Anybody knows this guys type?
https://i.imgur.com/0lKm0lD.png
https://i.imgur.com/rtzyBBn.png
https://i.imgur.com/C48g4c8.png https://i.imgur.com/KnA3Nwo.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LJb0y5f8Pg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7foqylzHzVQ
Printable View
LII-Ne
He seems to be LII-Ti to me. Rational.
LII Normalizing
(He also self types LII. Not that i know russian but ive heard)
LII-Ne, social 5?
Direct comparison of LII rational (Viktor) and irrational (Ben) subtypes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-iUQ6DLML0
I would not associate productivity to subtypes. Content matters. His models are rather logic centered. It borrows things from everywhere, like spins but it is not really that wacky.
LII-Ne 5w6 sp/so the social or 'warmside' subtype
he's not the Ti subtype. every time I translate his articles he gallops through the concepts and often doesn't bother to carefully explain what he means. packs a lot of information into single sentences, so holographic-panoramic cog style for certain.
LII
@Viktor I didnt know u travelled the world?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7vmHGAshi8
???
long lost brother
theyre not similar lol
functionally LIE-Ni !!! The Entrepreneur type who is always curious about how to maneuver and influence people and situations for ones desired outcomes.
(This conflicts with SEIs because they don't like control through hidden agendas or too much outside influence. SEI is a free spirit.)
I'm not saying he isn't trying to describe himself in his LII descriptions either because obviously he self-typed that way and then rewrote many definitions and labels imo.
Attachment 14837
From his VI I see more of a ILE open minded type. I;m curious if you could elborate on your idea here because I came across another intellectual who is similar to DarkAngelFireWolf69 and I have been curious where this LIE VS LII-ILE is headed as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Well he spawns so much data that is very Te leading to me and it is very comprehensive which is Ni in how multifaceted it is. But I disagree with his labels. Ti Ne types ime with many tend to grasp complex concepts very quickly with their Ne and won't mince words and use lots of set theory-like logic Ti and compare their ideas with past concrete experiences Si supporting than pure theory and power of force assertiveness Se. I personally feel like real Ti leads to realistic understanding about things in ways Te leads ignore because the latter get set in their knowledge they have accepted as such and then play with it like in computer programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
Some of DarkAngelFireWolf69's data can be useful tho' if one knows how to swap labels e.g. Sol being LSE in actuality yet fitting DarkAngelFireWolf69's LSI somewhat instead, or my fitting his SEE but I am SEI. (Introverts write/type more than talk so don't let all my posting through you off.)
What do you think?
Most of the data seems to be a kind of Ti exercise from how I interpret it. Lots of it is diagramed first principles sort of thing. Ti can be comprehensive, for example, socionics itself is a form of Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
True, I'm not all that familiar with his work besides some youtube videos and some literature and diagrams. Could you elaborate on what you mean by Ni in this case being mutli-faceted?Quote:
which is Ni in how multifaceted it is.
Socionics, no matter how well researched and supported will only ever be an artform so disagreement is okay. Its philosophically okay for alphas to disagree with the current models, and also create new ones. Open-mindedness is a quality trait here.Quote:
But I disagree with his labels.
Yes.Quote:
Ti Ne types ime with many tend to grasp complex concepts very quickly with their Ne
Maybe.Quote:
and won't mince words
Sometimes. There is a intuitive fluidity sometimes as well. Se adds something unique here, not everything is cut and dry 1:1.Quote:
and use lots of set theory-like logic Ti
What do you mean?Quote:
and compare their ideas with past concrete experiences Si supporting than pure theory and power of force assertiveness Se.
Yeah. If it works why figure out more, is this what you mean?Quote:
I personally feel like real To leads to realistic understanding about things in ways Te leads ignore because they get set in their knowledge they have accepted as such and then play with it like in computer programs.
For comparison here, Graham Hancock is a more pure ILE in my mind. Somewhat similar to DarkAngelFireWolf69 superficially.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2qE0lOIBtE
Yeah sort of. What that can lead to is a lack of adjusting data and basic assumptions per logic and experiences wrt the whole like other types will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
Ni is multifaceted in that it is like fluid incremental deductions and contemplation. To me a Te Ni task would be observing water running from a faucet and trying to derive principles of fluid dynamics in the raw. But Ne Ti is like .... How can I rearrange all this merchandise quickly in the store and make the display more marketable? Or, asking questions about how to design perfect innovations in a better more utopian society. So a goal is in mind and logic gets tactical for Ne and Ti. But Ni Te could keep on endlessly busy without necessarily needing a goal, solving tasks in a set procedure with repetition over time.
I thought it was the total opposite?Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Vess..this might be a break through moment for you. A watershed.
No I used to try to believe the opposite but it didn't hold up with the 24 typings of people I have known extremely well I collected and other lateral equivocation studying celebrities and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
This is why I often say here that my understanding is swapped from his wrt quadras and also he doesn't know SFs very well it seems. He sometimes takes 2 types and splits them across 2 quadras as if opposed. I am very careful now when I see his writings.
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
From what I currently see in this forum it seems like users have selftyped 50/50 per Quadra such that half who think they are Delta are actually beta and so on, depending on what data sources the person relies on most and then decides. We don't seem to have clear elation in each Quadra section as we should per theory but get closer to it when anyone can chat in the polygon of affection shoutbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
I was talking about just the thing you said and some of it has Te elements in the spots you say are Ne+Ti and some Ti elements in place of where you said it's Ni+Te.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Te is solving problems as you say, and Ni might be most willing to look at phenomenon, like the pouring water, in order to enact the current goal, maybe to fix it, or design a product, whatver.
