oh oh oh do me
Printable View
oh oh oh do me
WA is not beta
WA is not logical
WA is not ESI
WA is not SEI
I have ruled out the other catagory...
I dunno, WA seems alright to me, a little more reactionary than most of the IEE's here (I agree like MD), seems more judicious in style, so I doubt SEE. Between the other two I don't have a strong impression, but you know, I don't have a reason to disagree with self-typing.
oh polly, I don't know you but already I want to pop you in the face. you passive aggressive little goof you.
I've always thought ESE for WA as well..and for the same reasons lungs has stated. I feel like I'm watching a middle school drama unfold before my eyes whenever I read anything she writes. But she's super sweet and friendly so it does make up for it...
"
But if they become unhealthy, Twos deceive themselves about the presence and extent of their own emotional needs as well as their aggressive feelings, not recognizing how manipulative and domineering they can be. As we shall see, unhealthy Twos are among the most difficult of the personality types because they are extremely selfish in the name of utter selflessness. They can do terrible harm to others while believing that they are completely good.
The essence of the problem is that even average Twos cannot see themselves as they really are, as persons of mixed motives, conflicting feelings, and personal needs which they want to fulfill. Instead, they see themselves only in the most glowing terms, ignoring their negative qualities as they gradually become self-deceptive. What is difficult to understand about Twos is how they can deceive themselves so thoroughly; what is difficult to deal with in them is the manipulative way in which they go about getting what they want. The worse they get, the more difficult it is for others to square their perceptions of them with their totally virtuous perception of themselves. They constantly exonerate themselves and demand that others do the same—indeed, they demand that people accept their interpretation of their actions against their own judgment, and sometimes even contrary to the plain facts.
Twos, Threes, and Fours have a common problem with hostility, although they manifest it in different ways. Twos deny that they have any hostile feelings whatsoever, concealing their aggressions not only from others, but also from themselves. Like everyone else, Twos have aggressive feelings, but they protect themselves from realizing their existence and extent because their self-image prohibits them from being openly hostile. They act aggressively only if they can convince themselves that their aggressions are for someone else's good, never for their own self-interest. Average to unhealthy Twos fear that if they were ever openly selfish or aggressive, not only would their negative behavior contradict their virtuous self-image, it would drive others away from them. They therefore deny to themselves (and to others) that they have any selfish or aggressive motives whatsoever, while interpreting their actual behavior in a way which allows them to maintain a positive self-image. They eventually become so practiced at this that they completely deceive themselves about the contradiction between their expressed motives and their real behavior. Unhealthy Twos become capable of acting both very selfishly and very aggressively, while, in their minds, they are neither selfish nor aggressive.
The source of their motivation is the need to be loved. However, Twos are always in danger of allowing their desire to be loved to deteriorate into the desire to control others. By gradually making others dependent on them, average Twos inevitably arouse resentments against themselves while demanding that others confirm how virtuous they are. When interpersonal conflicts arise, as they inevitably do because of their attempts to control others, average to unhealthy Twos always feel "more sinned against than sinning." They see themselves as martyrs who have sacrificed themselves selflessly without being appreciated for it in the least. Their repressed aggressive feelings and resentments eventually manifest themselves in severe psychosomatic complaints and physical illnesses which force others to take care of them.
Gaining the love of others is important to Twos because they fear that they are not loved for themselves alone. They feel that they will be loved only if they can earn love by always being good and by constantly sacrificing themselves for others. In a word, they fear that others would not love them unless they made others love them. (Twos could be briefly characterized as persons who, fearing that they are unlovable, spend their lives trying to make people love them.) Naturally, that creates a deep source of hidden aggression, and if people do not respond to them as they want, average to unhealthy Twos become increasingly resentful. But since they cannot consciously own up to their aggressive feelings, they express them indirectly, in manipulative behavior they disavow. It is mind-boggling to see how badly unhealthy Twos can treat others while justifying everything they do. But no matter how destructive their actions are, unhealthy Twos must persuade themselves that they have nothing but love and the purest of good intentions at heart.
The way one self-types, be it E-type/Sociotype, doesn't necessarily mean such and such person is that particular E-type/Sociotype, so it is not impossible nor surprising.
