Marvelous!
Printable View
Actually....
I'm going to agree with Gilly here. I think @InvisibleJim is just extremely selective, I think he'll open up... given you ask the right questions in the right way. Just don't expect him to rub your belly and compliment you.
it's not only a question of knowing jim intimately, but also of being familiar with the set of assumptions based on which these labels are being distributed. regardless of whether everyone is using similar identifiers, if you have spent any amount of time on this forum you would realise the definitions can often be vastly different to diffetent people. what constitutes as LXI for me is likely different from what it means to any of jim's personal army. in jim's case it seems to me it's less a matter of misunderstanding jim's nature or assigning false attributes to his personality than it is of differing definitions of the same or similar terms.
ps. typing from phone fuck making sense
quasi identicals are fun to analyze in socionics
sometimes I imagine myself being an ILI and I really don't find a lot of differences between the two types
I guess I can see you as LII
truth to be told, you are much easier to type LII than some LIIs, but that's just MBTI remains and inconsistent thoughts I've collected over the years
age could be a factor as well, i guess
maliciousness and heirarchy are unavoidable realities that are around whether people come up with plausible-sounding explanations for their opinions or not (and remember, this isn't a hard science so its always opinion, no matter how fluffed up somebody can make themselves sound talking about it). maybe instead of having an expectation that better typing algorithims will eliminate game-playing, which is unrealistic and naive imo, its better to just acknowledge those realities and use them to your advantage. they might be useful in helping you know who to trust or who has a positive or negative opinion of certain others, and having that knowledge obscured via a hyped system of faux-objectivity doesn't change the truth.
The testimonies of those who address you as "dear" supply a wan flame beneath that receptacle. In order to separate your metal from your slag, obtain the necessary heat by soliciting the informed commentary of your adversaries from other forums as well.
Countless people receive the same hazy inheritance of culture and experience, however unlike yourself they don't all make claims to moral absolutism. Explain why.
Accepting for argument's sake that this is true, explain:
1) Why you make frequent declarations about other people's rationality as well as momentary and habitual mental states, including motivations, dispositions, and intentions.
2) What truth value these declarations have given your professed inability to comprehend others' mental processes.
1) Because this is what I observe in their behaviour.
2) You do not require intricate understanding of what goes on inside heads to observe actions and behaviours.
You seem to have failed to disentangle inference and extrapolation from telepathy k0rpsy.
Are you telepathic k0rpsy?
Give your definition of "observe" as it's used here.
Define "understanding" as you utilized it and contrast it with "intricate understanding".
Briefly outline the steps necessary to arrive at this conclusion.
Since you are the self-designated concern of this thread my extrasensory capabilities are better addressed elsewhere.
Give your definition of Internet while you're at it, Jim.
1/2) Google a dictionary
3) You asked for me to state why people choose an ethical paradigm. That would require more information than is ever available including that of genetic tendency, randomness, upbringing and experience as well as the relative weight of these tendencies. I would need to be telephathic to have that knowledge. However I can ascertain which ethics they have chose by the decisions take. That is inference and extrapolation.
Absurd! k0rpsy needs to learn to google himself. I can't possibly rob him of this vital experience and future capability!
I don't have an argument or a strong opinion on your type, but these are things I look at and that strike out to me
Reinin
obstinate
constructivist
declaring
serious
Accepting - irrational (you seem fine appreciating various approaches for understanding rather than needing to find a best one and utilize it)
producing - rational (basically what k0rpsey outlined)Quote:
... you make frequent declarations about other people's rationality as well as momentary and habitual mental states, including motivations, dispositions, and intentions.
cognitive stylesQuote:
claims to moral absolutism
not likely - Vortical-Synergetic
On Ti. You don't seem Fe-merry (light-hearted). But I could see how people might think you value Fe because of what k0rpsey said in the producing section above. The way I understand Fi/Te and Ti/Fe is that one tends to imply the other to a degree, so it would make sense that some would see it as valued.
My guess/conclusion/opinion/whatever is ILI-Te.
Jim, even Tackk is there for you. Time is money, which means you can reclaim the streets now.
Food for Thought:
INTp Thinking descriptions: Relatively Relevant
Ti as a demonstrative (8th) function (ILI and SLI)
The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway.
Te as a creative (2nd) function (ILI and SLI)
It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.
LII Thinking descriptions: Somewhat less but still relevant
Te as an ignoring (7th) function (LII and LSI)
The individual is adept at finding external sources of factual information and confident in his ability to evaluate their value, but regards collecting data as secondary to making them fit into a consistent logical system. To him, listing facts without analyzing their relationships is a trivial and boring exercise. He values efficiency and productivity but is skeptical that they will be achieved if one's actions and process do not follow a clear procedure.