Still, at its heart, what you are saying should actually be flipped. What you are saying is not even classic socionics as per model A.
It is mbti ish I knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
Alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
I find it intriguing, you share a story about the Calendar just needing to be flipped over, because you had it back words. Flip it over and voila, now its the right year. weird : /Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Sol called DarkAngelFireWolf69 a heretic. I think that is a bit extreme because typology is emergent study yet the truth is DarkAngelFireWolf69 flipped things. He strayed from the original path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaqen
I also use astrology archetypes to augment functions because there is a history there (Si) which should be honored in type development models. Jung studied astrology even. He just renamed the mutable and fixed signs as functions. Introversion and extraversion is defined as above or below horizon. In this sense some distorted definitions have no legacy. They are swapped.
That calendar story was a good one heh.
/yeah except I'm not referencing DarkAngelFireWolf69 what-so-ever. So, I'm not picking up on what you are saying here. Te and Ti are mixed in your conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Recently, someone discussed him with me telling me that he thinks G might be a Te-leading type. I acknowledge that I haven't thought about this very much and I arbitrarily typed him as LII due to his self-typing and his functional descriptions. Now I consider the possibility of LIE and also find it to be possible.
I don't really think his system is very logical consistent and he collects many data, make many observations. He does describe Ti in the manner of a leading function, but it's also true that his Ti description actually contain both Ti and Te. It fits almost all judgmental functions. I have read his Ti/Te descriptions very carefully the last time. So this time I read his Ni/Ne descriptions again. His descriptions of Ni and Ne are also not accurate. He claims that Ni is sourced from the outside and finds the global process while Ne is from the subconscious, finding intuitive guesses from the unconscious. His Ne description does seem to be a bit Ni-ish, or probably a bit vital-ish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69
As a LII I don't find my Ne to be detachment from the external world. I am eager to explore more to understand more. It's true that intuition is not very conscious, it's just a perceiving function. But I don't find it to be as detached as G describes.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69
He attributes Ne to be from the unconscious, while he attributes Ni to be from the outside. It's very arbitrary and it's probably related to his own type.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69
Anyway, I think he doesn't understand Ni/Ne very well. So probably it's not enough to type him according to his descriptions. Now I actually think that it's possible for him to be LIE. Although LII is also possible as he described Fi in a Role-ish manner and he describe Ti in a Leading-ish manner.
I've always imagined the "detachment from the external world with strong internal concentration" to be whenever you space out and start thinking about something without immediate regard to what's around you. You go into some state where your vision fades into the background and your thoughts come to the fore. It doesn't mean you aren't open to the outside world or exploring various sources. So it seems like you're misunderstanding the scope of his claim to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR400AF
To me, there is nothing in these quotes that contradicts Jung and it's more of a distillation for modern times with common reference language than a reinvention of anything. At least for Ne. For the "outside" part of Ni, I don't really agree with that or see where you could get that from Jung. To resolve this in general, I think that words like external and outside are thrown around in type/element descriptions too much and mean different things in different contexts, and it can be difficult to understand their exact meaning without further clarification.
I know most people type him as LII but I am definitely thinking ILx or LIE. He doesn't seem Te ignoring, and he's made this whole Model G into a full on business. He's tried to make his logic accesible in a concrete way, despite it bing systematic to a point.
Jung linked Ni with unconscious more. Although both element are.intuition so both highly related to unconscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
But why does G claim that Ne is from unconscious and Ni is from outside? This is not what Jung said. It might imply that he has Ne in the vital ring.
Also, Ne sees the essence of objects and things. This is the most important feature of Ne. He ignores this point. What Jung emphasizes for Ne is that Ne represses the subject factors and intuits what's determined by the object. G actually misses this point and hints for the opposite.
Ip (SEI, IEI, IlI, SLI) relates to sensory associative plane of processing. It should get its information outside. As in Se relates to body controlling the environment, Ne will try to fill the blanks in shared mental plane. As Ne sees Ni it recognizes the incompleteness of the external and seeks. As Ni processes it tends to limit itself to a local area of a problem - it becomes bit specialized and narrows down things
ILE-Ne>IEE-Ne>LII-Ne
I'm fine with LII social five - he's not the only social 5 highly involved in typology by being the "rare expert in the community," and also offering typing service for money...
mb so/sx 5w4
C sub lol, that should be the most magnetic LII I would think
Interestingly, two experts I'm acquainted with also typed DarkAngelFireWolf69 ENTJ/LIE.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
LII-Ne-C but I can understand LIE/ILE for him.
Makes you think. Maybe @vesstheastralsilky was on to something. CT also types Ausra herself as ENTJ. It's almost as if all the types are flipped up, and mixed up because they are Te Base perspectives on "type" and function "stack" (which I don't actually think exists) rather than Ti Base perspectives on type (like Jung).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deductive
Aushra might be ILI more than LIE, and ILE for her does seem to be inaccurate to say the least but I would doubt DarkAngelFireWolf69 values Te.
And I thought, if you were to compare him to a Socionicist such as Talanov, for example, you would've seen the distinctions between both.
Thus, if you were to ask me, ILE would be more likely since I didn't see how his bias towards Te/Business Logic as the sign of Te-value.
Interestingly, I have heard DarkAngelFireWolf69 does type Ausra ILI (or wanted to at one point). Talanov is supposedly also ILI. The more I learn about Socionics the more I see how much of a prototype it is. I should probably find a new hobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deductive
I don't know how anyone can see his work anything other than Ti.
I'd say if we go by cognitive styles (DA) it might be true. I noted that I captured very same patterns that Aushra did while I read Jung's work before reading anything about socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelor