Make a thread about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
Printable View
Make a thread about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
Marie, I understood that. I just thought that it needed no further comment. But let´s talk about this since it may be of relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
Are you suggesting that the IE :Si: is more apparent in an LSI than it is in an LSE? Because from your line of reasoning, this seems to be the case. You´re saying that each type uses his demonstrative function the more, after the base or leading function.
So it would go that you, being EII for example, would use, in order of 'how often it is used', Fi>Ni ... instead of Fi>Ne which are the functions on your egoblock as you probably know.
So you´re suggesting that an LSE uses Se more than Si? Let us look at other examples.
An SEE uses Fe more than Fi ... well this does not seem to fit with what I observe in reality. I´d like the opinion of other forum members on this. To me, SEEs use very much their egoblock functions, Se and Fi... and to a lesser extent they do use Fe...but as said, TO A LESSER EXTENT.
I have my mind open on the possibility of being an ISTJ, but to me, it´s like... having a blue or a green shirt on, it´s just nothing that matters a lot. I´m not attached to any particular type.
Please only talk to me if you want a serious, rational discussion about this, not if you want me 'not to be delta' because you don´t like me or whatever. If your opinions about my person are going to interfere in our discussion, then it´s better we stop here.
Removed at User Request
You are just too ridiculous and unimportant, you want attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
But if you continue being such a looser, I will make a poll about you being banned from this forum.
Practice what you preach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
How about you calm down, Airbourne. You asked that the derailment of your thread be dealt with, and I did that by moving that string of posts to the flamming sub-forum. If you took a moment to look past the fact that your one post had disappeared, you would have noticed that about 15 posts disappeared from here. Thanks for directing him Pied Piper, I'd forgotten to make a mention of the new home for those moved posts.
As for your concerns about forum member privileges, people are free to speak their minds here (to a reasonable extent). Since that string of posts was disruptive, they have been moved. I don't feel that a ban is necessary and unfortunately I'm not going to ban someone just because you demand it. You're of course free to make a poll demanding that absurd be banned, but it will likely be fruitless since non of the moderators will act on it.
Kindly remove the capslock and properly assess the situation before you explode in the future.
Ahh yes, the famous actress *sigh.* ;) The frustration of a 'nonreactive expert' dealing with the 'reactive amatuer' whose trying too hard.Quote:
*sigh* once again, an explanation on functions vs. IE values went completely over your head
I'll try to explain this, one last time, as simply as possible.
What a five-like chink in your armor, Marie.
LOL... I´m waiting for her to come up with a reasonable answer to my questions, especially her theory that Si is more apparent in an LSI than in an LSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy
Marie´s Socionika seems rather other-worldly. It could be called a non-model-A thing.
:shock:
If you are Ti and have Ti dominant then you ignore Te. And, if you have Te dominant then you ignore Ti. That's how simple it is to determine if you're ESTj or ISTj.
In a sense, yes; Quasi-identitcal types generally appear more alike than mirrors, from an external perspective at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
As in the case of LSE's, for them to use Si to its full extent that would require them to ignore their base priorities and revert to their mirrors. In other words, to shut down and lapse into a state of lackadaisical inactivity regardless of Te needs
Basically what I'm trying to explain is that it would be easier for an LSE to use Se by motivating themselves, and in some cases others, to accomplish a task than it would be for them to relax while such-and-such needed to be done.
SLI's, on the otherhand, often perform tasks at their own pace and comfort. They're not as concerned with being productive and proactive like LSE's are.
Yeah, pretty much. It's far more common for an EII/LII to go into a state of inactivity and deep reflection than it would be to go into a state of spontaneity. Ij's are generally the least impulsive types, so to neglect that calmer, rational, state and indulge in a more novel one is not a very comfortable place to be.Quote:
So it would go that you, being EII for example, would use, in order of 'how often it is used', Fi>Ni ... instead of Fi>Ne which are the functions on your egoblock as you probably know.
For Ne creatives, I think Ne works primarily internally, a mental swirl or possibilities, doubts and ideas; but they're projected outwardly to a lesser extent than with IEE's and ILE's.
Another thing, is Ne dominants are likely more prone to boredom, or growing bored with something, due to their priority being on Ne. An Ne creative may be more prone to contentment without change, or be more patient for change to eventually occur, which goes back to having Ni demonstrative while Ne dominants have Ni ignoring.
