Types as Hosts

[Rubicon]

An LSE I used to live with … she was very casual about everything – she would be preparing the meal while chatting to the guests, and invite them to help her. She’d hardly tidy up at all before the guests arrived … so people’d feel more at home lol. I found her a bit annoying when I was cooking. :-p She’d come up and peer over my shoulder – “What ingredients do you have in there?” “Uh, um, well, a bit of … Arghhhh! Sorry, burning!” Well, I’m not very good when I’m rushed. :-p And I’m no good at multi-tasking and being cool and non-flustered at the same time. Or timing things so that they are all cooked to perfection simultaneously. This ESE I know though – she is just the epitome of the perfect host - imo anyway. It seems she utilizes the perfect mix of planning and spontaneity so that everything runs smoothly without being too stilted and organised-feeling. She caters to everyone’s individual needs, e.g. she knows I like helping her in the kitchen so she lets me, and tells other people to “Sit and eat.” :-p And if something flops, she laughs and turns it into something equally as good.

If I’m playing host, I’m so wound-up by the time the meal’s ready that I just quickly taste everything and breathe a sigh of relief, then take a nap at the table (no, not really) … or else I go “Ack, that’s pretty bad.” *giggle* “Don’t eat that!” But I gradually relax as things progress.

There’s this other EIE Russian lady I know – she’s an awesome cook … even considering everything is laced with coriander. :-p She pressures people to eat too much though. :-p “Seriously, I’m really full.” “But you are too thin!” *grabs me by the waist and pinches my cheek* “Here, you must eat this.” lol

My EIE sister and I used to have fun times putting on dinner parties. She would whirl around attempting these exotic dishes, generally making a huge mess ... then order our brothers and I to clean up. lol This one time, she insisted that she wanted to serve mango smoothies with bananas and everything in them when the guests walked in the door. I was like, "But they'll be full before they've even started eating!"
"You're just lazy!"
"They'd take a second to make. I just think you're going overboard. Trying to impress everyone. They're our relatives for godssakes."
"You're so stingy."
"Everyone's just going to be embarrassed by the sheer amount of food. They'll be gulping things down just to be polite."
"I hate you! You're always so negative! They're going to here any minute. Start chopping these up!"
"Stop ordering me around!" *walks away*
"Get back in here!" *starts blender up with the lid not on properly and stuff flies everywhere* "Come and help clean up - quickly!"
*lololol*
"I hate you!!"
"Oh, you have to admit it's pretty funny. There's mango on the ceiling!"
*practically crying* "Please help me!@#$%"
"Yeah, ok. Calm down."

We make a great team! :-p

[Warlord]

The point was to ask you to clarify your issues so I could address them directly. I stressed this point repeatedly so there would be no mistake what the point was.

Umm no you haven't. When I have, you haven't even addressed the issue, instead you have talked about something completely different. Or just blatantly dismiss what was written in a source material, without any kind of proof.

What, you want me to prove a parodical joke about my dad?

Don't delude yourself into thinking I really care about who is right or who is wrong.

Exactly, you don't care what's true of false. What you care about is that you don't want to lose an argument.

I'm an analyst, not an idealist. There are problems (questions) and there are solutions (answers). Problems are either solved or they are not. I either understand or I do not.

Haven't seen much analysing from you. Or discussing questions and finding answers to them. Most of you write is arguing about the nature of this discussion. And trying to market yourself as somekind of expert.

Nothing in those descriptions suggests the author was even remotely aware of any contingency factors.

Nothing suggests that he wasn't. I'm giving the author a benefit of doubt, and assume he's intelligent enough to take such factors in consideration. More sensible than any of your assumptions.

Maybe you just think this because you want to see it this way as opposed to seeing reality.

Nope. We can't know what the reality was. According to proper scientific method, you would have to prove his points false, in a peer reviewed medium. Have you done that, no. So far the author is more realiable source of information than you are. Untill that, you are just some random person on the net talking garbage.

I have no reason to believe that your descriptions generalize. And I don't have to have reason to question or doubt claims regarding the generality of your descriptions. Perhaps admitting that you simply lack the intelligence to support claims regarding the generality of your descriptions is too big a deal for you.

Why would anyone publish a description of a group, if the intention wasn't to generalize the members of the group? Especially when the each member of the group hasn't been addressed invidually. Of course it's a generalization, it's common sense.