I don't do psychic readings like some people on here, I don't tell people who or what they are looking in my crystal ball with a black cat on my shoulder and monkey chained to the table as to add mystery value and forgotten alchemy wisdom passing off as some Enneagram/Socionics guru. Thing is, I can listen and it is people who actually tell me who they are and it works even though it doesn't necessarily align with what they have put in their sig or something. You have to realise some people really want to shine and some just try way too hard and it just betrays/exposes them more.
But to answer your question, you would have to share so I can listen.
I have something in my mind, but as not to make a mistake I'm going to withhold what I have gathered, but soon.
come on absurd just tell me :(
I'll take WA as Alpha but she's intuitive and not sensing.
*reads thread*
eh, i really don't think Mountain Dew/Snaps should be used as some kind of benchmark for ESE.
i just think that because there is still some disagreement over Snaps' type, as well as the fact that he hasn't really settled on a type for himself, that he probably shouldn't be used as an example against which other people can be compared & contrasted to determine whether or not they might be ESE.
but yeah this is just my opinion. i can't really tell people how to type ESEs.
I'm best friends with people by day, by night I suck their blood. *mwahahaha*
Anyway, I wanted to be friends with people more last year, when my self-confidence was low. I'm more confident now and have no problems pissing someone off, if it means standing up for myself or someone I love.
Regardless, I also don't think the comparisons with me seem to be fair, since it seems people are not completely settled on my type being ESE. I don't mean to completely derail this thread, but I WAS mentioned like 5 times before I just saw this now :P.
I just wanted to comment and say I think @WorkaholicsAnon is an awesome person. She works really hard and is pretty open-minded in understanding people's viewpoints. I like her and think she is a standup person. :) Socionics-wise, I do think she is IEE.
As an aside... what Alpha would title themselves a 'workaholic'??? C'mon people. XD
u are so sweet, thanks snaps/mtdew!
lol btw, my username is workaholicsANON, a recovering workaholic... but that is because i get forced into being a workaholic against my will, because of expectations and my own hyper-perfectionistic tendencies, especially when it comes to doing a good job for people who depend on me (as well as my weak ability to be efficient). I dont think that's inconsistent with being an IEE though...
If @felafel thinks i'm logical, i am extremely flattered...
Oh and polikujm has hit the nail on the head wrt my inner motivations. Wow polikujm... i'm impressed that you understand me so well!!
@lungs wow girl you are way off...sorry...not really sure how you got such an inaccurate impression of me... maybe like someone mentioned, it's your own inner motivations affecting your perspective of people.
I know I'm accurate re: the outward presentation of your behavior which looks ese to me but I don't understand the why and how of it which is part of why I'm still hesitantly open to being convinced otherwise. i don't think I could be persuaded by you or poli though and nobody else seems to care so oh well.
I suspect we've come upon the root of the problem here...
you're rooted in MBTI. That's an MBTI-esque term. No wonder all your socionic typings are off. The two do not go hand in hand.
I also recall you being a frequenter of Ganin's site--his "socionics" is also too intermixed with MBTI.
OUCH. Whatever made you hate me so much? I've barely even interacted with you...Quote:
i said i'm not certain, but i'm glad. i could mail you some of the dumb logicals i know. i've been collecting. it's a hobby of sorts.
The two above statements right after one another look a bit sketchy. >.>Quote:
I do not mean to imply that felafel does hate you. No clue about whether he does or not.
Hmmm, good point. Add to this the cursing thread and how she was confused about how people were feeling judged and put down by her words regarding those who curse.
(thinking out loud)
However, I don't think the answer to this would be particularly helpful anyways. NeFi aren't infalleable in this, and even if it was connected to Fe, NeFi do have Fe demonstrative. Claims of Fe base would need to show an Ni/Si creative reasoning, as well as show how she ignores Fi.
