Gilly is not EIE and certainly not IEI

[strrrng]

Which means that you are even less likely an ENFj, as they exhibit a much more consistent degree of control over their expressions and demeanor/energy that no INFp does. And also because of the fact that rational temperament makes no sense for you.


ILE it is.

[Joy]

I met a Beta NF yesterday who reminded me of you right away. He had a smaller frame, I think, and he was younger, but his overall look and feel reminded me a lot of you.

[Gilly]

Which means that you are even less likely an ENFj, as they exhibit a much more consistent degree of control over their expressions and demeanor/energy that no INFp does. And also because of the fact that rational temperament makes no sense for you.


ILE it is.

The thing you yet again fail to see: I'm always controlling myself, even when I do those silly expressions and crazy things. It's all for a reason, whether for myself or for other people, to feel or to be seen; it's all a controlled experiment. I am a human test tube in my own hands.

[strrrng]

The thing you yet again fail to see: I'm always controlling myself, even when I do those silly expressions and crazy things. It's all for a reason, whether for myself or for other people, to feel or to be seen; it's all a controlled experiment. I am a human test tube in my own hands.

Now you're confusing semantics. I don't care if you're controlling yourself or self-conscious or whatever. The way Kim and I meant 'control' was in the way it is filtered, modulated, etc., and comes across. No one is saying ENFjs can't be goofy; we are saying that they will always do it with a precise dexterity of emotivism. And you don't, not in our minds at least; I see your emotionality as largely loose and uninhibited, which is refreshing, but different from beta NFs.

[Gilly]

Ahh, so it's appearance and not internal process, is it now?

[strrrng]

Ahh, so it's appearance and not internal process, is it now?

Yes, because anyone can feel in control of themselves, or think they are controlling themselves. That doesn't mean that their demeanor, energy and expression is controlled, now does it? And the point is, ENFjs do have a controlled demeanor and emotivism solely because of the internal processes fueling them. Which means that if you were 'controlled' in this way -- internally or otherwise -- you would exhibit ENFj expressions. But you don't exhibit them, which points to the fact that your 'control' is more of a court-jester sense of transparency in the masks you like to wear, and a devious toying with social dynamics. Different.

[Gilly]

Weeeeelllll I think you're full of shit. The thing that's most obvious to me is that you're looking at the transient "games" that I play, and have little clue what "mask" I'm wearing when you see me, or what I might be like otherwise. When you see me, I'm nothing like when I'm talking to my roommate, which is nothing like me when I'm talking to my parents, which is nothing like me when I'm talking to my best friend Colin, which is nothing like me when I'm interacting in any social group, which is nothing like me when I'm making a buy, which is nothing like me when I talk to the guy at the 7-11, which is nothing like me when I'm around any particular group of my friends each of which requires a different persona; none of these are the same, and I've got a million more. You think you see this "court jester" quality, which I put on for show or for light fun, but those are not masks; not by a long shot. That's a release, an expulsion of the self-conscious tension that occurs as a biproduct of my natural effort into self-presentation, which I expel consciously by choosing to be awkward and uncomposed for that brief moment. Comparing that to my "masks" is like comparing a clown to Marlon Brando, or splattering a canvas with paint out of angst to a Van Gogh.

[Gilly]

Thanks for reminding me to convince myself that I'm EIE

[strrrng]

Weeeeelllll I think you're full of shit. The thing that's most obvious to me is that you're looking at the transient "games" that I play, and have little clue what "mask" I'm wearing when you see me, or what I might be like otherwise. When you see me, I'm nothing like when I'm talking to my roommate, which is nothing like me when I'm talking to my parents, which is nothing like me when I'm talking to my best friend Colin, which is nothing like me when I'm interacting in any social group, which is nothing like me when I'm making a buy, which is nothing like me when I talk to the guy at the 7-11, which is nothing like me when I'm around any particular group of my friends each of which requires a different persona; none of these are the same, and I've got a million more. You think you see this "court jester" quality, which I put on for show or for light fun, but those are not masks; not by a long shot. That's a release, an expulsion of the self-conscious tension that occurs as a biproduct of my natural effort into self-presentation, which I expel consciously by choosing to be awkward and uncomposed for that brief moment. Comparing that to my "masks" is like comparing a clown to Marlon Brando, or splattering a canvas with paint out of angst to a Van Gogh.

Uh, you just demonstrated exactly what I was alluding to. Quit twisting my words to fit yet another mask you want to wear, for this given thread, at this given time, for these given people, to get a certain response. If you weren't so engulfed in this cycle, you would be able to digest others' words in their respective contexts, not just the one you mold them to. So, let me restate: this mask wearing you do, has nothing to do with Fe, first of all; and second of all, you don't employ tactics in an Fe way. And whenever someone tells you this, you attempt to elevate yourself above the claim by falling back into your bullshit rationalization of how it's yet-just-another-mask, to convince yourself that you have them fooled, and can keep running from your internal self for yet another day. It's absolute bullshit, and a classic E3 tactic. This isn't NiFe calculating emotional trends, Gilly; it's you throwing yourself into the kaleidoscope of images you long to inhabit, the ceaseless stream of reflections that you see in the pond. Tell me I don't see through this shit? You must be outta your fuckin mind, nigga. My point was trivial in comparison to the one I'm making now, but it always seems to come to this with you.

Thanks for reminding me to convince myself that I'm EIE

Point in case.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Kim]

Gilly, I see your point, but then again I don't associate "court jester" with beta. Your motivations sound alpha to me. Perhaps the switching of personalities is an expression of PoLR because you have trouble assessing the nature of your relationship with people and feel protected by the mask?

