Type me by MY FACE

I have been watching this thread and all I see, not from what you write in your posts, but from your actions, is Se. From the way you started this post, to your reasons for starting the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macysmama

I have been watching this thread and all I see, not from what you write in your posts, but from your actions, is Se. From the way you started this post, to your reasons for starting the post.

---

What are her motives then to start the OP in your opinion?

New pics :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narc

I for one would really like to see what population distribution @Maritsa thinks the types have.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daft21

@Maritsa still waiting for some stuff about type distribution

---

93% of all people are sensors, 46% of all women are SEE, that's as far as I have gotten so far, those are the stats she works with.

In Maritsa's system I may well be SEE but I am looking into the book she uses (which is an alternative, see above stats, socionics theory) to gain a better understanding of how she types people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macysmama

I have been watching this thread and all I see, not from what you write in your posts, but from your actions, is Se. From the way you started this post, to your reasons for starting the post.

---

You see actions. :shock: My reasons are not actions. Wanting to understand how Vi affects different peoples perspectives of types...is Se? And then to compare that data to how they then view the same individual with different style pictures...is Se?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

93% of all people are sensors, 46% of all women are SEE, that's as far as I have gotten so far, those are the stats she works with.

---

If it has a cock it is LSE - simple Maritsa logik. If not, SEE. All in all, you're not in the best position to negotiate. Although, checking Maritsa's list once again, I see some people, even though males, do not have cocks, which is weird.

Another mystery...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jadae16t

There is an hour long video on YT about this woman giving personality traits to the same things the book does, but in vastly different ways. People have been making these attempts for so long, and they're almost always way off the mark.

But at least it is very :popcorn: amusing :popcorn:

I had more fun watching this woman make her friends uncomfortable than I did learning what she was expressing. AND she was Australian, which is triple :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

---

Link??? Surely a youtube vid link is permissable?

I couldnt get past 16:17. Rather, I wouldn't.
I don't currently have a Sodium problem, and I don't want one. I'll pass on the rest of this video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

93% of all people are sensors, 46% of all women are SEE, that's as far as I have gotten so far, those are the stats she works with.

In Maritsa's system I may well be SEE but I am looking into the book she uses (which is an alternative, see above stats, socionics theory) to gain a better understanding of how she types people



You see actions. :shock: My reasons are not actions. Wanting to understand how Vi affects different peoples perspectives of types...is Se? And then to compare that data to how they then view the same individual with different style pictures...is Se?

---

Please just don't go so far and buy this crappy book

 

http://italianwinegeek.files.wordpre...st-chicken.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jadae16t

http://youtu.be/Q6qlrvxCcjo

:popcorn:

---

ROLF, one of UFO T.V's less believable presentations. I see how the style is similar, she has that same snake oil approach, but she looks like Madge?!? I suppose they are both actors.

High brow, low brow, says the one with the painted brow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

It's not necessary to make categorical statements in order for someone to pick up a trend or pattern. I have noticed you have been leaning heavily towards typing people SLE as of late. It may be that you or even I are focussing on this more but I do believe there to be some truth what i have said.


Edit: Was looking at a thread which had a few of your recent typings on members in a list and saw that you wanted to compare a member's picture to Filatova's portraits of SLE. I'm pretty sure by now someone must have pulled you up on the issue with VI'ing and the fact that Filatova herself did not endorse it as a worthy typing method.


But anyway, I'd still be interested to know in what lifetime you could compare my image to any of the Filatova SLE???

Edit 2: Redirecting to this thread > http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-me-by-MY-FACE < as not wanting to divert this thread too much. Also fyi I changed the pictures in the Op, the original ones were quite specific and most people denoted Se base function front them, which was anticipated, the thread was an experiment to see how different types used different visual information and etc. I changed the op pics now though which are more natural.

---

you're kinda hawt
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6&d=1382302478
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_008.jpg

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...0&d=1381619636
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_011.jpg

you look kinda like Simona Halep (pretty sure she's also SLE):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Open_adj.jpg
why do SLE chicks have to be so attractive?