Ti as a base (1st) function (LII and LSI)
The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.
Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.
Lets have a look at the old Fe/Fi
INTp descriptions - Quite relevant
Fe as a vulnerable (4th) function (ILI and SLI)
The individual tries hard to never let himself "come apart at the seams" emotionally or even let out strong feelings publicly, because displays of passion do not come naturally and make him feel self-consciousness and vulnerable to painful criticism. This makes the individual generally seem emotionally neutral and politely indifferent to excitement and agitation around him. The individual deeply dislikes attempts by others to get him to "cheer up" or "join the fun", especially in the context of group activities with loud emotional expression.
Fi as a mobilizing (6th) function (ILI and SLI)
The individual longs for establishing stable personal relationships with other individuals based on mutual trust and understanding where deeper and private feelings and experiences can be easily shared. However, the individual lacks the initiative to establish such relationships and usually expects others to make gestures in that area, admiring those who do so. In the context of extroverted ethics (Fe) as a vulnerable function, it should be emphasized that these types especially value emotional bonds where feelings go unsaid between partners, and are simply "understood."
INTj descriptions - Marginally relevant in Fe, not relevant in Fi:
Fe as a suggestive (5th) function (LII and LSI)
The individual often becomes engrossed in serious work, which leads him to neglect his complementary need for fun and emotional release. He also feels vulnerable expressing himself spontaneously in public, which allows bad emotions and stress to build up, leading to depression or sudden hostility. He enjoys being around people who make him feel comfortable expressing himself, and who can make every day new and exciting.
Although he may present a hard exterior in the company of strangers, he is likely to not be serious at all with people who know him better. His behavior changes radically - a calm and serious structured person will suddenly become jovial and warm
Fi as a role (3rd) function (LII and LSI)
The individual recognizes the existence and importance of personal relationships, so he is usually cautious at first about offending others if he does not know them well. To minimize this risk he adheres somewhat simplistically to the relevant social conventions (e.g. political correctness). However, if taken too far this produces stress, as it inhibits his natural introverted logic (Ti) inclination to voice exactly what his thoughts are on a given issue or situation, with the expectation that others will appreciate his straightforwardness, rather than accusing him of being insensitive. This caution gradually disappears as he gets to know people better.
He prefers to develop relationships indirectly with others based on open conversation and common activities, and only reveals his innermost personal feelings to those he has known for a long time. He may become confused and suspicious if they are directly solicited by others.
LSI 6w5 sx/sp, probably like 6w5-4w5-8w9.
Except that he argues that a person's level of confidence determines what is (or isn't) real.
In particular, that if a person is confident in their typing of person P as type X, that confidence level determines that person P is indeed type X, and there is no need to check for accuracy nor reconsider own view despite Person P (and many others) saying that type Y more accurately describes person P.
Yes, it might be true for that person, but that does not make it real, nor accurate.
I would think that a Te ego would argue that what is real, what is actually observable, is more accurate, and more important, than one person's level of confidence in their own personal understandings.
Nope.
A) He has indeed argued that. His behavior and his own words.
B) Which opinion did I express strong confidence in, in that post? Strong enough that I label it as irrufutable fact? One which I am unwilling to reconsider alternatives for?
C) I have never claimed to be Te ego.
Where does he argue this? Can you link please?
He has argued in the past that one should be open about one's methods and conceptual understanding and make it available to outside criticism as means of improving on those methods, rather than going by one's personal understanding.
This discussion wasn't about whether Jim is capable or not capable of attributing mental states to others and recognizing them as separate entities with beliefs and feelings of their own, but rather that he prioritizes external dynamics to making complex internal inferences in reaching his conclusions, as would be expected of someone with Je-ego.
Wrong, that's exactly what it was about the moment he began equivocating about what he "understood" to be going through people's heads. Follow-up questions were treated to the same sort of obvious evasions, which are of a piece with the non-answers and side-stepping he'd exhibited since I entered this thread. As far as what you're stretching to describe, he's just engaging in basic human behavior as mentioned above. The only difference is that he's also tapdancing artlessly the whole while. For whatever this exercise was worth in type-analysis terms, be assured that if I met Jim to play poker we'd definitely start with a fresh pack of cards.
I see very little of dynamic anything in Jim other than horse-pucky and smarm. When he's actually got the stones to enter a debate rather than dissemble, the formulation of his arguments is concise and rigidly categorical, sweeping away exceptions and variables. This has a certain economy to it though this comes at the cost of empathy and charm, especially when he's motivated to speak up in fear for his precious pot of gold (though on cam he is more warm and jocose than his writing often suggests). The manner in which he advances his arguments is programmatic and unilateral in a way I view primarily as positivist and secondarily as causal-determinist. Dissenters to his mean and narrow ideal get doors slammed in their faces and he moves on.
Jim's writing exhibits grammatical quirks and idiosyncratic jargon that remind me of various Ti-doms as they "reprocess data" as Krig once self-strokingly put it. Sometimes labcoat and especially ESC come to mind in this regard. Llikewise the latter for his squirminess when outgunned, though Jim seems a bit more self-possessed and confident than that overcompensating quibbler.
By all appearances Jim is chummy with the predominantly merry emo crew at socksrus/socionics4u, and though he might be on good terms with the handful of gamma habitues there he isn't especially well integrated with the remainder of the forum's active gammas.
I've got difficulty seeing E6 in any non-Ji or -Si ego, and hkkmr's inability to cross his legs or take lunch without Jim militating against his proprietary rights to do so is E6 as hell. The IP vibe just isn't present in Jim and I've been wondering for some time whether his initials aren't a joke hiding in the open. LII made sense for a while because Ti/IJ is blatantly out front, and he doesn't seem like an ILE (and for whatever reason, a substantial portion of self-professed ILI noobs turn out to actually be alpha NTs; oddly that almost never plays out in the opposite direction). However, in the end he doesn't seem quite so airheaded as many in that bunch. I also don't think a gamma NT would experience as much indigestion as Jim has complained about in the course of examining fuzzy correlations between typologies.
Static, merry, declaring, positivist, aristocratic, blah blah blah. LSI 6w5 sx/sp
I have been looking for it, but I find the search function for this site to be atrocious.
He inserted himself into one of mine and maritsa's arguments, i believe it was an attempt to defend her. It was one where I was trying to get her to see that just because she believes something, that doesn't make it real, true, nor accurate. I had also asked her something like what would lead her to believe that something was real, and she had said her confidence. Somewhere during this time was when Jim jumped in and begain arguing with me not that confidence led to belief, but that confidence determined reality. I tried one or two times to give him an out from that, but he kept pushing it. I then had to leave the conver because there was obvious philosophical differences, possibly linked to him and Maritsa believing in something like "The Secret" while I see The Secret has just a way of altering one's perceptions. I even mentioned in the argument something about The Secret.
Within a day or so of this conver ending, Jim had made a post somewhere else, maybe a thread, I'm not sure. Where he talked about something like not grasping the meaning of something he reads, but going by assuming what the person was going to say....(this certainly isn't exact...I dont remember his specific words. I only remember it because I wasn't sure if he had reviewed the argument or maybe it was referring to something else.)
I'm not invested enough in this thread to spend more time looking for the conver when I can't seem to use the search function for finding past convers. Perhaps he remembers where it was, or at least the time frame for the thread/post he'd made afterwards. That would at least help narrow it down.
Oh, and it's also the only conver I've had with him...that I can recall, as in I don't remember he and I posting to each other before that.
If you decide to try looking for it yourself:
It's probably the only posting/quoting of each other that he and I did.
Keywords would include confidence, determines, accuracy, reality/real, (maybe "truth"), The Secret
It's part of one of my (many) arguments with maritsa
Very soon after, he made a thread, or post, about not reading (or understanding) something someone else writes, (possibly due to) prior assumptions. (the general meaning, not the exact words) As mentioned, if you find this thread/post, that would help narrow down the search time frame.
Oh, I believe that it had happened this year, but my memory for time could use some serious improvements!!
Ok, I found the referred after post which I wasn't sure about: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ocus-on-Detail
"I can't maintain focus on detail; often reading what I expect to see rather than what is there."
This thread is dated april 14, so that helps me narrow the time frame.
Edited to add: i tried looking through his posting history, but that only went so far back as oct 3, 2012. What we need is access to early to mid april 2012.
I'm done trying to find it, like i said, i find the search function on this site to be horrible. But that could just mean that I dont quite know how to use it to get what I'm looking for.
Oh, so Jim wants to see what he wants to see? That's nothing new when it comes to this forum.
@anndelise Enjoy...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...212#post863212
No 'The Secret' involved.
I don't know what the problem is, then. I mean a rock can be inhabited by toxic horses, but it is not. You think it is active imagination, anndelise? :)
Anyhow, Jim wants to be ILI, fine. Funniest thing, some people see different things in that DarkAngelFireWolf69 cog styles even though they read same text. Well, I'm going to check this tomorrow/after tomorrow, have places to see in the morning. Anyhow, I think I scribbled something before in this thread, but I don't know him well if at all and didn't interact longer like I did with couple of people on here.
They're not, that's a given. One is Ni and the other is Ti. Socionics is alright.