[Gilly]

this mask wearing you do, has nothing to do with Fe, first of all; and second of all, you don't employ tactics in an Fe way. And whenever someone tells you this, you attempt to elevate yourself above the claim by falling back into your bullshit rationalization of how it's yet-just-another-mask, to convince yourself that you have them fooled, and can keep running from your internal self for yet another day. It's absolute bullshit, and a classic E3 tactic. This isn't NiFe calculating emotional trends, Gilly; it's you throwing yourself into the kaleidoscope of images you long to inhabit, the ceaseless stream of reflections that you see in the pond. Tell me I don't see through this shit? You must be outta your fuckin mind, nigga. My point was trivial in comparison to the one I'm making now, but it always seems to come to this with you.

And now we get down to the differences in our interpretations of Socionics theory. You're right, Nick: in your theory, I am an ENTp who uses Ne to consider multiple possibilities or explanations for things and Ti to reroute everything to the contextual reference of my choosing.

In classical Socionics, it's related to Fe and Ni: the persistent trends in my behavior that are maintained as a direct result of manipulating people's emotional reactions to me. It's ingrained in my most basic level of functioning, which makes me an EIE.

Move on

Point in case.

Do you think I would be able to say that, violate my own fixation, if I wasn't aware of it to the point of recognizing what's going on in myself? If I was actually fooling myself, and was willing to admit it, I would stop fooling.

[Gilly]

Gilly, I see your point, but then again I don't associate "court jester" with beta. Your motivations sound alpha to me. Perhaps the switching of personalities is an expression of PoLR because you have trouble assessing the nature of your relationship with people and feel protected by the mask?

The thing is, being a "court jester" isn't natural for me, it's not my real motivation; it's just a "tool," something that I've learned can help me cope with the stress I naturally put myself under because of my need to constantly control my behavior. Letting myself do that, be out of control, is both a way of releasing the tension that is a result of controlling myself so much, and also a "test" to see if people can accept me for who I really am, or might be, to reassure myself that they won't abandon me at the first sign of trouble. It functions alternately as a way to either make people laugh or freak them out when I'm in the mood

And no, I have no trouble assessing the state of my relationships with people -_-; I'm actually rather aware of it; sometimes too much for my own good.

[Kim]

The thing is, being a "court jester" isn't natural for me, it's not my real motivation; it's just a "tool," something that I've learned can help me cope with the stress I naturally put myself under because of my need to constantly control my behavior.

And no, I have no trouble assessing the state of my relationships with people -_-; I'm actually rather aware of it; sometimes too much for my own good.

In this case, I will go ahead and dig up the case I made for IEE. :wink:

[Gilly]

Good luck with that one

[Kim]

Good luck with that one

I have a feeling I might be fighting a lonely battle on that front.

I am not all that opposed to EIE, like I said. But it would make you a pretty damn non-annoying beta by comparison and that shakes my world view. :wink:

[strrrng]

And now we get down to the differences in our interpretations of Socionics theory. You're right, Nick: in your theory, I am an ENTp who uses Ne to consider multiple possibilities or explanations for things and Ti to reroute everything to the contextual reference of my choosing.

Generally, yes. And how is that in any way specific to "my socionics"? That mode of operandi is hallmark ENTp.

In classical Socionics, it's related to Fe and Ni: the persistent trends in my behavior that are maintained as a direct result of manipulating people's emotional reactions to me. It's ingrained in my most basic level of functioning, which makes me an EIE.

That's bullshit, so quit using "classical socionics" as some veil of officialdom. Manipulating peoples' reactions to you? That's called being narcissistic and image-chasing, not Fe. And "persistent trends" is hardly Ni.

Move on

aka 'accept another mask lolz'

Do you think I would be able to say that, violate my own fixation, if I wasn't aware of it to the point of recognizing what's going on in myself? If I was actually fooling myself, and was willing to admit it, I would stop fooling.

haha, yes. you're doing it right now. as you say, I am spotting the "persistent trends in your behaviors that are maintained as a direct result of manipulating peoples' emotional reactions to you." except that you're also manipulating yourself. right. here.

[Gilly]

Except I'm not manipulating myself. I'm fully aware of exactly what I'm doing, and yet I somehow manage to do it without collapsing under the weight of cognitive dissonance! Fantastic, isn't it?

It's not a veil of officialdom, it's just a way to distinguish the manner in which you define the functions from the way I do. Yeah, it sounds pretentious, but hey, if I can make my distinction and jerk your chain at the same time, why not?

And yes, I do those things, but it's hardly my natural modus operandum. Definitely a learned behavior, acquired after being flouted for holding irrational, subjectively-based viewpoints based on application of my personal convictions to a subject that required rational consideration on multiple occasions. Kind of like you're doing now

[strrrng]

Except I'm not manipulating myself. I'm fully aware of exactly what I'm doing, and yet I somehow manage to do it without collapsing under the weight of cognitive dissonance! Fantastic, isn't it?

Uh, yeah. That's part of the self-manipulation -- maintaining two, seemingly contradictory points at once to preserve a feeling of fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict. duh.

It's not a veil of officialdom, it's just a way to distinguish the manner in which you define the functions from the way I do. Yeah, it sounds pretentious, but hey, if I can make my distinction and jerk your chain at the same time, why not?

It's a hollow pretense used for nothing more than ideological elevation.