Not assuming someone to behave as a lunatic, has nothing to do with my intelligence.

I won't even get into how absurd the claim is. Suffice it to say you are making claims you cannot support.

So you say, you don't really seem to find any though. My claims have just been copy&paste of a source material. See above how to properly address the validity of the source material.

My sister suggests tarot, palm reading, and astrology. She says they are more intuitive.

My sister suggests dating girls with big hooters.

Well your intuition certainly needs lot of working. Since you keep coming up with arguments, that only end up turning sour. For what purpose, I might add?

But my intent was only to raise questions regarding the generality of your descriptions.

Obviously my initial message, wasn't even intended as such. And rest was copy&paste from a source material. I wasn't even the one who did that in the first place. You found one crappy machine translated unrelated sentence, that was supposed to show that you are right. It didn't, and now you are just bitching.

Why do you use such, if you don't even believe in their validity?

And now it's supposedly all crap, all of the sudden? When it shows that you weren't right. That you had just understood what it was about wrongly.

No. By definition a well adjusted person is aware of the context in which decisions are made and decides an appropriate course of action.

We aren't talking about "well adjusted people". Well, I'm not. Socionics descriptions aren't supposed to be about "well adjusted people". They are about generalizations of people of that type, with generalized level of "adjustment".

willful ignorance.

If you willfully ignore that something is based on empirical evidence, it doesn't sound like what an analyzing person would do. Like you want to market yourself as.

You seem quite taken with that term. You spewed it out with regards to the information I provided from studies on informal communication networks.

"Whatever. The shit you are trying to feed me is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not you eat your own shit is beside the point."

Same argument works to both, equally well or poorly.

It had to do with what's good leadership. Had nothing to do with what SLE's are like as hosts. Good leadership is an another discussion entirely.

I'm not going to argue stupid shit like whether or not my SLE should be included under the label of "socionics SLE"

It's pointless to discuss about something, if both are talking about a different thing.

Kewl. We can make this the mission statement for your "socionics" club.

Kewl. Now my non-existing clique turned into a club.

[munenori2]

The time you guys spend meticulously quoting one another seriously blows my mind.

[Park]

The time you guys spend meticulously quoting one another seriously blows my mind.

Srsly.

[cracka]

Argh. Not only can I not even imagine myself hosting a party, I even suck at getting friends from different groups to mingle. As in, if the folks don't already know each other and decide to come together between themselves, me getting one of them to tag along to hang out with another will probably be a dud.

My two best friends, M and C, seem to me to have very similar temperaments and interests. When I hang out with either one, we'll usually end up having deep, animated conversations lasting sometimes for hours. So I had this crazy idea that they'd at least find each other interesting ... but when I brought M along a few times to hang out with C, it was rather strained. And each one later admitted to me that he found the other annoying. Boy, did that feel like FAIL to me! (Note: both have tested INTP in MBTI, but I'm not sure either of them are socionic INTps.)

There are other times that I've tried to mix my circles of friends and been entirely baffled at how all these people that I like don't seem to hit it off - I'm just perfectly clueless as to how to help it along. It only bothers me on a categorical level though (heh. As if it's ever fun to admit a weakness), because I prefer to hang out one-on-one anyway ... it just highlights how poor my skillz are at predicting how people will act/interact.

For the record... My cousin and I both felt pretty comfortable when we met and hung out. As I was driving us home we had the discussion that you had a pretty cool group of people to hang out with and that we both had a great time while there. While you may not have been a "host" per se... the entire interaction was pretty much in your hands and worked out quite well. :wink:

[iAnnAu]

For the record... My cousin and I both felt pretty comfortable when we met and hung out. As I was driving us home we had the discussion that you had a pretty cool group of people to hang out with and that we both had a great time while there. While you may not have been a "host" per se... the entire interaction was pretty much in your hands and worked out quite well. :wink:

Thanks.

I think it helped that I didn't have expectations going into the interaction, and also that it was all held in public places (so yeah, much less of a "host" role for me to play). You'd already mentioned you weren't prone to discussing socionics theory, so it was purely social w/o delving into esoteric subjects.

If you find your way back to Knoxville, try to make it for another Wednesday. You fit right into the beer-drinkin' and laughing at off-color jabs, plus just once I might beat you at a game of pool!