Lol I seriously fail to see the similarity between that sporty lady and myself, for a start she has a rather large bulbus nose. I also do not look like that ale women. Even in the pictures you selected yourself I look more like the IEE one.


IEE
Attachment 3275

Picture you selected of me

Attachment 3276


To be honest I do not believe in typing by Vi unless you have a lot of pictures and experience with the person you are typing and even then at best it's a guess.


Edit: I prefer to be valued for my ideas than my hotness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

you're kinda hawt
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6&d=1382302478
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_008.jpg

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...0&d=1381619636
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_011.jpg

you look kinda like Simona Halep (pretty sure she's also SLE):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Open_adj.jpg
why do SLE chicks have to be so attractive?

---

No opinnion on your type Gem, but I do second his oppinion that you're haaaaawt! :)

" for a start she has a rather large bulbus nose" <--- Se appearance judgement (shielding oneself confidently from sth that could be considered a "negative" facial trait)

also that IEE lady in the filatova portraits looks like 2 heavy Se ladies I know

one of them (filatova portrait is her younger version) : http://i.imgur.com/VaOBwZD.jpg?1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by severina

" for a start she has a rather large bulbus nose" <--- Se appearance judgement + Fe HA/ suggestive (shielding oneself)

also that IEE lady in the filatova portraits looks like 2 heavy Se ladies I know

one of them (filatova portrait is her younger version) : https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...48934736_n.jpg

---

It was a large defining attribute which played a part in the filatova portraits directly, i could talk about expression too. I don't give much credence to Vi (as already mentioned) I just thought it was amusing that somebody using Vi is so way off. The above pic shows a cute person I would have no idea of their type by this but it's possibly an introvert or someone play acting shyness.


Edit: Lol it was just pointed out that this person too has a bulbs nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

you're kinda hawt

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_008.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_011.jpg

you look kinda like Simona Halep (pretty sure she's also SLE):

why do SLE chicks have to be so attractive?

---

This type of VI is not well regarded. V.I. goes more off persona and overall expression while communicating. Those filtova images are hardly interesting as universal socoitype VI's. There are several good threads about this topic for those who like mining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereticWacey

This type of VI is not well regarded. V.I. goes more off persona and overall expression while communicating. Those filtova images are hardly interesting as universal socoitype VI's. There are several good threads about this topic for those who like mining.

---

Filatova's portraits are GOLD, idk what you're talking about

her methodology was solid:

Quote:

---

On the contrary, she first determined the type of the person (by interviewing, in course of long contacts, etc.) and only then, when this person expressed his/her agreement with the type description and his/her permission for being photographed, she made his/her pictures in several standard perspectives (which allowed comparing pictures of different people with each other). In addition, she often received feedback from these people and kept contacts with them, since many of them were her former students, colleague professors or even practicing socionists. If anybody later expressed his doubts about the correctness of his/her type identification, then his/her pictures were removed from the collection to a separate folder marked “dubious” for future verification. The total number of portraits made by her exceeds several thousands, and the most reliable of them have been published in her books.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Lol I seriously fail to see the similarity between that sporty lady and myself, for a start she has a rather large bulbus nose.

---

this alone tells me that you're at least strong in Se, because I can't for the life of me point out the physical similarities I see; I notice them but can't name them like you can

all I can say is "look at the shape of the eyebrows"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Edit: I prefer to be valued for my ideas than my hotness.

---

well I value both your ideas and your hawt bawd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

To be honest I do not believe in typing by Vi unless you have a lot of pictures and experience with the person you are typing and even then at best it's a guess.

