What's my type?

[Subteigh]

You seem to have moved from talking about Diana to talking about some other people.

Several people including Diana think you have the inability to take on what they are saying - it seems that you are the one who drags things on and on and on.

To summarise rather than go through this quote for quote, you are saying that I am being being emotive for the most bizarrest-to me, of reasons. Yes other people mentioned to me that they saw the same thing as I did, yes you said that you did not have nefarious intentions, yes I accepted it, yes you said it again. I see no point in this, suffice you going on and not connecting it with any relevance, unless it's maybe supposed to be a test of patience.

I'm beginning to suspect that you yourself might be getting emotional about this. Not just for this post but your other post with quotes i've made in other threads, some from maybe even a month ago or more.

You've asserted on this thread that i've been highly emotional and illogical, now I am really not sure if you re-tracted it then switched back.

Again, you are questioning the states of others rather than addressing things in a rational manner. Why did you mention that a few people had said that I had nefarious intentions with my post? Why did you consider it relevant, when you should have seen that you could not prove that my post had nefarious intentions?

Re your last paragraph. I don't think i'm a rational type, I think i'm an irrational type. I asked for views on my socionics type. I'm looking for something with a purpose, so, I do grow tired of this too-ing and fro-ing.

But, I suppose it's providing me with some insight as you say, for one where I don't appreciate Ti!

I did not use 'rational' in the sense of rational vs. irrational types, as you yourself seemed to appreciate:

In regards to discussing or not, things rationally, this is also a matter of opinion, and it should also be pointed out that intelligent creative Te is nihilistic, but that depends on whether you think smilex is right about that, and/or how I am viewed by different people on this forum or otherwise as well.

I simply mentioned your obsession with coming across as 'rational', and how you always say things to others about how others don't value evidence in the same way that you, a self-typed Te Ego type, apparently do. I thought this aspect of your personality was worth mentioning, as it is a key aspect of your personality.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's relevant because it shows that you manipulate what others have said in order to suit your own arguments, rather than actually being consistent or...'rational'.

How is what you think you see relevant to my type? And, if it is relevant to my type, why are you posting it in multiple threads?

Also, I retracted what I said in the quotes you've used, so it's ridiculous.

Now, it may be that you want to debate that I am somehow calling you stupid, and you are trying to apply your same rules here *and* there. You should hopefully have realised by now that Te doesn't not work with over all encompassing rules, that the situations are different and viewed in this context.

For instance, in this example, I am asking if you are stupid. Glam is ascerting that I am a dick with no questions to clarify.

Now, you may decide to say in such a situation, that I am calling you stupid by asking if you are stupid, which is the same as being told acting like a dick is calling someone a dick.

However, you've ascerted on this thread that you think that saying I am acting like a dick is different to being or calling someone a dick.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Several people including Diana think you have the inability to take on what they are saying - it seems that you are the one who drags things on and on and on.



Again, you are questioning the states of others rather than addressing things in a rational manner. Why did you mention that a few people had said that I had nefarious intentions with my post? Why did you consider it relevant, when you should have seen that you could not prove that my post had nefarious intentions?



I did not use 'rational' in the sense of rational vs. irrational types, as you yourself seemed to appreciate:


I simply mentioned your obsession with coming across as 'rational', and how you always say things to others about how others don't value evidence in the same way that you, a self-typed Te Ego type, apparently do. I thought this aspect of your personality was worth mentioning, as it is a key aspect of your personality.

What the fuck are you talking about now?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

god, I'm reminded of Mcnew.

I don't think he's like mcnew.

Also, this comment is highly irrelevant to my type discussion. I'm asking you not to post here anymore, before I ask subt to remove you.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JuJu]

I don't get the Ip vibe from you at all, nor the Te. You may say you want Socionics to be more Te this and Te that, but that doesn't mean you are Te.

You want his posts to be more Te like DeANte's and Tom's right?

Cyclops... You gotta be more Te, you know, like DeAnte and Tom dammit

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You want his posts to be more Te like DeANte's and Tom's right?

Cyclops... You gotta be more Te, you know, like DeAnte and Tom dammit

Lol i know. To be honest don't even know why i'm posting in this thread anymore.

If only I had that Te like Deante and Tom then I could be an SLI Ti. That might be cool, lol.

[Trevor]

Hm, haven't read the whole thread because discussions like this one are generally capable of giving me a headache. I read something on looking for hidden motives etc, and something potentially relevant struck my mind.
Ladies and gentlemen...drumroll...C.G. Jung

..from "The Introverted Sensation Type" chapter: His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion. [p. 505]

[Expat]

FWIW > I think Cyclops plays the same role in Delta that niffweed plays in Gamma. Most people dislike niffweed for the ascerbic, often personal nature of his attacks. His attacks are often construed as "dickish."