And yes, I do those things, but it's hardly my natural modus operandum. Definitely a learned behavior, acquired after being flouted for holding irrational, subjectively-based viewpoints based on application of my personal convictions to a subject that required rational consideration on multiple occasions. Kind of like you're doing now

sigh. Everything is a learned behavior with you, once you're called out on using it to your own bullshit ends. And lol @ claiming I'm imposing personal convictions on rationality; my socionics conclusions have consistency, whereas yours are just as amorphous as your images, and completely intertwined with your transient phases. You are, once again, exhibiting how this mechanism very much is your modus operandi -- so much so, that you cannot even fully recognize the magnitude of it, because of how deeply ingrained it is into you.


Now elude me with yet another reflection.

[Gilly]

Uh, yeah. That's part of the self-manipulation -- maintaining two, seemingly contradictory points at once to preserve a feeling of fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict. duh.

lol @ ending with "duh" to make it seem that this has somehow been obvious to you all along. Talk about linguistic posturing Fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict? What does that have to do with any of this? Speculating as to the possible mechanisms behind my alleged self-manipulation doesn't make it any more real.

It's a hollow pretense used for nothing more than ideological elevation.

And you're getting way too worked up over it Seriously Nick, you don't think I'd expect you to react this way? I am anything but careless with my words; I was just baiting you.

sigh. Everything is a learned behavior with you, once you're called out on using it to your own bullshit ends.

No, it's not. Attempting to appear a certain way is deeply ingrained in who I am as a person, unlike my methods of argument.

And lol @ claiming I'm imposing personal convictions on rationality; my socionics conclusions have consistency, whereas yours are just as amorphous as your images, and completely intertwined with your transient phases.

Says the person who claims that it's all about Jungian impressionism. Sigh...

You are, once again, exhibiting how this mechanism very much is your modus operandi -- so much so, that you cannot even fully recognize the magnitude of it, because of how deeply ingrained it is into you.

Nice try. Unfortunately for you, I understand myself well enough to not get caught in that black hole of "Aaarrgh I don't know myself!" any more.

I can't deny that I rationalize; it's the only way to keep going sometimes. I plug at it, and I try to break down my own barriers, because I have bigger and better things planned for myself. But sometimes you just have to settle for the best answer you can see.

But ationalizing is something that EVERYONE'S brain does; it has nothing to do with me being ILE. You've got a wall of rationalizations built, too; you're just too fucking chicken shit to confront it like I have and admit your REAL flaws to yourself. Instead you obsess over shit you've grown up brooding over, little disadvantages or self-induced neuroses and inhibitions that you can't find your way around, wad it all up inside like a ball of clay, thinking it's ok because you're sx 4 and you're SUPPOSED to brood intensely and be turbulent, and project onto someone like me who actually has the nuts to be open about their issues.

So there's your reflection: take a look in the mirror.

[Gilly]

Yeah, I finally went there.

[Blaze]

There is a severity about IEIs that Gilly does not have. It seems as if Gilly identifies with the "IEI outbursts" of Nick and krae, but while those two always come across as angry, Gilly never does. With "angry" I mean that aggressive IEIs have a certain way of venting aggression that is uncomfortable and angry to me. Seriously, when IEI get angry, I cringe and die a little, not because I feel threatened, but because it usually comes out of left field (or in a situation that does not warrant such an outburst in my world). I will use krae as an example: when all of a sudden he changed his attitude towards me and became openly hostile, I was extremely bothered by it because hostile IEIs can viscious, but first of all I didn't GET it. IEI anger or hostility is strange to me. For some reason IEIs LOVE to be enigmatic about everything, including why they think you suck.

i too have noticed this phenom w IEI's....i even have a name for it, called flaring the Se. like a blowtorch. hehe kinda like this about IEI's but i digress.

agree w what you are saying here kim....although i think EIE is a possibility, WHERE'S THE CAUSE??? hehe

[Blaze]

gill: don't worry dood entp is a good thing anyway, ;-)

[Gilly]

The cause? How about art? How about having numerous volumes of poetry and a good 1/4 of my first major novel completed by the age of 21?

[Blaze]

ok so you have a writing obsession....are you writing about a cause?

[strrrng]

lol @ ending with "duh" to make it seem that this has somehow been obvious to you all along. Talk about linguistic posturing Fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict? What does that have to do with any of this? Speculating as to the possible mechanisms behind my alleged self-manipulation doesn't make it any more real.

Ok, so you read into my syntax to make a presumption about my motives. That would be called linguistic posturing, only in retort, which would make you a hypocrite. What is so hard to understand about "fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict"? It's a simple placeholder used to designate the operating motivation behind your little mechanism. It's not speculation lol, but feel free to write it off as that if you need to. The fact that you're actually stooping so low as to indifferently act as if 'zomg I couldn't imagine what Nick is talking about' says something here, given our dynamic; which makes me think you should shut the fuck up with the farce.

And you're getting way too worked up over it Seriously Nick, you don't think I'd expect you to react this way? I am anything but careless with my words; I was just baiting you.

And this would be called a mcnew-esque post-hoc explanation for your own predictable words; my 'predictable reactions' mean nothing, as they only reaffirm the given dynamic we usually have. Who says I'm worked up because I yell at you? Come on, Mr. EIE.

No, it's not. Attempting to appear a certain way is deeply ingrained in who I am as a person, unlike my methods of argument.

And I said that it was in my preceding post.

Says the person who claims that it's all about Jungian impressionism. Sigh...

If I actually said that, you wouldn't discuss socionics with me. And you have said differently in the past, yourself. Nice try at watering down my socionikz knowledge for a facile retort.