With SEE's and IEE's, they have a tendency of being more outwardly friendly, emotive and engaging with people in general, which is how their Fe may appear more apparent than their Fi. Fi creatives, IME, are more comfortable with having superficial relationships (not necessarily romantic ones) with people than Fi dominants; they may appear as "every-bodies friend", for lack of a better word, but at the end of the day they know how to differentiate, and treat, their important/close bonds to those that are not as esteemedQuote:
So you´re suggesting that an LSE uses Se more than Si? Let us look at other examples.
An SEE uses Fe more than Fi ... well this does not seem to fit with what I observe in reality. I´d like the opinion of other forum members on this. To me, SEEs use very much their egoblock functions, Se and Fi... and to a lesser extent they do use Fe...but as said, TO A LESSER EXTENT.
I try not let my personal feelings get in the way of being accurate, so you're right in saying that it's better to maintain a more rational discussion, and I'm attempting to do thatQuote:
I have my mind open on the possibility of being an ISTJ, but to me, it´s like... having a blue or a green shirt on, it´s just nothing that matters a lot. I´m not attached to any particular type.
Please only talk to me if you want a serious, rational discussion about this, not if you want me 'not to be delta' because you don´t like me or whatever. If your opinions about my person are going to interfere in our discussion, then it´s better we stop here.
Although I admit that I do have a bias in my opinion of your type, since you've been actively posting for enough time for me to observe and develop those biases
I agree with Marie. Base and Demonstrative are both 4-dimensional functions, while Creative is only 3-d. Just because Demonstrative is unvalued doesn't mean it's never used. It's just used less deliberately and seen as less important than the Creative function.
How truthful is the notion that people mostly use the base function in a joking manner? If so, it would imply that it's used quite often, but not taken very seriously.
It seems to hold true from what I've seen -- though I think it would be more accurate to say that they don't take it seriously, since, for example, Base Fe can also be used in a joking manner. The Demonstrative function of your Conflictor or (especially) your Supervisee can be quite appealing at first, but disappointment sets in when you realize that they never take it seriously and will even make fun of attempts to take it seriously. At best, the Demonstrative function is seen as a tool to be used to achieve goals related to the Ego or Super-Id, or as idle entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jxrtes
As Marie was saying, I find that the Demonstrative function is one of the biggest differences between Mirror types. The biggest discomfort I find in interacting with ILEs is their frequent use of Te in contexts where it seems irrelevant or uninteresting to me -- I prefer to Ignore it.
Hi Marie, good morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
There is one thing I´m not clear about here. LSE and LSI are NOT Quasi-Identicals as far as I know... the Quasi-Identical of an LSE is an SLE. You responded with this phrase to my question 'are you trying to say that Si is more apparent in LSEs than in LSIs?' Bear in mind that these two types are NOT Quasi-Identicals, they´re Extinguishment in the Intertype Relations.
I agree with you to a large extent here. But also bear in mind that when the Creative Function is in use, the Base Function is also in use, the two work together. I think you´re making a mistake here, mistaking Base for Role function. When the Role Function (3rd function) is turned ON, [in the case of the LSE this is :Fe:], it replaces the Base Function. Again, please correct me if you have a different more accurate understanding.Quote:
As in the case of LSE's, for them to use Si to its full extent that would require them to ignore their base priorities and revert to their mirrors. In other words, to shut down and lapse into a state of lackadaisical inactivity regardless of Te needs
I don´t know how much of this is true, but even if it is like this, then think for a moment... I could be an LSE using lots of Se according to your theory, instead of an LSI using lots of Si. This is why this theory seems to hold little consistency. Basically you end up with an enormous difficulty to type correctly a person because the Demonstrative is considered as much used as the Creative function.Quote:
Basically what I'm trying to explain is that it would be easier for an LSE to use Se by motivating themselves, and in some cases others, to accomplish a task than it would be for them to relax while such-and-such needed to be done.
Indeed.Quote:
SLI's, on the otherhand, often perform tasks at their own pace and comfort. They're not as concerned with being productive and proactive like LSE's are.
This point you make is very interesting. I have an LII friend who´s always into inactivity and deep reflection as you call it... much easier for her to go into this state than to be spontaneous, which is quite hard since she´s shy. You have a very good point there, I have to admit. :DQuote:
Yeah, pretty much. It's far more common for an EII/LII to go into a state of inactivity and deep reflection than it would be to go into a state of spontaneity. Ij's are generally the least impulsive types, so to neglect that calmer, rational, state and indulge in a more novel one is not a very comfortable place to be.
