Your typing of forum members (archived '15-'17)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

... Not *just* a fucking concept I'm guessing you meant? Unless you were joking. Because it is a philosophical concept...

Man, is this meta...

---

Yes, objectivism in the Ayn Rand sense IS a concept. It is NOT a Socionics concept unless you live, eat, and breathe Sociotype.com (which is not the most reliable Socionics website in the world to begin with and it seems like everyone gets their information from there so no WONDER why this forum is so fucked)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Some people in here are ruining their dignity for a typology system...

---

Yeah, like you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

If the thread gets closed that means your Ni prediction was right and you're an IEI. Oh no, we can't have that happen now...

---

Right :hello:

Now everyone is forced to keep this thread going to prove me wrong. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake

Yes, objectivism in the Ayn Rand sense IS a concept. It is NOT a Socionics concept unless you live, eat, and breathe Sociotype.com.

---

Good to know that my conflictors still know how to check Wikipedia. That's my cue to take a break from this thread. I've literally been checking 16t on and off for hours, living, eating, and breathing it. :|

Looking forward to @thehotelambush or others' responses, if any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake

Yes there is and you insist on it every single time. "Objectivism" isn't a fucking concept

---

I said Objectivist, not "objectivism", aka "Serious". It's one of the Reinin dichotomies, which you don't "believe".

Here, read this by Stratiyevskaya:

3. "Objectivist" trait (predominance of involutionary logic of actions and ethics of relations -Fi -Te)

In accordance with this trait, every person has the right 1) to trust their personal experience – professional, pragmatic, business experience derived from personal observations – and insist on one’s right to further act in accordance to it 2) to trust facts and to become persuaded by facts – to provide them as the main proof of one's correctness 3) to evaluate the situation by already transpired facts and to act in accordance with circumstances existing up to date, trusting one's own experience and one's notion of expedience of a particular course of action 4) to freely and resolutely demonstrate pragmatic initiatives coming from one's own base of observations, one's own personal and professional experience, and reasoning founded common sense, and at one's own discretion 5) to evaluate a person according to the level of his qualifications, based on facts of his professional training, attainments, and competence 6) to remove (or ask for removal) from work those who are inept and negligent, to push them out from work and projects 7) to fight for one's own participation in work or a project, for one's place on a working team, and to be able to defend it.

Haha this thread is going downhill, but it is amusing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity

I meant Objectivist, aka "Serious". It's one of the Reinin dichotomies, which you don't "believe".

Here, read this by Stratiyevskaya:

3. "Objectivist" trait (predominance of involutionary logic of actions and ethics of relations -Fi -Te)

In accordance with this trait, every person has the right 1) to trust their personal experience – professional, pragmatic, business experience derived from personal observations – and insist on one’s right to further act in accordance to it 2) to trust facts and to become persuaded by facts – to provide them as the main proof of one's correctness 3) to evaluate the situation by already transpired facts and to act in accordance with circumstances existing up to date, trusting one's own experience and one's notion of expedience of a particular course of action 4) to freely and resolutely demonstrate pragmatic initiatives coming from one's own base of observations, one's own personal and professional experience, and reasoning founded common sense, and at one's own discretion 5) to evaluate a person according to the level of his qualifications, based on facts of his professional training, attainments, and competence 6) to remove (or ask for removal) from work those who are inept and negligent, to push them out from work and projects 7) to fight for one's own participation in work or a project, for one's place on a working team, and to be able to defend it.

---

I'm not going to read it. Instead I'll ask you when you've come across someone openly admitting to thinking this way in real life? Like, not on the computer, but face to face. There's no way to test it.

That's right... just because you were ignorant of Reinin dichotomies, doesn't mean that it's "new age Socionics".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity

That's right... just because you were ignorant of Reinin dichotomies, doesn't mean that it's "new age Socionics".

---

It has no place in reality and even Reinin said to rely on the IMEs and Model A.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handjob

Yeah, like you. :)

---

Obviously. See how emotionally involved I am in socionics throwing insults right and left and liking every comment that hits me personally to hide that im butthurt but comes off the opposite. Yes. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Obviously. See how emotionally involved I am in socionics throwing insults right and left and liking every comment that hits me personally to hide that im butthurt but comes off the opposite. Yes. :D

---

Oh, I didn't mean socionics. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handjob

Oh, I didn't mean socionics. ;)

---

Youre free to explain how i destroy my dignity with any typology system. Cant wait for your response. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Haha this thread is going downhill, but it is amusing now.

---

The irony: It all delivers excellent typing material. So let the thread go downhill deliberately, it just produces more interesting things about the people (let's be self-aware, you and me included).

There's beauty in this chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

It should be made clear that the Typology domain strongly lacks in evidence (of the Te kind). It is all Ti territory for the most part. An LIE will mostly have to rely on their Ti Ignoring and their Creative Ni to navigate those waters. That is probably why Adam is such a fan of V.I – it lacks a logically structured model and relies mostly on intuitive impression. If you want to see what an ILE is like, check @echidna1000 and his work and personality. He's the guy behind WSS.

---

I'm apparently LSE now.

Guys if you want to battle-type Adam and Cassandra I will create a thread for that and move all the related posts there, since they're a lot.

Let me know, and also Adam and Cassandra let me know if it's okay for you, otherwise I will delete some posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Guys if you want to battle-type Adam and Cassandra I will create a thread for that and move all the related posts there, since they're a lot.

Let me know, and also Adam and Cassandra let me know if it's okay for you, otherwise I will delete some posts.

---

Was it even battle-typing though? None of my posts re. Cassandra's type were as I have nothing against her, can't speak for anyone's else's motivations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Was it even battle-typing though? None of my posts re. Cassandra's type were as I have nothing against her, can't speak for anyone's else's motivations.

---

Well it doesn't have to be personal, just a disagreement on someone's type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reverie

Typing forum members is the purpose of this thread. If people don't like being typed, I think they should state that, and if it is further discussed, then I think it should be grounds for a warning. Just my 2 cents. Have Cass & Adam said they didn't want their type discussed? I don't see why this thread should be closed, however. I've seen it get a lot worse than this, anyway, and it only got a warning. Maybe I'm Fe PoLR too. lol

---

Not closed but if the focus becomes on the two of them we can create a new thread (split the current one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echidna1000

I'm apparently LSE now.

---

Seriously?? :lol:
That's hilarious...

I'd rather not have a special thread just for my type.

I mean, what an honor to get all the attention, but seriously...

I don't really see the point? :p Personally.

This thread is enough for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Well it doesn't have to be personal, just a disagreement on someone's type.

---

Hm, even when they ask for input? She did ask people what they thought about her type and why.

I just asked people for their explanation when they threw a typing out there. :p
I am not looking for people to type me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

I just asked people for their explanation when they threw a typing out there. :p
I am not looking for people to type me.

---

It doesn't make much sense to get upset about people replying to your questions. If you weren't interested in their ideas, you wouldn't ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

It doesn't make much sense to get upset about people replying to your questions. If you weren't interested in their ideas, you wouldn't ask.

---

Well no, I am not upset.
I just don't want a separate typing thread for myself. :p That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

It should be made clear that the Typology domain strongly lacks in evidence (of the Te kind). It is all Ti territory for the most part. An LIE will mostly have to rely on their Ti Ignoring and their Creative Ni to navigate those waters. That is probably why Adam is such a fan of V.I – it lacks a logically structured model and relies mostly on intuitive impression. If you want to see what an ILE is like, check @echidna1000 and his work and personality. He's the guy behind WSS.

---

I don't think this is true at all, fwiw. it lacks evidence that would establish it firmly within the framework of "science" as it currently stands, but what drew me to socionics over other scientific/philosophical theories was precisely because it explained so much about my personal experience up until then and strongly "worked" for me on the basis of my own subjective criteria (Fi). I feel like a lot of the last few pages have once again been a Ti projection and misunderstanding of Te/Ni rooted in beta style Ti/Ni understanding of things, which relies heavily on frameworks but has a very one dimensional quality to it. it seems like a lot of unsupported assumptions that I view as clearly wrong being passed off and accepted by a subset of people (mainly low D Ti valuers) and all the discussion from these types is missing the mark because of this fundamental misstep

in other words, it (socionics) lacks evidence according to a relatively narrow Ti definition, which would be "objectively measurable physical phenonmena"--but that is not the requirement of Te--that is the definition of admission into a vast Ti structure we call "science" which is different. Te is a form of information metabolism, and in that sense I believe socionics is very Te. For me it is Te to its core, with the Ti stuff being more like window dressing, but to go so far as to call it "pure Te" would be me making the same mistake i see you making it here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chae

The irony: It all delivers excellent typing material. So let the thread go downhill deliberately, it just produces more interesting things about the people (let's be self-aware, you and me included).

---

exactly, as soon as I read that post I was like, "am I the only one who thinks its not going downhill, but that people are actually in a position to learn something for once?"

conflict is not the enemy, conflict is how you solve problems

I also think its ironic that apparently FDGs answer to this is start deleting posts and creating a new thread, when this is the thread this is for and would only further accentuate the, apparently illicit, focus on doing certain members (which basically means you can't do it in here and we're not doing to do it out of here, which is like, why even have a member typing thread? and yet typing members is precisely one of the most interesting and productive way to have typing discussions).. its very much feels > reals, but the "feels" strike me more as pretense to leverage control over any real concern for "feelings", because, shit, everyone has feelings, like, I feel this is bullshit, but apparently some are more equal than others, etc etc etc

making my beta senses tingle

I would also like to say in the broader sense, when we can't have these discussions it promotes conditions that erode true understanding of the theory and does harm to the cause of socionics in general (which is mutual human understanding) because we filter everyone's post through their supposed type. the fact that a person can come here and read that person x is type y and saying z to them has implications, and although people will get their type wrong, its the questions that that sense of dissonance raises that leads to greater understanding. to throw it all under the bus because some Fe overlord decided it didn't meet their goals is the beginning of the end for this forum. that which draws people to it is its actual substantive content inasmuch as there is any left--the social hangers on will fashion rules favorable to them but that will undo the reason for this forum for existing and then move onto to the next meal like nothing at all when there's nothing left but empty discussion (because, above all, beta likes to appear intellectual, which basically means hanging out with intellectuals--in typical beta fashion they also drive them all away)... you can already see this occurring with how so many great and interesting and productive forum members no longer visit here and yet once they're all gone the socialites will have nothing left to mull over and will likewise leave...

if one is concerned for the wellbeing of this place the first concern should be with ensuring the conditions that preserve the essence of what this place is and let the "niceties" flow as a byproduct. to turn it into a hugbox will drive away anyone with anything substantive to say and then when those types are gone no one else is going to have anything to say either and the whole thing dries up. besides there's a million and one hugboxes out there but only one decent socionics forums, so lets not ruin it eh? anyone can get their dumbass fe fix anywhere else

its funny that certain members are revered as angels or something when its more like locusts and if you look to the real effects (Te) its more like they carve a swath of destruction wherever they go, which is really betas downfall in general, inadvertently turning everything to shit via claiming some moral high ground (which is really just pure metaphysics--turning something good into bad and vice versa, via artificial moralizing--its the source of all their retarded destructive power)

I regularly see Te valuing types finding an issue with the fact that Socionics lacks a clear standardized typing method or questionnaire. Te valuing types often put a lot of emphasis on test results. But unfortunately, there is no reliable canon test out there, which can be frustrating for them. Furthermore, the Fi ego types often like to rely on the opinions and views of external "expert" opinion, but again, Socionics is a mix of personal opinions. The theories of all those people are making up the typology salad. The only thing that seems to be more or less canon is Model A and perhaps the Quadras. The rest is all a matter of preference and personal perspective. There all kinds of takes on the IMs, the subtypes, the dichotomies, and so forth. In my opinion, this is pretty much Ti. That's also why opinions on someone's type can range very dramatically in Socionics. One person types someone as LSI, the other types them as EIE. I've never seen anything like that in MBTI circles. Yes, MBTI can be overly simplistic, but it is much more standardized in a Te fashion. There is an official test and a simplistic way of typing people by the 4 letters. In that manner, MBTI people ironically agree on someone's type more often, or at least there is not as big of a divergence in opinion. Also, the MBTI has been used for careers and such, which is also rather Te. I am rather sure that the originators of the MBTI were Te valuing. Whereas Socionics is much more navel-gazing in contrast; it is more about understanding the self and others, than actually applying the theory. (That could explain why many Socionists can come up with great theoretical content but somehow fail at typing enough people accurately.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

I regularly see Te valuing types finding an issue with the fact that Socionics lacks a clear standardized typing method or questionnaire.

---

stopped there. this is presupposing you have a good understanding of Te and who is a Te type. which you dont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I also think its ironic that apparently FDGs answer to this is start deleting posts and creating a new thread, when this is the thread this is for and would only further accentuate the, apparently illicit, focus on doing certain members (which basically means you can't do it in here and we're not doing to do it out of here, which is like, why even have a member typing thread? and yet typing members is precisely one of the most interesting and productive way to have typing discussions).. its very much feels > reals, but the "feels" strike me more as pretense to leverage control over any real concern for "feelings", because, shit, everyone has feelings, like, I feel this is bullshit, but apparently some are more equal than others, etc etc etc)

---

I asked if they were okay with it or not, since they're okay with the thread going on like this, I didn't do anything. I wouldn't read too much in this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

stopped there. this is presupposing you have a good understanding of Te and who is a Te type. which you dont

---

Why participate in a discussion if you don't even listen to what the other person has to say?
You shouldn't have challenged me otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

I regularly see Te valuing types finding an issue with the fact that Socionics lacks a clear standardized typing method or questionnaire. Te valuing types often put a lot of emphasis on test results. But unfortunately, there is no reliable canon test out there, which can be frustrating for them. Furthermore, the Fi ego types often like to rely on the opinions and views of external "expert" opinion, but again, Socionics is a mix of personal opinions. The theories of all those people are making up the typology salad. The only thing that seems to be more or less canon is Model A and perhaps the Quadras. The rest is all a matter of preference and personal perspective. There all kinds of takes on the IMs, the subtypes, the dichotomies, and so forth. In my opinion, this is pretty much Ti. That's also why opinions on someone's type can range very dramatically in Socionics. One person types someone as LSI, the other types them as EIE. I've never seen anything like that in MBTI circles. Yes, MBTI can be overly simplistic, but it is much more standardized in a Te fashion. There is an official test and a simplistic way of typing people by the 4 letters. In that manner, MBTI people ironically agree on someone's type more often, or at least there is not as big of a divergence in opinion. Also, the MBTI has been used for careers and such, which is also rather Te. I am rather sure that the originators of the MBTI were Te valuing. Whereas Socionics is much more navel-gazing in contrast; it is more about understanding the self and others, than actually applying the theory.