---

I could type you definitively if you posted an interview-style video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

this alone tells me that you're at least strong in Se, because I can't for the life of me point out the physical similarities I see; I notice them but can't name them like you can

all I can say is "look at the shape of the eyebrows"



well I value both your ideas and your hawt bawd




I could type you definitively if you posted an interview-style video

---

Yah I have eyebrows with a high arch naturally, I know this because people have commented on it. The bulbus nose thing I have a thing about because I find it quite unattractive (one of the very few physical traits I find unattractive, it just seems clumsy somehow). And now I feel bad that I said that but it's just a thing, i must have a deep seated association somewhere. My grandmother told me to never trust men with thin lips and though it was only in the back of my mind I carried it from a child into adulthood. But meh whatever, the fact that I noticed a nose shape does not mean Se anyway, people notice things we do all use all the functions. You may as well be telling me i'm SEE because I have looked at coffee.


If you want to post a list of questions I can make a video of myself answering them, I'll do it off the cuff too so that it's natural and not rehearsed. I haven't made a typing vid for a few years anyway. If you meant with someone else asking me questions I could maybe ask my fourteen year old son to play interviewer.

The other thing I shall chose to ignore as it has no place here.

Definetely Ne-dom ILE>IEE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Yah I have eyebrows with a high arch naturally

---

So I look at the "overall shape" of the eyebrow, whereas you accurately describe them as having a "high arch".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

But meh whatever, the fact that I noticed a nose shape does not mean Se anyway, people notice things we do all use all the functions. You may as well be telling me i'm SEE because I have looked at coffee.

---

The point is that you can describe in clear and precise terms what you see; all I can do is say "look! the shape!" and hope you know what I'm referring to. Also, logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

If you want to post a list of questions I can make a video of myself answering them, I'll do it off the cuff too so that it's natural and not rehearsed.

---

Okay. I'll need some time to think about what I want to ask, but I'll come up with a nice list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

The other thing I shall chose to ignore as it has no place here.

---

Again, logic. Also: you have a 14 year old son? I never would've guessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by severina

" for a start she has a rather large bulbus nose" <--- Se appearance judgement (shielding oneself confidently from sth that could be considered a "negative" facial trait)

---

well said!

seriously though, this is a spot-on observation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

well said!

seriously though, this is a spot-on observation!

---

Hahaha, thats pretty pathetic. I thought the original comment was too for reasons I already gave, namely that we do all make observations in connection with Se...all of us, even you kenneth, to suggest otherwise is idiocy. Note that I have chosen to opt out of discussing physical attributes with you except the nose thing which i already explained has some psychological connection with me... as in the example i gave. EDIT: Come to think of it this is a fair point, you not once but twice mentioned that I am attractive visually. what function is this if not the very function you are ascertaining I am using as a base function. ???? Crazy as a coconut.

It really at this point comes down to nitpicking at words. It's at this point where i begin to get either irritated because it is clear manipulation to support bias. It's ok though, everyone is bias, everyone. Everyone has their own typing systems, some are more similar to others, often you find little camps in the dessert.

I'm not sure I can do a video if it's going to be nitpicking and manipulating the hell outta the minute. I work mainly with bigger picture holistic approaches. The idea that someone will sit down breaking everything down into their own system in a vain attempt at acceptance by their own camp is pretty abhorrent to me. If you want to type someone you can not just select the bits that favour your typing alone because there are so many facets to a person.

I'm not so bothered if you want to have me as SLE in your system, I noted that you also typed Kim SLE and a couple of other people i hold candles for intellectually and personality wise so I'm happy that you want to place me with them. Weather you call me SLE and mention the nose comment or call us all ESE's and use some other insignificant detail to get this across is moot. There not going to be a consensus for it... I'll just magic me some instruments and light the campfire.

let's move this thang forward ,Kenneth Chesney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Hahaha, thats pretty pathetic.

---

You think it's pathetic, just like I think it's pathetic when you claim a bulbous nose "seems clumsy" (how the fuck can a nose be "clumsy"?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

I thought the original comment was too for reasons I already gave, namely that we do all make observations in connection with Se...all of us, even you kenneth,

---

I mean, we all look at the world and directly derive information from it; that's the "explicit" half of the explicit/implicit dichotomy. But what you're doing is detecting "explicit" and "static" properties of "objects", which is different than just "seeing things".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Note that I have chosen to opt out of discussing physical attributes with you except the nose thing which i already explained has some psychological connection with me...

