Handler is indeed ESTp, most likely Ti ESTp.
Right, there IS no archetypal behavior for a given type. Socionics only tells us how people process information, that's it. Of course having different informational preferences will afftect the way people react to situations, but one really cannot have archetypal external behavior for a type.
*holds up mirror*Originally Posted by Niffweed
WTF. Simply defending ones-self/counterattacking in the face of being called a moron is something any sensible person would do, particularly when the initial rebuke was uncalled for. JuJu isn't one to normally go around proclaiming or justifying his intelligence, and I find it quite puzzling that you're jumping on the one time he does (albeit in defense of himself), and ignore and even defend the constant intellectual arrogance/elitism/isolationism put forth by Niffweed. Completely socionics unrelated. And even if you were to try to explain JuJu's reaction to Niffweed socionically, to me it would look much more like supervision, but again, unrelated.
Also, the way he defended himself seemed perfectly Delta, by citing the way he moved through the societally accepted ranks (Delta Aristocracy) through his own merit (Individualist).
Yeah.
It is correct, but he wasn't using his role function. If anything (but again this probably isn't socionics related) JuJu was reacting counterphobically to Niffweed's absolutist Ti-labeling, and looked from first glance much more like a supervisee response to a supervisor. But again, JuJu was simply reacting to what appeared to be a dismissal of the merits of his opinions to contribute in this thread.Originally Posted by ifmd95
It's also called learning tact.Originally Posted by ifmd95
That's absolutely right- but it still doesn't have any relevance as to who is right on the typing in this case.Originally Posted by leckysupport
Bingo, that's all it was.Originally Posted by Logos
-----
So it seems we've all received an education in how to influence the groupthink on threads.
Here's what to do:
On a regular basis, call people names often enough so that you develop a reputation so that when you call people names, people think of it as normal, and don't criticize you. However once your name calling has become accepted by the group, and you're given the "right" to namecall, then you can proceed to use it as a tactic to control the groupthink opinion in threads. When a new thread comes up, you can call someone a name, and of course they will react back at you. However since your own namecalling has become accepted by the group, it looks like the other person is lashing out at you, and the other person ends up having to take all the heat. In the meantime, the other person's opinions on the actual topic at hand get put aside while people focus on his reaction to your namecalling (which of course is overlooked). It really is a beautiful tactic - isn't human nature great? :|
Remember in the society we live in, it's always the person who reacts that gets the heat and rarely the instigator. Not sure how society got that stupid and blind.
Oh yeah, regarding Winterpark - look at all the music he composes and listens to, and the things he likes discussing about it. He's into a lot of the smooth jazz stuff and his own keyboard playing shows a heavy emphasis on creating sound texture and a mood/theme of the sound itself that evolves over the song, which is a clear example of an Si way of doing things.
SMOOTH JAZZ IS TOTALLY FUCKING SI.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
It doesn't really dismiss I guess. Niffweed has called me a moron or idiot on numerous occasions and I just don't give a shit, but I could understand me getting pissed if that happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back on a given day, which it could have been for JuJu.
I think I've done this and I'm trying to remember the specifics. I didn't go to an Ivy League school so I can't use that, but maybe something like I have so many years experience and therefore you should listen to me. Anyway, I think it's more of a weak but valued Te thing. Like, "The information I'm giving is valuable and this is why! Please listen to me and take me seriously!" It's weak - it seems like someone strong in Te would let whatever information they have stand on its own. But if you think you can provide worthwhile information in a discussion and people aren't taking you seriously and aren't paying attention to what you say, it is frustrating and that could be one way to respond.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Years later, but I have noticed something: there are a lot of people who are 'SLI' who seem like Beta STs. The assumption is that they are 'lying' about their type, but I have noticed so many of them that my guess is that they simply do not identify with or like 'Fe.' There is also this underlying assumption that they secretly value Fe and therefore EIEs, but could this (and therefore Model A on this point) simply be wrong?
I have also been toying with certain notions in Model A:
For instance, like those SLIs, ILIs can be blatantly honest and outspoken as well. Maybe ILIs function-stack is really:
1. Ti.
2. Ne.
3. Si.
4. Fe
and SLIs:
1. Ti.
2. Se.
3. Ni.
4. Fe.
And they are therefore similar...
Also about those who actually type themselves as LSIs:
Haven't you noticed that many of them identify with structure, attention-to-detail, precise analysis, etc.? Now, what about the 'INTj's who are that way? To me, those 'INTjs' sound more like LIEs or LSEs... (Think of someone like Kurt Godel).
Maybe then those 'LSIs' are something like ESTjs - with a different function ordering - and the 'LIIs' who are that way are something like ENTjs... Both really into the objective factor and therefore both Te-leading...
In any event, I think parts of the theory have to be redone...