How to obtain a :Te: valuer

[1981slater]

Be wealthy

[Absurd]

[Capitalist Pig]

that would work for me

[consentingadult]

Be wealthy

Which Alphas usually are not...

[krieger]

[citation needed]

[InvisibleJim]

Concise and accurate. Best post in 16 types history.

[Beautiful sky]

Apparently Slater; it's the "practicality" even though LSE will swear up and down that they aren't looking for that, that they are looking for something meaningful. It's so sad.

[fen]

I thought IEIs were the "most likely type to marry for money".
Though I'm sure that assertion is a gross generalization, I've only seen such a thing in an IEI description. So...

Just thought I'd point that out.

Also, I don't care about money beyond what is vital. "Vital" is subjective I guess. I'm sure I could manage to survive on 5 dollars a week, but that's not really the kind of life I'd prefer to live, given a choice.
Though doing something like Aquagraph did where he backpacked across Europe with like no money...that could be a cool experience. But given the choice between destitution and having resources to at least do the things I value the most...I'd choose the latter.

Resourcefulness is always attractive in a biological way I guess.
Having money doesn't always suggest resourcefulness, as simply having resources at the moment doesn't mean that a person is resourceful.
And also money isn't really the main resource. Simply being resourceful is more important than just having money.
Money CAN be an indicator of resourcefulness...but not always.

And money certainly isn't the only resource.

This thread should be:
How to attract people pretty universally
Resourcefulness

Not sure if this applies to women moreso than men. Maybe it does. Probably does. Since having babies requires lots of resources that being prego kind of makes obtaining more difficult.
I'm just basing this off of things I've learned in my family development class.

Okbye.

[ashlesha]

since its being taken seriously?
i would feel weird dating a wealthy person. unless i ever became wealthy myself. which probably won't happen.
even though my duals are supposedly the rich venture capitalists or whatever.
i don't pay as much attention to the practical traits of who i'm attracted to as i should.

[fen]

since its being taken seriously?
i would feel weird dating a wealthy person. unless i ever became wealthy myself. which probably won't happen.
even though my duals are supposedly the rich venture capitalists or whatever.
i don't pay as much attention to the practical traits of who i'm attracted to as i should.

Was the thread meant as a joke?
I can never tell.

[consentingadult]

I thought IEIs were the "most likely type to marry for money".

Nope. The thing with IEIs is that they are gold diggers openly. ESIs are gold diggers secretly, meanwhile holding up the appearance of moral integrity and perfection.

[ashlesha]

Nope. The thing with IEIs is that they are gold diggers openly. ESIs are gold diggers secretly, meanwhile holding up the appearance of moral integrity and perfection.

oh, stop it

[ashlesha]

thinking why i'm uncomfortable with the idea of dating somebody wealthy - a lot of my family has a pretty strong distrust of people with money and it was kind of instilled growing up how different they were. when i think of wealthy people i think of a completely foreign mindset and culture that is irreconcilable with mine, whether that's true and fair, or not. which i wouldn't say is type related - culture related. or i guess you could call it ne-polr xenophobia. or aristocracy. haha.

[ashlesha]

Was the thread meant as a joke?
I can never tell.

almost all of slaters threads are jokes or should be treated as such either way.

[consentingadult]

oh, stop it

No, it's true.

[ashlesha]

No, it's true.

what is it about seeing the world through the lens of Ni+Fe or Fi+Se that prompts gold-digging?

[consentingadult]

what is it about seeing the world through the lens of Ni+Fe or Fi+Se that prompts gold-digging?

For IEIs it's not to be found in the ego functions, but in the suggestive function. You have to realize that IEIs want money to spend it on themselves and they feel entitled to it. ESIs on the other hand, want money so they can give most of it away and enhance their moral status, under the pretense of being totally unselfish.

[krieger]

CA, this is embarrassing.

