Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNpfKRt7WEg
I lied. I figured I'd get on board the bandwagon of typing and retyping.
I'll be releasing a series of videos answering the questionnaire questions, and we can settle once and for all that I'm definitely ILE/EII/ESE. Maybe.
EDIT
Next episode previews on my website!
This video is a parody, right?
It's not purely any one thing, except perhaps a piece of a puzzle that hasn't fully formed yet.
I forgot to mention one of my other values is Fuck Tradition/The Interrobang. Take from that what you will.
dunno what type you are, but you VI like that porn actor the LSI I'm seeing watches every morning before breakfast at 7.30
@rosewood I'm really worried if anyone in the porn industry, or really any kind of cinema or performing art looks remotely like me.
ILE. You look like John Lennon or Sean Lennon, take your pick, fwiw.
I like to think I V.I. as Groucho Marx, but apparently he's not culturally relevant anymore.
It's some consolation you didn't compare me to Daniel Radcliffe.
so i'm not the only one!Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain
ay, don't worry, he only watches really niche stuff : master&slave (as in the Hegelian dialectic, of course)Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
ILE or at the least Ne dom. You are a lot like this Ne dominant guy I know, in looks, personality, facial expression, voice tone, whatever.
ILE/EII/ESE, if I needed to choose, ILE without any doubt :)
If I was a guy I would have had a huge crush for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
you don't have to be a guy for that ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInDreams
For all the ILE voters, what is the school of thought that produces an ILE typing for me? Is it because I'm abstract and "intellectual"? I find it a really interesting typing to arrive at naturally.
For the record, ILE, EII and ESE aren't multiple choice :lol: You can nominate other things!
Next video incoming in a few hours...
ILE-Ne stoned, EIE-Fe (?) during hangover and on a new dose of cocaine or just trying out some mockery. Intuition is obvious. Sorry, but you have to look like Sarah Palin to be typed ESE. EII absolutely not, I_I likely not --- you seem extroverted and not in a low degree.
So yeah, maybe a new video on a more serious note would do.
Why cocaine? Was I too wild-eyed and intrusive? In several takes of the video I stared off into the distance while I groped for words, and it wasn't a good look. I'm thinking I overcompensated a little, or is there something else?
While the next video uploads over my slow Australian internet, here's a clip from one of the movies I'll be talking about. It has a really stinging feel to it, and hits me square in the heart:
http://youtu.be/lf_X-NLUDbY
True. But I have always thought I was straight.. Maybe I should reconsider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Is it an invitation? :p
I think the only thing I'm proving is that I'm probably going to wind up on the news for losing it turning into tcaud a reptilian...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC14Py822_A
Sounds like you've been smoking the reefer while reading Heidegger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
I have a type in mind, but I am aware you aren't actually looking for one
I actually kind of wish people wouldn't jump on the marijuana jokes just because of my dreadlocks. I've never smoked once. Marijuana at least... I do have a mix of sencha and allergy pills I like... and, yeah, I did once take an experimental anaesthetic used to study schizophrenia in rodents, and, yes, I will confess I do drink DXM citrate once every other month or so, but still... In all seriousness, being written off as merely channelling The Drugs is troubling, and something I find myself irritated by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
I am interested in what type you think I am, but in the interest of fair dealing, know that I don't really self-type, and your opinion will merely be considered, and probably not accepted. If those terms are acceptable, I'd love to hear what you think. If they are not, I won't waste your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
The outer space rhetoric just reminded me of some of my own illicit experiences. Granted the dreadlocks probably influenced the association but...in all honesty, it was more about what you were saying than how you looked. Don't know if that's much better, but...it wasn't just becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by Holon
I'll keep it succinct since you're interested but not out to be convinced. Cosmic fantastic essences (Ne) + "values" (Fi) = IEE. I think "trying to fit the map to the territory" is more Te/Fi, while "trying to fit the territory to the map" is more Ti/Fe, if that makes any sense. Deconstruction I also associate with Delta. I've heard Plato was a Beta, but well, I think these were secondhand accounts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
No, thanks, it's a lot better. I find dismissals for superficial reasons irritating, and I've had my fair share of experiencing them. I'll remember to give you more credit in the future :)
Thanks. I do actually consider IEE a really good typing, certainly more reasonable than pinning ILE on someone with a habit in recreational fictional psychology. (A conclusion I find puzzling, to say the least.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
You saying NTs aren't allowed? Newton believed in alchemy. We can be fairly delusional also in our own right ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Dude, you are Ne :P
It's more like I don't see an ILE divvying their leisure time up between scientific pursuits and getting totally emotionally engrossed in the plight of fictional people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
In my next video, I promise to rail against the videogame patriarchy shattering my--admittedly incredibly sexist--immersion into troubled and helpless proxies by reducing women to props and decorations. And something something queer theory something something.
haha, fair enough. As I said in another thread, anytime I hear the word "patriarchy" while I'm thinking socionics, I think "NeFi". Just sayin'Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
I think the ENTp people just heard the Ne and the word "systems" so they immediately banged "ILE" onto their keyboards with their skulls before rolling around on the ground in some kind of unfortunate seizure that results from not having an actual brain but a merely a fused shut node at the top of the spinal cord.