I still don´t have what to say abt the above quote, I have to study deeper Ne dominants and Ne creatives in order to give any reliable opinion on this.Quote:
For Ne creatives, I think Ne works primarily internally, a mental swirl or possibilities, doubts and ideas; but they're projected outwardly to a lesser extent than with IEE's and ILE's.
Another thing, is Ne dominants are likely more prone to boredom, or growing bored with something, due to their priority being on Ne. An Ne creative may be more prone to contentment without change, or be more patient for change to eventually occur, which goes back to having Ni demonstrative while Ne dominants have Ni ignoring.
Yes I agree TO SOME EXTENT, because SEEs still value very much their closest friends and close relationships over being friendly towards everyone. But we can discuss this further after you tell me: where did you get this idea that the Demonstrative function may be more apparent than the Creative function? Which book/site/author?Quote:
With SEE's and IEE's, they have a tendency of being more outwardly friendly, emotive and engaging with people in general, which is how their Fe may appear more apparent than their Fi. Fi creatives, IME, are more comfortable with having superficial relationships (not necessarily romantic ones) with people than Fi dominants; they may appear as "every-bodies friend", for lack of a better word, but at the end of the day they know how to differentiate, and treat, their important/close bonds to those that are not as esteemed
If you´re attempting to be unbiased, we can have a good discussion. If not, it´s useless as I said.Quote:
I try not let my personal feelings get in the way of being accurate, so you're right in saying that it's better to maintain a more rational discussion, and I'm attempting to do that
Although I admit that I do have a bias in my opinion of your type, since you've been actively posting for enough time for me to observe and develop those biases
Have a nice day. Here´s a good sound for your day. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMXIeUZG4tQ
I know people who use their HA more than their second function, and that's 1D not 3D. For example the ILE who is always joking and trying to 'create' external emotions in others.
Dimensionality of function does not necessarily equal how much it's used, it simply indicates the level of differentiation.
You just have to meet real people to see they use their functions differently, so it's facile to say an eg LSE usually does this and that etc, because there's no way to judge how frequently 'usually' is, besides it is misleading as what's implied by 'usually' is synomynous with 'always', but I sort of made this point earlier...
I personally find that the sort of 'boxing in' socionics on this thread to be something which is designed to look good on a piece of paper (or forum space) but to have no real relevance/application to the real individual and the common man.
I don't even know what 'using Si to its full extent means', can you explain what that means in an example of a type? I mean, does this mean that using it to it's full extent means the person is only using one function, or do the functions still have to work in pairs or do they all work together? Can you also give me a concrete example of a person using Si to it's 'full extent'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
Unless you equate Si with 'lacksadaisical activity'? Eh, well if that's the case i've known plenty of LSEs who have spent a lengthy time doing nothing, same as other types, maybe when doing nothing, all the types are using Si to it's 'full extent'?
If you must be a total relativist, there's no point arguing with you.
This is all a little too deep for me at this point; I usually type based on what I see people doing most of the time. If I saw someone using Ti-Si however, I would probably type them LII.
Unless the way an LSI uses Si is vastly different from the way an LSE uses Si, in which case could those of you agreeing with this explain to me or the others how exactly you recognize that difference, as well with all the other types?
Perhaps I was not as clear about this, I apologize. I was trying to explain how Quasis, in this case LSE-SLE and SLI-LSI often seem more alike from an external perspective, and thus get confused with one another, generally more so than they do with their mirrorsQuote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Of course this isn't always the case, though
You make a point of bringing-up the Role Function, as it also plays a role in differentiating mirrors like the Demonstrative does, but in this instance I was focusing on the Demonstrative useQuote:
I agree with you to a large extent here. But also bear in mind that when the Creative Function is in use, the Base Function is also in use, the two work together. I think you´re making a mistake here, mistaking Base for Role function. When the Role Function (3rd function) is turned ON, [in the case of the LSE this is :Fe:], it replaces the Base Function. Again, please correct me if you have a different more accurate understanding.
I'm not stating one is "used more" rather that the Demonstrative is easier to use while not neglecting the Base prioritiesQuote:
I don´t know how much of this is true, but even if it is like this, then think for a moment... I could be an LSE using lots of Se according to your theory, instead of an LSI using lots of Si. This is why this theory seems to hold little consistency. Basically you end up with an enormous difficulty to type correctly a person because the Demonstrative is considered as much used as the Creative function.
The demonstrative function is easiest function to use (after the base function) yet often occurs sporadically. When one experiences a problem regarding this function, one must correct it as it does play a vital part in a person's worldview.
This isn't to say I'm suggesting that Si creatives are more "Se" than Se creatives. Despite the sporadic uses of the Demonstrative, Si creatives are still far gentler in their approaches compared to Se creatives
Quasi-identity - WikisocionQuote:
where did you get this idea that the Demonstrative function may be more apparent than the Creative function? Which book/site/author?
Mirror - Wikisocion
Indeed, that's why I'm speaking in terms generalizations, not requirements. I think some IE's, both valued and unvalued, are more apparent in some people than in othersQuote:
Originally Posted by Words
Of course. Speaking in definitive terms is something I'm a bit leery of, even though I've observed such-and-such to correspond with Model A with said people, thus far, it isn't to say that those observations are not subject to change, or be misinterpreted on my partQuote:
Dimensionality of function does not necessarily equal how much it's used, it simply indicates the level of differentiation.
You just have to meet real people to see they use their functions differently, so it's facile to say an eg LSE usually does this and that etc, because there's no way to judge how frequently 'usually' is, besides it is misleading as what's implied by 'usually' is synomynous with 'always', but I sort of made this point earlier...
I personally find that the sort of 'boxing in' socionics on this thread to be something which is designed to look good on a piece of paper (or forum space) but to have no real relevance/application to the real individual and the common man.
What I meant by that is using the creative to the same extent as the base; basically becoming ones mirror.Quote:
I don't even know what 'using Si to its full extent means', can you explain what that means in an example of a type? I mean, does this mean that using it to it's full extent means the person is only using one function, or do the functions still have to work in pairs or do they all work together?
I don't believe that people use one function at a time, nor is Model A stating such, rather people use all 8 IE's differently depending on the strengths and values associated with their type.
Sure, I observed an SLI friend of mine last weekend doing just this. She spent practically the entire day in her PJ's lounging on an frumpy patio chair next to a cooler. She wanted to spend her weekend off in a state of personal comfort without excessive activity.Quote:
Can you also give me a concrete example of a person using Si to it's 'full extent'?
The Si creatives I've known don't tend to do things like this to such an extent, unless they're tired or/and sick, and even than, they seem kind of pissy about it. An ESE friend of mine, for instance, was about to loose her mind when she had tonsillitis back in HS, she had to stay in bed for over a week and could barely speak, afterwards she complained more about the boredom and isolation associated with being sick than the actual pain; for my SLI friend it would be the other way around, as it would be even for my SEI best friend from HS
Do these LSE's go into these states of inactivity when other things need to be done, though? Are they more prone to periods of inactivity compared to activity?Quote:
Unless you equate Si with 'lacksadaisical activity'? Eh, well if that's the case i've known plenty of LSEs who have spent a lengthy time doing nothing, same as other types, maybe when doing nothing, all the types are using Si to it's 'full extent'?
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
the states of inactivity is avoiding time or being too overly concerned with time and quality of their work; perfectionists have the tendency to put emotional strain on themselves so much so that they actually prevent themselves from doing anything. Feelings of failure in fulfilling things in due time might actually cause this procrastination; actually, I think it's a lot of things, always having a lot to do and judging the quality of who they are based on how much they've accomplished...so many aspects, but yes, LSE do procrastinate, for many reasons, and they are lazy at times, for many reasons. This accurately reflects mirror relations as well; that's why they can seem so much like the other type, now that I think about a good contrast.
Si to a full extent would be my dual cousin taking me on a gentle stroll around the nature and relatively calm and quiet wood, having packed a pleasant to digest food and emphasizing on very good quality foods; making a lunch for us and sitting and doing nothing except engaging us in soft pleasant conversation and noting the pleasantness of the nature around us by pointing to particular colors or objects around and really getting me to delve into the moment, by calling my attention out wards, out of my mind and into the here and now; her frequent words would be "are you paying attention to what I'm telling you?" and "Look at this or that..."; We do this for many hours four or five, depending on the day and after we've fully submersed our sensations in the moment, without interruption of Se (inviting too much activity, like too much walking or making loud and disruptive noises to our Si environment), we'll pack up, go home and go to sleep in a cool but not cold room (sulked in darkness and all outside noises removed by heavy curtains and blinds) for more Si comfort.
