I look like ClipArt!
I look like ClipArt!
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Eh ... thanks then. (c8Originally Posted by Allie
Oh, just go to http://www.thesocion.com
I was just trying to make it more convenient for you
I love links!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
You have no waist!
I look like ClipArt!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
And I look like I have brain damage!
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
And slightly cross-eyed!!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
But it's not as bad as Jem!
You're even uglier!ISFp Personality Profile
1.) +Si/-Se (directly ties in with function 7)
ISFps tend to be very experimental with their bodily sensations. ISFps love to feel complete euphoria. This often leads them to experiment with drugs or some other substance that causes their bodies to feel euphoric. ISFps love to be on the move. They never want to slow down with anything they are doing. They hate the concept of fatigue. ISFps naturally are very aggressive people. They tend to start many different tasks. ISFps can and will be rebellious at times. They do not like someone telling them what to do. They usually like to take charge in most situations. This can often lead people to think of them as being erratic.
2.) -Fe/+Fi (directly ties in with function 8)
One of the most noticeable traits for an ISFp is their severe mood swings. They can go from one extreme to the next very quickly. This often leads ISFps to be diagnosed with cyclothymic or bipolar disorder. ISFps often appear angry without having a logical basis for it. They sometimes will lash out at people for no apparent reason. ISFps tend to believe that their behavior is justified though. They sometimes feel that showing harsh emotions to someone is the only way to show them their true love to that person.
3.) +Ni/-Ne (directly ties in with function 5)
ISFps have a hard time taking their time with things. They often try to move as fast as the possibly can to keep up with their ideal state of living. ISFps also have a hard time seeing occurring trends, and where the trends will lead. They have a hard time seeing where their actions and other peoples actions will lead. ISFps are can be very open minded about certain things. They like to understand all of the possible viewpoints on things. They do not like to be viewed as being narrow minded. They have a strong need to be original.
4.) -Te/+Ti (directly ties in with function 6)
ISFps do not like systems. They tend to try to move away from systematic thinking. They do not like how certain people or ideas are groups together. They can be and most of the time will be against stereotypes. ISFps do not like to take huge financial risks. They are can be overly cautious about their money.
5.) +Ne/-Ni (directly ties in with function 3)
ISFps can and will be very paranoid about certain things. They tend to have a need to see all the possible scenarios, which in turn causes them to fear the possibilities that can happen. They tend to worry about their loved ones and the people in which they care about. ISFps tend to worry about how things will progress through time. ISFps have a need to be creative in anything they do. They like things to be colorful and abstract. ISFps can be very artistic due to this. They love originality, and they are drawn to it.
6.) -Ti/+Te (directly ties in with function 4)
ISFps try their best not to create systematic groups to place people in. They don't like to characterize people. They don't like systematic thought in the least bit. They would prefer things to be free flowing. They also try their best to be economical with their money and other things. They don't overspend usually. They usually only have things in their house that they need or really want.
7.) +Se/-Si (directly ties in with function 1)
ISFps aren't very submissive at all. They tend to go after what they want. They are extremely aggressive. One problem they have is leaving tasks incomplete. They lose focus on tasks very quickly. ISFps aren't overly conscious about their hygiene. They do just enough to keep it up, but they aren't overly concerned about it.
8.) -Fi/+Fe (directly ties in with function 2)
ISFps can be rude to people at times. They aren't the playful type. They often can attack someone without an apparent reason. Overall though, ISFps are very loving people. They tend to do things for people to help them out in any situation possible.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
Um hello? You have RATS nesting in your hair! At least I'm colourful! And I can paint you purple if I want to!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Pot calling kettle black?"INTjs often at times neglect hygiene. Many often go days without taking bathes."
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Actually, what I don't understand is why people have such a problem with Hitta. Perhaps he has mistyped himself. Perhaps his website is inaccurate. What does any of this have to do with you? Has he been unfairly insulting? If he hasn't been, then I don't understand why anyone would care; should Socionics be worshiped such that false claims be considered a sacrilege? I'm not so sure that many psychologists would consider Socionics in itself to be valid.
Jason
Are you referring to my post? I'm sorry, but I can't tell what you're talking about or who you're talking to, and since I'm having this problem, I would assume that there are others here experiencing this as well. Please clarify what you mean.
Thank you,
Jason.
according to the evidence YOU presented it is ENFp.You identify most strongly with ENTp, ENFp, and INFj, which is perfectly in line with what I have seen in your posts from the very first ones, in which you have described your attitudes and your behaviour. What it means is that you identify with, and express yourself as having,as a leading function. And you also identify with the Delta values that the INFj has in common with the ENFp.