I've been meaning to ask, is that a Yoshitaka Amano drawing in your sig?
you talking to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInDreams
(or Holon)
That's the joke :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
I shouldn't have laughed at this... :lol: :indifferent2:Quote:
I think the ENTp people just heard the Ne and the word "systems" so they immediately banged "ILE" onto their keyboards with their skulls before rolling around on the ground in some kind of unfortunate seizure that results from not having an actual brain but a merely a fused shut node at the top of the spinal cord.
It's from Angel's Egg, a collaboration between Mamoru Oshii and Yoshitaka Amano. I love the symbolism of the book in the background. I think it "signifies" me really well.Quote:
I've been meaning to ask, is that a Yoshitaka Amano drawing in your sig?
I've been following your views on IEIs, but what do you think typifies the EIE? I think they're quite dissimilar beasts.
i love Angel's Egg. <3
it's more that Holon has been around for wayyy longer than you (maybe) realize and has posted on the forum under different usernames, and so, even if he has gone through certain changes in lifestyle now it doesn't change who he was before and how he was a much more explicitly obvious ILE. but regardless, still pretty ILE in the video anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
Is it Holon's thread or yours? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
I knew I recognized it. anyways, the key to EIEs is DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. Usually you'll find them with their own cult of personality thing going- Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Hit-ler, Jennifer Lawrence, Steve Jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
As I detailed in another post that I'm not totally set on recapitulating, the difference between Fe and Fi is that Fe (especially Fe doms) likes as much external emotional data zipping around as possible. Usually this consists of lots of fucking people crammed into one space, trying to channel the same emotion. As you've got the Amano signature, I know you play Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy has absolutely nothing to do with Fe. It is about the evolution of relationships between imaginary people. It is Fi fetishism.In the same way that Ti is theoretical logic, Fi is theoretical emotional situations. If you've ever tried to play Final Fantasy with another person in the room, you can see how Fe disrupts Fi. The other person is going to keep asking you who all these people are, bringing you back to reality, bringing you back to the actual emotions in the room-the annoyance of this other person- preventing your immersion in the imaginary emotional developments.
tbh you're not very dramatic in a Fe sense. I mean you have demonstrative so you've got more than me if I start droning on about the economy or something, but still, not a lot. Not like an EIE. EIE drama is like Hit-ler being able to rabble rouse a crowd into killing the Jews.
That's a pretty good analogy for Beta Rational Duality: Hit-ler for the EIE, a goosestepping Hit-ler Youth for the LSI. Nuance is not EIE. They are out to get the most people involved as possible.
My dad was an LSI, and they tend to get frustrated pretty quickly by the Ne "What is the essence of X" gibberish pretty quickly (no offense). They want someone who can charge them up and give them a sense of "purpose" so they can bravely charge into a battalion line of bayonets or whatever. They don't want to sit around and dissect the essence of the essence of the essence blah blah blah.
You also seem wanting of Si, so...I know you aren't considering changing type or whatever, but perhaps EIE isn't right
I don't think it's insignificant that people who "know" me are very, almost rigidly, inclined to stick with ILE, while there's more flexibility when I've presented myself as a blank slate. First opinions are a powerful thing, especially when those opinions become politicised or placed on an intellectual battlefield. I would also say that anything that is a "textbook example" ought to imply one's heuristics or emotional needs are dominating reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
Of course this cuts both ways. I've never agreed with ILE, and, as I continue to develop from being an emotionally deprived and socially retarded adolescent, I'm finding it an ever more confounding conviction, so I'm just as biased.
Irrational Ne type. Alpha, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
But still you have that damn affectation that I could relate to EIE.... do you always speak like this? You seem sooo soft and public-oriented. Is that your real accent or just a mask? Actually I didn't know you were referring concretely to yourself in your "Isolation" thread. You seem so/sx stack ..strangely enough.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
I'm speaking to myself as I write to myself. So no, not all the time. Audience is definitely important, but I'm in the process of trying to build a voice to express myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
The accent is totes legit though.
Tense is important. "Do" and "have you always" are significant, in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
Could you expand on your argument that Martin Luther King Jr. is "DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA" or were you just drunk and you shouldn't be taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
@Holon, I watched your video yesterday and concluded that you are not very much like me. I see a lot of NE in you. I think in EIEs NE is a demonstrative function and they can sometimes appear light hearted, but the essence of the EIE is a seriousness that can be rather depressing to be around, actually. There is an earnestness, and a strong push to exact action or change that contributes to the seriousness. I don't get that vibe from you.
I didn't want to clutter up your typing thread, so I blogged some videos of EIEs on my profile. Some music that I like is there also. Hopefully I will have some time to go back and pull out quotes for those who don't have the time to watch the videos.