Nice try. Unfortunately for you, I understand myself well enough to not get caught in that black hole of "Aaarrgh I don't know myself!" any more.

It had nothing to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness; it's more about intrapersonal habits and traps.

I can't deny that I rationalize; it's the only way to keep going sometimes. I plug at it, and I try to break down my own barriers, because I have bigger and better things planned for myself. But sometimes you just have to settle for the best answer you can see.

Agreed.

But ationalizing is something that EVERYONE'S brain does; it has nothing to do with me being ILE. You've got a wall of rationalizations built, too; you're just too fucking chicken shit to confront it like I have and admit your REAL flaws to yourself. Instead you obsess over shit you've grown up brooding over, little disadvantages or self-induced neuroses and inhibitions that you can't find your way around, wad it all up inside like a ball of clay, thinking it's ok because you're sx 4 and you're SUPPOSED to brood intensely and be turbulent, and project onto someone like me who actually has the nuts to be open about their issues.

First of all, you rationalizing is not what makes ENTp the best-fit type; if anything, it's the manner in which you formulate rationalizations that points to functional usage.

I have rationalization walls built, yes, as we all do; I have not denied this, or postured otherwise in this thread; my personal criticism of you was about just that -- you. But go ahead and turn it on me.

Now, you want to tell me that I only grow up brooding about my issues and past experiences? Yet you are the one stuck in the maze of drug years recollection, vacillating on the brink of emotional instability and "insanity," as you call it. Is that any better than me morbidly reflecting on some fight I happened to be involved with? No. You are just as in your own emotional turmoil as me.

And while I may identify with sx 4, you cannot excuse yourself from the multitude of types you have "identified with" for the exact same reasons. So cut the sage act, and quit attempting to dumb my self-awareness down into type-identification, when you are clearly the fucking amorphous master of that.

I'm not projecting my issues onto you, bud; but feel free to take the superiority-through-experience role. I can recognize the differences between our problems and criticize them respectively, in their proper contexts. This, unlike you, who, when confronted with a legitimate criticism from someone whom he can't deflect with yet another mirror impression, attempts to conflate said things to gain leverage for his self-image.

So there's your reflection: take a look in the mirror.

Yeah. More like a shattered window trying to pick its own pieces up.

[Gilly]

Well the book I'm working on is aimed at revealing the fundamental flaws in using drugs, legal and illegal, to anesthetize the dissonant results of the human race engaging in a lifestyle that it is not evolutionarily designed for. My core dsire is for people to understand themselves better, and to learn to appreciate their own subjective experience of life more fully via introspection. And I don't actually have a writing obsession; it's more like I don't see any other real option for myself.

[Gilly]

Ok, so you read into my syntax to make a presumption about my motives. That would be called linguistic posturing, only in retort, which would make you a hypocrite. What is so hard to understand about "fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict"? It's a simple placeholder used to designate the operating motivation behind your little mechanism. It's not speculation lol, but feel free to write it off as that if you need to. The fact that you're actually stooping so low as to indifferently act as if 'zomg I couldn't imagine what Nick is talking about' says something here, given our dynamic; which makes me think you should shut the fuck up with the farce.

Ok, explain more fully how you see this "fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict," because I honestly don't see what you're getting at.

And this would be called a mcnew-esque post-hoc explanation for your own predictable words; my 'predictable reactions' mean nothing, as they only reaffirm the given dynamic we usually have. Who says I'm worked up because I yell at you? Come on, Mr. EIE.

You can call it post hoc if you like. I knew you'd react to the word; I even contemplated not using it for a few seconds, but I decided that, hey, why not. Now you're just making too big of a deal over it.

If I actually said that, you wouldn't discuss socionics with me. And you have said differently in the past, yourself. Nice try at watering down my socionikz knowledge for a facile retort.

The thing is, I think there IS something to your Jungian impressionistic approach; I just think you take it too far. It's not a facile retort; it's what I see.

First of all, you rationalizing is not what makes ENTp the best-fit type; if anything, it's the manner in which you formulate rationalizations that points to functional usage.

Reframing things to make them fit by considering different interpretations? That's the definition of rationalizing. You acquiesced a few posts ago that that is exactly what you think I do that makes me ILE. What am I missing?

Now, you want to tell me that I only grow up brooding about my issues and past experiences? Yet you are the one stuck in the maze of drug years recollection, vacillating on the brink of emotional instability and "insanity," as you call it. Is that any better than me morbidly reflecting on some fight I happened to be involved with? No. You are just as in your own emotional turmoil as me.

Actually I rarely reminisce about my drug using years, and I'm pretty emotionally stable for the most part, despite occasional flare-ups of anger and the occasional depressive bout/flirtation with total self-deconstruction; I consider that par for the course for an artist who is one year out of drug rehab and med-free I'm rather on top of things: I've got a decent paying job (despite hating what it reeks of archetypally), I'm about to start school, I'm supporting myself, staying in shape, working on my writing, etc.

And I'm hardly wandering around in a maze (another projection?); au contraire, I've been able to target a lot of my own problems through the opportunity for reflection that those experiences have given me. They've forced me to STOP wandering around in a maze, because of the realization that doing so almost got me killed.

And while I may identify with sx 4, you cannot excuse yourself from the multitude of types you have "identified with" for the exact same reasons. So cut the sage act, and quit attempting to dumb my self-awareness down into type-identification, when you are clearly the fucking amorphous master of that.

