Reasons Why Socionics Is/Is Not Worth Our Time

[Creepy-bg]

niffweed and liveandletlive are going to have sex

[Logos]

niffweed and liveandletlive are going to have sex

If they do, we'll find out on liveandletlive's avatar.

[liveandletlive]

Learn to recognize , noob. If Niffweed had replied with the exact same thing I did, you would have been bowing before the wisdom of his creative-. So stop discriminating and being such a -hater.

i would love to hear how anything you were "clarifying" for me had to do with Ti. IMO you were nitpicking, even if you knew the general meaning of what i was saying.

I was not nitpicking what you said. And I was not clarifying either; I was criticizing, which is not nitpicking either. I took the entirety of what you said into context, but the bold was especially important to point to the point you made. You fail to see that I grasped your points and your context, and I too would love to learn how my clarifying had anything to do with Ti as well, especially since you said that it was the most blatant use of Ti ever. Okay? Cool.

i don't see how that has anything to do with .

You said that Socionics was not scientifically or psychologically proven. Proof comes from observational and empirical which observes the external dynamics of objects. If things have not been proven, then they exist only in the realm of speculative theory, which you have personally linked in other threads with . If theories have not been proven, then one must view them skeptically and with the utmost empirical criticism, which is once more a part of , and especially blocked with , which fits the pieces of along the process-driven . Okay? Cool.

(Just to let you know I took your second part in context with the first and it would be the same response if I had included it all together, but I am dividing it up so that the message does not become convoluted and you will know what exactly I'm addressing. Okay? Cool. :wink: )

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! I was talking about you actually commenting about very little of what i had to say and yes, nitpicking what i said, not the content of it. obviously i was talking about . this is dumb- once again you have demonstrated the kind of intellectual elitism you complain of instead of making substantial, effective comments.

[Creepy-bg]

logos and liveandletlive are not

[implied]

now that would be a great avatar.

[Logos]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! I was talking about you actually commenting about very little of what i had to say and yes, nitpicking what i said, not the content of it. obviously i was talking about . this is dumb- once again you have demonstrated the kind of intellectual elitism you complain of instead of making substantial, effective comments.

I honestly do not know what to say. I'm sorry? But I do not see this perceived intellectual elitism in my posts either, but considering that I cannot apparently the magical content or context of what you wrote, I suppose we are both equals in our blindness. Oh well. Can we still play and be friends?

now that would be a great avatar.

It is good to know that we agree on at least that much.

[aestrivex]

so you expect the ESFp to enjoy and be unbiased?

yes i expect SEEs to be unbiased. i expect that everybody should be unbiased. perhaps that's naive.

[implied]

so you expect the ESFp to enjoy and be unbiased?

yes i expect SEEs to be unbiased. i expect that everybody should be unbiased. perhaps that's naive.

perhaps! i personally expect everyone to be heavily biased.

[Logos]

I was not nitpicking what you said. And I was not clarifying either; I was criticizing, which is not nitpicking either. I took the entirety of what you said into context, but the bold was especially important to point to the point you made. You fail to see that I grasped your points and your context

i disagree, as per my last post.

and I too would love to learn how my clarifying had anything to do with Ti as well, especially since you said that it was the most blatant use of Ti ever. Okay? Cool.

i think your criticism itself was very Te. but i think you may have latched on to a particular interpretation to criticize because her phrasing didn't superficially match a Ti principle of yours.

although more in your defense, i think the assertions that you were somehow intuiting a way to twist her words are rather off. if anything, this discussion might have benefitted from using some more intuition before replying to her statement.

You said that Socionics was not scientifically or psychologically proven. Proof comes from observational and empirical Te which observes the external dynamics of objects. If things have not been proven, then they exist only in the realm of speculative theory, which you have personally linked in other threads with Ti. If theories have not been proven, then one must view them skeptically and with the utmost empirical criticism, which is once more a part of Te, and especially Te blocked with Ni, which fits the pieces of Te along the process-driven Ni. Okay? Cool.

but was she butchering any individual piece of Te, as much as she was offering an Ni assessment of what to do with the Te? with the exception of her Ti prejudices (judging from her wording, there are some) i don't think she was doing much of the earlier initially.

the rigor of facts is quite important to gamma NT. if Ni begins to obscure the facts, that is more beta. but even if consistent with the facts, Ni itself, about how the facts fit togeather and what's best to do with them, can sometimes be hard to communicate. it's an introverted perceptive function after all.

Well obviously it was a huge misunderstanding on both sides. I swear, every time I feel that I making strides to improving my relations with liveandletlive, we only end up running into something like this which causes us to go two step back. While I do not really value personally, after learning about the function I can definitely see the value inherent in it and how it can be incredibly useful. It would just be nice if I could convey to her a similar sort of value, appraisal, and worth of Alpha's valued functions.

[Logos]

It would just be nice if I could convey to her a similar sort of value, appraisal, and worth of Alpha's valued functions.

does Aishwarya Rai have a male sibling?

I'm not following you here.

[liveandletlive]

I was not nitpicking what you said. And I was not clarifying either; I was criticizing, which is not nitpicking either. I took the entirety of what you said into context, but the bold was especially important to point to the point you made. You fail to see that I grasped your points and your context

i disagree, as per my last post.

and I too would love to learn how my clarifying had anything to do with Ti as well, especially since you said that it was the most blatant use of Ti ever. Okay? Cool.

i think your criticism itself was very Te. but i think you may have latched on to a particular interpretation to criticize because her phrasing didn't superficially match a Ti principle of yours.

although more in your defense, i think the assertions that you were somehow intuiting a way to twist her words are rather off. if anything, this discussion might have benefitted from using some more intuition before replying to her statement.

You said that Socionics was not scientifically or psychologically proven. Proof comes from observational and empirical Te which observes the external dynamics of objects. If things have not been proven, then they exist only in the realm of speculative theory, which you have personally linked in other threads with Ti. If theories have not been proven, then one must view them skeptically and with the utmost empirical criticism, which is once more a part of Te, and especially Te blocked with Ni, which fits the pieces of Te along the process-driven Ni. Okay? Cool.

but was she butchering any individual piece of Te, as much as she was offering an Ni assessment of what to do with the Te? with the exception of her Ti prejudices (judging from her wording, there are some) i don't think she was doing much of the earlier initially.

the rigor of facts is quite important to gamma NT. if Ni begins to obscure the facts, that is more beta. but even if consistent with the facts, Ni itself, about how the facts fit togeather and what's best to do with them, can sometimes be hard to communicate. it's an introverted perceptive function after all.

Well obviously it was a huge misunderstanding on both sides. I swear, every time I feel that I making strides to improving my relations with liveandletlive, we only end up running into something like this which causes us to go two step back. While I do not really value personally, after learning about the function I can definitely see the value inherent in it and how it can be incredibly useful. It would just be nice if I could convey to her a similar sort of value, appraisal, and worth of Alpha's valued functions.

that's sad logos. sorry that we're not friends too. truce? (at least until something else sets us back lol)

[implied]

It would just be nice if I could convey to her a similar sort of value, appraisal, and worth of Alpha's valued functions.

does Aishwarya Rai have a male sibling?

I'm not following you here.

can you explain it with a gucci bag? (;

[NiiTe]

so you expect the ESFp to enjoy and be unbiased?

yes i expect SEEs to be unbiased. i expect that everybody should be unbiased. perhaps that's naive.

Expecting people to be unbiased is naive. Hoping that pople will be unbiased would reasonable.
I dont think its that unreasonable to for SEE's to enjoy . It just another introverted judging function, like their own
I myself enjoy at times because it has a lot of uses, even if its my PolR.

[NiiTe]

and niffweed, moqtada al-sadr is comming for you :wink:

[Blaze]

wtf this thread turned into exactly what i was beefing about on page 1.

@lokivanguard: i have started threads on family issues in the past and they have not produced anything of value sooooo i assume that stuff's too close or something for people to want to talk about on the internet. or something. but anyway, rick's blog entry for december 07 is starting to get there, but i haven't seen people commenting on it yet...

[liveandletlive]

so you expect the ESFp to enjoy and be unbiased?

yes i expect SEEs to be unbiased. i expect that everybody should be unbiased. perhaps that's naive.

Expecting people to be unbiased is naive. Hoping that pople will be unbiased would reasonable.
I dont think its that unreasonable to for SEE's to enjoy . It just another introverted judging function, like their own
I myself enjoy at times because it has a lot of uses, even if its my PolR.

don't get me wrong i use to my benefit when i need it like in writing papers and in dealing with my roomies, but that does not necessarily mean i enjoy it. i do feel kinda proud of myself when i use it well

btw, in regards to my and niffweed's sex and my and logos' lack of sex, i think that we should all have a threesome and logos should keep his white block head on so i can say i literally fucked the shit out of

[NiiTe]

Hmm.. this is a difficult one. I suppose really, there's a limited amount of use you can get out of any form of information, whether it be a single theory or an entire science. Once you have obtained enough information ("enough" being defined subjectively) then chances are you won't really get anything more out of it. I dunno, I'm just rambling I guess.

I must say, I find it curious you say you get on better with a Delta than any Gammas you've known; it's been precisely the opposite for me. Do you know what it is about this Delta person that you prefer? How have your experiences with Alphas or Betas been (if any)? I ask purely out of curiosity.

I have friends from Gamma, Delta, Beta, and Alpha quadra. How well I get along with them depends on the person and the circumstances far more than socionics.

[NiiTe]

One reason I did not want to join this forum in the first place. A little wont kill yall

. . . says the guy with Fe polr?

Exactly.

[stevENTj]

the rampant elitism on this board makes me not want to give a fuck about socionics.

yes the forum starts to dissapoints me too.

One reason I did not want to join this forum in the first place. A little wont kill yall

I'll 4th that, and that's why I don't even bother to post here anymore. If I have a question or want to bounce an idea or a finding off of someone, I'll just PM one of the few people here whose opinions I respect for their thoughts rather than post publicly. I still find Socionics to be immensely interesting and relevant, and there probably isn't a week that goes by where I'm not thinking about it somehow. Unfortunately I don't consider this forum as a whole to be a serious place for socionics related discussions.