Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I thought it was incepted from Vero's post. Seemed sort of like a personal stamp of nobility that incited others to undermine her pedestal.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Removed at User Request
You're missing the big picture here. I said that BOTH of those things are processes that all people use; therefore, the fact that I "use NeTi," or that you see me using NeTi, doesn't make me an ILE. The fact that I "use FeNi" doesn't make me an EIE, either, at least in isolation; it's a matter of salience.
Dare I tread back onto your turf, and give the things that separate our theories credence? Well, you've been avoiding explaining yourself, so I might as well. What are these type-exclusive qualities you see in me, then?Well, what I think is intrinsically related to NeTi, is something only NeTi'ers do; that is why I said "generally" in my appraisal of your phrasing -- because it could only serve as a general qualifier, nothing more.
It's not a contradiction to refer to it both within the framework of socionics and as a general behavior found in all people. That's PRECISELY what the theory claims to examine (also read above). You claim that there is some result of over-emphasis on this process that results in type-unique behavior that supercedes any matter of cognitive prevalence, and I've been wating for two fucking pages to hear what it is. So what is it?No. You're taking my general agreement and distorting it into another context to "prove it wrong." If you really wanted to discuss functions, why the fuck didn't you just say so? Have you forgotten that YOU chose to use those phrases as qualifiers for the functions? That means you established a socionics context to speak within; to go back on that and alter the context, is a contradiction on your part. There is ho "hole" because I am not going to conflate general psychological rationalization mechanisms with functions, as you seem to like to do, under this guise of "it's all just different ways of explaining the same thing."
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Nick and I talked it out. You're right, he claims it wasn't meant as an attack. We're cool again.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
CIRCLE HUG
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
See, first you introduced them within a socionics context; and while, on some general life level, they may be applicable to all people, you only brought that context in subsequently to qualify them again. Whatever. Such overly-general terms should have never been agreed on in the first place, without an explicit context being established. If you want to chalk that shit up to salience and frequency, go ahead; it's not the prominent typing criteria I'm using, though.
Holy shit. We've already discussed our "theories" differences, so you should know this; the fact that a semblance of disparity presented itself in one thread, due to contextual bullshit, hardly means anything. Now, if I were to actually expound on these things, it would take quite a while; and your type has already been discussed, with comments voiced from yours truly, along with others; this is also discounting the extensive discussion we've had before. So... cut the bullshit imposition of justification burden.Dare I tread back onto your turf, and give the things that separate our theories credence? Well, you've been avoiding explaining yourself, so I might as well. What are these type-exclusive qualities you see in me, then?
It's a contradiction to refer to its respective relevance within a socionics context, and then undermine that very relevance by highlighting its meaning in a more general life context. And the bottom line is, doing this only obfuscates the discussion of the initial terms in the first place. The fact that the theory claims to examine life experience is a moot point, because it still defines that experience within its parameters. Nice try. What the fuck did I say about type-behavior overriding cognitive prevalence? You really need to read what I say more closely. Cognition is the root of type behavior, so I wouldn't suggest such a thing; my criticism was aimed at a differentiation between cognitive and behavioral tendencies defined through socionics and those not, because the respective frameworks and definitions can muddy the interpretations. What is it you're waiting to hear? It's nothing new. This started cause I called you out on your E3 shit, and you've managed to maneuver yourself into some faux position of being gratified (in your mind). This is redundant.It's not a contradiction to refer to it both within the framework of socionics and as a general behavior found in all people. That's PRECISELY what the theory claims to examine (also read above). You claim that there is some result of over-emphasis on this process that results in type-unique behavior that supercedes any matter of cognitive prevalence, and I've been wating for two fucking pages to hear what it is. So what is it?
4w3-5w6-8w7
Vero
4w3-5w6-8w7
-_-; This circle talking has me tired.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
We should just play twister.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I would loose.
I'm 6'4". I will own all of you.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Uh huh And beautiful to boot. If I knew how, I'd already be a model.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
*sigh* if only it were that simple...
I wanna get my degree before I really throw myself into anything. Maybe in a couple of years.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Jesus, I've been a drug dealer, considered being a lawyer, was excited by the prospect of being a surgeon, and now I want to pursue modeling? Sometimes I think I don't have a soul
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Yeah, hope plenty is enough
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I don't see how Gilly meets this description at all.The HAMLET is a socionteskia object of which it does not concern greatness to any significant degree.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
At the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too, we teach you that there's more to life than just being really, really, really good looking.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Nick can be Hansel.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
these sound like they could be pretty interesting ideas...a cause of sorts, but sounds more technical to me. figuring out what you can stand to do without getting bored i can relate to...seems Ne leading.
did you know there is substantial evidence that human beings are in fact hardwired to drug seeking? i found this rather fascinating....
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I can't really relate to what you're describing it as, though. It's not just because it's not boring; it's because it's something I can relate to, something I find myself in that I also see in other people, and as a problem that goes unaddressed in our everyday mindset.
Seems obvious to me. If they weren't, it wouldn't be such a danger.did you know there is substantial evidence that human beings are in fact hardwired to drug seeking? i found this rather fascinating....
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...