I'm not projecting my issues onto you, bud; but feel free to take the superiority-through-experience role. I can recognize the differences between our problems and criticize them respectively, in their proper contexts.

You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that these rationalizing mechanisms that you see in me, which supposedly make me "ILE," are things that you obviously see in yourself, given your disdainful, mock-superior attitude towards my whole type-questioning business. But you explain them away by saying "he's ILE" so that you can continue evading examining yourself.

And this has nothing to do with me being "sagely" or "experienced." It's just something that's becoming more and more clear to me about how you react to me.

This, unlike you, who, when confronted with a legitimate criticism from someone whom he can't deflect with yet another mirror impression, attempts to conflate said things to gain leverage for his self-image.

What is your alleged criticism? That you "JUST SEE" that I'm ILE because you think you understand something about my process? That's hardly a criticism; it's nothing more than an assertion.

Yeah. More like a shattered window trying to pick its own pieces up.

[strrrng]

Ok, explain more fully how you see this "fulfillment in the name of deeper conflict," because I honestly don't see what you're getting at.

sigh. How many times have we discussed this in the past? I'll explain over aim or something, if you really want. Expositing on it here would only drag the thread out inordinately and imo inappropriately.

You can call it post hoc if you like. I knew you'd react to the word; I even contemplated not using it for a few seconds, but I decided that, hey, why not. Now you're just making too big of a deal over it.

What was post-hoc, was acting like I played into your hands by responding to it. The facility was in the insignificance of it.

The thing is, I think there IS something to your Jungian impressionistic approach; I just think you take it too far. It's not a facile retort; it's what I see.

Yes, but, "thing is," Jungian Impressionism is not the only way I go about socionics; that's just the qualifier you use to differentiate our respective approaches on a general level. If it was only Jungian impressions, there wouldn't be much to it, I can guarantee you that.

Reframing things to make them fit by considering different interpretations? That's the definition of rationalizing. You acquiesced a few posts ago that that is exactly what you think I do that makes me ILE. What am I missing?

What I "acquiesced" to was a general depiction of the framework-based contextual thinking style of ENTps; these qualifying terms are used generally, in a socionics context, and are not meant to be extended onto more concrete levels, as far as "he frames things through different interpretations, therefore he's NeTi" or some banal shit. It seems I give you an inch and you take a mile; it's not as if I was appraising your approximation as even halfway encompassing of ENTp thought processes; but you are attempting to paint it as such.

Actually I rarely reminisce about my drug using years, and I'm pretty emotionally stable for the most part, despite occasional flare-ups of anger and the occasional depressive bout/flirtation with total self-deconstruction; I consider that par for the course for an artist who is one year out of drug rehab and med-free I'm rather on top of things: I've got a decent paying job (despite hating what it reeks of archetypally), I'm about to start school, I'm supporting myself, staying in shape, working on my writing, etc.

I'm not attacking your fucking lifestyle lol. I was making a comparison to nullify the exaggerated picture you painted of me. For as much as I may brood -- and it may be more than you, given my age and state -- you still exhibit very similar tendencies. It can be seen in making the threads and comments about being psychotic and such, as if preserving a remnant of the past for its delectability. I'm not trying to undermine where you stand now -- no more than is relevant in this thread -- so I don't know why you brought all that into it.

And I'm hardly wandering around in a maze (another projection?); au contraire, I've been able to target a lot of my own problems through the opportunity for reflection that those experiences have given me. They've forced me to STOP wandering around in a maze, because of the realization that doing so almost got me killed.

No I think the maze is the back-and-forth search of what you really want. The conflicting feelings of being pulled back into a drug kingpin type of game and making an honest living; the associations between the morbid and destructive, and the consistent growth. I don't doubt that those experiences have changed you and shed insight, though.

You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that these rationalizing mechanisms that you see in me, which supposedly make me "ILE," are things that you obviously see in yourself, given your disdainful, mock-superior attitude towards my whole type-questioning business. But you explain them away by saying "he's ILE" so that you can continue evading examining yourself.

I honestly think if you were examining yourself as much as you claim, you wouldn't spend so much time here, getting incessant attention about your type for the sake of it. I think a lot of times you throw this shit around just to fit your images and don't care about the substantive validity of it -- or your images -- to any significant degree. And I never said that it was primarily -- or even generally -- those rationalizing mechanisms that make you ENTp; but here you go again, twisting my words to whatever fancies you. Your sociotype has nothing to do with that shit; chalk a decent amount up to E3, if you want. If I have similar rationalizing mechanisms in myself, the reason why I'm frustrated when I see you embodying them, is because of the way you do it, not the fact that you do. I've seen shitty rationalizations in other types as well, so this isn't specific to that.

And this has nothing to do with me being "sagely" or "experienced." It's just something that's becoming more and more clear to me about how you react to me.

ok

What is your alleged criticism? That you "JUST SEE" that I'm ILE because you think you understand something about my process? That's hardly a criticism; it's nothing more than an assertion.

No. Your being ENTp, as I have already stated, has nothing to do with the fact that you rationalize all this image-based shit. The only general correlation it would bear, is the manner in which you formulate certain things, but even that isn't the most significant.

sigh

[Gilly]

What was post-hoc, was acting like I played into your hands by responding to it. The facility was in the insignificance of it.

Ok, sure. Getting back to the point...

Yes, but, "thing is," Jungian Impressionism is not the only way I go about socionics; that's just the qualifier you use to differentiate our respective approaches on a general level. If it was only Jungian impressions, there wouldn't be much to it, I can guarantee you that.

Then what else is there?

