W/e to everything else, but when I called attention to the the various male Ni egos, I was pointing to both the Ni and Se manifestation in their speech and behavior.
We are at a disagreement here Jrxtes about something in particular, which I've argued (slightly) with you before. The difference is that I believe a person expresses all their valued elements behaviorally (in differing quantities and qualities).
I use to think it was more like this:
valued - strong
unvalued - weak
However I came up with something that makes more sense (to me, at least)
Ego - strong
Id - primitive
Super Id - primitive
Superego - weak
But yeah...uhhh...
oh.
I've been down the whole "Archon's Ni" deal before. No. I'm really not.
Actually I'm curious about why people think this... I'll make a thread.
The end is nigh
I believe this too, so that can't be the difference. It's more likely that we're working with different definitions of the elements, plus typing someone is always a pretty subjective process.
Actually that's getting surprisingly closer to how I understand it. The valued=strong, unvalued=weak thing always seemed like a neat copout to me. I'd add that that id= strong/primitive, and it'd be fairly consistent with lots of my own understanding.I use to think it was more like this:
valued - strong
unvalued - weak
However I came up with something that makes more sense (to me, at least)
Ego - strong
Id - primitive
Super Id - primitive
Superego - weak
Are we making progress back to your original beliefs about socionics?
Fair enough if that's your final verdict on his type, but in my mind he'll always be my contrary.Originally Posted by DeAnte
well idk if I'm going back to my "original beliefs", but perhaps we are finding common ground.
Yeah, maybe we do have different elemental descriptions, but in the Ne/Si thread it basically came down to where we were agreeing with eachother.
Its probably a disagreement of what the elements look like when behaviorally expressed.
The end is nigh
That's true, we were. Except for your analogy which you reneged, we probably do define the elements fairly (but not perfectly) close enough.
Bingo! This is it. That's why I get annoyed when people downplay studying the behavioral aspects of socionics. Unless you can look inside someone's mind directly, behavior is the only way to type someone.Its probably a disagreement of what the elements look like when behaviorally expressed.
Yep totally agree, but you have to make sure your connecting the right behaviors to the right elements, and that's our falling out.
Maybe we can come to agreement in the future.
The end is nigh
What IIIIII don't understand is whyyyyyyyy people (like you DeAnte, just to point fingers, because someone has to be accused, so you're it, but it's okay, I can imply accusation against Archon as well, in a subtle way where you feel like I'm referring to you, but you're not sure, because this makes it more back-stabbing like in nature) seem to conclude that everyone else's typings are based off of all of these assumptions that they have pulled out of other people's heads (because they are telepathic, of course) and then counter these assumptions to point out the true typings of people as if it is what everyone else thinks.
Case in point:Is it now?Originally Posted by DeAnte
It would almost make more sense to create a User Assumptions Accusations List on Wikisocion or something where you list each user/poster and what you feel are their misguided assumptions. Oh, the wars everyone would fight on the discussion page. Sigh.
I'm just pointing out a missed opportunity.
My point is... 1. If you're going to be the thought police, do it right. 2. Be very careful before you go assuming things about what others are or are not assuming? Before trying to attribute a whole bunch of things to their motivations. Yes there is some transparency, but interpretations are falliable.
OH, and also 3. It's insulting. Why would "everyone" think that someone was a type based on something like a weird sense of humor alone? Is everyone an idiot but you? No one is able to think about things further than that? Really? How interesting.
I haven't read half the posts in this thread.
As little interest as I have in niffweed17's type, Se-PoLR makes a million times more sense than Se ego or DS as well as INTj/IJ > ISFj/INTp, which is based on weird ass humor and videos alone.
edit: @ Archon, I don't care for the "strong/weak" language either.