thinking IEE for you - you seem to approach the theory with the same nearly unchecked speculativeness I've seen from other IEEs on this forum.
@Bertrand still ESI-Fi
@Myst I think you're wrong about Bertrand. He strikes me as a clear ILE-.
He has a thought process which comes out in large chunks of seemingly random information, which would be weird for someone with
He isn't afraid to show aggression, though he doesn't really show off his status and seems to live more in his mind (role as he shows no real aversion to using
I can clearly see the messy external thought process needing to constantly express itself (). I see him as a theorist of random things that interest him.
.
Of course this is my impression of the guy, I don't know him offline and the best I can do is guess by his posts.
I don't see how ESI can be substantiated, sorry. But I'd be willing to hear your case, maybe my imagination is too short. Like I said, I am guessing solely by his posts so maybe there is something I am not seeing?
I agree with everything you said here (well except I'm not sure about the make a deal with conscience thing), but I think it has to do with ILE being the integral of socionics, more than anything, creating this perception. i actually think everyone shows a shift toward ILE here and once you start to notice it becomes hard to unsee@Myst I think you're wrong about Bertrand. He strikes me as a clear ILE-
He has a thought process which comes out in large chunks of seemingly random information, which would be weird for someone with
He isn't afraid to show aggression, though he doesn't really show off his status and seems to live more in his mind (
I can clearly see the messy external thought process needing to constantly express itself (
Of course this is my impression of the guy, I don't know him offline and the best I can do is guess by his posts.
I don't see how ESI can be substantiated, sorry. But I'd be willing to hear your case, maybe my imagination is too short. Like I said, I am guessing solely by his posts so maybe there is something I am not seeing?
what do you mean by this, I don't fully understand the question. also the videos are somewhere in the member video thread
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-08-2018 at 12:40 AM.
I mean, when it comes to DCNH, I pretty much am whatever people say I am. I would just ask people to keep in mind the definitions
I personally fancy myself something of an informal leader, but again its not up to me. of course if we're flattering ourselves Ill also take expert, conscience and innovatorDominating, along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along the secondary axis role - the engine (formal leader).
Creative, along the primary axis acquires for itself the role of contactor, and on the secondary the role of group innovator.
Normalizing along the primary axis is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary its coordinator.
And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary to the role of expert.
it mb not bad, just her N is better expressed
while why some people make mistakes - ask them
Swift is very EII, I think.
@Avebury
Bertrand tends to make a large number of generalised statements about Socionics. He will share concepts he has read about and often links outside information that he feels supports his self assessment.
For example:
e'ryone trying to trace punctuation usage to a thinking attitude when I think its more about where sensing falls. also there's a difference between syntax and punctuation.
It does annoy me when someone makes a statement (in a serious discussion) then refuses to explain their rationale for doing so. Why not explain why "sensing falls" (what does he even mean here - strong Sensing or poor Sensing?), what's the reason Bert chose to mention it at all - the sentence actually makes more sense without it. Then he introduces an entirely different claim - that "there's a difference between syntax and punctuation". We now have three completely different concepts in two sentences, and this pattern continues for the rest of the paragraph, making the script utterly incomprehensible. The closest I could come to ordering it was by excising everything except the first line and the last two lines. But I really shouldn't have to do this when I read someone's posts here.
To highlight why I'm frustrated, here's an example of how I'd explain an observation.
"A bird fell out of the sky. I wonder why. Maybe it had a heart attack, died and was no longer able to fly. Or maybe it hit a plane or was struck by lightening. Why was it struck by lightening? Because it had raindrops on its feathers which attracted the electricity? Or maybe the lack of easily available nectar at this time of year caused it to die of starvation. Maybe it was also a stupid fucking bird to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." All this time, the subject is still "the bird", I haven't moved on to my uncle's masturbation kit just yet. I am exploring the various possible causes that could have led it to fall in front of me, because while the object, the dead bird, is obvious (so why mention it), the reason it died is not and needs to be worked out.
So in the paragraph of Bert's above, I would have stopped at "thinking attitude" and then proceeded to explain why I think people are trying to make this connection, why they are wrong in doing so, and what I think a better interpretation is. I see a lot of potential to explore in each statement, which needs to be realised before I move on. However, I have hardly ever seen Bert interpret the information he shares, instead he presents things as is. He seems to dislike being asked to explain the relationships between his ideas. Make sense?
Just as a general rule, it would be wonderful if people made more of an effort to explain why they think X person is this or that Sociotype.
I think I at least would learn a lot more that way.
i mean into which slot it falls, whether it be role, mobilizing, base, creative etc. often its not enough that something be strong or weak to explain something it has also to do with where its slotted. for example creative/demonstrative are more flexible than base/ignoring, and that routinely trips people up. you see people have a strong understanding of some areas, but not manipulate it very much, or an area in the broad sense (ethics/sensing/intuition/logic) that is constantly being "used" as the way someone advances is evidence of the creative function, non standard approaches, instrumentality, etc. ive heard it described as background/foreground. so like base is your backdrop, the stage so to speak, with creative being the players. same with role/polr as a "backup"
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-08-2018 at 03:58 PM.
It is buried somewhere in the articles section. I didn't find it. Itcan also be found in Glulenko's website [with help of machine translation]
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
I can buy that the position of an information element in someone's TIM is as important as the themes of that IE. Position provides context which helps predict the manner in which an IE's themes will manifest.
The demonstrative function is a good example to use because it is a powerful, flexible function...and yet, you find the realm it governs utterly boring, obvious, not worth bothering with. One of many ways to type yourself is to notice something you often get complimented for yet don't give a shit about. Analyse the themes and you have found your demonstrative.
DCNH on Big 5 scale:
D heightened Extraversion
C heightened Openness
N heightened Conscientiousness
H heightened Agreeableness
in terms of typical type manifestation.
Well, I tend to get higher A score than one would expect on some tests...
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
@ConcreteButterfly for example
ILEs have Ti in ego, @Bertrand has none. There is no logical structure actually in his writing, instead it's a lot more subjective Fi. The messiness you see is the lack of logical organization, not Ne or Irrationality. An ILE would organize it way more. He just regurgitates a lot of Socionics theory as is, not creative with it like ILEs would be. The way he presents information doesn't seem random, more like being heavily into Ni a lot but it's still not very flexible strong Ni. It seems Ni to me because it dives deeper than Ne. "Constantly expressing" isn't Ne. And again it's hardly backed by Ti.@Myst I think you're wrong about Bertrand. He strikes me as a clear ILE-
He freely makes ethical Fi judgments of other people, he's not Fi PoLR. I don't think all Fi egos are saints so it doesn't mean he can't have a conscience overall even when he acts like an asshole.
He makes ethical judgments of people easily and goes by them, also he's a clear Se valuer in that he dislikes too much focus on potential and alternatives, he himself expressed how he wants to stop with such talks when they go too far. His intuition seems Ni like I said above, but not very strong Ni even if he tries to get into a lot. I can usually follow the Ni part of his thinking, I just think it's often expressed in an overcomplicated way (lack of Ti).I don't see how ESI can be substantiated, sorry. But I'd be willing to hear your case, maybe my imagination is too short. Like I said, I am guessing solely by his posts so maybe there is something I am not seeing?
Feel free to ask whenever you are actually curious, bc people often just make lists here and there is no time to explain it all. I'm fine with doing so if someone would like me to.
I do think Adam can show Fe role pretty well, of course not all the time, one does remove expression of superego after a while.
Thanks, I just might...I am always curious to discover things
On that note, I found something that may interest you. Quite by chance, I just came across this article "Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements" (link: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ation-Elements). It dives into a topic I addressed earlier: how one's word choice, and the way they arrange those words, can indicate their type. I recommend you - and everyone else for that matter - give the article a close read, because it provides us with a system to type people based on their forum presence alone.
(I assume that each IE is being described as it presents in Position 1, as the leading function.)
Np + thanks, I saw this article before.Thanks, I just might...I am always curious to discover things
On that note, I found something that may interest you. Quite by chance, I just came across this article "Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements" (link: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ation-Elements). It dives into a topic I addressed earlier: how one's word choice, and the way they arrange those words, can indicate their type. I recommend you - and everyone else for that matter - give the article a close read, because it provides us with a system to type people based on their forum presence alone.
(I assume that each IE is being described as it presents in Position 1, as the leading function.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