---

You! Say! It! Thanks for the rundown. Not that :Ti: wouldn't like standardized stuff but sure. Add that :Fi: (since that comes with :Te:) can rather access Socionics through intertype relationships which doesn't seem to be in the overall focus of discussions.

We've all been bashing MBTI but we can learn one thing from them: CONSENSUS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

I asked if they were okay with it or not, since they're okay with it, I didn't do anything.

---

implying that them being ok with it is what makes it ok, which is precisely the problem

democratic values would say its silly for them to not be ok with it and act accordingly. theres a fundamental difference in "where the moral error is placed" and from whence the "rights" subsequently flow

you are either mind controlled or not gamma

but you're definitely acting out the beta caricacture of gamma, which is the appearance of Te, which lungs has eloquently exposed, which is exactly the problem here and at issue, because it goes to the pernicious misunderstanding at the core of all of this, perpetuated by the same few posters. its exactly the "cult" of LIE she was talking about and in a broader sense a major cultural stream in the forums at large (what leads to the cult is a bunch of shared misunderstandings that have other effects as well)--no wonder some members get along so well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

implying that them being ok with it is what makes it ok, which is precisely the problem

democratic values would say its silly for them to not be ok with it and act accordingly. theres a fundamental difference in "where the moral error is placed" and from whence the "rights" subsequently flow

you are either mind controlled or not gamma

---

I am mind controlled.

Anyway, I wouldn't have deleted the post, but a new thread with specific typings could have made sense if this was the focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Why participate in a discussion if you don't even listen to what the other person has to say?
You shouldn't have challenged me otherwise.

---

I pointed out exactly where the problem was and your response was doubling down on the error, probably because you don't get what I'm saying

so the issue for you becomes to listen to me, since in my post is an already unaddressed response to your post full of content, because I am listening

your job is to understand that, and then you can throw around moral platitudes as if they connect somehow

if you understood that you would see how blatantly hypocritical your accusation is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I pointed out exactly where the problem was and your response was doubling down on the error, probably because you don't get what I'm saying

so the issue for you becomes to listen to me, since in my post is an already unaddressed response to your post full of content, because I am listening

your job is to understand that, and then you can throw around moral platitudes as if they connect somehow

if you understood that you would see how blatantly hypocritical your accusation is

---

I actually read your entire response, but I wanted to simply add my own thoughts about the general Ti/Te issue. In that sense, it was not exactly a reply to what you were saying.

But oh well. Looks like we have different takes on the IMs and/or you are annoyed by me for whatever reason.

Now I am curious: Does that make you type me as Te valuing? :p
Assuming you believe my takes on Te and Ti are wrong and considering the fact I type myself as Ti valuing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

but you're definitely acting out the beta caricacture of gamma, which is the appearance of Te, which lungs has eloquently exposed, which is exactly the problem here and at issue, because it goes to the pernicious misunderstanding at the core of all of this, perpetuated by the same few posters. its exactly the "cult" of LIE she was talking about and in a broader sense a major cultural stream in the forums at large (what leads to the cult is a bunch of shared misunderstandings that have other effects as well)--no wonder some members get along so well

---

Actually I think I get along decently with lungs....

Rofl, here we go again with Bertrand's "mind control". Is this a joke, or is he being serious? Are we all secretly reptilians now? Perhaps he really is a paranoid schizophrenic...

Bat. Shit. Insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

I actually read your entire response, but I wanted to simply add my own thoughts about the general Ti/Te issue. In that sense, it was not exactly a reply to what you were saying.

But oh well. Looks like we have different takes on the IMs and/or you simply are annoyed by me for whatever reason.

Now I am curious: Does that make you type me as Te valuing? :p
Assuming you believe my takes on Te and Ti are wrong and considering the fact I type myself as Ti valuing.

---

implying reading is equivalent to understanding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity

Rofl, here we go again with Bertrand's "mind control". Is this a joke, or is he being serious? Are we all secretly reptilians now? Perhaps he really is a paranoid schizophrenic...

Bat. Shit. Insane.

---

http://i.imgur.com/N8vhfBw.jpg

:P