Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinocchio
You said Si-seeking, but not the reason why.
The reasons are obvious for those who grasp the IEs.
Quote:
You have no reason to say that a platonic relationship is against Fi but pro Ne/Si. Absolutely none. Rather the other way around.
And your reasons are?
Quote:
You may use fictional examples to create an image about a type, but not as arguments. There's no such recurrence, you may think about the real characters we both know and you'll see you're wrong: Augusta, Ayn Rand, Mendeleev, Spielberg, Disney. ILEs are all the life in search for the better/best it seems to me that the "recurrent" trait is to have 2-3-4 relationships, which also matches my real life observations.
Horatio Nelson, John Maynard Keynes, and LaFayette were noted for their scandalous affairs. But I do not think that Ayn Rand and Wal Disney are ILEs. Do you have evidence for ILIs having flirtatious behaviors?
Quote:
This is true. But the few I remember now are: IEI male, ILI male, EIE female (very young, though), then recurrent scandalous escapades by IEI male, SEE female, EIE (not very sure) female.
But the fact is not how many I know, but how they put the problem, the inclinations they have. I can't remember any Ne/Si people seriously considering cheating (except an SEI and LSE males, afaik), not at all living on their own.
My ILI example actually boasts that he's completely independent and he needs nobody except his grandparents visit him to his birthdays - he travels.
I have had a few ILE/IEE and one EII friends who have engaged in such cases of seriously cheating. But as you say, it is not a matter of how many, but the nature of their problem. Is there some reason why your mind cannot conceive of the possibility of Ne/Si people cheating?
These questions were largely rhetorical, because the behavior you ascribe to ILEs was evident here in the case of Einstein for his affairs and his marriages.
Quote:
An ILE desire is to create a bond with a partner. From the moment they know each other better and spend time together the things begin to become more interesting, more "satiating". But it seems like for Einstein that's the moment where things lose the fun.
You are confusing types. While all types want healthy bonds between partners, the desire to create 'bonds' with partners is more strongly ascribed to Fi-valuing. How would Einstein's behavior point to Fi-valuing? And if an ILE does get to know someone better, does that always mean that things will become more interesting?
Quote:
I neither can deny or confirm this is specific, but in any case I was not talking in those terms.
Ne types are very cautious with the opposite sex because of this fear, which usually doesn't materialize in great emotional suffering because they quickly realize that "she sucked", "she was not made for him" this would not have gone anywhere - or vice-verse, or whatever.
The other way around is also valid: they don't try a relationship without potential. Imo you have a very distorted opinion about this type.
:lol: Avast me hearties, for irony abounds.
Quote:
This is bullshit and you know it. Like the Se/Ni types say "no more cooking, no more washing woman, I don't like it. piss off!". My sense of reality can't admit that.
I was being facetious. But which types would be the most receptive to it? Which types would be more likely to continue seeking the support of such behavior?
Quote:
Not more than the Se seeking in any ILI. Maybe you did not notice, but I don't use Dual-seeking in typing, especially because the IE notions usually differ from how this Super-Id function manifests.
If you specify how this Se-seeking manifests in ILIs I might be able to answer you, though.
I am more curious in your understanding of how it manifests.
Quote:
As long as you did not provide the source and it's not something very known, your argument is invalid and I have no reason to talk about it.
Dud, chill out. You are speculating on this. You have no f***ing idea of what happened among them, what agreements they've made. It could be embarrassment, politics, a game, a superstition, anything!
The only clear thing is that what he was writing was kept and what she was writing was destroyed!
If that is the case, the lack of evidence for the motives of the destroyed letters also suggests that you should not necessarily reading and speculating scorn into the unknown motives.
Quote:
Instead of anticipating my moves, better bring that evidence among us.
I'm not sure what good that would do me. You have a habit of ignoring evidence when it does not suit your close-minded case.
Quote:
Ok, but this doesn't mean I was talking about Fi. I was talking about intimacy, which relates to perception, not at all with J. The best way to understand my position in this matter is to re-read my article on "childish/mature".
I agree and I am as well. But there is an interplay of IE that is occurring here, and in this case Ne/Si + weak Fe/Fi.
Quote:
Escapades are more relating to caregivers-infantiles (and their large Socionics extensions) than victims-aggressors? :) I hope you're joking. It's not the first time you insinuate this absurdity.
And you complain about me reading everything you say literally?
Quote:
Maybe if you afford to live here for few months you'll have the proofs you require. So far, I can't find on the web something that would explain the quadras recharge methods and which could be consider "proofs" by you.
And I repeat, with some exceptions, I'm always talking about "evidence" not "proofs". It's pretty uncommon to have proofs in psychology in general, it's all about analysis and evidence.
Then what evidence or rational argumentation do you have? That was my meaning of 'proof' in this case. You keep reading past what I'm saying and taking everything I say so literally.
Quote:
He was talking about Fi valuing. As you know, Fi can be fierce, Ne can be fierce, actually all except Si and probably Ni. What does this prove? Your problem is that you can't make the distinction between these nuances, but they're not the same shit!
If you'd be able to ever stop taking things literally we may understand each other.
They're not the same, but you are not making a good argument against my case here. He may have been talking about Fi-valuing, but as you say, there are nuances. And in this case, what he saw as evidence for fierce Fi-valuing was more than feasible for ILEs in terms being opinionated on causes. So as you can see, I was already talking about nuances! So who is not understanding whom?
Quote:
The "Ti-centric" views you talk about seems to be dynamic, I just pointed you.
If you check the debate timeline, Bohr was the one who immediately combated Einstein's suppositions with accuracy demands, how he actually managed to impose about some issues. He was very opinionated and tried to impose his view upon Einstein because he was sure he knew the truth, actually the only way how truth can be interpreted. But Einstein never asserted he knows the truth, simply couldn't continue his formulations because of the steadiness of the Copenhagen interpretation.
And one more thing, if you ask me why Einstein could not continue without their acknowledgment, I think you have the answer already. Yes, Se valuing. The same weakness that renders you unable to get over the definitions, the "official" versions.
If you have read about the debate closely, it would have been impossible for you to overlook one detail: Einstein came more than one time with flawed mind experiments. FLAWED. I answer you before you ask me why: for the simple reason that he was always turned back by Bohr and his team on this basis.
So who was again the one with critical accuracy Ti drive and the Te one with the purpose of producing results? Not only that, but, as I told you above, his overlook for those "small details" points only towards Introverted Dynamic Base, obviously because he used to start from the idea of how the things would develop instead of how they are initially in an experiment, to have a consistent premise.
Ti Bohr or not, Einstein was the one who always abandoned. Ti=insistent, immovable; Te=persistent, flexible. You seem to understand this, although I don't know why you can't identify them correctly in this case.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of static and dynamic, as well as how Ti and Te manifest differently between leading and creative functions. And your reasoning throughout all of this is flawed. I'm not sure where to begin or if my explanations would even help clear your misunderstandings. :?
Quote:
If my typing is incorrect the same thing would happen to you as if you didn't meet me. But if I'm correct, the odds are that I'm fighting for a lost cause (telling you insights while you keep on the 'official'), which obviously, is not desirable.
If your typing is incorrect, do I not have further reason to suspect that you misunderstand the IEs and types? I would like to know why you continue to assert that keeping on the "official" (which is a notably buzzword you use when someone goes against your opinion) is related to Se.
Quote:
Can you show me an example showing Einstein excited, enthusiastic, inpatient, nervous, agitated, argumentative, quarreling, or anything that is specific to ILE temperament?
Is there a reason why you side-stepped the fact that I easily provided multiple pieces of evidence to answer this?