Winterpark

[dbmmama]

Close to the former. I can't speak for niffweed, but if I wrote that, it would be the equivalent of, "I disrespect your input on this issue". It would say nothing about the user's general intelligence, and the jury would be out on their understanding of other Socionics topics. I can fall down stairs, but that doesn't mean I'm a clutz.

i'm with you force my hand, that is how i viewed it as well.

[dbmmama]

i think this is among the most important posts in forum history.

i agree.

i can do this irl, but not on myself or on the internet...i can feel someone's soul, but not their humanness on the internet. need real life for that.

[Steve]

If Jessica had in her ego, wouldn't she be more receptive to public demonstrations of , rather than the 'repulsed' feeling she gets from watching other probable SLEs use it, like Chelsea Handler, for instance (perhaps because it's her 7th 'private' function)?'

Handler is indeed ESTp, most likely Ti ESTp.

The danger about typing by comparing all SLIs to your dad is that not all SLIs are going to have the same behavior. I've wondered if LV could be a different type because he communicates so differently than my husband, whom I'm sure is an SLI. But I remind myself that my husband isn't an archetype or anything.

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.

because that's the only explanation i have. perhaps you're right though, i suppose its possible that people are really stupid enough to actually put a great deal of thought into a typing and still be utterly clueless about it.

*holds up mirror*

it's a status-based argument. i'm sorry, but it (and you, at the moment) smells like beta. (edit: apparently only one of the schools is actually ivy heh. i wasn't aware as i find this sort of braggery largely unimpressive and rather snobbish heh.)

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).

Aristocratic quadras seem more sensitive to terms _potentially judging their "endowments" [and prone to interpreting them as that potentiality] Either because hierarchal authority is their own game [as in Beta] or because it's precisely the opposite of it [Delta], and thus a vulnerability.

Yeah.

That said, I think it's quite possible Juju's self-typing is correct and he was using his Role and 8th function against what might have been perceived as "fighting dirty" already.

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.

Regardless, if niffweed wants to avoid any such put-downs, he should probably trade the hamfisted one-liners for something more constructive and precise. It might also do other gammas some good to consider other possible interpretations of the situation before sounding the hierarchical alarm.

It's also called learning tact.

You really don't need to 'know' someone to know their type, it helps but not by that much. Knowing someone is first of all an emotion feel of being close to someone, it really doesn't mean you can predict their every behavior. You also don't need to be able to predict every type of behavior to type someone all you need to do is identify manifestations of the theory.

People tend to give off type information readily in almost everything that they do, the information is not that hard to find.

That's absolutely right- but it still doesn't have any relevance as to who is right on the typing in this case.

I would not pull out or flaunt the names of universities. But if the person persisted in ignorance of the topic, I would probably let the individual know if I had a certain level of exposure and expertise in the particular field. That is more of a "if nothing else works" measure of last resort.

Bingo, that's all it was.

-----

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.

[Steve]

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.

[implied]

SMOOTH JAZZ IS TOTALLY FUCKING SI.

[Steve]

Sure, but how the merits were dismissed (or could be perceived as being dismissed) and how Juju reacted can be analyzed in further detail.

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.

[Park]

SMOOTH JAZZ IS TOTALLY FUCKING SI.

[Steve]

SMOOTH JAZZ IS TOTALLY FUCKING SI.

Ya, the main themes/intentions of it are very Si/Ne.

[Park]

Ya, the main themes/intentions of it are very Si/Ne.

Yeah. Si+Ne is the basic definition/essence of smooth jazz.

[Slacker]

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.

[force my hand]

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.

People contextualize behaviour all the time, but the logic doesn't dictate it's therefore groupthink. Unique way to frame the issue, however.

[jason_m]

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...