---

Se-valuing questionmark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Come to think of it this is a fair point, you not once but twice mentioned that I am attractive visually. what function is this if not the very function you are ascertaining I am using as a base function.

---

That just means "I like the way you look", which is different than pointing out specific properties of you that I find attractive. Even if I said, "you have a nice ass", that wouldn't really be Se, since "nice" doesn't describe anything physical about your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Crazy as a coconut.

---

A coconut can't be crazy; it is an inanimate object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

It really at this point comes down to nitpicking at words.

---

If "type" is what "defines my world", and if "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", then there is an explicit connection between my language and my type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

It's at this point where i begin to get either irritated because it is clear manipulation to support bias.

---

It might seem like manipulation to you, and in a way it probably is, but that doesn't mean I'm incorrect about your type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

It's ok though, everyone is bias, everyone. Everyone has their own typing systems, some are more similar to others, often you find little camps in the dessert.

---

I don't have a "system" for typing. It's more of a "method", but it's so intuitive, feeling-based, and loosely-organized that I'd hardly even call it that. It's more just "me" than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

I'm not sure I can do a video if it's going to be nitpicking and manipulating the hell outta the minute.

---

I made that suggestion for your benefit, not for mine, so do what you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

I'm not so bothered if you want to have me as SLE in your system

---

It's not that you're SLE "in my system", it's simply that "you're SLE" (or whatever the hell you want to call it; I'm convinced that neuroscience will eventually discover the real mechanisms behind "types").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

I noted that you also typed Kim SLE and a couple of other people i hold candles for intellectually and personality wise so I'm happy that you want to place me with them. Weather you call me SLE and mention the nose comment or call us all ESE's and use some other insignificant detail to get this across is moot. There not going to be a consensus for it... I'll just magic me some instruments and light the campfire.

---

lol, don't worry Gem, I've got nothing but respect for SLE; they're a brilliant type as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

You think it's pathetic, just like I think it's pathetic when you claim a bulbous nose "seems clumsy" (how the fuck can a nose be "clumsy"?)




I mean, we all look at the world and directly derive information from it; that's the "explicit" half of the explicit/implicit dichotomy. But what you're doing is detecting "explicit" and "static" properties of "objects", which is different than just "seeing things".




Se-valuing questionmark




That just means "I like the way you look", which is different than pointing out specific properties of you that I find attractive. Even if I said, "you have a nice ass", that wouldn't really be Se, since "nice" doesn't describe anything physical about your ass.




A coconut can't be crazy; it is an inanimate object.




If "type" is what "defines my world", and if "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", then there is an explicit connection between my language and my type.




It might seem like manipulation to you, and in a way it probably is, but that doesn't mean I'm incorrect about your type.




I don't have a "system" for typing. It's more of a "method", but it's so intuitive, feeling-based, and loosely-organized that I'd hardly even call it that. It's more just "me" than anything.




I made that suggestion for your benefit, not for mine, so do what you wish.




It's not that you're SLE "in my system", it's simply that "you're SLE" (or whatever the hell you want to call it; I'm convinced that neuroscience will eventually discover the real mechanisms behind "types").




lol, don't worry Gem, I've got nothing but respect for SLE; they're a brilliant type as far as I'm concerned.

---

The idea of making a video is for you to try and look at it objectively, but if your aim is simply to find snippets that you can manipulate into making me the type you have constructed in your own mind then i'm out. Really it was an exercise in objective reasoning but I see that you are unable to do this. C'mon Kenneth you want to use my comment of a nose being bulbus and clumsy as a reason for being Se base...that's it? It's pretty lame. Clumsy is not such a specific descriptive either, bulbus is more so but combine the two and it's a weak argument. I could take a sentence from any post of yours and make an argument for at least strong Se out of it. Also be aware that IEE has Se as a role function, so yes you may well recognise one comment as Se. Like I mentioned before, we all use all the functions. I'm sure we will find many instances of IEE (even people you deem as IEE) who use a descriptive of a specific attribute in some posts. You can then have a look at many of mine to try and find them, honestly I rarely focus on any physical attributes of people, that's something you will notice if you actual look into it.

