It seems that if you make niffweed's "black list of stupidity" you typically stay there unless you can somehow earn back his trust or respect. While it may or may not be warranted, I am curious as to what you may have done to get on that unspoken list.Originally Posted by hkkmr
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
You ISFp and your heartbleed sessions. How endearing.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Oops I meant clear.
With some people their type is more clear, more obvious.
when I type someone as ENTj I am basically publicly admitting that they can kick my ass at 'Risk', this is not an easy thing for me to do, hence the small number of ENTjs I've officially typed, so even if you're not an ENTj you should take it as a compliment! lolNo! What did I do to deserve that??
Right, I made a lengthy case for it in the wiki...
I think I have come to understand things differently, since. Check out my recent post history if you're up to it.
but I read some of your recent posts and you still seem to be ENTj, but different than the ENTj-Tes here, in short form I'd say ENFj-Ni > ESTj-Te so ENTj-Ni
I sucked at Risk, so my brother and I just made up our own rules. Typical.
D-SEI
This is me and my dual being scientific together
The thing that really doesn't fit with SLI is the fact that's I'm an excellent orator and absolutely fantastic at carrying my self around people with confidence. I've never had any problems in dealing with people and far from my biggest weakness, I would consider it my strength. To give an example of this, in high school my favorite things was oral examination because I'd normally score several grades above my real knowledge. It was through carrying myself with confidence, through my image that I gave the impression of being more competent then I really am. I don't know, I have trouble seeing a Fe PoLR type with such a good ability to deal with people.
Oh, and of course, there is other stuff as well.
it sounds like you're professing your verbal capabilities rather than your ability to deal with people on an emotional level.
hardly inconsistent with Te creative.
Hmmm, I agree.
But I have to expand, it's not just my verbal abilities, it's my entire body language. The way I carry myself around the person, express myself, the way I pronounce, the way I stress words, chose words, place emphasis on things. From my understanding Fe PoLR people are almost the opposite of body language and expressiveness, extremely hard to read.
EP's
E(N)Tp: Jriddy
E(NT)p: hkkmr
EN(T)p: Blaze
ES(T)p: Herzy
E(ST)p:
E(S)Tp: ESTP (the blonde girl)
E(S)Fp:
E(SF)p: liveandletlive
ES(F)p:
EN(F)p: slackermom
E(NF)p: schroedinger's cat
E(N)Fp: anndelise
IMHO it's easy to see the alpha->beta transition in post style starting from jriddy and ending in herzy transiting from blaze
Same for gamma->delta starting from livenandletlive and ending in anndelise
IP's
I(S)Fp: chopin
I(SF)p: theMime
IS(F)p: Kamangir
IN(F)p: Dreamer/Vague
I(NF)p: Baby
I(N)Fp: Mitsuii
I(N)Tp: Phaedrus/Niffweed17
I(NT)p: IFMD95
IN(T)p: BLauritson
IS(T)p: Winterpark
I(ST)p:
I(S)Tp: LokiVanguard
EJ's
E(S)Fj: Cracka
E(SF)j: Joy
ES(F)j:
EN(F)j: Kristiina/Jadae
E(NF)j: Scarlettlux
E(N)Fj: Lefy (ok, not the best example!)
E(N)Tj: Ashton
E(NT)j: FDG
EN(T)j: Expat/Emeye
ES(T)j: maybe UDP
E(ST)j:
E(S)Tj: cracka could be this one too, but anyway same subtype, the types almost blur
IJ's
I(N)Tj: hoteambush/subterranean
I(NT)j: hitta
IN(T)j: logos
IS(T)j: potatospirit
I(ST)j: ezra
I(S)Tj: maybe mercutio
I(S)Fj: heath maybe
I(SF)j: Louise
IS(F)j: Diana
IN(F)j: Eunice
I(NF)j: Minde
I(N)Fj:
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Does that mean I could be any IXXp?
So I could even be INTp? Wow.
EDIT: Those paranthesis are to indicate subtype huh?
DOUBLE EDIT: Ok what do the parenthesis mean??
Nope...I meant it in a dynamic way, like: I(S)Fp is stronger in Si in comparison to both I(SF)p and IS(F)p;
I(SF)p is balanced in Si and Fe in comparison to the other two
IS(F)p is stronger in Fe in comparison to the other two subtypes
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Oh you didn't see my edits.
Yeah maybe why it's hard for me to determin my subtype...i don't really have one...either that or i do have one...
Wellll every type can be balanced IMHO if we're speaking about being happy and such, I just spoke about the functions (didn't mean to offend chopin or kamangir)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
lol yeah I know.
You were talking just about subtypes.
