It's a rather simple deduction to come to the conclusion there are subtypes. It isn't like there are 16 people that have been cloned 375000000 times each.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Use the search function? That's just another way of opting out and saying it hasn't been proven yet. Subjective realism? No, what the fuck are you talking about. Im talking about reality and your over there talking about philosophy. There's a reason why philosophy is useless, it gets you nowhere. You're supposedly IEI, you lack Se, stay in your corner if you can't comprehend wtf im saying.
There's real, and then there's not real. Example. The president is real. Santa Clause is not. Just because a child may believe in Santa Clause in its own mind doesn't mean Santa Claus actually exist in reality. Take that new-age bullshit and get the fuck.
....Um....dur, nobodies the same. I can assure you that there are definitely no subtypes though, thats just people trying to overcomplicate things. If there are subtypes of types, then there are subtypes of subtypes, which have subtypes of their own, and so forth.
But even if we were to say people were clones of each other, even if there were definite 16 types of people in this world; being a clone might mean they are psychologically the same...but they'd inevitably be taking different paths which would produce different outcomes, which is what we can see in real life.
lol
Why should anyone reexplain something which has been gone over so in depth before and is also pretty fuckin obvious and a dumb question? .. Re^ what Hitta said.
Reality has a subjective component. That can be shown pretty easily philosophically, and demonstrated in physics in alot of interesting ways. We can talk about it if you want, but I don't think you want to. So you're uneducated, well wear it like a badge. Are you from a poor background? You're in highschool aren't you? Learn when to keep your mouth shut and listen, you will get farther.
IEIs don't lack Se just like you don't lack Fi.. It's just a different form of the function. That's something I'm willing to explain since 95 percent of the forum still doesn't get it. Also, stop trying to act like a badass over the internet. In my experience SLEs are actually pussies. I saw that thread where you're afraid to walk up to a girl and ask her on a date? You don't have balls. I know because I also have no balls. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
The child doesn't actually believe santa clause exists in the outside world. That's the problem with language which people never catch. It's a misleading way of thinking to use words. Words are really functional more than logical. The child believes santa exists in his imagination, because he does. The mind is a physical thing. The phenomenon of experiencing an imagination of santa existing is real. And there are subjective elements everywhere in reality, even on physical levels. New age bullshit.. no it's new age, but not bullshit. I mean, if you want to remain an angsty dipshit that's your right. You'll probably change your mind after a few acid trips. Go do some acid.
Last edited by rat1; 10-18-2011 at 02:09 PM.
No, you aren't reading it cuz you don't give a shit. And that's fine cuz neither do I, fuck you
Duals ftw
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
What are you on, birth control pills?
But I guess since you're "IEI", you're allowed to dream. But its never gonna happen. So...
I'm going to quote Expat and say that subtypes to exist but the effects are slight to negligible. You should focus on other aspects of the theory first before trying to go on about the nuances of subtypes.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some and role lovin too. () I too...
!!!!!!
People giving names to things they think they do not exist. Pretty funny.
When it is on everyone's mouth one just needs to give it a name and voila, behold.
LoL that will be devastating
If you didn't care, you wouldn't reply with sarcasm. You're also running out of things to say.
People who talk a lot about reality end up working at gas stations & car washes all their life. People who understand subjective emotions well end up working in hollywood and having so much money they don't know what to do with. I think it's clear as to what is more powerful. I'm on rat's side on this one.
I'd say so. I get along way better with Ne-EII than with Fi-EII. Ne-EIIs I find hilarious and even a little cool/intimidating, whereas I usually find Fi-EII to be overly-critical/serious and delusional. This is all IME though and I'd be open to feeling differently.
If you were to be put in a group and couldn't know anyone's type beforehand, but could choose their subtype, would you rather be with people of the same rational/irrational subtype as yourself, people of the opposite rational/irrational subtype as yourself, people of the same extrovert/introvert subtype as yourself, or people of the opposite extrovert/introvert subtype as yourself?
If you have any other thoughts about subtype preferences in any sort of relationship, please share them.
I would honestly not care. I've had good experiences with both. Te-Fis are usually slightly less sparky and a bit more conservative, but very open, honest and tolerant. Se-Nis are sometimes very creative, insightful and have the right amount of drive, but in other cases they may be career obsessed, phony and abrasive.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
From first hand experience, I've found that subtype plays a major role in your chances of success with anyone. I've experienced this especially with my identicals.
IEEs tend to be of two kinds: those who are nerds and happy about it (Ne subtype) and those who are nerds but try to hide it (Fi subtype). From my perspective, IEE-Fi are stubborn, unreasonable, impulsive, inconsiderate and overly proud. I can't really stand them. IEE-Ne, in the other hand, are much calmer and secure about themselves. I'd say, Fi subtypes are more self-centered (more infantile) and Ne subtypes more humble (more mature).
I've noticed similar things with other types. For example, I tend to dislike SLI-Te while at the same time adore SLI-Si.
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Mikemex, would you say you prefer irrational subtypes to rational subtypes?
I have had the same experiences with IEEs and their subtypes.
I read that a more dualish dual will have the same (base or creative subtype) as you, but I'm an LSE-Te and I find XII-Nes to be the more interesting subtype.
I seem to get along better with ILI-Tes for obvious reasons, and with IEI-Fes for not-so-obvious reasons.
I guess I find that I get a more innate sense of connection in communication and lifestyle with rational subtypes. With the irrational subs, even when Ne/Si, I kinda feel compelled to shift my brain to think the way they do, react to things a bit differently from how I'm normally accustomed. This of course assumes that all else is normal and that the people in question aren't complete asshats.
I also find that I'm more drawn towards creative subtypes than inert ones. Inert subtypes can come off a little WYSIWYG, and I see creative subs has having some greater complexity of character in some respects.
I tend to get along with other irrational people. But Maritsa said I was a rational type myself.
When somebody makes a socionics post I usually try to 'humanize' it and generalize it, to read between the lines of what I think the person is saying. Then I am just criticized for oversimplifying but you can't win with people. They either like you or they don't, the older I get the more I realize this is true and I try not to people please so much.
What I think of most people on this forum, and the internet in general- is they are afraid to really relate to people. ((and idealizing others as 'duality' is a form of not relating to them.)) This isn't true of *everybody* on here but it's true of a lot of people. They might make excuses like 'I'm a logical type' but really - for some reason they just can't properly empathize. It's sociopathic and pathological. And so caring people try to help them show they can relate to people because it's awkward. It's weird. People aren't robots. Not everybody is going to take advantage of your emotions. The person who has proper empathy levels is really the person who has the most control. The other person is reactive and self-defensive.
And then we Mary Sue people who go on the internet but also learn more balanced real life relationships. They learn they can relate and connect with almost anybody if they learn different skills instead of hatefully psychoanalyzing the person and picking apart all they don't like about them. It's not really that they act super 'gay' with them, they just warm up a little. And they will like not like certain people and still love people but they learn that they don't have to look at others so darkly.
What You See Is What You Get
Which subtype is good for you could actually have a lot to do with how comfortable your childhood relationships have been: "what type are your parents and other childhood acquaintances?" I find that rational subtypes are usually, for some reason, simply easier to get along with, a more sane temperament, and I find that irrational subtypes are usually just more interesting and less predictable/adjusted, ime. So depending on if the acquaintances that formed your childhood are closer or further to your quadra, could easily give weight to which subtype you're more drawn to. If you've on average had a more conflicting quadra lifestyle, rational subtypes will seem comparatively much more peaceful and stable. If you've mostly been comfortable or bored with your quadra's lifestyle, irrational subtypes will seem more refreshing with more potential for good change.