SEI got a bad wrap and LSI got a good one. What you think?
Printable View
SEI got a bad wrap and LSI got a good one. What you think?
ESE gets it the hardest and ... yeah LSI the best.
Everyone hates ESTjs but INFjs are the best
Forum, work, society, America, England, Germany, Japan, The Republic of the Congo, politics, tv shows...?
I'd say LIEs get the worst rep and LSIs and IEEs the best. You can't hate on alphas :cool: but they also don't have a good reputation.
LSI the best? Why?
Reliable, simple, relatable, no bullshit, able to be both reasonable without being a passionless pansy that doesn't know where he/she stands on things. I dunno, they just seem to stand on their own confidently without bothering anyone else or inflicting their suffering on others or trying to get anyone to do something they don't feel like doing. Idk, they are just respectable in that they are independent and know what they want but aren't too idealistic.
Best rep in socionics circles: LSI indeed
Best rep IRL: ESE
Worst rep in socionics circles: SLE
Worst rep IRL:
https://static.pulse.ng/img/incoming...reputation.jpg
LSI relatable? Simple? We know very different LSIs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fvaelynn
LSIs can be really demanding and prone to sudden outbursts of anger, and they also often enjoy being part of that ST "underground" scene, if you know what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Lol. I meant more like, biker gangs and so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
If you're talking about reputation in socionics circles this is a very interesting question.
Initially in the socionics community intuitive types were heavily favored - everyone typed as "ENTp" etc. Now the situation is much more complex. ESI and EII seem to be favorites among mistyped people, especially ESI. Arguably it's easier for an IEI to mistype as these however, like EIEs as IEE or LSIs as LSE or SLI - especially if they're influenced by MBTI or don't use values to type. I have a hard time putting my finger on any type that in itself seems taboo on the forum, though there may still be a slight intuitive bias.
well I'm IEI... deep down I'm a good person and I'm able to mediate between people. That's usually the thing people compliment me on the most irl, the times I'm able to use my Fe to help people get along with each other. (I have strong area-of-effect healing spells lol) That improves my reputation.
Objectively my reputation is shit tho because I refuse to be a LSE/LIE successful businessmen... I need to be more of a Jew less like a goyim.
In Socionics circles, Delta types tend to be given the highest amount of respect. Alphas and Betas get the least. Especially alphas.
In real life, I think it's kind of the same way. Gammas get some respect, but not as much as deltas, because they are often not quite as savvy socially and tend to use a hammer where a scalpel is necessary.
You think? ;p I think beta and gamma kind of get the best wrap. And within those probably LSI, EIE (the legendary type noone knows) and SEE are just the big sweetheart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
to me it seems like:
beta & gamma gets it better because se/ni is seen as like, intense, deep, exciting, badass, whatever. and ne/si is perceived as childish and boring.
of beta/gamma, esi and sle get it the worst for being prissy naggers and violent knuckledraggers, respectively.
of alpha/delta, iee and sli get it okay for being cool, laid-back hippies.
alpha just gets the short end of the stick.
Yeah. There's a bit of confusion about Ni and depth somehow being associated. One of America's biggest authors was Hemingway, an LSE. He seemed to understand things you would stereotypically expect an Ni type to get, like the cyclical nature of civilization and human life. He was also the American master of understatement. Ni PoLR. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
Although, if I'm honest, I still like Saramago better. ;)
Beta and gamma get the most status, but they aren't necessarily respected. Does that make sense? Reputation is more closely connected to respect than status. People try to fuck with betas and gammas more because they do so more often themselves. It kinda hurts their reputation but increases their status. Deltas don't fuck with people as often, and they can often be pretty subtle about it when they do. So people don't notice it in deltas so much and their reputation remains intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
Hm, I think this varies. I'd argue EIE, they're more the dynamos. At least in my culture (the US) Ni-Se and Se-Ni are much more valued as a whole. EIE is strong in Ni and has Se HA so people love that shit. Si PoLR is probably the least objectionable in US culture. It's very idealized to be "goal-focused", "determined", etc. Being comfortable and aware of your own mind and the ways of the world is deempathized. Why know the ways of the world... when you can change the ways of the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
LIEs also have a good rep in the US, but of a different sort. EIEs have more mass appeal, LIE is more respected.
I do not think it is that well connected to the type itself really but what people of that type is doing for the community and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
More like EIIQuote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Hemingway has been almost universally typed as sle by people for years. He's on benchmark lists
This thread is victimy
That's crazyQuote:
Originally Posted by lump
EDIT: Really really really bad typing, sorry but that's how it is
Depends what socionist is describing then. Alpha is described very positively by most of the literature.