[silke]

For IEIs it's not to be found in the ego functions, but in the suggestive function. You have to realize that IEIs want money to spend it on themselves and they feel entitled to it. ESIs on the other hand, want money so they can give most of it away and enhance their moral status, under the pretense of being totally unselfish.

seriously equating Se or Te d.s. with love of money is plain dumb
will grant you the benefit of doubt, however, and assume that you're just being an insipid troll

[consentingadult]

seriously equating Se or Te d.s. with love of money is plain dumb
will grant you the benefit of doubt, however, and assume that you're just being an insipid troll

No I'm not, I'm dead serious. You are making more of my statements by reducing it to something ridiculous, but those are your statements not mine. I never said that Se d.s. is just about love of money, although love for material possessions is part of Se. And in this thread I never said anything about Te d.s. at all. Obviously I have not written a 25000 word essay that can stand scientific positivistic scruteny, but what I have said is characteristic of IEIs and ESIs.

So tell me, is this statement of yours a result of stupid ignorance, or is it a malevolent ad hominem attack?

[Galen]

You are making more of my statements by reducing it to something ridiculous,

Not very difficult, given that the primary ingredient for your statements is "ridiculous."

[consentingadult]

Not very difficult, given that the primary framework for your statements were "ridiculous."

No, it is not. It is the lack of psychological knowledge of most people on this forum that makes it seem ridiculous.

[Galen]

No, it is not. It is the lack of psychological knowledge of most people on this forum that makes it seem ridiculous.

What "psychological knowledge" is that, pray tell? The ability to fabricate conjectures out of wholly inapplicable stereotypes? You're a moron.

[consentingadult]

What "psychological knowledge" is that, pray tell? The ability to fabricate conjectures out of wholly inapplicable stereotypes? You're a moron.

So if you run out of arguments, the only thing you can do, like Siuntal, is to call me a moron?

[Galen]

So if you run out of arguments, the only thing you can do, like Siuntal, is to call me a moron?

I posed two questions in attempt to even start the debate in the first place, yet you completely ignored them in favor of the three least important words in my post.

[consentingadult]

I posed two questions in attempt to even start the debate in the first place, yet you completely ignored them in favor of the three least important words in my post.

Why should I engage in a serious discussion with you after you calling me a moron? The moment you called me a moron, you lost all my respect.

[Galen]

Why should I engage in a serious discussion with you after you calling me a moron? The moment you called me a moron, you lost all my respect.

The moment you say stupid shit without even so much as trying to back up your claims with anything substantive is when you lost mine. You pissing yourself over a simple children's insult and refusing to move past it as your only ostensible course of action in this "argument" is just the cherry on top.

[FDG]

thinking why i'm uncomfortable with the idea of dating somebody wealthy - a lot of my family has a pretty strong distrust of people with money and it was kind of instilled growing up how different they were. when i think of wealthy people i think of a completely foreign mindset and culture that is irreconcilable with mine, whether that's true and fair, or not. which i wouldn't say is type related - culture related. or i guess you could call it ne-polr xenophobia. or aristocracy. haha.

Yeah my family also was like that. I always thought it was mostly bullshit and envy. They would sometimes consider "wealthy" simply someone upper middle class.

[HandiAce]

BEST PIC EVER!

This just turned my miserable day around, thank you!

[Beautiful sky]

since its being taken seriously?
i would feel weird dating a wealthy person. unless i ever became wealthy myself. which probably won't happen.
even though my duals are supposedly the rich venture capitalists or whatever.
i don't pay as much attention to the practical traits of who i'm attracted to as i should.

I've dated all across the board; I never look for anyone of any socio economic status; I just meet someone who I find interesting, relatively attractive, funny (I HAVE TO HAVE FUNNY), someone who will hug me when I cry (who just grabs me and holds me in their arms), someone who will go to things with me (art museum, shopping, walking around, family gatherings). I ask for the simple things in life and I've met wonderful men; I'm just asking that of a dual, that's about it for now.

[Beautiful sky]

For IEIs it's not to be found in the ego functions, but in the suggestive function. You have to realize that IEIs want money to spend it on themselves and they feel entitled to it. ESIs on the other hand, want money so they can give most of it away and enhance their moral status, under the pretense of being totally unselfish.

and EII? I should ask first before I tell

Why should I engage in a serious discussion with you after you calling me a moron? The moment you called me a moron, you lost all my respect.

He didn't call you a moron because he thinks you're a moron. He called you a moron because it was an initial reaction, that's all.

[strangeling]

It's true; It's true. Don't listen to the naysayers.

BELIEVE IT; SOCIONICS POWERS UNITE

[Suz]

I thought IEIs were the "most likely type to marry for money".
Though I'm sure that assertion is a gross generalization, I've only seen such a thing in an IEI description. So...