These people are very much like me. For some reason, people think of EIEs as drama queens, and I think that can be misleading. I don't come across that way at all. I am like a cross between Gene Wilder and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Good luck with your typing. Don't be discouraged if it takes time. It has taken me a long time to settle on EIE and sometimes even now I question that typing.
ILI
Your (obviously) deep understanding of the machinations of wit blended ever so carefully with a whispering, inquisitive voice (almost like someone is in the other room and you don't want them to hear you talking) really take me as someone who is too caught up in their own mind to be caught dead in the space we mere inferiors dwell.
In short You, Mr. Holon, can now truly epitomize the Euphoric mindset, for you have been TYPED!
from my thread about Fe dual-seeing you can see that mostly Fe HA folks think that Fe is drama. And well ...if Whoobie *really* were Fe polr, at least he would have an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris
http://makeameme.org/media/created/G...lder-Never.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Iris
You make a great point about EIEs. I think most of the types have incorrect and unhelpful associations attached to them.
can i type you as Professor Snape as in w/e that dude is think about it what would he be like if he was intimate
Haha, thats funny^.
Holon, I was surprised by what you look like and how you act. Especially so because I agree so much with the post your wrote in Suedes thread it was everything I wanted to say. So why was I surprised? Because you seem really interesting but at the same time really odd. I don't mean that in a negative way at all, just an observation. You talk so softly and deliberately there is a real element of the theatrical in you that borders on the strange and weird. (Which is totally cool) Honestly you don't give me an strong impression on any type from the videos, there is to little clues to go off of. Intuitive at least, perhaps ethical. You are obviously a deep thinker, I wonder how you behave with straightforward people. You understand your self pretty well it seems, and most likely others as well, but I wonder, could you ACT on the understanding?
:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoetrenTheCacti
This video was made after 11 hours of sleep, a 2 AM bedtime, and caffeine withdrawal. I won't make one like it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ3zwqgDwGg
First thing I saw was a couch with a red pillow positioned with its point standing on the bottom cushion and its back against the chair's back, the red pillow a diamond moreso than a square. Immediately, a calm voice stated "life", and then "a pensive chair" less than three seconds afterwards, implying the two are somewhat equivalent, adding weight to my notion of some permutation of 459, triple-detached, and at the very least, towards either of those three being the main enneagram type. I can't currently explain the reason for general sp/sx vibes beyond a sort of cultivated and self-contained earthiness that recalls The Mamas and the Papas' first album's art cover.
Moving onward through the five-second mark and to the fourteen-second mark, the brighter and more synthetic light fills the room that's full of fear. For this particular type of light to be actively filling the room full of fear would speak towards a sanctuary of sorts getting violated by having its walls torn down, a precursor to getting skinned alive.
Holon has appeared in full around half a minute in. A full minute later, I have become absolutely incapable of seeing any enneagramatical tritype combination than 459. John Lennon just watching the wheels go round and round. So far the difference between HJH and JL is that the former speaks to me as residing within the realm of the organically harmonious without having to actively give peace a chance, let alone verbally suggest such a thing in the first place; peace is already home, and everyone can come home on their own time. At about 1:45, the claim that everything would be subjective had a bit more time spent on the word "everything", a mention that there would be a system connecting them, and no statement that the system would generate from an individual sentient source. In the absence of all other gods, the spiritual being that encompasses all may be one of evident rectilinear harmony; this view would be one that speaks towards Alpha quadra, and from what admittedly little I know of Immanuel Kant, I have him at Ti-LII 1w9. My estimates of the Holonic view would lean away from any orders from an outside "other" to listen to, hear, or even this "other" to report to in the first place, and lean more towards naturally emergent universalism with order coming effortlessly as a byproduct. 9w1.
4:14 to 4:40 is a vivid portrayal of death (so-last) as dissipative transformation (sp/sx contra-flow) over purifying rebirth (sx/sp syn-flow).
As of the first video, I'm leaning strongly towards 9w1 sp/sx with lots of activity in the 4/5 range, and leaning less strongly to a general area in the socion with a central point at Ne-ILE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
I relate your keeping track of people's images and interpretations of you to SO first and your sporadically feeling somehow lost in or behind those to sx second. You also appear to sense some sort of threat of being judged negatively and not being seen for what you are. You don't give me the impression of being grounded and self-contained, more one of merging with others in an "outer" psychological space, so to speak. It's still not super-clear to me how much this "isolation" engrossing you is something transitory, just a period in your life or something relatively constant, so I don't see sp/sx in that. What you say about liking people with clear expressive personalities who bond with their surroundings could be Fe and Si seeking.
Enneagram 9 is there -- in the first video you seemed more E4w3. You could very well be just switching masks (I kind of liked your "motto" and your previous avatar), but this video seems decidedly more natural.
Dang, Woof. You are amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
@rosewood
This link has an interesting re-calibration of the enneagram, where:
4s are individualists, rather than being depression or relationship-driven, and 9s are chilled out and relaxation-seeking, and
The instincts correlate to rotated centers, such that SO is a 1/2/3 preference, SP is a 4/5/6 preference and SX is a 7/8/9 preference.
Based on that, the enneagram test on that site, and my Big Five, 4 is a good pick, but I have a lot of influence from 3 and 7. I don't necessarily agree with 9, because my curiosity and experientalism (even if it's more emotional/psychological/aesthetic than somatic) never rest. On the other hand, I seem to consistently be seen as a notably Pretty Chill Guy, so maybe there is something to it?
Anyway...
I wouldn't say I fear being judged negatively. Negative judgements are a great piece of proactive filtering. What I have my misgivings about are oversimplifications. If I'm a tesseract, it's not a positive experience to be seen as a cube, or heaven forbid, a square. It's anywhere from isolating to frustrating, depending on the person doing it.
The isolation is the result of a critical point. Having lived almost completely emotionally alone for most of my life, my brain suddenly started changing under the providence of neurological maturity, a near-death experience on drugs, and antidepressants. It's like a light came on and I found paradoxical substance in being made of nothing. But at the same time, I realised how emotionally unsatisfying and superficial my life is. When the lights came on and I started seeing people's faces for the first time, I realised I'm not reflected in anyone's eyes anymore. Where's my deep connection. Where's my love. I feel like I'm being tasked to kill a dragon for his treasure, but there's no way I can rise to meet the occasion.
@woofwoofl that was amazing! Thank you for putting so much effort. I wish there was a stronger button than "like".
My one revision is that I'm more informed by the voice of Whitehead than Einstein. If the latter believes in order and a God who does not play dice, the former believes in flow and change. I always wonder what it means that green plants predominate over purple, given both are about as competitive. I wonder why it is that the first tree shape was seen in the plant kingdom right before they spread to land. I wonder what role life has to play in the way this process god is thinking, or if it's slowly digesting and coming to different conclusions through an iterative process: plants, to hymenopterans, to monkeys, to chimps, to humans. There's some kind of open-ended essay in the process of being written, and it's being wrestled with and puzzled out in the Universe. Maybe it's not teleological, though.
@3:56 "the person you have fought to have is beyond your grasp" sounds like Se/Ni to me. I think you're ILI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_005.jpg
You can't see the inherent drama & pageantry in the speech in front of the Washington Monument? Not even the "Let Freedom Ring" part?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Remember the line from Living Colour, "I'm the Cult of Personality/Like Joseph Stalin, and Ghandi". The channels of information one exploits has nothing to do with one's morality. Hit-ler was a very reprehensible Beta NF. MLK was one who did great good.
So ...?! I asked you specifically about MLK, because you thrust all those people in one pot for some reason. That's not very Fi-valuing tbh. You seem to disregard the purpose, values, and goals that each of those persons had (let alone "character") and to gloss over some 'group ceremony' impression. But really you have my permission to go on typing as ILI although you quote DJArendee's words of wisdom about type, mistype&being insulted and how being a Ti user saves the day somehow. Makes sense if you think about it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
couldn't I be any of the Ti-types by that logic, and not just ILE? The other day you called me aristocratic. I know there is some kind of moral outrage going on here, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
I mean, to get back to our Oldboy discussion, I value Park Chan Wook's work as being very beautiful and sublime without taking it apart as a system. The final shot where we see Dae-Su's smile start to turn into a frown, and we're left wondering if he knows it's his daughter or not as the images kind of coalesce into the Last Waltz punches me very deep in the solar plexus. I also find how it starts as the Count of Monte Cristo and sort of morphs into Greek Tragedy at the end is brilliant postmodern synthesis of texts. For this and other reasons, it's one of my favorite movies, and I consider it part of my personal canon of artworks I value. But when I'm on a socionics forum, I'm playing the language game, as Wittgenstein might put it, so I'm not really using my inner feelings but I'm sort of facetiously playing with the "rules" of how this works. The ILEs I know don't really value anything, but are just looking to have fun.
If you were to really poke and prod at why I so harshly portrayed Beta Rationals, you wouldn't find a logical reason at all. I've had a few EIEs screw me over, and my dad was an LSI, and well, I didn't have the best relationship with him. Anything I say about ESEs is probably going to predicated on my feelings about my mother. I understand the system mostly through my own relationships.
I interpreted this as Fi-HA and Ti-demonstrative, but you've made me consider otherwise.
As for DJArendee, yes, I like him. you might even call me a fan. he isn't my only source, though, I just think the way he states some things packs a punch where the dry textbook stuff doesn't. sorry I quoted him, jesus.
I don't really care what you type, but if you insist :Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoobie77
There's no way you're Ti base. No Ti base would get that low and unfiltered so as to blindly quote a guy like your guru.
You can only be a ILE-Ti who agreed with such stuff by default (and because you're not very big on extroversion). Or an IEI. But you don't look like other IEIs around and you seem to have that Beta hate and that fascinating Fi disengage thing going on. I didn't call you aristocratic, as I haven't studied you too much according to Reinin, I signaled some mistakes you were making in judging Cognition Style and Obstinacy as valid for a whole Quadra. Besides, you kind of identified excessively with the Quadra and claimed type, it sounded too good to be true.
