Alright then, just checking. You just don't normally seem so fight-y is all. At least not with, you know, people like Maritsa lol
No worries, just tugging her hem.
You ok dude? I mean you're arguing with Maritsa. You could hardly pick a target less worthwhile.
You caught me. I am EII http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin.../30804-I-m-EII!
A smart move. I'm contemplating something along the same lines. FWIW the probably-more-SEE-than-SLE impression remains. In broad terms I think it stems from the sense of relatedness that is conveyed in how you prompt your friends and allow them to ramble on for a bit without rush or hype. Naturally there ought to be an interconnectedness present with those you're on friendly terms with, so this is more a matter of how than what. Host, facilitator, these are the vague terms that come to mind that bear common threads with friends I classify as SEE. With the SLE peeps I know there's more of an apparent "our gang" attitude, where you're in or out, and in the latter case frequently derided for failing to make the grade. Those in-/out-group dividing lines might exist with you but I sense that they're a bit hazier than with the average (i.e. cartoonishly stereotypical) SLE, whose social receptivity seems to exist mostly at the discrete and distal points of "Fuck yeah, dude!" and "Fuck off, dude."* Your attitude appears to be more easy-going in a way I associate with SEEs. Who knows though, maybe you're a crafty EII and sending us all off on a wild goose chase. * I know they aren't all like this but here's a benchmark SLE http://bit.ly/j7Twr
I'm of the get away from the table variety, so coming up fairly shortly I'll likely disappear into the abyss again and pop up once a year like an unwelcome guest at the thanksgiving dinner of socionics.
There's where the cognitive distortion enters the picture, through the imposition and acceptance of the socionics model and its constituents (IEs and other arbitrarily delineated and aggregated cognitive-behavioral universals). This creates an additional meta-cognitive layer through which people begin twisting their perceptions and rationales of themselves and others so that unique, organically produced individuals are stuffed as neatly as possible into one of 16 artificially delineated boxes. In such an instance Jung would once again invoke the image of Procrustes, the innkeeper of legend who would lop the protruding limbs from guests who complained that the beds he offered were too small. Further distortion occurs as a result of over-identification with sociotype: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-and-Socionics There are more than enough examples of that affliction on the forum that I needn't shame any of them by name. Anyhow I think there's some utility to it all, but as when attending a banquet it's best to stop eating when full. For some that means staying at the table to gab without eating any more, and for others who can't stop grubbing while there's still something on (or even near) their plates, they ought to push away from the table and head home to sleep it off.
I tend not to view socionics as bullshit because of how it was created or what it's comprised of though. Rather it's bullshit because accepting it as fact makes the whole theory pointless. All socionics does is essentially say "You're an individual and you have preferences." It only defines the individual so that it can define the preferences but the thing is that it's defining something, not creating or changing it. So basically knowing how to define your preferences and the people around you has no point because weather or not you are conscious of what those preferences are you still act on them. So, it's bull shit because it doesn't do anything and trying to do something with it, like act on the preferences it tells the individual they have, is pointless because the individual would do that without any help from socoinics.
You've just made me view tarrot and other such things that are often deemed as bullshit in a very different light. Hm. I mean socionics to some extent is bullshit I think, but I agree I use it more for mental masturbation than to fufill my need to pick a fight. I tend to not think about most things and socioncis is a decent way for me to sort of 'turn on' my critical thinking abilities. The unfortunate side effect of which is that it makes me take almost every thing anyone says and the people who say it very seriously. So, practically, it makes me bad at jokes and generally disagreeable.
"Camus said there is only really one serious philosophical question, which is whether or not to commit suicide. I think there are four or five serious philosophical questions: The first one is: Who started it? The second is: Are we going to make it? The third is: Where are we going to put it? The fourth is: Who's going to clean up? And the fifth: Is it serious?' - Alan Watts: Out Of Your Mind Socionics is a fun toy but I think it causes cognitive distortion, especially regarding expectations of social interaction. It's also fraudulent about its origins and its scientific-ness. In fact it's a pseudo-psychological dead end clogged with foolishly reified metaphysics that will continue to be rightfully ignored by respectable academia. But it's also a good source of arguments when I'm in the mood for such things, and as I've stated elsewhere I use it as a launching point to teach myself about philosophy of science and mind, "proper" psychology, and other subjects. It can also be useful for catalyzing apophenic insights into oneself and one's relations in much the same way that the i-ching or tarot are able to do, by presenting archetypes and other readymade forms upon which to project one's unconscious contents. But it all ought to be taken with a grain of salt.