You identify as strong second with INFp and ENFj, and what that means should be obvious to everyone. It means that you are not an ENTp but instead, without the slightest of doubt, one of the four NF types. That has been almost certain from your very first posts on this forum too, so nothing has changed.
The above conclusions are also confirmed by the fact that you identify the least with ESTj and ISTj.
To sum up: We can see that you are clearly an ethical type, that you are clearly an NF type, that you identify with havingthe reason this does not completely convince ME is that there is more evidence that you did not present that contradicts ENFp. more to come.
Everything. If you are as arrogant as Hitta is, you are not allowed to mistype yourself. There is absolutely no excuse for such a mistake. It is not wrong in itself to be arrogant (I am arrogant myself), but damn you if you are fundamentally wrong about something as important as your own socionic type. And it is almost a proven fact that Hitta is wrong about his own type. According to Hitta himself he does not have an IJ temperament, and yet he claims to be an INTj. That's a logical contradiction, and logical contradictions are unacceptable (and so are relativists in general).
Yes, he has. He claims that I am an INTj, and he does it because he has incorrect understanding of what type he is himself. That is insulting -- unless you are right. But the fact is that Hitta is wrong about this, and therefore he must be corrected. But he refuses to be corrected, he refuses to admit that he has made a mistake, and therefore he is an idiot until he realizes his mistake. And besides that, every relativist is an idiot by definition.
So you admit that you contradict yourself? What shall we do about it then? If you can't present reliable information, there is no way we can accurately type you. Shall we ignore everything you say and type you only by V.I.? What solution do you suggest?according to the evidence YOU presented it is ENFp.
Since you are so confused, you should actually accept my typing of you, because it is the most likely to be true of all suggested typings of you that has been presented on this forum. You should see yourself as an ENFp until you can come up with something really substantial (and reliable) that contradicts ENFp.
That's the most ridiculous advice I've ever heard. Would you accept something as truth without sufficient evidence? "Because it's most likely to be true" lol lol lol - perhaps if you weren't coming from such a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint, that reasoning might be easier to swallow. Who doesn't believe that what they believe in is true? You'd be considerably daft to believe in things that you suspected were false. We all know your penchant for objectivity, but you fail with a capital F at being objective when it comes to how others perceive you. Why can't you see that no matter how right you are, no matter how much knowledge you possess - to everyone here, you're just ONE of MANY socionists here who may or may not be right. Where's your proof that your typings are infallible? You should be more concerned with explaining yourself and proving yourself to be right if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't be bothered - fair enough - but YOU are the idiot/moron if you think we're going to line up like featherless baby birds and accept suspicious-looking morsels without question from a weird-looking bird of another species. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of doing the same - so do us a favour and try to be a little more objective.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
No, it's not. You are wrong about that because you don't understand it. The objective evidence CLEARLY suggests ENFp as the most likely type for dbmmama, and that means that it is idiotic not to assume that she is an ENFp. You simply have to believe that she is most likely an ENFp, because otherwise your thinking is muddled and irrational.
It is not a question of proving a truth, it is a question of sticking to the belief that is most likely true. The evidence for ENFp is overwhelming compared to the evidence for some other type.
Now you are thinking and acting like an idiot again, and that's very irritating. What is most likely true or false is not something subjective. It is as objective as any other type of statements. It is objectively true that it is most likely true that dbmmama is an ENFp. Do you understand what that means or do you have to study some probability theory first?
No one. Having a belief logically implies that you believe that your belief is true. But do you understand that your comment is irrelevant? Probably not. But the fact is that your comment is irrelevant.
And you suddenly start to talk about something else (typical F behaviour). I haven't said anything about how others perceive me, and the question is almost totally uninteresting to me. And besides I think I have at least a rough idea of how I am perceived, but that is totally beside the point and irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, I know that. And I have said many times that I am aware of that fact. But the fact itself is still totally irrelevant, because I happen to be right in what I say. The fact that others don't accept my statements as true does not make them any less true.
I have no other proof than the fact that I have been right about more or less every single person I have tried to type on this forum. Can you name one single obvious typing mistake that I have made? If you look at the forum history, you will realize that my typings have eventually turned to have been correct in just about all cases in which there have been a disagreement on a person's type.
No. You should realize that I am very good at typing. You just have to open your eyes to see it.
Yes, I know that you are a bunch of idiots who know almost nothing about correct typing. What's new under the sun?
