Why so dead?

[Banana Pancakes]

Hey incognito!
I was in need for a confirmation that many of BP's remarks are of a Se-Creative nature. Thanks for confirming me this hypothesis .

Examples:
- "you to shut your yappy little mouth"
- "is childish and asinine"
- "yapping like a little dog "you're not ILE ruff ruff ruff""
This is a form of minimization they have in mind - but don't use it necessarily in language - about people without authority or power over them, but who opposes them. It comes from the subconscious and they can't avoid it. Allie was using this same kind of remarks to a large extent.

PS: I have nothing personal against you guys. You actually fascinate me.

Yes, this is Se, but this mode is not natural for me.

Again, put all your arguments in a separate thread with your selected type(s) and I'll consider them. I'd love to hear it. For now I'm putting you back on ignore because I'm doing the same thing you do: wrecking threads.

[Khola aka Bee]

Ah... much better.

@Banana Pancakes: it's because people like you raid it. I think you already know who I'm talking about.

This "Alpha" subforum is like a company party: you go there and have to be smiley and happy, but actually you find nothing interesting.
Btw about your signature, I think you're ESI more than EII, I just wanted to be polite and avoid saying you're my conflictor just because we don't like each other.

@Krieg: I'm sick of these impostors. They're the first ones to care about the "Alpha place", the "Alpha way", "Alpha gatherings" and all this crap. Or to demonstrate they're Alpha.
Out of them, only Logos doesn't annoy me (afaik), he's just LSI.
He doesn't bother me for one of two reasons: either because he's Fe valuing (mn0good, Khola and BP are Fi-val and I feel a strong turn-off in their posts) or because he's not trying to demonstrate his Alpha-ness so often, he minds his own business instead.

GET OUT OF MY QUADRA N00B

[Khola aka Bee]

Carla. Paul David Hewson says he'd like more chipotle in his salsa, STAT.

That's hot

[Logos]

@Krieg: I'm sick of these impostors. They're the first ones to care about the "Alpha place", the "Alpha way", "Alpha gatherings" and all this crap. Or to demonstrate they're Alpha.
Out of them, only Logos doesn't annoy me (afaik), he's just LSI.
He doesn't bother me for one of two reasons: either because he's Fe valuing (mn0good, Khola and BP are Fi-val and I feel a strong turn-off in their posts) or because he's not trying to demonstrate his Alpha-ness so often, he minds his own business instead.

I suppose it's a start.

[Logos]

@Logos: I suppose it as well.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to un-derail this thread and ask: why in hell is this sub-forum so dead?

Not that they are mutually exclusive, but would you rather have more quantity of discussion or quality of discussion?

[Logos]

I don't know what you mean by "quality", because this is subjective in general. If we talk about Socionics and quality=accuracy, indeed I'm interested in quality.

Yes, that was my sense of meaning.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think many members have a genuine interest in Socionics, but, we all don't agree with the principles and definitions. Still, I see no need to create boundaries - an "us against them" environment and strike down any members whom may not agree with your perspective. I usually find this type of environment kills the atmosphere. This could partly explain why there is a reduction in quadra activity.

Why not discuss with Ephemeros on the basis of his reasonings on socionics then? It seems "lol"-ing at someone - as I think you put it - "yapping like a little dog" etc has got nothing to do with the issue you claim you support, but rather is a way to create an "us against them" enviroment - which incidentally I don't think is his intention - his issue appears to be with those who he claims to be another type but which he does not agree with, which surely is fine in a socionics forum to discuss that?

IE - you seem (among maybe other things) to disagree with Ephemeros's perspective that people should be correctly typed, so you strike him down for it? Yet you say (re-quoted):

I see no need to create boundaries - an "us against them" environment and strike down any members whom may not agree with your perspective

because it seems that you do see a need for that and are therefore lying or confused?