I'd agree with GD and Confimed that WA is most likely e2 by enneagram, I've been typing her as 2w3 for a while now (not totally sure of the wing, though I think double image triad is more fitting) and that the similarities between her and MtDew and Yellow are likely based on e-type rather than socionics type. ESE 2s are very prevalent, it's possibly the most common e-type for them, and quite a few of the traits of this e-type have been mixed into stereotypes associated with ESE socionics type (like the excessive use of emoticons), but then if you ever meet ESE type 6 they don't mirror those stereotypes very well.
at the same time you have several Fe-valuing posters on this board who have never made commentary like this, and who have no problem openly cursing in their posts, from it's evident that such attitudes don't have much, if anything, to do with socionics ethical functions
from what I've seen it is probably more related to the social instinct because SO looks out for the 'health' of the social group (or society) as a whole, which may lead people with SO-stackings to reinforce the need for social courtesies, good manners, appropriate language and style of self-presentation, etc.
in terms of typology this can be rationalized on basis of you being type 4 and WA being type 2, four disintegrates to two, and often people feel somewhat irked or frustrated by those who represent their disintegration point ... this is a lot of conjecture but it's a possibility that your dislike for her has some roots in your enneagram types with her being your point of disintegration
nah Maritsa's core type is a two ... she displays attitudes of unhealthy 1 whenever she comes anywhere near socionics and discussing types, but socially she has that seductive demeanor and approach of type two... another thing in favor of her 2-ness is that if you take a look at her photos like this one and then compare it to this enneagram VI compilation the VI for twos fits her like a glove
Thank you that was a really insightful post. My only point of contention to that post is here...
Both you and Lungs misinterpret my philosophy of swearing = bad. It's not that i care about the atmosphere being ruined. It's my personally held value that swearing is disdainful, and thus i dont swear. But i dont care if other people do, i even find it funny often. I believe that i stated that clearly. I believe this is actually consistent with Fi, where I see the world via my own personally held values, even in opposition to the general sentiment. In this case the general sentiment was that swearing is cool. I actually went AGAINST the emotional environment in order to express my own personal value and stand up for it.
It is precisely because of this that you do not see Fe-egos and Fe-valuers supporting such a viewpoint on swearing, for example. I mean, you also saw Fi-egos with other personally held beliefs speaking out against my viewpoint. But generally the Fe-valuers disapproved strongly of my sentiments.
i don't agree with all the typings in that link. they list sandra bullock as a 9.
wat
http://pinterest.com/enneagram/ennea...enneagram-net/
other probably-not-9s: chris martin, jessica biel, jennifer hudson (come on, seriously?), kevin spacey, that woman from boogie nights what's-her-face.
ugh. re: swearing. this is why even when I liked socionics I wasn't really comfortable explaining typings. I try to explain something gestalt and hard to capture in words by pointing to something concrete. in this case the swearing issue. and if someone disagrees with me all they have to do is point to the concrete. "swearing isn't type related." like I'm really that stupid. this is where some of that ne from that eii typing might pay off siuntal. what I was getting at is that wa's attitude toward cursing is something I see more of in people like dew or yellow and not in people like slacker (who I think is probably not so-last). maybe it is social instinct though. but not everybody who is social instinct is against swearing omgz@
as for the 4 disintegrating to 2 thing, shrug, idk my Enneagram type but I see people here bitching about 2s more than any other type in general.
All I have to add to this is:
Slippery male organ
wa, can you point out where someone said cursing was cool, I must have missed that.
everybody has personal opinions but people express them differently.
I am always willing to accept new information and due to the limited and highly processed exchange of information that takes place within an online environment, I like ot compliment my own perceptions with that of others... In this context I won't disagree with your observation of admitting to knowing nothing, I cannot comment on whether this is good for me or otherwise. I have not read the other thread, I will.
See the problem with this statement I just quoted is your assumption that I think logical = smart and ethical = dumb. I dont carry this flawed notion. I said I'd be flattered to be considered a logical, my reason being that I dont consider myself to be as efficient and productive as I'd like to be, and I admire people who are.
In fact, I too know many stupid logicals, believe me. Some irl, and some on this very forum. Your statement about knowing all these stupid logicals in that context seemed like a snide comment aimed at implying that I'm one of them. Based on what you just said there, I see it likely wasn't meant that way, it was just another wrong assumption on your part about what goes on in my mind.
Get her, felafel. No place for infidels in holy land :)