Judging books by their covers is something that I do literally in picking out new things to read... The cover symbolizes the book.
In typing people with Socionics though, there's nothing more important than looking beyond the book's cover. In this case, whether the guy comes across as a hippie or arch-capitalist, outgoing or retiring, serious and dark or light-hearted and gay in the old sense of the word, or new... Hell, "I love him" or "I hate him" doesn't even indicate a person's quadra..! And it took me the better part of a decade to get there.
What information is this person transmitting and not transmitting in what's presented?
There's actually a lot to go on with this guy -- and this ain't the enneagram here: no guessing allowed! :)
Many people noticed that there's a lot of Ne in what he's saying -- "perhaps if I was an Ottoman Turk this video would look very different..." But this guy isn't seriously speculating about some anthropological aspect of Ottoman Turk society, like ILEs or IEEs do; he's taking the piss... The "taking the piss" function is called the demonstrative (8th) function... Afterwards he says "laughing at my own joke -- classy." Which got me to thinking: which function is the automatic corrector of the demonstrative function? (Hint: I'm not using it right now and perfectly aware that I'm coming off as an a-hole... It's out of love though.) It's the first function. And what info did this gentleman transmit with the first function? How he's coming across, social norms -- Fe.
Even though though that clinches his type, let's go all the way.
In describing a work of art, this man said: "it's so full of universal feeling, it more than touches me... It casts me back in time. It compels me to remember things sometimes I feel I shouldn't." In another video, he attempted to "break-down" friendship by talking about "the trajectory of friendships' destiny."
What's telling is that he's hoping to "break down" something but then doesn't really break anything down (Ti-seeking b/c need someone to help him break shit down.) He goes on talking about an aspect human relations (Fe) from the point of view of essentially, trends (Ni.)
When you get into the presentational differences is where subtypes begin -- and this guy is clearly more in touch with Si and Ne than me, but he's clearly an ENFj... We're not all like *** ***.
If we're so centered on my "guru", why, pray tell, would I follow someone whose base is one of my painful functions (if he is what he says himself to be)?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
why would I do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Se is ILE's role, that's not a painful function. Or by "painful" you actually meant something totally innovatory and reformatory like "it hurts you when you do that because you have to, given the demands of the environment and because it doesn't take too much effort - it hurts you because you have to betray your base for a while". SLE and ILE are Look-a-like types.
Why the heck would you do that?! Dear god, because your ego asked you to cut with a knife through the Socion and divide it in half in order to justify who'd be offended by an act and who would't be. You didn't judge by level of confidence, self-esteem, maturity, attachment to an idea, or whatever else - you judged through a function binary ("if you are insulted, you are not a Ti user"). If that's not Ti creative in full action, I don't know what is. Besides ... we've already had a conversation about artistic taste where you (again. god be with you) quoted your idol with a claim that Fi doesn't go by dictionary, while Ti does. That you were not using Te to refer to what is really considered "solid" in art by specialists (think encyclopedia, if you don't like the notion of personal taste) didn't matter very much.
Going back to the OP, I can see ILI.
As for Indiana Jones:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/51782990.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Martrix
The OP is ILE-Ne or EIE. Your memes are totally strange sometimes - are you trying to communicate what you're like and you fear nobody will understand you?
Actually, I think I've found my type as IEE. Preferring to work with "people" over "hierarchies" was a big thing and something that's pretty thematic with my life. I mean, sure, you could say that's just being a uni student, and a uni student in a country with strong anti-authoritarian, egalitarian cultural currents at that... but wheels within wheels, I guess?
Maybe in Ne subtype of either type that preference is not that sharp. What country do you live in ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Well, Filatovonics likes to take a scalpel through IEE and ILE along the lines of work ethic. Given my extraordinarily low Conscientiousness personality factor, I think that points away from :Ti: :Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
Regime, duty, regulations, accountability, all disarm her. Finds it difficult to be inscribed in any framework. Works exclusively based on her mood, is better able to focus on ‘big picture’ work than to be occupied by thorough study.
As to my country, I live in Australia. Up until the last generation, I think our culture was legitimately coloured by having all been drunk Irish convicts :lol:
I can see the value in these typings too. There's nothing conclusive that we've yet come upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
My memes are strange sometimes, but your reaction to them is far stranger. They're just a bit of fun! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Regime, duty, regulations, accountability, all disarm her. Finds it difficult to be inscribed in any framework. Works exclusively based on her mood, is better able to focus on ‘big picture’ work than to be occupied by thorough study
My IEE friend is not like that at all. She works in a bank and does everything she has to do for her job daily. But she doesn't give fuck about any kind of theoretical discussions, systematizing etc. and that's where I could see Ti polr.
@Holon, if I need to choose between IEE and ILE, it would be ILE. No empirical data, just a hunch.
Yeah. Like, everyone's going to have their own opinion informed by whatever paradigm they've adopted or cobbled together from who or whatever.
If I understand correctly, the deciding factor is whether I get along better with Alphas or Deltas? If I'm ILE, I'll relate better with Alphas and be more at home with them. Similarly with IEE and Delta.
This is hard though, because
1. I don't spend much time with my University peers (around a third of the week, most weeks)
2. The "group" at University is very malleable, with people with very different values and characters moving in and out depending on schedule.
3. My online social group consists of an ILI and some kind of ethical type.
idk, I feel like I'm probably not going to be able to type myself without being able to type others, and I really feel like typing people is a forlorn hope due to how much dissent there is on how Socionics is implemented and what the types are or look or act like.
@Holon, I don't find typing by relationships very reliable. As for mistyping ... I wouldn't blame it on people's preconceptions or limited boxes only; after all many only apply stuff they find in descriptions by Socionists around the net.
What are you doing here?!Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Seriously, though, why Socionics if you're not interested in the relationship side of the system? Curiosity? Forum addiction?
Sure. Like, the lexical hypothesis at least is based on words that exist to describe the way one interacts with the world. When I look at alternative personality tests, they're always seemingly bound up in language that's so abstract and meaningless, only the educated will be able to use it, and then it'll probably only confirm their educated guess as to their type within the system. I don't think it's any wonder that people just develop their own Fast'n'Loosionics built off personality heuristics people actually use and then just run with it.Quote:
As for mistyping ... I wouldn't only blame it on people's preconceptions or limited boxes only; after all many only apply stuff they find in descriptions by Socionists around the net.
I happened to read stuff on the forum occasionally and some discussions convinced me to make a profile. I was off for a while, but then a space where you can freely talk about so many things at once is not bad. It's actually the only forum I have a profile and I'm active on. But hell ...should one be here to confirm the validity of Socionics or to form "intertype relations"? It sounds weird. I may be interested in some intertype parts, but my experience in real life has hardly gone by such patterns, so for me Socionics is only a nice abstract theory. Not that we've talked ages, but tbh I haven't seen any intertype relationship unreel between me and, say, you ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Shit I just realized that I'm using Socionics to get me through my break-up -- now how fucked up is that..?
Anyway, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here -- but when I'm watching this guy I'm seeing Lenny Kravitz + 20 I.Q. points + maybe half a tab of ecstasy. :) (I've enjoyed all three things so no offense.)
So, from the bottom of my broken heart (and the old-school...) Isn't anyone else hearing that he's communicating dynamically..? I mean, I may be off my game, but I'm trying to help. So mercy, please!
intptptptptptptp
It's not so much a lack of work ethic as it is a difficulty in fulfilling responsibilities:Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Quote:
And these are all which serve to drive the IEE away – any weighty framework that dictates to her “to fulfill responsibilities.”
I'm glad you're reading Filatova -- she's the best socionist (except for maybe DarkAngelFireWolf69). Here's what she says about ILI:
Quote:
The volitional qualities of people of this type manifest a bi-polar nature: some individuals display an enviable sense of purpose, stubbornness and perseverance, while others, to the contrary, demonstrate complete inertia and paralysis of their will.
Then perhaps she isn't IEE.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Honestly, that sounds more like weak Ne:
Quote:
Ne as Role Function (SLE, SEE)
The individual is very aware of what is concretely present in the world around him rather than devoting his time to discussing what could be and topics that are only of improbable and vague ideational value. He relies on his direct "knowledge of life" and first hand experience rather than on imaginative flexibility. He is able to orient himself quickly when he is in contact with concrete aspect of events, things, and people, but when he is told about them in an abstract form or simply in the form of "random information that may come in handy some day," he usually doesn't know what to do with such information.
Quote:
Ne as Vulnerable Function (LSI, ESI)
The individual shows disinterest in conducting discussions that are only of conjectural and ideational value and are not of any concrete value. He listen to and participate in such discussions but only briefly, soon feeling that they are too boring and of little value for him to continue.
Here's Filatova talking about ILI again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Holon
Quote:
The orientation of ego block of ILI: the world in infinite, fluid, manifold, it's state is continuously changing.
I completely agree about his dynamic nature, but I think EIE is incorrect. To me he is clearly ILI. Once again, VI:Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC14Py822_A
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_005.jpg
He isn't dramatic and vivacious enough to be EIE. He isn't over-the-top playacting. He isn't ridiculous. He is soft-spoken, good-mannered, and articulate. He is clearly logical.
I agree he lacks enough "dramatism" or in a broader sense Fe expressivity for EIE. But simultaneously, I think his speech is still too "emotionally modulated", too soft and smooth, for Fe PoLR. Maybe IEI? If ILI, 5w4>>5w6 (maybe even 4w5?).
A light impression, just overlooked the video.
You make an interesting point, and I see what you're saying. Perhaps he is Ni-ILI? In Meged and Ovcharov's system of vertical subtypes, Ni-ILI would have stronger Ni, Fe, Fi, and Ne.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Read his thread on SandSongs: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ongs-With-SandQuote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
He's looking for Fe or is a Fe ego (if not base).