It is almost impossible to be more objective than I already am, but of course something nearly perfect can be even more perfect if only by an inch.
You're not understanding me. What I'm trying to say is that CLEARLY a lot of people DON'T see overwhelming evidence to support ENFp. If they did, there would be a general consensus. So saying that people HAVE TO believe something in which they are not sure just because another person tells them that he is definitely right is preposterous. How do we know what it's like to live inside your head? Should we believe you to be right over everyone else because you're the most loudly emphatic in saying how right you are? If you don't possess the ability to explain your reasoning in logical terms, then you are wasting your breath in stating that you have a clearer view of things than we do. You're like a random guy standing in the street, pointing towards the sky yelling, "Can't you see? Look! Can't you see?" And everyone's asking what you see and you just answer "That! That! Can't you see it? You idiots! Don't you have eyes?" You could be a raving lunatic for all we know.No, it's not. You are wrong about that because you don't understand it. The objective evidence CLEARLY suggests ENFp as the most likely type for dbmmama, and that means that it is idiotic not to assume that she is an ENFp. You simply have to believe that she is most likely an ENFp, because otherwise your thinking is muddled and irrational.
What's wrong with leaving it up in the air - gathering more information before committing to a belief? Where's the virtue in sticking to a belief that could be wrong when you could just leave your mind open and entertain other possibilities?It is not a question of proving a truth, it is a question of sticking to the belief that is most likely true. The evidence for ENFp is overwhelming compared to the evidence for some other type.Yeah, I understand ... and you're missing the point.Now you are thinking and acting like an idiot again, and that's very irritating. What is most likely true or false is not something subjective. It is as objective as any other type of statements. It is objectively true that it is most likely true that dbmmama is an ENFp. Do you understand what that means or do you have to study some probability theory first?
It's not irrelevant. And you'd be able to see that if you weren't so full of yourself.No one. Having a belief logically implies that you believe that your belief is true. But do you understand that your comment is irrelevant? Probably not. But the fact is that your comment is irrelevant.
Again, you're wrong. You miss obvious connections in your eagerness to separate things into facts and non-facts in such a black-and-white manner (typical Te behaviour). What other people think of you is extremely relevant, because you are not going to be able to convince people of the 'truth' if your track record consists of mainly assertions of your own greatness with no explanations as to why that is the case.And you suddenly start to talk about something else (typical F behaviour). I haven't said anything about how others perceive me, and the question is almost totally uninteresting to me. And besides I think I have at least a rough idea of how I am perceived, but that is totally beside the point and irrelevant to this discussion.
If they're true - right - but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Can you see that?Yes, I know that. And I have said many times that I am aware of that fact. But the fact itself is still totally irrelevant, because I happen to be right in what I say. The fact that others don't accept my statements as true does not make them any less true.What do you mean "turned out to be correct"? Is there a master socionist I don't know about who marks everyone's papers at the end of the term? If you mean that the majority has turned out to agree with your typings, that is hardly proof that your typings represent the truth.I have no other proof than the fact that I have been right about more or less every single person I have tried to type on this forum. Can you name one single obvious typing mistake that I have made? If you look at the forum history, you will realize that my typings have eventually turned to have been correct in just about all cases in which there have been a disagreement on a person's type.If believing a mile to be an inch gives you the motivation to strive onwards, then go with that by all means.It is almost impossible to be more objective than I already am, but of course something nearly perfect can be even more perfect if only by an inch.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I understand perfectly that you are trying to say that. And it is still irrelevant however many times you repeat it. The only reasonable explanation for the fact that people don't see the overwhelming evidence there is in support for ENFp is that they are idiots. Ignorant and incompetent idiots. Because objectively speaking the evidence points towards ENFp, and that is a fact. ENFp is the type that the objective evidence supports, and if a person doesn't understand that, the person simply must be an ignorant idiot.
No. You should realize that you are incompetent when it comes to typing, and after you have realized that you can do one of two things. You can either abstain from having an opinion one way or the other -- that would be a sound and reasonable thing to do. Or, if you insist on believing something rather than nothing, you can opt for the alternative with the greatest chance of being true. What you definitely should avoid is to form your own subjective opinion, because that opinion would most likely be false since it would be based on incompetence.
Of course I know that. I don't know how many times I have said that I already know that. And still you repeat this trivial truth. I know that I am wasting my time stating the truth. But that is irrelevant (as I have said many, many times too), because what I say is true. If something is true (like my statements) it is of course totally irrelevant whether someone else accepts the truth or not. But such simple truths are almost impossible to explain to illogical creatures like you.