Plenty of Deltas, Betas and Alphas have criticized niff for different reasons centering around this behaviour. To my knowledge, only one gamma ever seriously criticized him - hoodrat - and he's mentally unstable.

I don't think we should underestimate the favourable reaction of deltas to Cyclops. I think he types others based on personal likes/dislikes because he's using an Fi hidden agenda. Since that function is weak, that may be why he's coming off unfavourably to people outside his quadra. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that niffweed is chided for.

SEI is the next reasonable suggestion after SLI, but IMO it doesn't work, because an Fe creative will at least try to minimize conflict with others.

So whatever people say about Cyclops' Te, I think it's still stronger than his Fe.

I think the parallel with niffweed's behavior is imperfect, to say the least.

Niffweed analyzes the personality, character, etc of individuals from a personal, subjective point of view. There are individuals he clearly dislikes, others that he's fond of, others whom he regards as morons, others whom he respects, etc. That is very clear from the way he describes people in his lists of "subjective analyses". He forms his views of individuals, he considers them in detail, and those views help shape his typings. That is what I would call a Fi take on individuals, and socionics.

What niffweed does not do - certainly not as a typical trait - is to look past what people are actually saying, and try to look at the supposed hidden motivations for them to be saying it. Niffweed may refuse to talk to individuals; but if he does discuss something with them, he will address their arguments as given.

I challenge anyone here to give an example of niffweed acting in the way several people (with whom I agree) have described Cyclops as often acting, that is, arguing not the points someone is making, but the supposed motivations for them saying it.

Actually, niffweed tends to the opposite extreme. If people make arguments - as in, typings - that are poitically motivated (as in, made to agree/disagree with someone else, or to put someone down, etc) it takes him a long time to conclude (much less assume) that that's the case, by which time he is likely to have lost respect for the person.

That is the precise opposite of Cyclops's behavior.

Now, one can say, if they so wish, that one is Gamma Fi HA, and the other is Delta Fi HA, or whatever (I obviously don't think so); but let us not say that their behavior is identical or even similar.

On a personal note, I like niffweed's style of seeing some individuals as good people, and others as assholes; by contrast, I find argumentations based on "what your real reasons for saying that are" extremely irritating.

[Expat]

Hm, haven't read the whole thread because discussions like this one are generally capable of giving me a headache. I read something on looking for hidden motives etc, and something potentially relevant struck my mind.
Ladies and gentlemen...drumroll...C.G. Jung

Carl Jung himself might well have typed Cyclops as one of his Introverted Sensors. So? This is a model A typing forum, not a Jung's typology forum.

[Subteigh]

How is what you think you see relevant to my type? And, if it is relevant to my type, why are you posting it in multiple threads?

Also, I retracted what I said in the quotes you've used, so it's ridiculous.

Now, it may be that you want to debate that I am somehow calling you stupid, and you are trying to apply your same rules here *and* there. You should hopefully have realised by now that Te doesn't not work with over all encompassing rules, that the situations are different and viewed in this context.

For instance, in this example, I am asking if you are stupid. Glam is ascerting that I am a dick with no questions to clarify.

Now, you may decide to say in such a situation, that I am calling you stupid by asking if you are stupid, which is the same as being told acting like a dick is calling someone a dick.

However, you've ascerted on this thread that you think that saying I am acting like a dick is different to being or calling someone a dick.

No, you retracted this:

The way you are focusing on my question makes me think you might be. However, I have never said you were stupid, I said, are you stupid?

Stop putting words into my mouth.

In that thread, you said that telling someone that they acted stupid was not the same as saying they were stupid, and I agreed (in fact, I made the point first). But in this thread, you said that glam telling you that you should stop acting like a dick was the same as calling you a dick.

I posted these quotes in the "Cyclops banning" thread because you were saying that people on this forum are less mentally balanced than people IRL...and I thought that if anyone was to take you up on that, you'd just say that you didn't actually say anyone was mentally unbalanced.

I think all this may be relevant to your type, or it could just be a quirk of your personality - I cannot know definitively. I know for example that force my hand, potatospirit, and Rubicon do not appear to have this problem.

[Trevor]

Carl Jung himself might well have typed Cyclops as one of his Introverted Sensors. This is a model A typing forum, not a Jung's typology forum.

My thoughts too.

So?

Omitted.

[Expat]

I don't understand why that's necessarily a Ti versus Te argument though, Expat. You know that I consider myself a Ti type and I only argue based on the points that people present in their posts. I'd say the same for people like Logos, etc.