Interesting, how does my thread manifest Fe-seeking?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Is it "he listens to weird music, he must be Fe-ego"? I don't understand your reasoning here.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
My EIE friend is a master strategist who plays games like Magic and Age of Empires. He is ridiculous. When type descriptions talk about EIE being dramatic, they might as well be talking about him. His emotions are very exaggerated and he often makes me laugh. Filatova nails it with the following bit:
He also listens to Nickelback. They're like, one of his favorite bands.Quote:
Fe :Fe: – Program function.
Life for EIE is the sphere of emotions, which he, as a conductor, skillfully orchestrates. He is capable to act on his surroundings by a wide range of his own feelings – from powerful explosions saturated by his dramatic nature, by tragedy or by enthusiasm, by the ability to keep silent for several days and go about with a stone face; his entire form despising and “punishing”, in an unmistakable way, the person whom insulted him. People admire his bright emotionalism, the dramatic nature of his experiences, and his ability to respond to the most trivial changes in the moods of those around him. His rich world of feelings contains different hues of emotions, which in observing this psycho-type are immediately demonstrated by those surrounding.
You misunderstood my reasoning, yes. Probably accidentally.Quote:
Originally Posted by heavynurse
He wanted people to tell him "what they feel" when listening to that stuff. That's not Fi-seeking.
Yeah, I'm not the best at this whole "logic" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Anyway, I'm not sure he's necessarily expressing his mobilizing function in that thread to begin with.Quote:
Fi as Mobilizing Function (ILI, 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."
In my view he wasn't interested in "bonds", but in something distinct, separate that people could feel and share with him when listening to that. Sure that's just one interpretation, I'm not saying that thread only is decisive for his type. Actually he doesn't seem an easy case to me, maybe someone with more insight shows up.
That thread is more imaginative engagement with he music, what people get out of the experience of the music, if it conjures thought or memories. Like, Nitrogen, the third song, is described by its composer as evoking spaceflight imagery. The second song seems to capture the emotional processes of its composer in his solitude; he's a very "romantic", communicative musician at times. I was interested if people could relate to or engage with the picture he painted of the emotional processes in solitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
- Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions such as "From my point of view", "According to my understanding", "To my knowledge", "personal criteria", "it corresponds to my understanding" "I have concluded" "he insisted" and so on. They describe verbal communication in detail—how their intervention in the situation is transpiring or why it's not happening.
I can see how he might be difficult to type, but I'm pretty convinced he's ILI. I think JoetrentheCacti got it right:Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoetrenTheCacti
Any Ni or Ne type knows the world is much about interpretations, unless they're a retard or something. But feel free to use Reinin out of context on me - why only what I've said in that reply though?! Or have you been studying me da capo al fine according to all Reinin dichotomies and you can share your subjective, personal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by heavynurse
Not sure, maybe later I'll take a deeper look to the video, but for now, Fe creative seems to me more likely than Fe PoLR.Quote:
Originally Posted by heavynurse
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Because I don't care enough, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Quote:
The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else's actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his "subjective" view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, "his system", his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation.
What do you self-type as?
If your understanding of him is correct then both of us agree. Sharing feelings is closer to Fe than Fi, whereas Fi is interested in weighthing interactions. Not that Fi valuers do not share feelings, but this is subordinated to the stablishment of positive bonds. They're not shared with everyone in the same degree, so to speak (neither searched from everyone).Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
A bit offtopic, but that's one of the reasons that I have always seen "free love" (polyamour or similar descriptions) an Fe valuer thing, or at least, more statistically common in those types.
Fi valuers will never treat everybody in the same way, because there would not be a significant differentiation between formed bonds (this does not prevent cheating, of course).
Ok, you're using the same thing as in previous post, you haven't said anything new and valuable. And from what I know you're a troll, so stick to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by heavynurse
wrong, being poly or not depends only on what someone individually values, not on functions. I know many Fi egos who are.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Just read the text and learn about subjectivists. It's pretty clear to me that you fall into that camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
No, I'm just misunderstood. I used trolling tactics when I first started posting here, but I realized the futility of such maneuvers and now I'm just posting "normal".Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by heavynurse
Values are not defined by functions but they're influenced by them (among other factors, or course). The same could be said about any topic where any opinion could be formed. "I know many Fi polys" does not disprove my argumentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
I did not say there are no Fi polys, but I'm rasonably confindent the statistics are not the same in both groups. Unless you want to affirm it is as likely to be poly in delta quadra than in beta, for example.
can you show me some statistics or some results of investigations where polyamory or polyamorous tendencies have been linked to Socionics quadras? They'd better be reliable sources, your hypothesis is not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
I don't blame you for being skeptical. I have zero credibility. But the whole reason I started posting here is because I have a good eye for types, and the reason I used trolling tactics is because it pissed me off when I'd post something like "so-and-so is this type" and people would respond with "no lol" or "you're stupid" or something equally dumb and/or disrespectful. I also thought I was the shit -- people would post typings that I thought were obviously wrong, so I'd feel the need to ridicule and harass them with trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
I've been chastised for my lack of tact in real life, so maybe it's just me.
I cannot. But you're arguing the opposite and in the same way you can't also show me statistics which validate your position. Or can you? Affirming there's no correlation only because you know some (or many) Fi polys is no proof either. At best, it's a stalemate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
Despite of this, what you cannot affirm is that funcions do not influence values or, in a broader sense, opinions. I repeat, influence, not determine. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with the whole concept of quadra values.
You are obviously misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the two functions. Fi and Fe can be both very committed and/or exclusive - I'm not talking only literal meaning here. Where does Socionics say Fe is about "free love"? Fe can very well treat people differently, as you said about Fi, it's just more direct when doing it. At the same time, it's a dynamic and object-focused function and thus more into steering things, situations etc. Just like Te, but dealing with people and more subjective content. Actually many Fe folks, especially Beta ones, have been known through history to have held extreme views and to have been very 'monoverted' in their beliefs and efforts, so to speak. Fe can very well carry out culture wars. You can't reduce how functions are used by concrete individuals or for what purposes to this extent. Or you can, but it looks like pure speculation about Socionics theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
I agree with this as well. I think the comment about "emotionally modulated" is a very important distinction between IEI and ILI.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Wow. Obviously and/or deliberately. Nothing less, no intermediate point. What a categorical affirmation coming from a person who also failed in providing data for supporting her POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood
It would be a bit more sensate to be less categorical and not to consider own interpretation of this (by the way problematic) topic, Socionics, as the final one.
Now I feel tempted to say that you're obviously or deliberately misunderstanding me. But I won't.Quote:
Fi and Fe can be both very committed and/or exclusive - I'm not talking only literal meaning here. Where does Socionics say Fe is about "free love"? Fe can very well treat people differently, as you said about Fi, it's just more direct when doing it. At the same time, it's a dynamic and object-focused function and thus more into steering things, situations etc. Just like Te, but dealing with people and more subjective content.
Where did I say that Fe implies free love, and Fi forbids free love? That Fe people always treats people in the same way? Do you understand minute variations, shades of grey, and statistical deviations, beyond two polar opposites?
It just quite simple, really. Two different funcions represent two different approaches to the same problem. If any particular field is related to them (like in this case, dealing with people) then they would statistically produce a different observable behavior in this field. If they produce the same result, then there would be no way of distinguishing funtions at work. They would just be a void intellectual speculation. I'm not interested in that.
And now that you like to quote definitions, Fi and Fe are quite different, because Fi deals with fields (interactions) whereas Fe deals with objects. Both of them are "subjective" (ethics vs logic), but only one of them deals with fields, interactions, bonds. This is not the land of Fe. This is a positive interaction vs a negative one, I like you vs I don't like you, etc, are by definition, Fi things, not Fe.
So Fe does not know how to weight bonds, even if it weights objects (Je) but subjectively (Fe). It's blind about this topic, so to speak. As Fe does not "see bonds" it cannot distinguish between them. Fi can. And that's my point; it's more easily for an Fe type to like/dislike people [or at least groups of people if aristocratic] without making fine emotional distinction between individuals.
But even if you do not agree with my usage of functions, it's irrelevant. The point about different functions -> different approaches -> different observable behavior (statistically) is still true. For any particular field which is maganed by certain functions, if you have two possible results (poly vs no poly), there would necessarily be differences between which one is statistically produced in every case. If not, then functions are simply void, throw them to the wc and end of topic.
Because betas are aristocratic + subjectivist (Ti/Fe)? And by the way, every person has no single function. but a whole set of them (and much, much more). Betas can be polar opposites but they do not do it in a Fi fashinon, but Ti (quite strange you haven't noticed this). Their division of people between friend or foe, when it happens, it's usually caused by ideological differences, not because subjective interactive bonds as happens with Fi (which does no deal with ideologies).Quote:
Actually many Fe folks, especially Beta ones, have been known through history to have held extreme views and to have been very 'monoverted' in their beliefs and efforts, so to speak. Fe can very well carry out culture wars. You can't reduce how functions are used by concrete individuals or for what purposes to this extent. Or you can, but it looks like pure speculation about Socionics theory.
I am not reducing functions to particular individuals. I'm not talking about implications, but cognitive deviations that would favor one result over the other (statistically), never determine. That's the fine detail that apparently you are not understanding.
If for not "reducing" (what I'm not doing) you negate every statistical correlation between functions and behavior, again, throw functions to the wc. Then you cannot observe differences between how they work, so you cannot simply distinguish them in people.
Different quadra values is necessarily related to different functions. Quite simple, I think.
I thought ILE. The thought-process reminded me of this a bit, vaguely. Except he's more animate and the subject matter is different. That's all I have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3y3oxheIlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHd8MTKmlCU
" A bit offtopic, but that's one of the reasons that I have always seen "free love" (polyamour or similar descriptions) an Fe valuer thing, or at least, more statistically common in those types.Quote:
Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Fi valuers will never treat everybody in the same way, because there would not be a significant differentiation between formed bonds (this does not prevent cheating, of course)."
> I appreciate many points that you make btw and I like your ideas, but I really doubt you're a Ni type.