ILE (ENTp)
SEI (ISFp)
ESE (ESFj)
LII (INTj)
SLE (ESTp)
IEI (INFp)
EIE (ENFj)
LSI (ISTj)
SEE (ESFp)
ILI (INTp)
LIE (ENTj)
ESI (ISFj)
IEE (ENFp)
SLI (ISTp)
LSE (ESTj)
EII (INFj)
I've already argued my points in this thread. Try reading it. I pointed out that this has already been brought up BECAUSE I see it just going in circles, covering the same ground over again and again. Here's where my posts in the thread start: LINK
its obvious you just like to argue because you see in it a working environment: an opportunity to advance your interests or be heard, but the principle is secondary if it exists at all. you will diverge into any topic if it allows you an arena. meanwhile other people are not trying to open up new fronts but simply get some closure. in that sense, conflict is inevitable and people are bound to oppose one another, and the topic is mere window dressing because people are just acting out their program whatever the occassion may be. the problem with the topic of trump is its not a simple college debate club matter, this stuff actually matters to people so while you think its all just a game, its not a game to many people. even if socionics is a trivial thing in your mind, people are bothered by trump and if socionics helps them understand him better and by extension their own world, to create chaos there for what amounts to your own amusement is bound to be opposed by people who don't find it as enjoyable. the problem is you think my foregoing statements are just another tactic to "win" and you can't see how its not about winning at all, and so you will not stop, because that would make you a loser. with that said, I will bow out so as to allow you the final word and in doing so the victory you so crave
Regardless, SEE does not use this “softer” approach with others. Demonstrative Fe / creative Fi gives the SEE the characteristic of being naturally moral and dignified without the SEE having to compromise on their aggressive, competitive image.
What you believe is obvious, is not apparently. Not to me, or to everyone else on this site who also typed him SLE.
Furthermore, the Hidden Agenda is not called HIDDEN for no reason.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Jock stereotype indicates being an dom the majority of the time (even non doms can be a jock, but let's just broaden it specifically to dom to not get carried away). It does not make the distinguishment between or creative. So yes, it is possible for a jock to be an SEE or an SLE. Therefore, this whole argument that he's a jock = SEE is kind of silly. I used to think Trump was SLE and now I've evolved to the point where I don't care about his type anymore, he can be SLE or SEE, it does not matter to me. People can type him whatever they want, but I just felt the need to point out that this argument of Trump = jock therefore he is SEE is fallacious.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I have expanded on the point of the jock and which "version" (SEE or SLE) applies to him.
Also:
What I said was: "He's the archetype of the golden lion, the jock, the dumb blond, the popular kid."
The "jock" point was brought up in a context that shouldn't be ignored. Cherry picking one point does nothing to weaken my stance.
There has been a conversation on it already. Keep up.
I absolutely LOVE how I brought up the archetype of "the dumb blond" for Donald and no one protested.... yet most type him at Ti Creative / Te Demonstrative?
HAHAHA You can't make this shit up!!
I've read the rest of this thread and it all goes back to this post, it's just a reiteration of he's a jock = SEE mantra. Honestly, I don't care if you think he's SEE, but your whole argument is a house of cards. Go back to the drawing board, construct a better argument for SEE and then perhaps your case for SEE will become more valid (regardless if it is true or not).
This basically proves my point, your argument has no substance. It's literally: "He's a dumb blonde therefore he's SEE". I hope you realize how silly it is and you try to make a better argument. If you want to type him as SEE then by all means go for it, but relying on stereotypes to type someone is not the best way of going about it.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Then you are beating a dead horse and your comment added nothing to the conversation. Congratulations, you just wasted everyone's time.
You not understanding my argument is different from you claiming that it's shit. I have explained myself and you have not refuted A SINGLE DAMN THING. You are trolling me at this point.
You've made good arguments for him being dom actually, I'll give you that. Almost everything you've said is basically highlighting his dominant function and little with his creative function and PoLR.
Your main basis of your argument is that he's a "jock" when that just indicates dom, so that makes my point accurate.
This is better, you're getting away from the whole jock () argument and instead showing how he is creative and HA instead. I don't agree with you, but at least there's more substance with this approach.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Seriously? You're just going to result to sarcasm and condescension instead of refuting my points? Low self-awareness on your part my friend, got to work on that. I might as well call you out on it then if you want to go down this road instead of having a constructive debate.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Perhaps you ought to reread your first comment to me. You keep on reducing my argument to the lowest fucking dumb point that you can think of and then expect me to respect your posts that don't refute a single damn thing? Fuckin' a.
Get off your stupid high horse. It's... stupid.
On second thought you might not need any alcohol.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
At this point, you've basically devolved to just ad hominen attacks because I called you out on your weak argument and you couldn't handle it. I think you may be psychologically projecting in this case unfortunately. Like I said before, you are perfectly capable of good arguments, you made one in that one post and I even found it quite convincing as someone on the fence. So, if you want to focus on the negative of what I've told you instead of the positive then that is your prerogative, but it won't do you any good.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You "called me out" on my supposedly weak argument (an argument which you cherry picked as you missed the overall picture I was painting) while then complimenting me on making a good argument.
So which is it? You go back and forth with telling me how I ought to make my case. I have no interest in this.
Why can't it be both? Your main argument of him being a jock and a dumb blonde was weak, but then I saw you how you mentioned how he had creative and had demonstrative , which was good so I wasn't going to lie to you and tell you that part was bad when it was fine. So to sum it all up: Using stereotypes to type people is not the way you type people (especially if that stereotype is attributed to ) but analyzing someone based on the interpretation of their functions is the way to type people. So long story short, you got off at the wrong foot, but made some good points along the way, while continuing with some of the bad points.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Archetypal thinking isn't for everyone, that's true. My work is focused on the collective unconscious: archetypes. The talk on his Creative and his Demonstrative can be fun to see how it falls into place for me, but I have little interest in pursuing this. Archetypes, or as your rather shallow interpretation of these says 'stereotypes,' is how type expresses itself. The conscious mind is very much ruled by its unconscious counter part, and visa versa. The notion that archetypes have no use in typology is one I strongly disagree with, because what are types if not the unconscious archetypes that are explained away by arbitrary rules of the conscious mind. My intent was to paint the picture of the archetypal feel of Donald Trump Jr, and where this lead us to. Language is a barrier in this venture, but you don't seem to understand the depth from which these "stereotypes" stem, and I am saddened by this, but not disheartened.
This thread is filled with information on the "Creative, Demonstrative,..." There is no use in me adding any more to it. Yes, I am perfectly capable of doing so, but as this thread so perfectly illustrates, it is an exercise in futility and redundancy.
I have nothing against you using an archetype, it's just that you used the wrong one. The jock stereotype applies to any dom, but you were using it to prove he is SEE when that same exact argument could be used for SLE as well. In fact the jock stereotype probably applies better to SLEs than SEEs if anything, but it could easily apply to both so I see why you used it.
So, you were basically trying to illustrate how he was dom, which added nothing to the debate. If the argument were between SEE vs. IEE or SLE vs. ILE then perhaps your use of the jock stereotype would of been used in the manner it was intended. So like I've said, there is nothing wrong with using archetypes as long as they are used correctly instead of just causing misinterpretation.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I will repeat myself for the last time: you are ignoring context and are cherry picking the "jock archetype" argument, an argument which I had expanded on and which served to support a larger argument.
Sure enough, I did not use the "wrong one" and you are not capable of making an informed judgment on the matter.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
My point is you could of not chosen a worse archetype for your argument that he is an SEE. You chose one that could ambiguously be interpreted as SEE or SLE hence why your whole argument was built on a house of cards.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Esfp+jock
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Estp+jock
Like I said before, it's fine if you want to use an archetype for an argument. However, using the one archetype that can be interpreted as both an SEE or an SLE is not the way of going about it.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
So you've got nothing and were "just mocking" me. How are you not banned from this forum? Serious question. If users like you are allowed to troll and insult others to the extent that you've shown me so far, then this is a strongly negative reflection of this forum and I doubt I will be very active here. This place clearly does not respect its users.
Anyway, given our interactions, I will not be as willing to indulge you with "my work" in the future.