It may just be that you don't like him, as it seems you continually make a value judgement on him as a person (and I don't think i've seen you do anything else on this forum - except make value judgements on people, sorry if that is wrong, I haven't seen all your posts, it just stands out).

I think many members have a genuine interest in Socionics, but, we all don't agree with the principles and definitions.

Which principles and definitions do you refer to?

I'm just curious what principles has to do with socionics in this regards (or your use of the word principles), and "definitions" would surely be at least based on those of Ashura? Given the context that we work with those axioms, then we can discuss the intellectual ideas behind someones points by responding (and growing, developing) as such. I suppose i'm just suprised that you keep responding by looking to devalue Ephemeros as a person, rather than devalue his ideas, which is (or at least could be) a rather a crucial indication towards a function(s) preference.

Curiosity - have you studied MBTI? What MBTI type do test as, or you most associate with?

Ugh.

Edit: Not that this necessarily is going to be "used" by me to indicate your's (or someone elses type) at this point (or even mine really at this stage anyway), but I am curious to hear your repsonses - it is nothing personal (incase you take it that way - it seems you can do this fwiw, so I suppose I am interested in that also) overall - I suppose i'm just interested. Thanks if you respond.

[electric sheep]

And now, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to un-derail this thread and ask: why in hell is this sub-forum so dead?

Probably because everyone was so deluded before, but since the advent of Pinocchio and the subsequent destruction of all delusions--past and present--no one has any reason to post here anymore.

...or maybe because instead of talking about socionics, all we do is argue about each other's types.

[Brilliand]

Probably because everyone was so deluded before, but since the advent of Pinocchio and the subsequent destruction of all delusions--past and present--no one has any reason to post here anymore.

...or maybe because instead of talking about socionics, all we do is argue about each other's types.

Talk about Socionics has never been what drove this subforum; that's what drives "General Discussion." This subforum is driven by fun. We seem to have a shortage of fun here...

[Banana Pancakes]

We seem to have a shortage of fun here...

No joke. Can we have fun now?

[electric sheep]

Talk about Socionics has never been what drove this subforum; that's what drives "General Discussion." This subforum is driven by fun. We seem to have a shortage of fun here...

Arguing isn't very fun, especially the same arguments over and over again.

[mu4]

Arguing isn't very fun, especially the same arguments over and over again.

Get used to it. The history of man is characterized by the similar arguments over and over again juxtaposed against shifting material conditions.

Socionics hypothesizes that conflicts is a product of our informational interpretation as much as material necessity.

[Brilliand]

Arguing isn't very fun, especially the same arguments over and over again.

Arguing doesn't do a very good job of driving this subforum neither... Ah, the good old days when Allie was Alpha!

Socionics hypothesizes that conflicts is a product of our informational interpretation as much as material necessity.

This is true in more senses than Socionics specifies.

[Banana Pancakes]

Or rather this is a justification for you to be able to escape explanations towards esteemed members of our community who look questioning down to you.
.

Here I'd just like to point out that no one except pinocchio has ever questioned my type consistently.

Where are these memberS (plural) other than yourself?

@Banana Pancakes: I have a proposition for you: let's forget everything that happened and be friends, I mean cordial but active interactions. What do you think?

I'm completely willing to do this if you'll stop making comments about my type in anything other than a dedicated thread.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Correct typing is a pillar of Socionics. All types and examples make the basis of the theory. Without it, we can't talk about anything else.

And you know what? Stick your irony into your a**.

Why do you have to be so spatially assertive and rigidly dogmatic?

[Banana Pancakes]

I doubt finding a problem in one thread and "ruff ruff"-in in another would be of any use, but I'll try.

It's a start.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You provided no justification for the assertion that I'm dogmatic, therefore I don't find necessary to answer you.

So you admit you are spatially assertive then?

You are dogmatic because you say that correct typing is fundamental to socionics.

[electric sheep]

Here you go pinocchio:

Fives are much more non-linear in their thinking. They are interested in finding out where established theories break down and in developing iconoclastic ideas that shake up structures and established methods. Fives are, generally speaking, bolder than Sixes in their positions and creativity, but also far less practical. Fives feel that they can only trust their own minds to come to conclusions–they believe that everyone else is likely to be less well-informed. Sixes get frantic trying to find something to trust precisely because they do not trust their own minds to come to meaningful conclusions. The difference between them can be seen in the difference between Umberto Eco ( a Five) and Tom Clancy (a Six), or Peter Gabriel (a Five) and Bruce Springsteen (a Six).

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post273668

To answer your question from before, I'm really not interested in finding people's precise types, or I don't put nearly the amount of emphasis that you do on it. This is just impractical to do over an internet forum--the costs do not outweigh the benefits. I trust that if we talk about Socionics in general, and attempt to remove the stigma of certain types then people will come to the right conclusion on their own. Is that a better approach? I really don't know.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If this means dogmatic, then I agree. This is also the answer to your previous question - I'm not only saying this, I'm convinced of it.

How much have you considered SLE or LSI as a possible typing for yourself? Are you open to either of these two possibilities?

[Banana Pancakes]

How much have you considered SLE or LSI as a possible typing for yourself? Are you open to either of these two possibilities?

Beta ST has my instinct for him for some time, but I see don't see him being open to changing his type, especially since he thinks mine is wrong.

[Banana Pancakes]

In the opposite category I put (non-exclusively, again): ArchonAlarion, polikujm, Banana Pancakes, heath, FDG, implied, Parker, etc. With these people I debate only to defend the correctness.

You are in the same category with ifmd95, mn0good, strrrng, crazedrat: you debate and defend something which I can't even consider your POV, you fall in irrelevant misinterpreting the sentences, notions, defying logic and whatnot. I see no point in debating with you, especially about my type. You can discuss about this with others, anyway.

For the record: As you can see, I don't think intelligence and ignorance are type-related.

And there you have it, from your own arrogant mouth, you will never change your mind in debate with me. Therefore it's pointless for me to maintain an open line of communication with you.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I'm not interested in the issue, type me if you like. So far my current typing helped me find my compatible mate, it helped me understand and clarify my relationships with other people and it helps me choose the acquaintances and refuse hostile workplaces.

I would debate this only with the people whose opinion I respect and I know they will actually learn something from this. A not-complete list: tuturututu, Brilliand, anndelise, Azeroffs, Cyclops, Mimosa Pudica, jason_m, Warlord. The list is much larger (some are new, others are not-so-vocal that I barely can think about them right now) and also there are people about I don't know what to say, they understand some parts and stubbornly disagree with others, like Logos, Gilly, Jarno, hkkmr.

In the opposite category I put (non-exclusively, again): ArchonAlarion, polikujm, Banana Pancakes, heath, FDG, implied, Parker, etc. With these people I debate only to defend the correctness.

You are in the same category with ifmd95, mn0good, strrrng, crazedrat: you debate and defend something which I can't even consider your POV, you fall in irrelevant misinterpreting the sentences, notions, defying logic and whatnot. I see no point in debating with you, especially about my type. You can discuss about this with others, anyway.

For the record: As you can see, I don't think intelligence and ignorance are type-related.

You sound very aristocratic here...you are acting as though you are some self-appointed authority and delusions-destroyer.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You're in the category I debate with, man. What's wrong with you?

Why do you have to be so narrow-minded as to conclude that there is something wrong with him?

[Banana Pancakes]

You're in the category I debate with, man. What's wrong with you?

And btw, I omitted to say that these are not final categories, but for one to go from one to the other, me or him has to make radical changes of view, and as far as I can tell this is very unlikely.

"Only to defend correctness" implies a one sided debate where you won't change your mind. This is the impression I get from conversation with you, and I'm going to go with my gut on this one. No need to raise my blood pressure.

It's clear to me that we think in different ways. That is to say, you either are unable or refuse to interpret my statements in the manner that was my intent (I think I do a good job understanding your point of view, but maybe the same applies to me!). I'll grant you that this indicates different types, the one of us who is typed incorrectly is something we'll have to disagree on, however. It's simply not going to be fruitful for us to debate, as it will be misunderstanding after misunderstanding.

To put it in a way you'll understand, if I'm ESI I need a TeNi explanation of why, which you can't provide

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You shoot yourself in the leg. There is no connection with this dichotomy.
Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion

According to your manner of interpretation, you have a very "Us versus Them" attitude...or at least "I versus Them".

What should I answer to your idiot series of questions? I am because I am, whatever...

The question as rhetorical, but I'd thought you'd know that. You are narrow-minded because you have Ego block .

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I know you don't boast being a good typer or theoretician, but you speak irrelevant bullshit again.

^ was this bit directed at me? Only you posted it underneath one of your own quotes.

[Banana Pancakes]

Hahaha! I agree with everything you said.

We have a solution for the last part: to find through these guys a Te/Ni Ego (Ti/Ne Id) who understands what I write and you agree to assign in mediating between us. What do you think?

I'm serious about it, and I'll investigate to make a proposal. Azeroffs was so far one of the few people I consider understanding what I say to a great percent, he also was one of the people who convinced me about his type, remember? I was saying he's LII at first.
So, I want your opinion on him, I'm not decided yet and we'll have to talk about first.

(I'm excited about this premiere! I hope things will turn out well - for me )

Given that no one agrees with what you said (so far at least) I doubt that will happen. I'm not familiar with azeroffs but I'll listen to what he has to say (using my Ne and openness to new ideas).

Tell you what, you start a thread about me being ESI and I'll start one about you being Beta ST, and we'll see which does does better. Maybe some delusions will be destroyed.

[Banana Pancakes]

Fine for me. I'm thinking about choosing a jury you'd agree with, composed by an odd number of people, and let them decide in the hope they would be able to convince you.

A Jury
Highly unlikely that we'd agree on one.

Open forum, with a poll.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This is only a situation, not categorization by the dichotomy. In war there will be you against the enemy, and that's a fact. In this situation, Aristocratics would be probably hard to be convinced by an enemy deserter that he is willing to get on your side, for the single fact that he's an "enemy" and he doesn't apply to them. You obviously misunderstood this dichotomy and I keep my opinion on you.

No, the issue is that you choose to define yourself in relation to other people through the designation of groups, as Aristocrats supposedly do. Even now, you do not say "I keep my opinion on what you have said", you say "I keep my opinion on you" - i.e. you apparenty do not distinguish between me as a person and the things that I say.

At least I may keep my , is this correct?

I'm not suitably convinced yet.

[Brilliand]

is narrow-minded too.

No, the issue is that you choose to define yourself in relation to other people through the designation of groups, as Aristocrats supposedly do. Even now, you do not say "I keep my opinion on what you have said", you say "I keep my opinion on you" - i.e. you apparenty do not distinguish between me as a person and the things that I say.

He generated the groups to explain how he treated people, not to figure out for himself how he was going to treat people. I know this business of making explanations that aren't actually our reasons for reaching a conclusion is common for LIIs... not sure which other types.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

is narrow-minded too.

Yes, but he frequently shows behaviour that he would classify as "Se" behaviour if it was done by anybody else.

He generated the groups to explain how he treated people, not to figure out for himself how he was going to treat people. I know this business of making explanations that aren't actually our reasons for reaching a conclusion is common for LIIs... not sure which other types.

I'm using his reasoning, not mine.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@Subterranean: my lists were classifications, not grouping. Figure out the difference yourself.

It was definitely a hierarchy with you at the head either way.

[mu4]

Correct thinking and practice are evolving processes.

Fundamentally socionics is dialectical and predicts dialectical processes in social interactions.

Different perspectives on philosophy, science and other topics are also dialectical.

Even the attack on dialectics(Popper amongst others) and the defenders of dialectics itself produces a dialectical situation.

Aristocratic types merely don't mix Internal and External data in the same block. This means that they have a tendency to find membership (usually binary) to the things, and consider inappropriate to mix them together: spiritual-material issues, male-female things, funny-serious talks, work-relax periods (this is especially obvious in quadras, for example "now I'm relaxing, I don't work"), public-private, ours-theirs, etc. But don't confuse with something else, like good-bad, this is not a membership division, but rather a judgment.

Aristocratic types view correct thinking will lead to correct practice.

This is however merely a assertion. More correct thinking may provide a higher probability of more correct practice, but only to the limits of the predictive mechanism and execution.

Democratic types closer to the view that correct thinking and correct practice as probabilistic.

As a whole I believe correct practice to only be limited by our ability to discover new practices and the constraints of the problem as we can analyze them. Correct thinking is only the analytical tool to manufacture improving practice which is the product.

...correctness...

Don't merely engage in tiding the factory, also produce a tidy product, but the socionic factory is not built yet I don't think.

...dogmatic...

It's hard to find any person will not appear dogmatic sometimes.
Even harder a ILE. Don Quixote is not know for his sanity.

Windmills as giants and prostitutes as nobel ladies, such foolishness.
A windmill is a windmill and prostitutes are prostitutes, this all good men know to be true.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

"Dogmatic" is usually used in reference to old ideas or notions rather than new ones.

[Brilliand]

I'm using his reasoning, not mine.

I did mean to imply that this standard LII behavior was also what Pinocchio was doing, despite him not being LII.

It was definitely a hierarchy with you at the head either way.

You can cast it into this form, but I rather doubt that this is the form that it took in his mind. Also, isn't "hierarchy" a rather -related thing? (It can't mean both things at the same time, but there's a danger of confusing the meanings.)

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You can cast it into this form, but I rather doubt that this is the form that it took in his mind. Also, isn't "hierarchy" a rather -related thing? (It can't mean both things at the same time, but there's a danger of confusing the meanings.)

Ah, but I was distinguishing between a hierarchy of ideas rather than a hierarchy of people - according to the Aristocracy dichotomy that Pinocchio is fond of citing, Aristocrats put people into groups, while Democrats are more likely to judge the ideas that people have.

It may not be the manner that it took in his mind, but considering that Pinocchio seems to think that any hostile behaviour is strong evidence that a person has in their Ego block (except when it concerns himself), I'm not bothering to be so open-minded at the moment.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mu4]

I think I have to think about this. My impression is that this attitude versus correct thinking is rather the Merry/Serious dichotomy.

In my opinion, Merry/Serious is related to thinking and practice in different way.

Merry types is investigating ethically practice, based in fairness,

Serious types is investigating on profitable practice, based in preference, :Fi.

However how this translate into activity is different.
Aristocratic thinking I think often falls into the naturalistic fallacy and moralistic fallacy.

As you noted information blocking in NF and ST is either purely internal or purely external. There is no individual moderation of this aspect of information. What occurs is that the within aristocratic quadras, groups of individuals segregate based on personal beliefs that occur either thru imagination or indoctrination. Very often aristocratic groups within the same quadra will be in competition with each other on the basis of their ideals.

[Logos]

As you noted information blocking in NF and ST is either purely internal or purely external. There is no individual moderation of this aspect of information. What occurs is that the within aristocratic quadras, groups of individuals segregate based on personal beliefs that occur either thru imagination or indoctrination. Very often aristocratic groups within the same quadra will be in competition with each other on the basis of their ideals.

This also helps provide an explanation as to intra-quadra disputes that occur within aristocratic quadras. I will have to think as to the source for intra-quadra dispute within democratic quadras.