Where did I say it was a Ti vs Te argument?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

ftr, I typically do not read between the lines of what people say. I'm however aware through life that people have hidden motives and can wear a different mask to their intentions.

Typically, I take what people say at face value and am trusting of that.

If people are trying to relate this to type, my opinion is that it can be too non-specific. For instance, someone who you do not trust can do the slightest thing which you don't like or are suspicious of, where as your best friend could spill a cup of soup over your lap and you'd be OK with it.

@tutu, that was an interesting passage, thank you for sharing.

[Expat]

What kind of argument is it then?

Strong versus weak Te.

[JuJu]

I think the parallel with niffweed's behavior is imperfect, to say the least.

Niffweed analyzes the personality, character, etc of individuals from a personal, subjective point of view. There are individuals he clearly dislikes, others that he's fond of, others whom he regards as morons, others whom he respects, etc. That is very clear from the way he describes people in his lists of "subjective analyses". He forms his views of individuals, he considers them in detail, and those views help shape his typings. That is what I would call a Fi take on individuals, and socionics.

What niffweed does not do - certainly not as a typical trait - is to look past what people are actually saying, and try to look at the supposed hidden motivations for them to be saying it. Niffweed may refuse to talk to individuals; but if he does discuss something with them, he will address their arguments as given.

I challenge anyone here to give an example of niffweed acting in the way several people (with whom I agree) have described Cyclops as often acting, that is, arguing not the points someone is making, but the supposed motivations for them saying it.

Actually, niffweed tends to the opposite extreme. If people make arguments - as in, typings - that are poitically motivated (as in, made to agree/disagree with someone else, or to put someone down, etc) it takes him a long time to conclude (much less assume) that that's the case, by which time he is likely to have lost respect for the person.

That is the precise opposite of Cyclops's behavior.

Now, one can say, if they so wish, that one is Gamma Fi HA, and the other is Delta Fi HA, or whatever (I obviously don't think so); but let us not say that their behavior is identical or even similar.

On a personal note, I like niffweed's style of seeing some individuals as good people, and others as assholes; by contrast, I find argumentations based on "what your real reasons for saying that are" extremely irritating.

I've grown to like Niffweed, but to be honest, you're glossing over a lot here... And over-generalizing about Cyclops.

[Expat]

What type do you think that Cyclops is?

I stayed away from the specific discussion on purpose; I just wanted to argue against what I saw as a misconception regarding niffweed.

I do think Cyclops is prone to look at what he sees as people's motivations (and obviously I'm not alone in that), which I see as Fe (reading between the lines) rather than Te. And, fwiw, the Fe "reading between the lines" can even be "logical".

[xerx]

I think the parallel with niffweed's behavior is imperfect, to say the least.

Niffweed analyzes the personality, character, etc of individuals from a personal, subjective point of view. There are individuals he clearly dislikes, others that he's fond of, others whom he regards as morons, others whom he respects, etc. That is very clear from the way he describes people in his lists of "subjective analyses". He forms his views of individuals, he considers them in detail, and those views help shape his typings. That is what I would call a Fi take on individuals, and socionics.

In fairness to Cyclops, he's shown a propensity to group people along just such lines. He has people of whom he's very fond, and regularly attacks people whom he perceives as "bad." E.g. A while back he developed a vendetta against Carla and persistently attacked her typing in a number of threads (saying that she conveyed her points in a hostile fashion and was therefore an Se ego). He rarely takes initiative to change his standing with others - with the possible exception of starting this thread - and he persists dogmatically in his black and white views of others.

In my understanding, whatever views they express, SEIs will try to smooth over relationships. dee and Gulanzon's past actions both reflect this. This proficiency at shuttle diplomacy is part of every SEI description I've seen. Also i've rarely seen Alpha SFs consult people's hidden motivations rather than their visible actions. Si vs. Ni blocking probably has something to do with it.

What niffweed does not do - certainly not as a typical trait - is to look past what people are actually saying, and try to look at the supposed hidden motivations for them to be saying it. Niffweed may refuse to talk to individuals; but if he does discuss something with them, he will address their arguments as given.

I challenge anyone here to give an example of niffweed acting in the way several people (with whom I agree) have described Cyclops as often acting, that is, arguing not the points someone is making, but the supposed motivations for them saying it.

Actually, niffweed tends to the opposite extreme. If people make arguments - as in, typings - that are poitically motivated (as in, made to agree/disagree with someone else, or to put someone down, etc) it takes him a long time to conclude (much less assume) that that's the case, by which time he is likely to have lost respect for the person.