Yes, that's a rather accurate description of the situation. Your observational skills are clearly superior to your logical skills.
Yes, if you are blind you will have a hard time separating the lunatics from the geniuses. And if your abilitity to think logically is limited the situation is even worse.
That's exactly what I am asking you to do. But refusing to commit to a belief when the available information is overwhelming -- that is wrong.
The likelihood of all options being equally likely is a very unlikely scenario. In most cases one belief is more likely true than the others, and that belief is the one you should choose until you come across an even bettern one.
No, I'm not missing the point. It is just that your stance is immoral.
No. You are wrong again. You are so full of yourself that you can't see the truth. In order to hide your incompetence you have chosen to be a dogmatic skeptic. It's a very convenient (but immoral) solution.
No, what other people think of me is irrelevant, because I am not trying to convince people of the truth. They should see the truth themselves without me having to explain it to them. If they are unable or unwilling to see it, they are idiots. That's really very simple. If people are convinced or not is completely irrelevant to the truth of anyone's statements.
What is relevant to this discussion is the fact that my statements are true. Everything else is, strictly speaking, irrelevant.
If you had studied some Socionics, I mean seriously studied it, and if you knew something about the types from your own empirical observations, you would see clearly for yourself that my typings of others have been correct so far.
Of course not, and that's not what I am saying. Some people now agree that my initial typing of them was the correct one. Some people are still blind to the truth.
Ok. No need to repeat yourself.I understand perfectly that you are trying to say that. And it is still irrelevant however many times you repeat it. The only reasonable explanation for the fact that people don't see the overwhelming evidence there is in support for ENFp is that they are idiots. Ignorant and incompetent idiots. Because objectively speaking the evidence points towards ENFp, and that is a fact. ENFp is the type that the objective evidence supports, and if a person doesn't understand that, the person simply must be an ignorant idiot.I'm fully aware of my incompetence in typing people, so I pay a lot of attention to how people here go about typing people. Your typings are completely useless to me on the basis that there's nothing to support them.No. You should realize that you are incompetent when it comes to typing, and after you have realized that you can do one of two things. You can either abstain from having an opinion one way or the other -- that would be a sound and reasonable thing to do. Or, if you insist on believing something rather than nothing, you can opt for the alternative with the greatest chance of being true. What you definitely should avoid is to form your own subjective opinion, because that opinion would most likely be false since it would be based on incompetence.So basically you only care that you know yourself to be true, and calling people idiots is not for their personal growth as individuals, but so that you can relieve yourself of your irritation. Got it.Of course I know that. I don't know how many times I have said that I already know that. And still you repeat this trivial truth. I know that I am wasting my time stating the truth. But that is irrelevant (as I have said many, many times too), because what I say is true. If something is true (like my statements) it is of course totally irrelevant whether someone else accepts the truth or not. But such simple truths are almost impossible to explain to illogical creatures like you.Are you the belief police or something? Some people don't think like you - surprise surprise. If a person prefers to keep their options open, even seeing that one option is the most likely - that's up to them. It's not wrong. Just a different mode of operating. If belief in something doesn't change the truth, I don't know why you get so uptight about it. Some people need more 'proof' than others in order for them to believe in something wholeheartedly. It doesn't have to be that black and white anyway - putting beliefs in the white box and non-beliefs in the red box. It's perfectly acceptable to sort things into 'probably', 'possibly', and 'maybe' rather than 'no' and 'yes'. And most people wouldn't lose sleep over it.That's exactly what I am asking you to do. But refusing to commit to a belief when the available information is overwhelming -- that is wrong. The likelihood of all options being equally likely is a very unlikely scenario. In most cases one belief is more likely true than the others, and that belief is the one you should choose until you come across an even bettern one.Lol Are you serious? You've got weird ideas about morality. I view what you do in trashing people who don't agree with you as immoral. Different perspectives are interesting aren't they.No, I'm not missing the point. It is just that your stance is immoral.
I'm not hiding my incompetence. Yes, I'm very skeptical of your alleged knowledge. But then, I never was into fairytales as a kid.No. You are wrong again. You are so full of yourself that you can't see the truth. In order to hide your incompetence you have chosen to be a dogmatic skeptic. It's a very convenient (but immoral) solution.I've got that point down pat now.No, what other people think of me is irrelevant, because I am not trying to convince people of the truth. They should see the truth themselves without me having to explain it to them. If they are unable or unwilling to see it, they are idiots. That's really very simple. If people are convinced or not is completely irrelevant to the truth of anyone's statements.