Also interestingly the type I have had most difficulties with is probably the SLE, mainly because i find the level of their fluidity of truth to be untrustworthy. So it takes me back again to the way you type people. If you do not agree with the published socionists then really Kenneth, it is your own system that you are using to type by and as previously stated i'm cool with being your kind of SLE if I am in said flutterfly camp.


Also just fyi, describing a nose as clumsy would be more in line with Ne than Se as it is metaphoric, the fact that you have difficulty understanding how a nose can be clumsy in shape means you are having difficulty understanding a Ne description. But *shrugs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

The idea of making a video is for you to try and look at it objectively, but if your aim is simply to find snippets that you can manipulate into making me the type you have constructed in your own mind then i'm out.

---

If I watched your video and found evidence that indicated another type for you, I would change my typing of you. People around here have commented on my "inconsistency" regarding typings, i.e. how one day I'll type someone X, and the next day I'll retype them Y, and the next day I'll finally settle on type Z, and that's because typing is a process for me. A person's type becomes clearer and clearer the more I interact with them; sometimes my "initial impression" can be way off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Really it was an exercise in objective reasoning but I see that you are unable to do this.

---

That's because I have Ti as my PoLR; you wouldn't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

C'mon Kenneth you want to use my comment of a nose being bulbus and clumsy as a reason for being Se base...that's it?

---

No, the fact that you emphasized the nose is my reason for you being Se-valuing, and the fact that you described the nose as "bulbous" is my reason for you being an Se-ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

I could take a sentence from any post of yours and make an argument for at least strong Se out of it.

---

Then why don't you do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Also be aware that IEE has Se as a role function

---

Yes, I'm quite aware, and when I told you to "look at her eyebrows", that was me using my role function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Like I mentioned before, we all use all the functions. I'm sure we will find many instances of IEE (even people you deem as IEE) who use a descriptive of a specific attribute in some posts.

---

"We all use all the functions. Why? Because we can see many instances of IEE using Se. Where? I don't know, but it's true."
Talk about a weak argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

You can then have a look at many of mine to try and find them, honestly I rarely focus on any physical attributes of people, that's something you will notice if you actual look into it.

---

Then make a video!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Also interestingly the type I have had most difficulties with is probably the SLE, mainly because i find the level of their fluidity of truth to be untrustworthy.

---

The SLE I know are all honest people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Also just fyi, describing a nose as clumsy would be more in line with Ne than Se as it is metaphoric

---

SLE has Ne as their role function, dork. But I still don't see how a nose can be "clumsy" (base-Ne > role-Ne).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

the fact that you have difficulty understanding how a nose can be clumsy in shape means you are having difficulty understanding a Ne description. But *shrugs

---

No, I'm just having trouble understanding a bad Ne-description, just as you would have trouble understanding a bad Se-description from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

If I watched your video and found evidence that indicated another type for you, I would change my typing of you. People around here have commented on my "inconsistency" regarding typings, i.e. how one day I'll type someone X, and the next day I'll retype them Y, and the next day I'll finally settle on type Z, and that's because typing is a process for me. A person's type becomes clearer and clearer the more I interact with them; sometimes my "initial impression" can be way off.




That's because I have Ti as my PoLR; you wouldn't understand.




No, the fact that you emphasized the nose is my reason for you being Se-valuing, and the fact that you described the nose as "bulbous" is my reason for you being an Se-ego.




Then why don't you do it?




Yes, I'm quite aware, and when I told you to "look at her eyebrows", that was me using my role function.




"We all use all the functions. Why? Because we can see many instances of IEE using Se. Where? I don't know, but it's true."
Talk about a weak argument.




Then make a video!




The SLE I know are all honest people.




SLE has Ne as their role function, dork. But I still don't see how a nose can be "clumsy" (base-Ne > role-Ne).




