Gilly is not EIE and certainly not IEI

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Wynch]

wow, you fags totally superseded my and Gilly's spotlight. self-righteous pieces of shit.

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.

Wow, thank-you for attacking me personally with absolutely no incitement. Glad to see you think so fucking highly of me.

[Gilly]

Pulling it from? The fact that you asserted the thing about persistent trends in behavior in conjunction with the contextual framework phrase, to contrast NiFe to NeTi, and then later, after arguing that the NeTi version was something that everyone did, and I pointed out that the NiFe version was something that everybody could do, by your logic, you then redacted your claim to, "yeah, they're both part of the overall socionics process, but this one is more relevant to me" -- this was after discounting my claim about NeTi as a "simple rationalizing mechanism all people do" while failing to realize that I was referring to it in a socionics context, and then decontextualizing your other example to level it out.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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?

[Gilly]

Wow, thank-you for attacking me personally with absolutely no incitement. Glad to see you think so fucking highly of me.

He wasn't really attacking you...

[Wynch]

Nick and I talked it out. You're right, he claims it wasn't meant as an attack. We're cool again.

[Gilly]

CIRCLE HUG

[strrrng]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[strrrng]

Vero

[Gilly]

-_-; This circle talking has me tired.

[strrrng]

We should just play twister.

[strrrng]

I win. I'm an expert.

I would beat you.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I would loose.

[strrrng]

In your dreams.

sigh

[Wynch]

We should just play twister.

You know what's better than twister? Twister on a bus.

[717495]

You know what's better than twister? Twister on a bus.

In the olden days, the driver was skilled enough to play, despite the alleged deposition.

[Gilly]

I'm 6'4". I will own all of you.

[redbaron]

I'm 6'4". I will own all of you.

wow, you're tall!

[Gilly]

Uh huh And beautiful to boot. If I knew how, I'd already be a model.

[redbaron]

Uh huh And beautiful to boot. If I knew how, I'd already be a model.

I know you are, I've seen pics. well, move to NYC and find an agent.

[Gilly]

*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.

[Gilly]

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

[redbaron]

I wanna get my degree before I really throw myself into anything. Maybe in a couple of years.

probably smart.

[redbaron]

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

omg, that's hilarious! (sorry...) Maybe you ARE a 7.

[Gilly]

omg, that's hilarious! (sorry...) Maybe you ARE a 7.

Lol don't be sorry, if anyone thinks its hilarious, it's me I think it's mostly 3w4-ness, pursuit of prestige and a niche that feels "me" that is based on my natural skills.

[redbaron]

Lol don't be sorry, if anyone thinks its hilarious, it's me I think it's mostly 3w4-ness, pursuit of prestige and a niche that feels "me" that is based on my natural skills.

oh okay. well that makes sense too. Anyway, you're young yet. You've got plenty of time.

[Gilly]

Yeah, hope plenty is enough

[Wynch]

Uh huh And beautiful to boot. If I knew how, I'd already be a model.

What is this...A CENTER FOR ANTS?! It needs to be at least 3 times bigger than this!

[JRiddy]

The HAMLET is a socionteskia object of which it does not concern greatness to any significant degree.

I don't see how Gilly meets this description at all.

[Gilly]

What is this...A CENTER FOR ANTS?! It needs to be at least 3 times bigger than this!

I don't get it at all.

[munenori2]

I don't get it at all.

[Wynch]

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.

[Gilly]

[Gilly]

Nick can be Hansel.

[strrrng]

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

Nick can be Hansel.

[Blaze]

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.

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....

[Blaze]

What is this...A CENTER FOR ANTS?! It needs to be at least 3 times bigger than this!

lol funny

[Gilly]

It's so true...

[Gilly]

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.

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.

did you know there is substantial evidence that human beings are in fact hardwired to drug seeking? i found this rather fascinating....

Seems obvious to me. If they weren't, it wouldn't be such a danger.