What I "acquiesced" to was a general depiction of the framework-based contextual thinking style of ENTps; these qualifying terms are used generally, in a socionics context, and are not meant to be extended onto more concrete levels, as far as "he frames things through different interpretations, therefore he's NeTi" or some banal shit. It seems I give you an inch and you take a mile; it's not as if I was appraising your approximation as even halfway encompassing of ENTp thought processes; but you are attempting to paint it as such.

blah blah blah...of course you can find a way to weasel your way out of it; I'm not convinced.

Generally, yes. And how is that in any way specific to "my socionics"? That mode of operandi is hallmark ENTp.

Sure you used "generally speaking" to provide a possible out, but I think your meaning is fairly clear. And of course you will say that, oh, this definition is only contextually relevant, blah blah...but again, I think your meaning is clear, and if nothing else you should admit that you've talked yourself into a bit of a corner here.

I'm not attacking your fucking lifestyle lol. I was making a comparison to nullify the exaggerated picture you painted of me. For as much as I may brood -- and it may be more than you, given my age and state -- you still exhibit very similar tendencies. It can be seen in making the threads and comments about being psychotic and such, as if preserving a remnant of the past for its delectability. I'm not trying to undermine where you stand now -- no more than is relevant in this thread -- so I don't know why you brought all that into it.

I exhibit similar tendencies, yes. I don't, however, make presumptions about other people based on some vague impression of their style of rationalization, and evade answering questions about my own.

No I think the maze is the back-and-forth search of what you really want. The conflicting feelings of being pulled back into a drug kingpin type of game and making an honest living; the associations between the morbid and destructive, and the consistent growth. I don't doubt that those experiences have changed you and shed insight, though.

I'm not really pulled to be a drug king pin; I look for some...similar qualities, let's say, in the lifestyle I choose to pursue, but I'm hardly dying to go back to that life, despite some particularly poignant reminiscences.

I honestly think if you were examining yourself as much as you claim, you wouldn't spend so much time here, getting incessant attention about your type for the sake of it.

Actually I spent about 4 months in which I posted pretty sparsely here and was sorting my shit out.

I think a lot of times you throw this shit around just to fit your images and don't care about the substantive validity of it -- or your images -- to any significant degree. And I never said that it was primarily -- or even generally -- those rationalizing mechanisms that make you ENTp; but here you go again, twisting my words to whatever fancies you.

No, I'm not even twisting your words; it's just my impression.

Your sociotype has nothing to do with that shit; chalk a decent amount up to E3, if you want. If I have similar rationalizing mechanisms in myself, the reason why I'm frustrated when I see you embodying them, is because of the way you do it, not the fact that you do. I've seen shitty rationalizations in other types as well, so this isn't specific to that.

Me analyzing your motives has little to do with your opinion of my type, except insofar as I believe it effects your declared perception of me.

No. Your being ENTp, as I have already stated, has nothing to do with the fact that you rationalize all this image-based shit. The only general correlation it would bear, is the manner in which you formulate certain things, but even that isn't the most significant.

Ahhh, another cop out. What is most significant, then?

[strrrng]

Ok, sure. Getting back to the point...



Then what else is there?

This is where I deign to lay out my repertoire of socionics methodology to you, right? Give me a break.

blah blah blah...of course you can find a way to weasel your way out of it; I'm not convinced.

You being convinced means nothing. Stick to your predefined framework, I don't care.

Sure you used "generally speaking" to provide a possible out, but I think your meaning is fairly clear. And of course you will say that, oh, this definition is only contextually relevant, blah blah...but again, I think your meaning is clear, and if nothing else you should admit that you've talked yourself into a bit of a corner here.

"Generally" means just that -- generally. You have contorted my general agreement into some absolute claim of veracity, in order to make a point.

And when we are discussing socionics, contextual relevancy is paramount. Otherwise the terms mean nothing.

I exhibit similar tendencies, yes. I don't, however, make presumptions about other people based on some vague impression of their style of rationalization, and evade answering questions about my own.

My "presumptions" aren't vague impressions based on how you rationalize; they're solid perceptions I've gotten of you over the past year, which happened to find a nice crystallization this thread. It's about the fact that you can't even accept the most basic of observations from ME, out of all people. It was never relevant to probe my motivations, or talk about how ENTps do this and that, or whatever. blah.

I'm not really pulled to be a drug king pin; I look for some...similar qualities, let's say, in the lifestyle I choose to pursue, but I'm hardly dying to go back to that life, despite some particularly poignant reminiscences.

Hangar in the City is where it's at You don't have to equivocate around me.

Actually I spent about 4 months in which I posted pretty sparsely here and was sorting my shit out.

Awesome. That doesn't change the incessant attention-seeking you've exhibited on this board; just the other side of the coin.

No, I'm not even twisting your words; it's just my impression.

Your impression is distorting your translation of my words.

Me analyzing your motives has little to do with your opinion of my type, except insofar as I believe it effects your declared perception of me.

It has to do with your opinion of my opinion of your type, and the assessment inevitably affects your perception of my perception of you. Stop bullshitting.

Ahhh, another cop out. What is most significant, then?

The stuff that's significant to ENTp, isn't related to this image-seeking narcissism, to say the least. And it isn't worth debating here at all.

[Creepy-male]

*interjects*

I was just reading enneagramcentral.com, and while it takes a fairly damning tone to describing Sevens, I think a point it made is very relevant to this discussion... Sevens (and Positive Outlook types in general, it seems) live in the world they want to. This isn't about Gilly being a Three and not wanting his self-image to budge, it's about Gilly being a fluffy Seven and constantly slipping out of arguments like Houdini, through the process of reframing.

I do this too, either by digging my heels in or just disconnecting from any disagreements (lol Nines) as "Well, shoot, they don't agree with me. *moves on*" (And I think I have a history of being fairly slippery when it comes to people trying to argue my type with me.)

This also seems to be a recurring problem with Nps and IPs (that I've noticed... Niffweed is probably the most salient example of this within the community) I'm not sure how much this applies to EIEs, or even how they'd behave in an argument like this.

My conclusion: there's a possibility that Gilly is an ILE, and a Seven; but I don't want to rule out EIE just yet due to lack of understanding of how their interaction with the world works through Ni.

*retreats into bunker*

EDIT

And IEI is out. IXIs seem to disagree by saying "This is so. You're wrong if you disagree with me." Think of strrrng, Niff, even Sigma or Akra (maybe contentious typings). Gilly's just being a slippery, soapy sort of guy, it looks; but I will confess to having skipped past most of this thread.

And I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out my typing of Ephemeros as ILE. Ne also sees what it wants to, Ephemeros is just unusually vocal about his views. Being stubborn != Se (necessarily). Se is lucid. Ne isn't. This is how I understand it so far... and it makes sense from the POV of Model A. IXEs have Se Role telling them to go screw reality and believe in their own understanding. SXIs don't bother with Se so there's no conflict around "But you're ignoring the real world!"

...wait... Gilly = Ephemeros? Oh dear! Maybe I'm just seeing patterns that aren't there...

MORE EDIT

Here's the quote on reframing.

Let's look at Leni's dark side. She was the most successful propagandist ****** had. But when she tells it, she had no political interests, she was only interested in the art, editing ****** was like editing any speaker and her chief concerns were merely technical. The interviewer lets her keep rationalizing and then juxtaposes what happened. They don't fit. Leni's version is a blindness that ignores all the consequences of her actions, it presupposes a naivete utterly impossible in such an intelligent woman, and it is clearly a reinterpretation. Her interpretation goes against everyone else's and she knows they see it differently, but she just can't see it their way. She defends her innocence against overwhelming film evidence and you can see that on one level she believes it. You can also see that she is blind and her blindness enables her to misrepresent what the reality is. She epitomizes Shakespeare's observation that "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

The film is long - a double video - and the last lines are her defending herself out of a position of innocence. She has had to contradict dozens of co-workers, historians, and the filmic evidence. But she wriggles around until she can get the right angle from which to look at it (her camera work is a lovely metaphor for her ability to see things as she wants to see them. Her ability to make Olympic divers appear to be birds, to make the athletes into Gods and ****** into an attractive, magnetic demigod is precisely her pathology. When she tells her life story, she does the same thing: she is an artist, her only interests are esthetic and everybody else is wrong. Her filmic genius is part of the secondary gain of the pathology.

[Gilly]

This is where I deign to lay out my repertoire of socionics methodology to you, right? Give me a break.

A blatant cop-out.

You being convinced means nothing. Stick to your predefined framework, I don't care.

3 pages says you do.

"Generally" means just that -- generally. You have contorted my general agreement into some absolute claim of veracity, in order to make a point.

No, I'm just saying, you're a hypocrite. It doesn't have to be absolute; you went back on what you said: one time you said that was related to being an ILE, then you said it wasn't.

My point is: the thing submitted as being relevant to ILE-ness is the same way that rationalizing works in EVERYONE'S brain.

And when we are discussing socionics, contextual relevancy is paramount. Otherwise the terms mean nothing.

Obviously. But you've directly contradicted yourself, in addition to making something that EVERYONE'S brain does into something type relevant. You can't wriggle out of that, Nick.

My "presumptions" aren't vague impressions based on how you rationalize; they're solid perceptions I've gotten of you over the past year, which happened to find a nice crystallization this thread. It's about the fact that you can't even accept the most basic of observations from ME, out of all people. It was never relevant to probe my motivations, or talk about how ENTps do this and that, or whatever. blah.

I can accept your observations and impressions; it's when you try to pretend that they are quantitatively substantial that I get annoyed.

Hangar in the City is where it's at You don't have to equivocate around me.

Awesome. That doesn't change the incessant attention-seeking you've exhibited on this board; just the other side of the coin.

Fair enough. What can I say, I've moved away from most of my friends.

Your impression is distorting your translation of my words.

No, it's just causing me to interpret your intentions differently.

It has to do with your opinion of my opinion of your type, and the assessment inevitably affects your perception of my perception of you. Stop bullshitting.

I don't see how that's bullshitting at all.

The stuff that's significant to ENTp, isn't related to this image-seeking narcissism, to say the least. And it isn't worth debating here at all.

And a final cop-out to round out the discussion.

*takes a tally*

[Gilly]

*interjects*

I was just reading enneagramcentral.com, and while it takes a fairly damning tone to describing Sevens, I think a point it made is very relevant to this discussion... Sevens (and Positive Outlook types in general, it seems) live in the world they want to. This isn't about Gilly being a Three and not wanting his self-image to budge, it's about Gilly being a fluffy Seven and constantly slipping out of arguments like Houdini, through the process of reframing.

I do this too, either by digging my heels in or just disconnecting from any disagreements (lol Nines) as "Well, shoot, they don't agree with me. *moves on*" (And I think I have a history of being fairly slippery when it comes to people trying to argue my type with me.)

This also seems to be a recurring problem with Nps and IPs (that I've noticed... Niffweed is probably the most salient example of this within the community) I'm not sure how much this applies to EIEs, or even how they'd behave in an argument like this.

My conclusion: there's a possibility that Gilly is an ILE, and a Seven; but I don't want to rule out EIE just yet due to lack of understanding of how their interaction with the world works through Ni.

*retreats into bunker*

EDIT

And IEI is out. IXIs seem to disagree by saying "This is so. You're wrong if you disagree with me." Think of strrrng, Niff, even Sigma or Akra (maybe contentious typings). Gilly's just being a slippery, soapy sort of guy, it looks; but I will confess to having skipped past most of this thread.

And I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out my typing of Ephemeros as ILE. Ne also sees what it wants to, Ephemeros is just unusually vocal about his views. Being stubborn != Se (necessarily). Se is lucid. Ne isn't. This is how I understand it so far... and it makes sense from the POV of Model A. IXEs have Se Role telling them to go screw reality and believe in their own understanding. SXIs don't bother with Se so there's no conflict around "But you're ignoring the real world!"

...wait... Gilly = Ephemeros? Oh dear! Maybe I'm just seeing patterns that aren't there...

MORE EDIT

Here's the quote on reframing.

I probably have a 7 "fix" of sorts, but there's just too much about 3w4 that makes sense. I think you're placing too much emphasis on this "reframing" thing without taking it into a larger context.

[Creepy-male]

I probably have a 7 "fix" of sorts, but there's just too much about 3w4 that makes sense. I think you're placing too much emphasis on this "reframing" thing without taking it into a larger context.

There's that lovely angle-seeking again

What's this larger context you speak of?

[Gilly]

There's that lovely angle-seeking again

What's this larger context you speak of?

The part where I'm obviously in the Image triad, due to salient issues with self-image, social acceptance/alienation, attention whoring, deception and re-creating myself to fit the situation, brooding on my own life purpose, idealizing a perfect mate, and having long-term goals related to "outing" myself via literature as a cathartic method of unburdening myself of the shame that is inherent in my mindset.

I'm not saying I don't DO the angle-seeking; it's simply not as integral to my personality as other things. The evasiveness of reality inherent in 7s, which is also inherent in 9s, is more something I do when I'm under a lot of stress. And I don't explode into activity, throw myself into social situations or constantly search for escape; I mope around my house, half brooding, half collapsing in on myself Just like an unhealthy 9; hence, 3 disintegrating to 9.

[Creepy-male]

The part where I'm obviously in the Image triad, due to salient issues with self-image, social acceptance/alienation, deception and re-creating myself to fit the situation, brooding on my own life purpose, idealizing a perfect mate, and having long-term goals related to "outing" myself via literature as a cathartic method of unburdening myself of the shame that is inherent in my mindset.

What shame? Threes feel shame built around being seen as a loser. That's why they're the glamorous go-getters that make you want to remember that they're the shining beacons at the prow of the SS Homo Sapiens.

Anyway, I have problems with self-image and acceptance (but in my case, as you may have noticed, it's about conforming and complying while internally holding myself apart). Do you know what we share in common? The SO instinct. That's a similar mistake I made when I was playing with E2 for myself.

As for idealizing a perfect mate... that's sx. There's this scintillating, exciting, electromagnetically attractive something that's just around the corner. Miss Right could be that thing, naturally. What you're describing is fantasy; not the rational realm of achievement of a Three (a competence type). I'm not an expert on E3s, though, so I'll let my go-to Enneaguru strrrng step in for this one.

3w4s are more like, "Look at my journey. Look at what I've become. Here I am, standing on top of things." Yet you mention catharsis? Seven. You get the freedom that every Seven is anxiously chasing, and that delicious emotional charge that keeps you feeling like you're alive. As for this "shame" you mentioned, where are you striving to be seen as powerful and a winner? Do you feel a disconnect between the real you and the image you're compelled to uphold? The image I have of this dynamic is Elvis huddled on a toilet. Elvis of the rhinestone jacket, huddled on a toilet. A tiny little man inside this lonely, cavernous suit. You're far too "in" your image, imo.

I'm not saying I don't DO the angle-seeking; it's simply not as integral to my personality as other things.

That's like arguing that breathing isn't integral to being a living human being.

But you're absolutely right--you don't "do" the reframing, it's part of the Seven fixation of looking to the bright shiny things in a world of darkness. The wonder of the Enneagram is it discusses defence mechanisms that get held over from childhood outside of our conscious mind. You're doing it right now in this post and the post before. It's integral in that it's passive and pervasive, not that it falls within your self-image. You're Inventive, aren't you?

Anyway, this conversation betrays a lot of Ne. You have your own perception of reality, and you're just going to keep finding ways to wriggle around and preserve that no matter what anyone throws at you. And I probably look like a madman to you, right?

[Gilly]

Sigh.

Go away, gul. You're just too far off the mark to make these kinds of analyses; Nick knows me, so at least the general vein of what we discuss is relevant, because we know that, for the most part, we're seeing the same things, and that our struggle is over interpretation. You, on the other hand, hardly know me, or what I emphasize on a personal level, or why, so trying to make these "deep" analyses just comes off as phony. You're just playing around because you think you see one pattern, which in reality is subordinate to other overarching themes in my personality. Go play somewhere else.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think you are EIE now, i'm not sure I have to explain myself over this matter seeing as i'm Ti

[Gilly]

I think you are EIE now, i'm not sure I have to explain myself over this matter seeing as i'm Ti

Are you now? o_O