That is the precise opposite of Cyclops's behavior.

Now, one can say, if they so wish, that one is Gamma Fi HA, and the other is Delta Fi HA, or whatever (I obviously don't think so); but let us not say that their behavior is identical or even similar.

On a personal note, I like niffweed's style of seeing some individuals as good people, and others as assholes; by contrast, I find argumentations based on "what your real reasons for saying that are" extremely irritating.

Certainly. I mostly agree, and very well put. I never intimated that cyclops and niffweed were exactly alike, only that they had certain similarities. What I am proposing is that cyclops' use of "Fe" stems from his weak polr, and that his displays of Fi are from a pathetic hidden agenda.

The only anomaly in my theory: unlike niff, I've never seen him explain in detail his subjective Fi views. Niff, however, may simply be more proficient and willing to display his agenda.

Just so people don't think I'm hard-headed, I'm more than willing to consider SEI for him, and what that will change about my understanding of the type.

[Expat]

I've grown to like Niffweed, but to be honest, you're glossing over a lot here... And over-generalizing about Cyclops.

Then perhaps you might be more specific, rather than just state it and leave it at that.

In fairness to Cyclops, he's shown a propensity to group people along just such lines. He has people of whom he's very fond, and regularly attacks people whom he perceives as "bad."

I think it's more about people who irritate him, and those who don't.

In my understanding, whatever views they express, SEIs will try to smooth over relationships. dee and Gulanzon's past actions both reflect this. This proficiency at shuttle diplomacy is part of every SEI description I've seen.

If I agreed with that, I wouldn't have typed, say, Nikita Khrushchev as SEI.

I think that that may be true in a broad-brush way, but SEIs are also prone to "explosions" where they lash out at people, or situations, that they see as generating negative Fe and therefore disturbing their Si - the equivalent of trying to get rid of a bug with an annoying buzz. And that was a trait of dee's, by the way, if you want to use him as an example.

Certainly. I mostly agree, and very well put. I never intimated that cyclops and niffweed were exactly alike, only that they had certain similarities. What I am proposing is that cyclops' use of "Fe" stems from his weak polr, and that his displays of Fi are from a pathetic hidden agenda.

The only anomaly in my theory: unlike niff, I've never seen him explain in detail his subjective Fi views. Niff, however, may simply be more proficient and willing to display his agenda.

Again, I think the main point is whether one is more inclined to react to what people are actually saying, or to what they think is behind what they are saying.

Examples of this are seen here, very often, when discussing types. There are some people - Cyclops among them - who will often try to deconstruct your supposed emotional motivations for typing someone in a certain way (as in that old dead horse, in my case, "you type as Betas people you dislike" etc) rather than look at the arguments you may be making. Or people saying stuff like, "you type that person as Gamma because you want more people to be Gamma", etc.

And, of course, the people who are inclined to do that do so precisely because they think they're being "logical" in looking at the "real" reasons. Which is one reason why so many ethical types think they are actually being, say, "logical but less naive" when making this kind of analysis of people's supposed motivations.

I will give a very simple example, from my interactions with my ESE mother, when I lived with my parents. Let us say I would get home at 5pm and ask, "so, what's for dinner?" A very straightforward question - what are we going to have for dinner, demanding a direct answer: "we're going to have dragon beef" or "I don't know yet" or whatever. My mother would invariably reply "what, are you hungry already?" She was reacting - instinctively - not to what I was actually asking, but to what she thought were my reasons for asking it. And whether or not she was right is totally beside the point.

[Creepy-bg]

Then perhaps you might be more specific, rather than just state it and leave it at that.



I think it's more about people who irritate him, and those who don't.




If I agreed with that, I wouldn't have typed, say, Nikita Khrushchev as SEI.

I think that that may be true in a broad-brush way, but SEIs are also prone to "explosions" where they lash out at people, or situations, that they see as generating negative Fe and therefore disturbing their Si - the equivalent of trying to get rid of a bug with an annoying buzz. And that was a trait of dee's, by the way, if you want to use him as an example.



Again, I think the main point is whether one is more inclined to react to what people are actually saying, or to what they think is behind what they are saying.

Examples of this are seen here, very often, when discussing types. There are some people - Cyclops among them - who will often try to deconstruct your supposed emotional motivations for typing someone in a certain way (as in that old dead horse, in my case, "you type as Betas people you dislike" etc) rather than look at the arguments you may be making. Or people saying stuff like, "you type that person as Gamma because you want more people to be Gamma", etc.