No, I'm just having trouble understanding a bad Ne-description, just as you would have trouble understanding a bad Se-description from me.

---

Oh lordy really? Ok lets go down this road if you really want to. Tell me which members you consider IEE and I will find posts of theirs for you to show you them using Se. And If you like I can look into your own post history to check yours. The reason I did not do this initially is because is seems like a ridiculous concerted effort for something which is so unequivocally self evident that it should not need 'proof' I can also show you posts of mine where I am much vaguer with description. Kenneth this is going to be tiring are you sure you want to do this?

Arguing with Huxley...

Nose shape is where it's at. @Maritsa baby, tell em how to VI properly. They have their shapes wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Park

Nose shape is where it's at. @Maritsa baby, tell em how to VI properly. They have their shapes wrong.

---

Thank you, Parker ;) I'd have to think about this

This photo is a good example of my posed look. I'm not the best as smiling for the camera and it often comes across as slightly uncomfortable in expression. Add to that I didn't know the guy in the photo and he put his arm around my waist for the pic which was super awkward and I was desperate to get away but too embarrassed to stop the pic being taken.

Attachment 3284

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Oh lordy really? Ok lets go down this road if you really want to. Tell me which members you consider IEE and I will find posts of theirs for you to show you them using Se. And If you like I can look into your own post history to check yours. The reason I did not do this initially is because is seems like a ridiculous concerted effort for something which is so unequivocally self evident that it should not need 'proof' I can also show you posts of mine where I am much vaguer with description. Kenneth this is going to be tiring are you sure you want to do this?

---

Go through my posts; as far as I know I'm the only IEE on here.

Here's what to look for:
(physical property of)(object)
ex. (bulbous)(nose)

Good luck; this will indeed be a tiring venture for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Park

Arguing with Huxley...

---

I like to think I'm an unorthodox Huxley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Go through my posts; as far as I know I'm the only IEE on here.

Here's what to look for:
(physical property of)(object)
ex. (bulbous)(nose)

Good luck; this will indeed be a tiring venture for you.

---

*facepalm* I don't think I'll bother. Good luck with being the only IEE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

*facepalm* I don't think I'll bother. Good luck with being the only IEE.

---

then every criticism you made is moot. enjoy being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

then every criticism you made is moot. enjoy being wrong.

---

It's all moot, that's the whole point of discussion and debate of a theory. Enjoy being the only IEE in your mind while it lasts. Just because you feel that no one understands you and you are so very different from all others does not mean you are the only IEE, it means you need to mature into yourself. I still feel pretty alienated but experience has taught me that many people feel this way and in that I am not alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

:thumbsup: I agree with Wacey and think you're using VI improperly, JB.

---

http://skreened.com/render-product/g...y.w760h760.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

Dude, JB, Kenny Chesney, whoever you are, you completely cut out the first part of that paragraph, an especially important part, where it's stated Filatova herself is critical for judging someone solely from looks for VI.

---

That's her opinion. Again,
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...at-d57ity9.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

Here's the full paragraph:

---

http://memecrunch.com/meme/SKQ4/yeah...-off/image.png


& for fuck's sake, the thread is called "Type me by MY FACE"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

These kinds of posts don't really help people take you seriously. =\ :shrug: I know you spend a lot of time trying to get people to listen to your socionics ideas, and some of them are actually interesting and good, but these kind of knee-jerk reactions to a perspective different than your own can turn other people off pretty quickly. I still appreciate you, though.

---

Noted. Thank you for showing me respect; I appreciate you too, William :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geminatronix

Oh lordy really? Ok lets go down this road if you really want to. Tell me which members you consider IEE and I will find posts of theirs for you to show you them using Se. And If you like I can look into your own post history to check yours.

---

:love: woofie to the rescue. Here it comes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Go through my posts

---

Been there, done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Good luck; this will indeed be a tiring venture for you.

---

Or not. :p

Hey Gem, here's the KC and JoBlo type list, it's right there in my first post:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...hread-split%29

And haha wow, phrenology aplenty in the Amadeus method, good to know...