What about him makes him SLE to you, lungs? I'm willing to concede, because I can see him as a possible SLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
i haven't thought about his type. i only care insofar as its a little frustrating when everybody seems to be using the same framework and seeing the same things, and then they're not lol. my only thought is that his simple and direct prose strikes me as ST in style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
It is rather direct. He uses a lot of short, simple sentences. But he's being sneaky lol. Don't be fooled by the apparent directness of his writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
If he was more of a womanizer in his personal life, I'd say SLE was more likely. The LSEs I've known tend to be fairly genteel. They often have the same end goal, which is to get some. But the LSE uses the nice urbane, progressive attitude to get it while the SLE is more of an out and out aggressive abuser. The LSEs win quite often, especially these days, because they've learned how to appeal to the idea of the modern woman to get what they want.
Now that I think about it, the differences between them strike me as very yin/yang almost lol. Hemingway had a hidden soft side, while I would say that LSEs tend to hide their toughness more. Okay. SLE it is then.
Check this out for detail on Hemingway's hidden soft side:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/even...-life-him.html
there's this idea where the type attaches a certain status to the person wearing it when in fact I think its the exact opposite. Hence LIE and IEI are the 2 biggest scrub types, here at least. The quality of the personal representation is what makes a type reputable, not vice versa
i think the number of people with a given type is sort of inversely correlated with its reputation, like it's pointed out that iei was a popular type to be in the past and esi is a popular type to be now, but i don't think its because people thought iei was better then and esi is better now. both types have kind of stood in as a placeholder for "nondescript sensitive female" during the times of their popularity and i think the principle of supply & demand kind of applies, like its harder to be accepted as a 'better' type. but i think gatekeeping is a rarer phenomenon now than it has been in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
edit: I don't know why I quoted you for this. your post just prompted my thinking about something else lol.
Could you rephrase that? I'm not quite getting the first sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
people think label x makes them coolQuote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
I feel like its just gone underground
actually, yeah, I can see this. and I can think of at least one person who is fairly blatant about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I think I would like some of the gatekeeping attitude. People challenging your type gives you the opportunity to see what others think more often, about your own type and about Socionics in general. It would probably make for livelier discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
Yes, and I think this is the secret behind the (in)famous SLE typing. It's based on a huge misunderstanding. Simply associating that style with ST is understandable, but then thinking that's his actual type. That's when things go wrong. And ignoring all the intuition and feeling in his work. As if you wrote books using sensing (you don't).Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
Many EII authors have similar style. The concrete reality of the story and characters.
Strong Se is expressed in concrete action. Weak conscious Se is aligned under the stronger functions. Like in Hemmingways concrete style of writing.
Most typings of Hemingway probably appeal to his lifestyle and character outside his work. If it were just writing style, there might be even more disagreement about his type. Can you show how Hemingway was EII by using biographical knowledge? There's an article I linked above. Read that and tell me what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
I feel like typing people who predate socionics is generally problematic for a lot of reasons, the same way typing people you don't personally know is, but to an even greater extent. at best you type the image of them, or their work product, or some other secondhand impression but its all via some distorting lens or another, which means you need to identify what peculiar effects that medium would have on the transmission of personality in order to unwind it, which is so incredibly speculative on top of typing being speculative to begin with
so while I think its sort of a lost cause to worry about Hemingway because at best you're typing people's projections onto a limited amount of data. I mean how much does anyone here really even know about Hemingway. at best its like saying "I think hemingway stands for xxx" which is personal psychological disclosure not a real typing of an individual. that said, he represents the ST style in writing, but typing specific acts or words or instances is a far cry from the man himself. which of course has already been agreed upon I'm just reiterating I guess
His private letters are available to the public these days. It's not what he might have liked, but that's how it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I disagree completely with the idea that typing people that predate Socionics is problematic. Indicators of character and essence are the same as they have always been and always will be. Yes, people try to put forward a public image of themselves to look better, but even that image is the product of the person's type. Type is pretty impossible to escape. Even distortions still carry that underlying signature that one can use to tell a person's type. The only problem is whether or not the person doing the typing has the observational skills and experience necessary to identify it.
I haven't read that yet (But I will). But I already know something. He wrote fiction. A lot. And he became world famous for that. You don't do that with weak functions. You need strong intuition for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
He travelled around and liked hunting. Many intuitives do that. So I don't see that as relevant.
You have to assume that a person who devotes his life to writing has suitable functions for that. Se base is not suitable for writing.
There is a sometimes a tendency to type people by too unstrained association. Like concrete writing style means ST type, instead of looking at the actual activity (creating fictional worlds with people and their lives)
And I kind of just consider it common knowledge that successful writers are almost always intuitives. I repeat: You don't write books using sensing. No matter how much "sensing" is found in the text.
I don't think we disagree I just think the answer to this is no one. the highest level socionists including ausra disagree on the typing of the people the types themselves are named afterQuote:
The only problem is whether or not the person doing the typing has the observational skills and experience necessary to identify it.
which isn't to say typing is impossible, just that you need to know someone and socionics well to accurately type someone, and that is almost always lacking in one way or the other. true people can speculate and maybe they get it right, but even if they're right, its not going to convince anyone because its just subject to disagreements by as many people who can do the same thing and come out with a different answer. in other words, their typing right or wrong is always a private piece of information and belief, so its like why bother? maybe cause its fun, fair enough but at the same time its sort of meaningless except as an exercise in entertainment
You're making the mistaken and shallow assumption that sensors could not have literary inclinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
Please read this:
http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...hov_and_Tsypin
It's not really possible to prove anything about Socionics. It's not falsifiable at all. That said, I don't think it's necessary to know someone as well as you say one needs to know someone to be able to type them. I think we all see something there, but we tend to disagree simply because we are looking at something that is by nature difficult to perceive. But there are still some who manage to do it and do it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I don't really see someone's type as a private thing, because it's apparent and shows itself regardless of whether or not someone wants it to do so. If someone is wearing a shirt and walking down the street, is the color of it somehow private? How did you come up with that?
You're right that you can't really convince anyone. You really have to get people to see the way you see. Seeing is believing. And you're right, it is fun. But I don't think I'd characterize Socionics as meaningless except for entertainment. For me, it's something more fundamental to the psyche and a part of objective reality, possibly even part of the nature of reality itself. I don't really know for sure, and I could be entirely wrong, but that's what I think.
alphas are 140+ iq nerds who will some day find the cure for cancer and invent many other great things. untill then they need someone to daily change their diapers and breastfeed their mouths, cuz they havent figured out yet how to control their weewee muscles and everyone needs to drink right? this is where the alpha sf comes in, who will gladly help the alpha NT, because they are closet pedophiles and this is the closest they can legally get to having sex with a real child.
betas are sadistic bikergang members with at least 6 murders on record who play rape games with (or actually rape) basement dweller emo poetrywriting overly melancholic and dramatic masochists who show early signs of the onset of schizophrenia, have ptsd and probably 5 more mental disorders you may or may not have heard of @Olimpia am i doin this right
gammas are ugly business nerds whose only reason for having such hot wives is having tons of money. thats it really. welcome to gamma.
enjoy your stay, but only if you are hot or have money
deltas are independent feminists who dont need no man to take care of them in the traditional husband-and-wife-way. the other half are men who want to take care of a wife in the traditional husband-and-wife way. whatever you do, dont be male, american, and part of this quadra at the same time.
or just dont be delta ST, cuz even your duals hate you
choose your destiny
im not saying socionics is meaningless im saying people popping out types for other people is meaningless, especially when they don't actually know those people or know socionics. at the same time its meaningful in some private sense, because inasmuch as it represents something fixed in their mind that they believe it is real, and inasmuch as its entertaining it also has a non-zero valueQuote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
this is why its so stupid to type yourself or others based on perceived status, because it doesn't accomplish anything and leads one away from the internal value that typing someone can have which is to say unless its use is purely a imaginary heirarchy builder, you cheat yourself out of the insight building accurate ITR could have. which is why I think it appears that people "know" socionics and yet never seem to get the real lesson of socionics. its this weird disjunction between assurance in typing of others and a total failure to truly understand others. and its very conspicuous--its like once you see the real value in socionics its very apparent when someone is not tapped into it and the fact they're full of confidence in their typing just makes it all the more absurd... its like presumably once you know your type and others type, and know how so many things are a mirage, then you go around getting into the exact same disputes as someone who doesnt know socionics at all, its like how can that person say at the same time they have the ability to type others. it all just becomes meaningless at that point, if all that is true
Everything is meaningless Bertrand. :P Noting whether or not something is meaningful or meaningless is therefore also meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Socionics doesn't have to be a self-help system. I think you're implying that. There is no objective "lesson" to Socionics. It's not a religion or a spiritual guide.
im just saying if you're pounding nails with an iphone you missed the point and maybe don't understand as much as you claim to. if the answer is "its fun" then more power to you, but still
if the answer to that is "there is no objective usage to this iphone" well, you got me there, and that's precisely why these exercises in typing can be futile, because people just talk past eachother and don't even know what they're doing anyway. it sort of becomes where if you reserve the right to be stupid, you may in fact value empty typings but it also sort of reinforces how dumb the whole thing is and reduces it all to a mere exercise in entertainment. but to say socionics is on the level of fruit ninja or something is to sell yourself short and to assign equivalent value to the two applications is brainless, then to argue with people with all that in mind just makes a person now an active waste of other people's time. its like if you really believe that and then with the same breath challenge anyone on anything its in total bad faith
people can reduce out all the useful aspects of socionics if they want but it doesn't oblige others to see it the same way so the "its not objective theory" cuts both ways, it just means you can ignore them and vice versa, the question becomes is that a better or worse outcome for either of the parties? to say theyre equal is true meaninglessness
I don't own an iPhone, so I can't pound nails with one. Those are expensive anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
And yes, Socionics has no objective use.
Why do you get so upset about all this though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
:rofl: HahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I think you got the gist of it. :P
I've written a more... harmless version here, haha.
Sigh. He gets upset over everything. It's quite something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
:RIP:
@Bertrand rektQuote:
Originally Posted by Retsu77
Here I see deep despair, mixed with longing. and maybe you're a little bit hungry also. For wafflesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
so that's what that feeling is!
now I wanna be delta ST :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
lungs SEI confirmed, bertrand ILE confirmed, now kissQuote:
Originally Posted by lump
no you dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stellafera
:P
sorry it's my NF masochism complex againQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
was about to say ;) hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Stellafera
https://i.imgur.com/opskGyA.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Or...044beacd201271Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
Could you please suggest some well-known contemporary writers who are sensors. I'd like to look into this. I can also write and i've gotten positive feedback in the past but to do it professionally is a different thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by reverie
Hemingway's lifestyle that includes bull runs and other risky activities sounds anthithesis of EII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
I see the Ni/Se valuing quadras as being more polarizing. Thus either strongly liked or strongly disliked. Particularly with beta. The exception to this seems to be IEI, which seems to be mostly liked by people.Quote:
Originally Posted by lump
Whereas the Si/Ne valuing quadras are less polarizing. More just there, less blatantly annoying but also less admired or respected perhaps. Not so much strongly liked or disliked. Deltas are unfairly seen as kind of boring, alphas as kind of goofy and weird. I suppose ESE and LSE might be exceptions, it seems like they get more dislike among the alphas and deltas. It's kind of analogous to ESFJ/ESTJ getting an undue amount of dislike in the MBTI community. IEE seems to be looked on more positively among deltas. Seems like the other alphas and deltas are more neutral.
LII could go either way. Seen as really intelligent by some but to others grossly impractical and socially awkward. I'm not sure LII is really 'hated' though in a way sometimes attributed to other types. Maybe it's our Se PoLR that makes us a bit less harmful and threatening.
I was trying to figure out which type Hemingway was and this thread looked kinda interesting, if a bit silly :p
Hemingway seemed like a Ti-user to me, and I'd say Se>Si for sure. I think he was SLE, but he sometimes drifted into ILE territory.
ESIs get the worst stereotypes, the best is a little hard to figure out. I think EIIs skate by with the least amount of negative stereotypes.
LSI and SEI seem to have a good reputation at work (I was really impressed by them challenging senior leadership when we went through a consultation process to change our contracts/ working conditions). Generally LSI seem like straight-forward people to me but then maybe they are a bit like SEI and will suddenly surprise you out of nowhere doing something out of character, making you lose trust in them. EII seem to have a good rep online, maybe in real life too, although I think they can go a bit unnoticed/ unappreciated. People seem to like having me, IEI, around but I wouldn't say I feel valued. IEEs seem to have a good reputation in real life too- they seem to have a lot of friends. SEE/ESE are the most popular. An LII colleague passed away recently and everyone seemed very sad, people had a huge amount of respet for her.
hmm not sure. I know a woman (probably Delta) who had a squeaky clean reputation but in the Fi sense most people knew what she was really like interpersonally and knew she was nowhere near as good as her 'professional resume' said so to speak. Narcissists are good at manipulating external reputation crap (which I think is a lot of Te bs) at appearing 'good' but inside they are not really anything like that at all and people know it- and you don't really have to have 4D Ni to 'know it' either. I think people often respect the inherent innocentness in Alpha SF types but their 2D/1D Te can make it hard to see at times.
as a Beta my reputation probably grows a lot when people find out I'm nowhere near as evil as they thought or more like- nowhere near as evil as they wanted me to be. =D They wanted/needed me to be Dahmer 2.0 to feel superior and was dissapointed in the real life version. And maybe a little relieved/admired that I'm not actually that bad of a person who knows. ((I'm not good either but who is? lol))
okay sorry its Fe too of course. Manipulating how somebody sees you is a Te/Fe game fo sure.