I noticed that one time we took my SEE mentoring kids with us and one of the boys started to joke really loudly while all of us Si and Si valuers were sitting around and eating good food and were generally very quiet and calm. This SEE boy started to slap us in the shoulders, trying to tease us into responding to him and kept pestering us about doing things. He was complaining that it was boring and that there was nothing to do, while we, Si valuers, were completely content with relaxing and enjoying the good food around us for a LONG time, while he felt a rush to go do something. My ESE cousin kept telling him "Armen, sit down and relax for a few minutes; do you always have to get up and do something; enjoy the good food, relax, take in some fresh air." To which, Armen responded "I did relax; you're always telling me to relax, it's boring." I hope this is a good contrasted example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
You´re back! Nothing can hold against your arguments in this topic. I´m back to being your dual, after thinking about what you wrote and comparing to my own life...
"the states of inactivity is avoiding time or being too overly concerned with time and quality of their work; perfectionists have the tendency to put emotional strain on themselves so much so that they actually prevent themselves from doing anything. Feelings of failure in fulfilling things in due time might actually cause this procrastination; actually, I think it's a lot of things, always having a lot to do and judging the quality of who they are based on how much they've accomplished...so many aspects, but yes, LSE do procrastinate, for many reasons, and they are lazy at times, for many reasons." - this is me.
"gentle stroll around the nature and relatively calm and quiet wood, having packed a pleasant to digest food and emphasizing on very good quality foods; making a lunch for us and sitting and doing nothing except engaging us in soft pleasant conversation and noting the pleasantness of the nature around us by pointing to particular colors or objects around and really getting me to delve into the moment, by calling my attention out wards, out of my mind and into the here and now; her frequent words would be "are you paying attention to what I'm telling you?" " - this is me, again.
you´re my eternal DUAL
:hug:
I´m thinking about going back to gym but I´ve been busy with studying and also... lazy and procrastinating.
what do you think, Maritsa, do you like my avatar, it´s from march 2008 when I was working out heavily for some months... now I´m looking kind of weak again :( what do you think I should do, go back to gym, or do EIIs my duals not care about physical appearance that much?
:oops:
:hug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
I do not evaluate the look of the object :Se: as much as I evaluate how it makes me feel or the feelings I derive from it :Si:-the pleasant sensations it gives me; however, it is healthy and recommended that you keep a healthy and balanced physicality; exercise can be addicting. Arnold and a lot of LSE I know who get into it shift their perfection and their hard work right onto exercising with zest and take up way too much energy and time in perfecting their new found hobby. I suggest commiting to a routine where you only put aside 3 or 4 hours in a week to do so and make sure you don't exceed this limit at first (unless you're aiming to become a body builder).
I don't care about physical appearance that much. I do not prefer intuitive types over Sensory types as in, I don't like skinny bodies...I'm already one. XD
Your avatar is interesting. Keep it if you like it.
Removed at User Request
Thank you :D You mentioned Arnold I suppose it´s Schwarzenneger...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Well I think bodybuilding in ESTj´s has mainly to do with aesthetics :Si: rather than with building up more physical force :Se: . This is why you see so many ESTJs who take steroids which really do not increase that much the raw physical force but instead increase water retention and muscle growth and therefore make their bodies look 'bigger' and more attractive and aesthetic, to me this is pure :Si:.
I´m thinking abt taking steroids :muaha:
Okay, to clarify, I looked up this demonstrative business and found that there was earlier a little misinterpretation; while the demonstrative is as easily used as the dominant, it is not used as often. When used, it is used mostly in private to support the creative function, meaning it's used in service of the creative.
In public the demonstrative will hardly be used at all, and the individual will purposely go out of their way to avoid using it. Sometimes they will use it only to ridicule those who take it too seriously; this means you will not find an LSI-Si out there.
I feel much better now. :D Oh and Airborne, the LSE may prefer to avoid steroids if they cause discomfort, which I've read they do - they may prefer proper nutrition and diet coupled with hard work at the gym for aesthetics but also for good healthy feeling. Then again, they may not; it depends on the trade off to that particular LSE I suppose.