Like with Kam there's a distinct emphasis on Fe and with chopin it's Si but with me there really isn't an emphasis on one over the other...or at least that's what things look like anyway.
What does that (the bolded) mean?
Ooh, I like the way you arranged that.
Also, it seems no one at all disagrees with me being INFj. Except Sneg, who is just generally unsure last I knew. (Unsure of my type, that is. Not unsure of everything. I'm sure he's sure of something.)
And, another thing just to clarify, what does "model" mean in this context. Something like a good example/representative of the type?
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Yeap. When I get the time I might take this up with you, if I remember to do so. My current impression from our interaction is that you are Se creative and definitely not Se PoLR.
Shall we give it it's own thread so we can come back to a central location when we please instead of spreading the conversation all over the place?
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
FDG that is a good list and you should take a minute and make a userlist and copy/paste it at wikisocion.org so that it will appear with the rest of the userlists here: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...st_comparisons
Uhm, I thought about it, but naah. Those people that make lists are always very sure about their typings and can make very bold arguments about them whereas mine are just tentative observations, I think making a list there would cause too much controversy
also, that comparison list is updated by niffweed, and I really dislike him as a person.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
FDG plz you are possibly the only +++ on this forum
my list is on there and I'm often not even capable of giving basic logical explanations for why I've typed someone such or such and change my mind pretty often. having the lists there isn't about being "right" it's to get an idea of how other people are applying socionics so the more lists the better it is. Also people on this forum seem to look up to you and like you so would probably agree with me that your list deserves to be at least copied/pasted there
I second this question. How do we define such a thing?
I interpret a 'model' of a type merely as an established forum member whose use of the functions falls generally in line with type and functional descriptions. But really you can make of this anything you want. I didn't really think this through when I made my list for example, just went with the first forum member that came to my mind as I went down the list of types
I'm very happy to see my EIE typing is completely undisputed, but to be honest, I really do think I'm Ni-subtype.People who've seen me might agree. (Stickam doesn't count!
)
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
I'd say it refers to a member with the most obvious and clear manifestation of the model A for a given type.
that's what i thought too.
Sure. Although then it comes down to our interpretation of how the functions manifest in the types model, and our interpretation of what functions someones using (at least while posting on teh net)
For my humble opinion, I think most of the typings are accurate. But I think (if the list is added somewhere) that it should advise people that they shouldn't use such examples to determine their own type (as someone can behave differently but still share the same model A arrangement)
If that were true then it would be impossible to reach a consensus on any socionics matter.
I find that redundant. Nifweed already mentioned that those are subjective typings and I think people are competent enough to decide on such things for themselves.For my humble opinion, I think most of the typings are accurate. But I think (if the list is added somewhere) that it should advise people that they shouldn't use such examples to determine their own type (as someone can behave differently but still share the same model A arrangement)
It is true. Unless you are looking into someones head you don't know for sure what functions people are using. Classic example of this is when people use words or phrases such as 'power play' 'diminish my status'
A newcomer might not. And you would therefore be suprised at the amount of people that say things like 'so and so can't be that type because they don't behave like such and such' even people who have been around for a while.I find that redundant. Nifweed already mentioned that those are subjective typings and I think people are competent enough to decide on such things for themselves.
That would imply that a consensus cannot be reached on anything.
Basically you are wrong, a consensus can be reached on anything through mutually agreed upon definitions, actually that is the definition of a consensus, a general agreement.
That's why they are newcomers.A newcomer might not.
I don't care, people are entitled to their opinion, even if it differs from mine. And also I am fully capable of discerning the validity of what people say so that's a double I don't care. Basically, that's a non issue for me, and I don't see why it would be an issue in general at all, that is, what is so wrong with people sharing different stance, opinions. In the extreme case all you can do is disagree with them. I just don't see what the problem is.And you would therefore be suprised at the amount of people that say things like 'so and so can't be that type because they don't behave like such and such' even people who have been around for a while.
I was half joking, but anyways, I agree. If I had to pick the forum member that I think he's most similar to I'd pick Peter, an ESI. Which doesn't necessarily mean anything, seeing as how they'd both be negativist introverts sharing quadra values.
[quote=snegledmaca;349614]That would imply that a consensus cannot be reached on anything.
Just because most people agree on something doesn't mean it's right. Even if we agree on a definition of something, we do not know why someone does something - or rather what they were thinking, unless we're telepathic or they actually tell us.Basically you are wrong, a consensus can be reached on anything through mutually agreed upon definitions, actually that is the definition of a consensus, a general agreement.
For example: I see too many instances of people attaching the incorrect meaning of peoples words on the the forum.
Fine, i'm not saying your not able to do these things.I don't care, people are entitled to their opinion, even if it differs from mine. And also I am fully capable of discerning the validity of what people say so that's a double I don't care.