Just thought I'd point that out.

Okbye.

I had the same exact thought. Also LSEs are caregivers, so my impression is that they generally aim to be well established in order to be able to support the people they love.

I can see the LSE sociotype as the sort of people to refuse to get married until they are established in their profession and/or have enough money to support a family.

In a stereotypical sense, the IEIs are the divas who want to live the life (or have a certain "status") without lifting a finger, hence the "marrying for money" concept.

[consentingadult]

He didn't call you a moron because he thinks you're a moron. He called you a moron because it was an initial reaction, that's all.

Tell me Maritsa, what exactly is an "initial reaction". This explanation of yours doesn't make any sense, it means nothing. Whatever the reason, it is wrong to call me a moron.

[consentingadult]

The moment you say stupid shit without even so much as trying to back up your claims with anything substantive is when you lost mine. You pissing yourself over a simple children's insult and refusing to move past it as your only ostensible course of action in this "argument" is just the cherry on top.

bla bla bloa bla bla. Stop trying to work your way out of this by trying to shift the blame on me. You know perfectly well that whatever I did, it is a wrong thing to call me, or anyone else, a moron. The moment you do that, you lose the right to be critical.

[Galen]

bla bla bloa bla bla. Stop trying to work your way out of this by trying to shift the blame on me. You know perfectly well that whatever I did, it is a wrong thing to call me, or anyone else, a moron. The moment you do that, you lose the right to be critical.

wtf does this mean, I can be as critical as I want. Your huffiness over something so menial as offhand name-calling only tells me that you have no intention of backing up any of your claims and you're just gonna sit on this one little point with all your stubborn little might. And playing games of "right" and "wrong" don't fly with moral nihilism, so you're gonna have to try something meatier than that.

[consentingadult]

wtf does this mean, I can be as critical as I want. Your huffiness over something so menial as offhand name-calling only tells me that you have no intention of backing up any of your claims and you're just gonna sit on this one little point with all your stubborn little might. And playing games of "right" and "wrong" don't fly with moral nihilism, so you're gonna have to try something more substantive than that.

You really think calling names is something menial? Get the fuck out of here and grow up you snot nose!

[Galen]

You really think calling names is something menial? Get the fuck out of here and grow up you snot nose!

I beg your pardon? Are you trying to beat me at a game I'm not even playing? And losing? Damn.

[consentingadult]

I beg your pardon? Are you trying to beat me at a game I'm not even playing? And losing? Damn.

You are a snot nose. And a dishonest person because you applying ad hominem tactics. For example: you say that I don't backup my claims. Well, I'm not here to prove anything, especially not when I'm being insulted. I think I have a fair history on this site of backing up my claims with elaborations where most other people never went beyond making unwarranted statements. If you have been following this site, you know what I'm saying now is true. You might not have agreed to my elaborations, but that's another matter. If there have been people on this site that have made an attempt to contribute to the theoretical understanding of Socionics, I am one of them.

[Galen]

You are a snot nose. And a dishonest person because you applying ad hominem tactics.

No, you're whining about a measly first-grade insult while I've been sitting here asking for you to explain yourself instead of stand atop your high horse peering down at the rest of us who lack "psychological knowledge," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. You've given me nothing else to go off of at this point.

And calling me an equally weak name like snot nose sure doesn't help your case either.

For example: you say that I don't backup my claims. Well, I'm not here to prove anything, especially not when I'm being insulted. I think I have a fair history on this site of backing up my claims with elaborations where most other people never went beyond making unwarranted statements. If you have been following this site, you know what I'm saying now is true.

I didn't say that you never back up your claims, rather that you have yet to do so in this one particular thread. I'm wholly unconcerned with your history of citing evidence to your claims, seeing as how I'm still only waiting on such evidence for this very thread.

You might not have agreed to my elaborations, but that's another matter.

Likely, given the amount of personal experience I've amassed in my interactions with ESIs and IEIs that would have me believe your claims in this thread about those types to be utter bunk. But you have yet to give me such a chance.

If there have been people on this site that have made an attempt to contribute to the theoretical understanding of Socionics, I am one of them.

If making massive behaviorally-based generalizations and stereotypes about entire types constitutes "contributing" then I suggest you search for another hobby.