Thank you Skeptic, I´ve been away from this forum for the past couple of days I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic
I don´t consider steroids a serious possibility, it was more a joke. I think steroids are really not worth taking, I´ve read a lot about them. They may cause a lot of health problems and/or decrease the actual testosterone level in the blood by 100% - such as with the more popular one, Nandrolone.
At this stage in life, almost 29, I think taking steroids is something silly, something I could do if I were 18, but not my age. At 18 life is a big rush and you don´t think about consequences, as I grew older I noticed that I also grew a LOT more cautious and even fearful of taking risks in general.
Nowadays I just want to be somewhat happy - or less depressed.
You're right, it has nothing to do with Se and everything to do with Si :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Looking bigger is a turn.............................................. ...................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Good job, you just picked out her inability to see contradictions in the information that she presents. See now, I am using my role function and my Fi is shut off because now I can analyze what she said and has been saying and what you say or have been saying with regards to Demonstrative function. Yes, you're right that if the demonstrative function is as strong as the role, and in my case that would be Ni, the person can easily mistype themselves. In your case the demonstrative function is Se, so to others, at times you might look like and Se valuer, but you can't be SLE because, as I've pointed out to you before, you don't like being around people where external emotions are apparent and where Fe is in use. I've tested you with that regard many times. Your responses have been consistent with LSE and how they react to certain stimuli; specifically, the same as Ryu, if you're looking for a good comparison.
Another really easy way to tell that you're not SLE is that you don't ignore Si; as for not being LSi, you don't ignore Te.
This may be the reason why Dj thinks he's Se ego when he's actually not one. Dj in the same regard does not ignore Te, does demonstrate both Se and Si, but has weak Ni that doesn't seem to be an activation function. He ignores Ti because on many occasions, I did ask him to follow and compare/contrast our understanding to a system and he ignored it, passing it up to evaluate how I performed something...which is Te. If he is LSI then he would have ignored Te and went right on ahead to pick a system and compared/contrast our understanding according to a system.
Do you get excited by big men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
not hugeQuote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Thank you for being such a wonderful LSE :)
Trade off is money and success, so yes, LSE, like Arnold, will do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic
LOL honey... did you get infuriated just because I asked you whether you get excited when you come in contact with big men? it was just a direct question, kind of provoking you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
anyway I have to correct you here, LSE won´t trade off aesthetics for money and success, this is a very shallow outside view. Many go to fight for some cause and even die in battle, I guess they weren´t in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other crazy part of the world fighting because they wanted to look good or wanted to have money and success.
true, the ESTJ has a big ego, because of the EJ temperament I guess.
but remember the hidden agenda has to do with Ne, and the ESTJ is a big Fi-valuer, he´s just a realist who sees that if you look good and/or have money and success, people will like you and you´ll get a nice EII female who 'loves you' as a bonus.
Whereas if you´re poor and ugly, people will not like you, you´ll be probably left out of any emotional bonding with anyone you´d like to have as friend or mate, and you end up crying and shooting random people before killing yourself.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Demonstrative function in LSE being Se, Se which is just stating obvious observations of the character of something may manifest in how LSE say blunt statements that might come off as rather offensive but not wishing to hurt anyone's feelings require a bit of Fi stability. Same thing happens with ESE, blunt and sarcastic statements without the regard of other's emotions, except they are ethical types.
Statements like
"You're naive."
now I'm probably in over analyzing mode.
plus the LSE hidden agenda is 'to be perfect' and I could twist that to something a little more abstract related to :Ne: :
To fully develop your own innate abilities.
the LSE knows he´s very good at something and needs to let the world know about it because he needs to contribute to the world with something... don´t forget he´s a Delta...he wants to make a positive impact on society by developing his potential to the fullest (:Ne:).
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
What type did Marie think you were?
:hug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
:hug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
LSIQuote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
but I´m quite sure I´m an Si-ESTj
LSI don't like to have redunent talks about things that don't matter because it's not apart of Ti primary to go on and on about things that are not bare minimum of essencial like Te types can with their storehouse of info. Come on, look at reality, they eliminate unnecessary info are analysts. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
LSE can be short spoken but not when they have a lot of info to talk or shoot out at you. Plus, hasn't she seen how you evaluate how good something works, especially when you praised the socionics.com website moderator for being polite and british in their manners and how "productive" and better functioning that was compared to this site?