I don't have a problem with people sharing opinions, I like it. If something happens to be wrong (yes opinions can be wrong) then it becomes an issue as it leads to mistyping, which is also a problem for the person who's been mistyped. So I don't see why your making a big deal out of my suggestion. There's on harm in putting in a simple (common sense to some) statement. Chill.Basically, that's a non issue for me, and I don't see why it would be an issue in general at all, that is, what is so wrong with people sharing different stance, opinions. In the extreme case all you can do is disagree with them. I just don't see what the problem is.
We don't need to, that is redundant, a consensus is more then enough. If problems arise we should edit the terms of the consensus.
And if somebody interprets your words incorrectly you correct them.
In general, I don't see how you can claim that a consensus on socionics matters cannot be reached. I find that claim absurd and wrong.
Uhm, ok?I don't have a problem with people sharing opinions, I like it. If something happens to be wrong (yes opinions can be wrong) then it becomes an issue as it leads to mistyping, which is also a problem for the person who's been mistyped. So I don't see why your making a big deal out of my suggestion. There's on harm in putting in a simple (common sense to some) statement. Chill.
I'm not making a big deal out of it, I just found it redundant and offered my justification for thinking so. And continued my responses because you have not shown me to be wrong in thinking so. In general, I found your suggestion misguided and wanted to convey it.
Misutsii, Niffweed, could you remove as a "typical" example of LSI? I would like to dispute this myself for several reasons, but I will not list them here. I think Potatospirit is a better example of LSI because many of his posts are obviously static logical, with Se auxiliary in threads like these:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18139
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18326
his type is not disputed and I think he has more posts than most (I believe) any other LSI. So I think he (Potatospirit if you are reading this, I hope you don't mind
As far as my type is concerned, I will not debate it here, I have no right to hijack this thread.
Also, I will be making a type list sometime in the future, so I might have to PM some of you
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
So your happy with (and to follow) a consensus, even if it's wrong, even if the information is available at the time to show it's wrong? Your consensus is then redundant.
OK. Take the case of Phaedrus for instance. He consistently says he has an IP temperament, but people consistently ignore him and call him an ISTj anyway. Your comment is redundant.And if somebody interprets your words incorrectly you correct them.
In theory yes, in practice no, or at least so far from what i've seen on the forum.. because I don't see it happen.In general, I don't see how you can claim that a consensus on socionics matters cannot be reached. I find that claim absurd and wrong.
To reach a consensus - on socionic matters - shouldn't we all agree on it? And shouldn't we agree on it *because* it is correct?
OK. I'm not convinced I am yet, but that may change of course.I'm not making a big deal out of it, I just found it redundant and offered my justification for thinking so. And continued my responses because you have not shown me to be wrong in thinking so. In general, I found your suggestion misguided and wanted to convey it.
*climbs to the top of the mountain*
HRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRR RRRRR!!
*looks around for adorable lion cubs*
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
That is not what you addressed. You saidOK. Take the case of Phaedrus for instance. He consistently says he has an IP temperament, but people consistently ignore him and call him an ISTj anyway. Your comment is redundant.
What you mention in the phaedrus example is a matter of interpretation, that is, the information is conveyed properly, the interpretations is where things differ. I was referring to improper conveying of information.For example: I see too many instances of people attaching the incorrect meaning of peoples words on the the forum.
I'd say polls give a quick estimate of a posible consensus.In theory yes, in practice no, or at least so far from what i've seen on the forum.. because I don't see it happen.
Yes.To reach a consensus - on socionic matters - shouldn't we all agree on it? And shouldn't we agree on it *because* it is correct?
I am only answering your points - the points you brought up later on in the discussion regards to a) the consensus b) asking people for information to clarify things. Do you want me to ignore the points you raise or comment on them as part of the ongoing (evolving perhaps) discussion?
I haven't said anything inconsistent, however I could have pointed out your overall logical inconsistencies earlier on. Like how you said we are all allowed to have different opinions but then you say we should all agree on a consensus, or you said something pretty similar (i'm not concerned enough to check.)
So yeah, my idea of putting in that sentence probably isn't redundant. We don't have to do it though. It's no big deal.
Wow, when have I become a model INFp? The ones who will disagree the most are prolly the Beta types.
I am so angry at you right now, how dare you say I have more posts?!?his type is not disputed and I think he has more posts than most (I believe) any other LSI. So I think he (Potatospirit if you are reading this, I hope you don't mind
I'm fine with being in the list, but it's their opinion, as long as they don't pretend it's something official they can do whatever they want with it.
LSI
how did that happen?
the last i remember you were vigorously defending me from mcnew. what's different now?
do you want to talk about this privately?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