And, of course, the people who are inclined to do that do so precisely because they think they're being "logical" in looking at the "real" reasons. Which is one reason why so many ethical types think they are actually being, say, "logical but less naive" when making this kind of analysis of people's supposed motivations.

I will give a very simple example, from my interactions with my ESE mother, when I lived with my parents. Let us say I would get home at 5pm and ask, "so, what's for dinner?" A very straightforward question - what are we going to have for dinner, demanding a direct answer: "we're going to have dragon beef" or "I don't know yet" or whatever. My mother would invariably reply "what, are you hungry already?" She was reacting - instinctively - not to what I was actually asking, but to what she thought were my reasons for asking it. And whether or not she was right is totally beside the point.

what's dragon beef?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think that that may be true in a broad-brush way, but SEIs are also prone to "explosions" where they lash out at people, or situations, that they see as generating negative Fe and therefore disturbing their Si - the equivalent of trying to get rid of a bug with an annoying buzz. And that was a trait of dee's, by the way, if you want to use him as an example.

This may be, but do you really think that they are as ascerbic as I can be viewed to be? It doesn't seem to go with ego Fe description of SEI: (Filatova)

If a conflict flares up between others he tries to play the intermediary in order to reconcile the opposing parties as soon as possible. [B]He finds himself to be inferior in the case of an argument, will therefore often agree with the collocutor. He very poorly responds to physical aggression. In such situation he is capable of defending himself but will afterwards feel regret and excessively talk about what has occurred. Most of the time his tactic is to walk away from tense situations, to return to a psychologically convenient territory, return to sensory comfort. [/I]

Considering the amount of posts i've made on this thread, I don't think the above is that great a description of me.


Consider the SLI Fe PoLR description:

To a certain degree he appears to be steady and inert. However, if someone suddenly invades his secret psychological “territory”, where no one is allowed, or attempts to debase his sense of personal value – SLI can unexpectedly flare up and be driven into fury. In such a state he may lose control of himself and is even capable of striking the offender. In regards to his emotions, just as with his practical works, he cannot be quickly swayed or calmed – especially after an explosion.

Maybe what you are saying is more applicable to Fe PoLR? That they can be prone to "explosions" as you put it?

Examples of this are seen here, very often, when discussing types. There are some people - Cyclops among them - who will often try to deconstruct your supposed emotional motivations for typing someone in a certain way (as in that old dead horse, in my case, "you type as Betas people you dislike" etc) rather than look at the arguments you may be making. Or people saying stuff like, "you type that person as Gamma because you want more people to be Gamma", etc.

I'm not sure I agree with this, however there are occasions were I suspect people on the forum are typing someone, not because they actually believe them to be a certain type, but because they are trying to piss them off.

But if you had specifics I will try to answer them as honestly as I can.

And, of course, the people who are inclined to do that do so precisely because they think they're being "logical" in looking at the "real" reasons. Which is one reason why so many ethical types think they are actually being, say, "logical but less naive" when making this kind of analysis of people's supposed motivations.

In the real world I am almost incapable of working out how others feel, they need to tell me.

On thinking about it, there are times that I "take a stab" at it on the forum.

I will give a very simple example, from my interactions with my ESE mother, when I lived with my parents. Let us say I would get home at 5pm and ask, "so, what's for dinner?" A very straightforward question - what are we going to have for dinner, demanding a direct answer: "we're going to have dragon beef" or "I don't know yet" or whatever. My mother would invariably reply "what, are you hungry already?" She was reacting - instinctively - not to what I was actually asking, but to what she thought were my reasons for asking it. And whether or not she was right is totally beside the point.

To continue with your example, my mother is an Fe dominant. My brother is ILI. It is a bone of contention that we both have, that she will not actually say what she means, and that she will mis-interpret what we are saying by looking for hidden meanings. It has at times resulted in all sorts of mis-communication.

So I think you are on to something in how Fe can interpret things, doing such a thing as you say on the forum, there are bigger reasons for that.

[Expat]

A general question: Do you think that reading between the lines is more of a Ti/Fe (Alpha/Beta) thing than a Te/Fi (Gamma/Delta) thing though, or not really?

Theoretically, yes; it's one of the definitions of the Merry/Serious or Subjective/Objective thingy (which is not a "Reinin dichotomy" as such but simply that divide).

In practice, I think it's more complicated since most types will do both to some extent, and clear differences are seen mostly in Te PoLR or Fe PoLR types (and obviously not always, and not for all individuals).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-male]

For some people on the forum, Socionics is just a pretext for socializing or spending a good time with others. This is a reality even if someone points it out or not. I'm thinking of Gulanzon although he's not the only one.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

what's dragon beef?

+1