Strictly speaking, that's hogwash.What is relevant to this discussion is the fact that my statements are true. Everything else is, strictly speaking, irrelevant.Perhaps I will. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE!If you had studied some Socionics, I mean seriously studied it, and if you knew something about the types from your own empirical observations, you would see clearly for yourself that my typings of others have been correct so far.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
i am phaedrus that has a jem in her life, her whole life (sis) that helped her see another "side" of the truth. with me helping my sis see objective truth and facts beyond her subjective ways.
This one, without a doubt. Although maybe #3.
IEI (9) and ILE (3).
I honestly think this one fits better overall.
Last edited by 717495; 12-31-2009 at 08:56 PM.
oh hello year+ old thread
I relate most to sentences 1 and 2 of 5, 1 and 2 of 14, 2 and 3 of 16.
Last edited by Galen; 01-01-2010 at 12:03 AM.
I miss dbmmama.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Cool stuff. Sucks that this person isn't active here anymore.
Most like: 9 and 15
Least Like: 1
Sort of hard to decide between the 9 and 15 though but I like statement 1 for 9 better than 15.
9
1. The main value in the world is in the gardens of my own imagination. With their help it is possible to penetrate in the past and the future, to feel the surrounding world in its wholeness, to catch the dynamics of what’s happening, and then to inspire people to the necessary activities.
2. I don’t desire to live worse than others, but I find it difficult to be practical, to me it is difficult to recall, on what I spend money and where they all went away. I cannot keep track of money before the purchase of something beautiful or tasty.
3. Labor activity for me can be effective only when it’s creative and I’m in the proper mood. To me it is a burden to be occupied by routine works, especially to solve household problems.
15
1. Life is filled with meaning, if passion is present, and I like to guess which ideas will catch the imagination of people and will inspire them.
2. The routine, monotonous labor, in which there is no imagination, bores me.
3. To me it is uninteresting and, sometimes, difficult to be occupied by household problems, although I am sensitive to comfort and cleanliness.
Nope:
1
1. The main thing, without which I find life unthinkable, is this: the reasonably focused labor, and it must be so organized as to be most comfortable, and that I get for my labor what it's worth in return.
2. To me, the best style of contact with people is restraint and correctness, but I do not always succeed in adhering to it; sometimes I lose my temper.
3. I am not a supporter of risky actions. To me, it is desirable to know previously what it should occur in a day, in another day, week, month; and if a situation is not predicted, I get nervous.
Most like me, in order, 9, 7, and 15
Least like me, 1 and 2
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Went through this without peeping.
Got these results:
(3) Most Likely
ILI, LIE
(2) Possible
ILE, SEE, IEE, IEI, ESI, EIE
(1) Unlikely
SLI, SLE, ESE
(0) Impossible
LSE, LSI, SEI, LII, EII
14, 15, 16, 1
14
1. The condition of my preferred life is: the harmony of my human relations, the observance of ethical ways of dealing with others, and I will make sure that in my life those are followed.
2. I try to work as much as possible, but, since it is not always possible to correctly evaluate the input, my labor is not always as effective as I would wish, so I end up stressing myself.
3. I do not love to give myself up to dreams, to dream about things that I know can’t happen.
-------------------
15
1. Life is filled with meaning, if passion is present, and I like to guess which ideas will catch the imagination of people and will inspire them.
2. The routine, monotonous labor, in which there is no imagination, bores me.
3. To me it is uninteresting and, sometimes, difficult to be occupied by household problems, although I am sensitive to comfort and cleanliness.
--------------------
16
1. The condition of normal life of is the harmony of human relations, the observance of the norms of ethics when dealing with people, therefore it is necessary to be occupied by moral improvement, to bring up and to develop spirituality, to seek in others their true values.
2.I do not always succeed in logically and correctly thinking over, and organizing my labor, putting all into a system; therefore I spend unjustifiably much energy, where others succeed in making that considerably easier.
3. I consider violence against the individual the heaviest sin. No one has right to decide the fate of another man without his consent.
1
1. The main thing, without which I find life unthinkable, is this: the reasonably focused labor, and it must be so organized as to be most comfortable, and that I get for my labor what it's worth in return.
2. To me, the best style of contact with people is restraint and correctness, but I do not always succeed in adhering to it; sometimes I lose my temper.
3. I am not a supporter of risky actions. To me, it is desirable to know previously what it should occur in a day, in another day, week, month; and if a situation is not predicted, I get nervous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote