Gilly's Type

[electric sheep]

You've proved that a guy wearing a suit in a formal dinner looks more controlled and direct than a guy in the woods wearing a t shirt who probably just finished biking a few miles. Way to go.

[strrrng]

Yeah, if you paid attention to subtleties in VI, you'd realize that adjectives describing someone's demeanor point toward their energy, not an outfit.

[Gilly]

Deflection? Nah, I just get tired of the incessant wavering and remolding of things to fit temporary states. You've already compared yourself to multiple ILEs and pointed out the similarities in the energies, eyes, attitudes, etc. Now you're jumping back to EIE for comfort or whatever.

Actually it was sheerly on the weight of Juju's comparison. It has nothing to do with "temporary states." You need to drop all this deflecting garbage about what you think my motivations are for questioning my own type, because you apparently do not see them clearly. The fact that I'm honest about my disinclination to be narrowed down to either of the types that are assigned to me is, more than anything, reflective of my overriding disposition to the whole situation; any fluctuations are nothing more than weight being shifted due to new input.

I don't see how you can miss the blatant similarities in these photos: laid-back EP energy, emotional receptivity, a sort of absent-minded amiability.

The similarity in the angle of the shot, you mean? Look at my eyes, then look at his. His are glassy, detached, almost entirely expressionless in and of themselves. Now look at mine: they clearly display more charge, more expression. If you think Jake and I VI similarly, especially when compared to Paul Walker, you live in a fucking rat hole and need to get your eyes checked.

I don't entirely refute the comparison between you and Walker, because you both have concentrated stares (and similar eye color, which enhances), along with a sort of personable quality; but the comparison doesn't hold up completely.





Juxtaposing these two pictures displays a stark contrast in energy and demeanor: Walker's being much more controlled and direct, yours being more removed and laid-back.

I'm sorry, but you're just blatantly taking advantage of the contexts here. I'm at home, with my sister taking a picture of me; I think I was actually reading before that was taken. Couldn't catch me in a more vulnerable state. Walker, on the other hand, is in a suit and tie walking on the red carpet; he couldn't be more composed. You think these things don't influence people's appearance and energy?

Just wait til New Years; you'll see me fully composed in all my regalia :wink:

Additionally, I am still hard pressed to understand how you legitimately see EJ temperament working on any substantive level – especially in light of our interactions, which possess a very fluid, open-ended sort of back-and-forth common to IP-EP dynamics.

To be honest I see our interactions being more like IP-IP more than anything.

[strrrng]

Actually it was sheerly on the weight of Juju's comparison. It has nothing to do with "temporary states." You need to drop all this deflecting garbage about what you think my motivations are for questioning my own type, because you apparently do not see them clearly. The fact that I'm honest about my disinclination to be narrowed down to either of the types that are assigned to me is, more than anything, reflective of my overriding disposition to the whole situation; any fluctuations are nothing more than weight being shifted due to new input.

I don't think you're dishonest, disingenuous or blind to yourself; it's more that you seem to find it easier to passively waver along, waiting for people to make suggestions to you, and constantly use that sense of external feedback as some sort of beacon. That is where the transient quality comes in; but, as you know, I've made it pretty explicit that I think there's a consistent, underlying motivation, even if you do like to drift along in your own internal chaos.

The similarity in the angle of the shot, you mean? Look at my eyes, then look at his. His are glassy, detached, almost entirely expressionless in and of themselves. Now look at mine: they clearly display more charge, more expression. If you think Jake and I VI similarly, especially when compared to Paul Walker, you live in a fucking rat hole and need to get your eyes checked.

It wasn't really the angle of the shot. You both have a spontaneous, receptive demeanor, and the eyes bear similarities in the explorative, somewhat zany quality. I highlighted it, because it bears a stark contrast to the common expressions of Ni-EJs, given that they are much more controlled and punctuated overall. As for Walker, I already conceded that I saw similarities. But I've seen a decent amount of pictures of him, and watched multiple interviews; comparing the nuances in your respective expressions is why I don't think the comparison fully holds, even if you both have introspective blue eyes.

I'm sorry, but you're just blatantly taking advantage of the contexts here. I'm at home, with my sister taking a picture of me; I think I was actually reading before that was taken. Couldn't catch me in a more vulnerable state. Walker, on the other hand, is in a suit and tie walking on the red carpet; he couldn't be more composed. You think these things don't influence people's appearance and energy?

Um, catching people in a vulnerable state is more likely to produce an accurate VI, because they aren't posing. Fuck a formal suit; Walker's energy remains consistently controlled in multiple pictures and interviews. And no, I do not see you as possessing that kind of energy, in regards to EJ.









So, you can make all the comparisons you want with him. But it's still blatantly clear to me that there is a difference in latent energy; and when you're not deliberately exhibiting some expression, it shows. That second picture of you? -- that is spontaneous, random, and betrays a side much different than the concentrated, charged aspect you have been harping on.

Just wait til New Years; you'll see me fully composed in all my regalia :wink:

Ah huh.

To be honest I see our interactions being more like IP-IP more than anything.

How so?

[Gilly]

How so?

Just the general lazy quality; we have interesting, generally calm back-and-forths, punctuated by silence; we generally take turns initiating conversation after recognizing some hesitation; we will generally sit and converse mildly until either I get an itch or I can tell that you are bored, at which point I suggest movement or a new activity. We are both laid back rather than assertive in conversation; we sort of take turns initiating because really neither of us likes to or does so naturally I sense that being around each other gives both of us a sense of something like urgency or activation, partly because it is latent in both of us but also because we expect it from each other, because we expect something to "happen" when we're together.

[strrrng]

Just the general lazy quality; we have interesting, generally calm back-and-forths, punctuated by silence; we generally take turns initiating conversation after recognizing some hesitation; we will generally sit and converse mildly until either I get an itch or I can tell that you are bored, at which point I suggest movement or a new activity. We are both laid back rather than assertive in conversation; we sort of take turns initiating because really neither of us likes to or does so naturally I sense that being around each other gives both of us a sense of something like urgency or activation, partly because it is latent in both of us but also because we expect it from each other, because we expect something to "happen" when we're together.

The part in bold is most significant and relevant to me. I've basically developed an implicit assumption that something should happen when we are together because I've known you for a while, and I feel comfortable passively inciting or reacting to certain things (i.e. I wasn't as directly reactive early on). Naturally, I'm inclined to understand a large portion of this as relating to sx (perhaps sx/so, if I am so) 4/3, when it comes to the nuances of why we prefer certain ventures (the "style" of going about it): it's fairly obvious that our motivations for seeking out similar kinds of experiences are very much in overlap. It's tacitly understood that any experience possesses strong personal value for each of us (at least in potential capacity, i.e. 'where will this lead?... lol a crack house', etc.), which I think allows for more freedom in action because we don't incorrectly expect the "wrong things" from each other. But, as far as Se/Fe/etc. seeking goes, it becomes less clear. I can't see us both as IPs, because I think interactions would be far more passive overall. True, we may languidly bullshit without a stimulus, but usually, you take the initiative and react to slight pushes or signals I may give; overall, that feels more indicative of extroversion. Since you feel very adaptable and open to various 'pushes,' I've felt more inclined to chalk it up to IP-EP interactions, because I have never really know EJs to react that way to me. On the other hand, when you do guide activities, it takes on a deliberate quality, which is usually something I'm receptive to, unless I'm in a 'mood.' Aside from being a triple assertive type, and having the 3 influence of needing to maintain a certain sense of external control, I'm curious to see if and how you think this attitude points to EJ; and also the kind of activation you expect to be present around me.

[Gilly]

The part in bold is most significant and relevant to me. I've basically developed an implicit assumption that something should happen when we are together because I've known you for a while, and I feel comfortable passively inciting or reacting to certain things (i.e. I wasn't as directly reactive early on). Naturally, I'm inclined to understand a large portion of this as relating to sx (perhaps sx/so, if I am so) 4/3, when it comes to the nuances of why we prefer certain ventures (the "style" of going about it): it's fairly obvious that our motivations for seeking out similar kinds of experiences are very much in overlap. It's tacitly understood that any experience possesses strong personal value for each of us (at least in potential capacity, i.e. 'where will this lead?... lol a crack house', etc.), which I think allows for more freedom in action because we don't incorrectly expect the "wrong things" from each other.

Yes, I can agree with this.

But, as far as Se/Fe/etc. seeking goes, it becomes less clear. I can't see us both as IPs, because I think interactions would be far more passive overall. True, we may languidly bullshit without a stimulus, but usually, you take the initiative and react to slight pushes or signals I may give; overall, that feels more indicative of extroversion.

...But see, in reality, I only take the initiative because I knew for certain from the get-go that you generally don't, and I can sense that you expect someone else to take the initiative; it's less that I naturally take up your signals and act on them, and more that I know who you are and can read you and anticipate your states, and can pick up on what you expect, partly because my expectations of a situation are similar. And, yeah, I am more energetic than you generally, so the responsibility naturally falls into my lap to take initiative. But it's certainly not my natural role in interactions; I tend to be much more passive unless I have a specific intent or purpose. But, because I know you, and because your attitudes reflect back on my own, and I know what both of our expectations of a situation are, I can't just sit back; I have to take matters into my own hands, because otherwise we would both just vegitate and smoke capones

Since you feel very adaptable and open to various 'pushes,' I've felt more inclined to chalk it up to IP-EP interactions, because I have never really know EJs to react that way to me. On the other hand, when you do guide activities, it takes on a deliberate quality, which is usually something I'm receptive to, unless I'm in a 'mood.' Aside from being a triple assertive type, and having the 3 influence of needing to maintain a certain sense of external control, I'm curious to see if and how you think this attitude points to EJ;

I can see that it doesn't seem like EJ. Other things about me are very much EJ, though; my tendencies to guide and control the actions of others when working towards a common goal, my naturaly ability to guide interaction in a setting where I am comfortable, etc. I guess I just don't think temperament is so significant, consistent, or salient that ambiguity in its moment-to-moment presence overrules all other factors that point to a type.

and also the kind of activation you expect to be present around me.

It's not that I expect anything from you; I just pick up on your vibe, like you are waiting for something, and it resonates, almost in an uncomfortable way, because it's something I know is a part of me, too.

It reminds me of my experience with a friend from college; his name was Charles. He is probably the most similar person I have ever met to myself, just in terms of general external behavior manifestations and their connection to more deeply rooted psychological processes. (Remind me to tell you the story about how we met, it's hilarious ) Anyways, there was always this feeling of deep similarity between us, and it triggered these expectations, like we both knew we were looking for the same thing, so when we're around each other we should be DOING something about it, taking action, talking to each other, making progress...but it was something so deeply rooted, so personal and sacred, that we could never truly lift the veil, lest our expectations be smothered and our ideals defiled. We talked a lot about spirituality, we did lots of drugs together. But there was always this unspoken something, like we should form some political movement together, or start a cult, or run away and join the fucking circus, or SOMETHING. There was just this inescapable sense of urgency, that we shared a common purpose or goal, and that we should be acting on it in tandem. That's what I'm talking about.

[strrrng]

Yes, I can agree with this.



...But see, in reality, I only take the initiative because I knew for certain from the get-go that you generally don't, and I can sense that you expect someone else to take the initiative; it's less that I naturally take up your signals and act on them, and more that I know who you are and can read you and anticipate your states, and can pick up on what you expect, partly because my expectations of a situation are similar. And, yeah, I am more energetic than you generally, so the responsibility naturally falls into my lap to take initiative. But it's certainly not my natural role in interactions; I tend to be much more passive unless I have a specific intent or purpose. But, because I know you, and because your attitudes reflect back on my own, and I know what both of our expectations of a situation are, I can't just sit back; I have to take matters into my own hands, because otherwise we would both just vegitate and smoke capones

Well, that makes sense. But, if you are similar to me in this way, what is the specific type of activation you naturally wait for? And how would this make sense in the context of EJ, given that they are, essentially, the most 'activated' temperament?

I can see that it doesn't seem like EJ. Other things about me are very much EJ, though; my tendencies to guide and control the actions of others when working towards a common goal, my naturaly ability to guide interaction in a setting where I am comfortable, etc. I guess I just don't think temperament is so significant, consistent, or salient that ambiguity in its moment-to-moment presence overrules all other factors that point to a type.

But you've already stated that your natural state is more anticipatory, receptive to activation. So, I don't think the fact that you can guide actions in a group when so inclined, negates the overall attitude you've alluded to. EJs are constantly guiding activity, whether by mentally monitoring trends, affecting social interactions, etc. Not much in between intervals.

It's not that I expect anything from you; I just pick up on your vibe, like you are waiting for something, and it resonates, almost in an uncomfortable way, because it's something I know is a part of me, too.

It reminds me of my experience with a friend from college; his name was Charles. He is probably the most similar person I have ever met to myself, just in terms of general external behavior manifestations and their connection to more deeply rooted psychological processes. (Remind me to tell you the story about how we met, it's hilarious ) Anyways, there was always this feeling of deep similarity between us, and it triggered these expectations, like we both knew we were looking for the same thing, so when we're around each other we should be DOING something about it, taking action, talking to each other, making progress...but it was something so deeply rooted, so personal and sacred, that we could never truly lift the veil, lest our expectations be smothered and our ideals defiled. We talked a lot about spirituality, we did lots of drugs together. But there was always this unspoken something, like we should form some political movement together, or start a cult, or run away and join the fucking circus, or SOMETHING. There was just this inescapable sense of urgency, that we shared a common purpose or goal, and that we should be acting on it in tandem. That's what I'm talking about.

[Gilly]

Well, that makes sense. But, if you are similar to me in this way, what is the specific type of activation you naturally wait for?

I wait for initiative, for someone or something to bring me out of the clouds and give me impetus, to energize me and help me get out of my trench. I'm inclined to sit around and ponder my life, inclinations, perceptions, philosophies, preoccupations, etc until some external force, whether that be another person, or an obstacle, or some obligation, demands that I move; otherwise, what's the point?

This is why I love deadlines: they draw a line in the sand and say "You have to move your ass before this happens. And by God, it will happen." They give me my much desired sense of urgency, immediacy, and necessity, which is the only thing that can motivate me to action. This is the very thing that both of my parents sheltered me from: they never wanted my life to be too stressful or anxious, so they were soft on me, never made any straightforward demands or declared their expectations. To some, that might be comforting, and make them feel free to pursue their own interests, be an individual, do what they like, etc. Not me. I sit on it like a prince atop a pile of riches and lament my own uselessness until a dragon comes to knock down my door

And how would this make sense in the context of EJ, given that they are, essentially, the most 'activated' temperament?

I guess it would make sense for an Ni-EJ in the context of having a high threshold for activity and initiative, but not being naturally inclined to make use of it without an injection of Se and clearly outlined Ti expectations. Also I suffer from chronic depression, which, type related or not, offers some explanation as to why I might not be as "active" as some EJs.

Or I could just be IP. *shrug*

But you've already stated that your natural state is more anticipatory, receptive to activation. So, I don't think the fact that you can guide actions in a group when so inclined, negates the overall attitude you've alluded to. EJs are constantly guiding activity, whether by mentally monitoring trends, affecting social interactions, etc. Not much in between intervals.

I'm receptive to cues for activation; I'm not really emotionally receptive, except when I'm relaxed. For example, when other people try to influence my mood, I generally either lash out at them for their presumptuousness and lack of consideration, or go along with it to get them off my back; I can almost never be cheered up or placated.

And, it's not really that I "feel inclined" to guide group dynamics or actions; I just do it naturally when I feel confident in the situation.

As far as monitoring trends and affecting social interactions goes...do I actually need to outline how I do these things?

[strrrng]

I wait for initiative, for someone or something to bring me out of the clouds and give me impetus, to energize me and help me get out of my trench. I'm inclined to sit around and ponder my life, inclinations, perceptions, philosophies, preoccupations, etc until some external force, whether that be another person, or an obstacle, or some obligation, demands that I move; otherwise, what's the point?

I guess it would make sense for an Ni-EJ in the context of having a high threshold for activity and initiative, but not being naturally inclined to make use of it without an injection of Se and clearly outlined Ti expectations. Also I suffer from chronic depression, which, type related or not, offers some explanation as to why I might not be as "active" as some EJs.

Or I could just be IP. *shrug*

I suppose this makes sense. I'm just hesitant to chalk the basic attitude up to Ni-EJ as a whole, because I still see that temperament as very active – not in an EP sense; it's more about the ceaseless structuring of dynamic processes in the objective world. And I feel like it's that dynamic quality which IJs get off on, because it lifts them out of their own "trench" and sets things into motion. Which is why EJ still doesn't feel right for you overall, because while you calculate and are reactive, you don't seem consistently focused on controlling and structuring that activity. The thing about our interactions that highlights this for me, is the fact that I know I am ceaselessly absorbed in processes – only subjective ones the evolve fluidly. EJs' attitudes are quite diametrical to this, subtype aside: with people like Shenobi and David (your roommate), it's very clear that their energy and rhythm manifests in that deliberate manner; what is easy about you for me to deal with, is the fact that you are able to react to my more open-ended style without imposing any sense of subjective control.

I'm receptive to cues for activation; I'm not really emotionally receptive, except when I'm relaxed. For example, when other people try to influence my mood, I generally either lash out at them for their presumptuousness and lack of consideration, or go along with it to get them off my back; I can almost never be cheered up or placated.

Well, I don't try to influence your mood much, do I? That's sort of what I'm alluding to, in the context of IP Fe ego: creating a fluid, underlying emotional dynamic that isn't imposing. I find it easy to deal with your emotional states, more or less.

And, it's not really that I "feel inclined" to guide group dynamics or actions; I just do it naturally when I feel confident in the situation.

Yeah, same.

As far as monitoring trends and affecting social interactions goes...do I actually need to outline how I do these things?

sigh

[JuJu]

Re: EJ temperament; temperament and typing

It seems that the biggest hang-up here about accepting ENFj as the correct type is the "EJ temperament."

The "EJ temperament" was my biggest reason for clinging to a self-typing of ENFp for over a year--even when none of the other info about that self-typing made sense, e.g. inter-type relationships.

I maintained that ENFp typing b/c I identified with what had been written about EPs vs. EJs, i.e. flexible, fits of energy vs. consistent energy, regimented, upright/uptight, structured... I did not see the latter in myself.

(All the while, it made no sense to me that I 'should' be enjoying people like Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader, and others I'd always found to be desperately dull/borderline incoherent.)

I disagreed with the notion of me being a "XXXj" so much that--after I realized I was certainly Fe ego and Se seeking--I typed myself INFp. I was apprehensive to type myself ENFj, because of the adjectives associated with it.

What I wish someone had reminded me back then--over and over--was: in Socionics, the first and last letter of "XXXx" apply only to the characteristics of the ego IM elements. That means that there can be quiet extroverts (as indeed there are, and vice versa) and laid-back XXXjs (and likewise, uptight, regimented, consistently energetic XXXps.)

And indeed, there are IPs, EJs, IJs, and EPs of all sorts of "temperaments."

Unlike MBTI, in which temperament means much more, (i.e. in MBTI, temperament constitutes two of four dichotomies, and one must choose which fit best,) in Socionics it signifies only the characteristics of the ego elements.


Re: More accurate ways to get the correct Socionics type

To get to the bottom of the typing, the investigation's emphasis should be on displayed quadra values, and IM element seeking.

In this case, it's telling that the people here with which Gilly has the easiest time communicating (e.g. Nick,) are beta, and not alpha. I'd imagine that this is true in terms of relationships beyond this forum as well... Also, he exhibits personality characteristics similar to some ENFjs.

It's telling that he emits mostly Fe and Ni, rather than Ne and Ti. (This presumes that readers here know what the IM elements look like when they're manifested together.)

It's somewhat telling that there isn't a single ILE that VIs like him in terms of demeanor/gaze... Or has comparable personality traits.

In other words, I don't think there's a chinaman's chance in hell that Gilly is Alpha, let alone ENTp.

[Gilly]

I suppose this makes sense. I'm just hesitant to chalk the basic attitude up to Ni-EJ as a whole, because I still see that temperament as very active – not in an EP sense; it's more about the ceaseless structuring of dynamic processes in the objective world. And I feel like it's that dynamic quality which IJs get off on, because it lifts them out of their own "trench" and sets things into motion.

See, this is the sense in which I AM very active; I'm really not spontaneous in the same disjointed sense that EPs are (this is what I sort of "force" myself into when it seems necessary), but I am constantly monitoring interpersonal dynamics and my own internal processes, and so I see the appropriate or optimal time for action or the need to "move on." I am always involved in the maintenance of rapport and engagement. Indeed, I focus on this to the point of anxiety, which is part of why I don't seem as actively engaged on it; I contemplate and internalize so much that I don't actually manifest behavior from my thoughts. This, to me, is part of what characterizes me best as Ni subtype.

Which is why EJ still doesn't feel right for you overall, because while you calculate and are reactive, you don't seem consistently focused on controlling and structuring that activity. The thing about our interactions that highlights this for me, is the fact that I know I am ceaselessly absorbed in processes – only subjective ones the evolve fluidly.

And this is exactly why I am IP subtype: internally I am focused on these aspects constantly, but I don't act as readily on them, unless I feel particularly certain of myself, or have a perceived external impetus. But, like you say, I am constantly calculating, and you've probably noticed that I never react in an explosive or impulsive manner to other people; sometimes I "bite" when someone leaves themselves open, but even that never extends beyond observing fluctuations in personal dynamics.

EJs' attitudes are quite diametrical to this, subtype aside: with people like Shenobi and David (your roommate), it's very clear that their energy and rhythm manifests in that deliberate manner; what is easy about you for me to deal with, is the fact that you are able to react to my more open-ended style without imposing any sense of subjective control.

Well, remember they are both EJ subtypes, so that aspect is going to manifest more fully. However I do see this manifesting in my behavior as well; this is part of what contributes to my impatience with some of our activities. Notice how I don't try to move or do something or re-engage when I have an idea or an impulse, but rather when I feel like the current trend has run dry, or I begin to feel stagnant: in a sense, a flight from IP functions due to a focus on EJ functions.

Personally I think the greatest part of the ease of our interactions is due to a mutual focus on Ni and Ti: we are both very reflective, not much inclined to direct action without impetus or necessity, and observe similar things in people and situations, easily comparing them to other trends we have noticed or themes in our interactions, which is what most of our discussions wind up being absorbed in

Also, as far being rational goes, I think its observable that I have more of a need for regularity, predictability, and stability from others than you do; you tend to prefer unpredictability and...for lack of a better word, . Think abut how we talk about Aaron: his very direct, frenetic energy appeals to us both, but you usually tend to laud his abilities, impulsivity and natural charisma, whereas I am more attracted by his perseverance and ability to inspire confidence and surity. All general themes of Beta STs and things that are attractive to Beta NFs, but with different emphases.

Well, I don't try to influence your mood much, do I? That's sort of what I'm alluding to, in the context of IP Fe ego: creating a fluid, underlying emotional dynamic that isn't imposing. I find it easy to deal with your emotional states, more or less.

Well you're certainly not overt about it but, for example, you do tend to make little comments that serve as reassurances or purposeful reflections, and you've probably noticed that I either take them in stride as something already partially considered, or dismiss them casually.

Also we have a very subtle but noticeably active Fe dynamic; it's not an all out guns match like it is with Shinobi and I, obviously or a subtle but rapid game like I tend to engage Dave MS in, but more of a natural, fluid back and forth, with both of us contributing more or less equally but never to the point of imposition, with some moments where one or the other of us spike or go on a roll and the other goes along for the ride

[strrrng]

Hm, fair enough. Those are some interesting points that I will duly consider (unlike most of the jargon that has been spewed in this thread).


RE: temperaments (this is general, but based on JuJu's mentioning). While it is clear that the terms point to different things in socionics and mbti, there is still more to the former than simple functional positioning. Even if you want to base the more concrete aspects of temperaments on said thing, it is undeniable that they clearly manifest in consistent patterns with regard to peoples' energies and behaviors. Firstly, functions refer to psychological processes, which are not purely self-contained things, but rather underlying mechanisms that directly influence behavior; additionally, introversion/extroversion, while colloquially understood as O/F in socionics, very much does play a role in temperament, if primarily on a level of energy thresholds and such. JuJu makes a valid point when he says that extroverts can be quiet, introverts active, rationals spontaneous, etc.; but this doesn't discount the more subtle aspects that seep into the manner in which the respective temperaments exhibit varied behaviors. Essentially, you can't claim mutual exclusivity between function position and external manifestation.

[JuJu]

Firstly, functions refer to psychological processes, which are not purely self-contained things, but rather underlying mechanisms that directly influence behavior; additionally, introversion/extroversion, while colloquially understood as O/F in socionics, very much does play a role in temperament, if primarily on a level of energy thresholds and such. JuJu makes a valid point when he says that extroverts can be quiet, introverts active, rationals spontaneous, etc.; but this doesn't discount the more subtle aspects that seep into the manner in which the respective temperaments exhibit varied behaviors. Essentially, you can't claim mutual exclusivity between function position and external manifestation.

Nick, have you ever thought that in Socionics typing, you're too intent on studying the "underlying" and "subtle aspects" that you're missing the larger and more relevant picture as to someone's type?

For example, in this case, the relevant, big picture issues are: whether Gilly is Alpha or Beta... Or if you want to do that a different way, whether he belongs to the NF or NT club, (i.e. whether he's exhibiting Ne or Fe, Ti or Ni.)

"Subtle," "underlying manners" that indicate temperament seems to be all you've got to substantiate this typing of Gilly...

His quadra values aren't subtle at all--and quite frankly, they're what you should be looking at if you want to get the typing correct.

[strrrng]

My post about temperament wasn't meant to be an argument for or against Gilly's type (i.e. did you not see the preceding response to him?); it was intended as a clarification on temperaments in general, because I think focusing solely on functional placement is a flawed method, as there are other, significant aspects that factor into it.

"You cannot establish exclusivity between function position and external manifestations." Essentially meaning: there are distinct energy levels that each temperament possesses (which obviously aren't as simple as "laid-back," etc. – such qualifiers only allude to tendencies), along with manners of expression. So, if you think that temperament ends at blocks of functions, I'm saying that I think that method is flawed.

[Gilly]

Not to gush or anything, but there is a middle ground here. I mean, it's undeniable that functional preferences manifest themselves externally, and in a distinguishably consistent manner; otherwise VI would be useless, nothing more than a string of associations all dependent on each other for any integrity whatsoever. And that's just silly. But it's also plainly dogmatic to assume that things will always line up perfectly, that x trait or y behavior will always manifest in a certain type. It's in the overlap, the general sense of a person and the nuances of their behavior, the set of tendencies that they express, rather than specific or particular concrete and easily reproduced manifestations, that a person's type becomes apparent.

[JuJu]

Not to gush or anything, but there is a middle ground here. I mean, it's undeniable that functional preferences manifest themselves externally, and in a distinguishably consistent manner; otherwise VI would be useless, nothing more than a string of associations all dependent on each other for any integrity whatsoever. And that's just silly. But it's also plainly dogmatic to assume that things will always line up perfectly, that x trait or y behavior will always manifest in a certain type. It's in the overlap, the general sense of a person and the nuances of their behavior, the set of tendencies that they express, rather than specific or particular concrete and easily reproduced manifestations, that a person's type becomes apparent.

I agree with every word of this.

My argument with Nick is not this, rather more along the lines of: if an IM element spit in Nick's face, Nick wouldn't be able to accurately tell which IM element did it, (and not because some got in his eyes.)

[strrrng]

I agree with every word of this.

My argument with Nick is not this, rather more along the lines of: if an IM element spit in Nick's face, Nick wouldn't be able to accurately tell which IM element did it, (and not because some got in his eyes.)

This "argument" has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Ironic that you "agree with every word" Gilly says, when all he did was rephrase the point I was trying to drive home in more diplomatic terms.

[Gilly]

Well I'm glad we can all agree like mature adults with mustaches and mortgages.

[Gilly]

So I'm IEI now.

[Blaze]

what you are is incredibly indubitibly self involved d00d.

[Gilly]

Exactly.

[xerx]

I could see you as an irrational.

[xyz]

what you are is incredibly indubitibly self involved d00d.

Just the fact that this (his 407th) thread about himself got this many replies so far makes this whole damn board look bad.


STOP FEEDING HIM SHEEPLE

[Park]

Just the fact that this (his 407th) thread about himself got this many replies so far makes this whole damn board look bad.


STOP FEEDING HIM SHEEPLE

Ahahahahahahahaha.... my thoughts exactly!

[Joy]

You're EIE. What's wrong with that? Geez.

[Gilly]

I could see you as an irrational.

It's the dichotomy I am second most sure of, behind intuitive.

[Gilly]

You're EIE. What's wrong with that? Geez.

I just really don't see myself as a rational type. Also extroversion, although it makes sense in some ways, is pretty clearly the wrong choice in both the broader context of my life and in terms of my day-to-day behavior. I am an attention whore and can "turn on" my outgoing/energetic side if I am in the right mood and want to do it, but in my natural state I am fairly inert and not really outgoing or energetic at all.

[Joy]

Well, I do know a slam dunk IEI who instantly reminded me of you. I think you and I are way more similar than he and I are though. Do you think an IEI would be the fastest employee in a coffee bar or restaurant?

[Gilly]

If he was a 3, sure :wink:

[xerx]

It's the dichotomy I am second most sure of, behind intuitive.

lol. Is that right?

[Gilly]

It's true. Seeing my self as EIE requires rationalizing or compartmentalizing a lot of things about myself that are more easily attributed to being an irrational type.

[xerx]

It's true. Seeing my self as EIE requires rationalizing or compartmentalizing a lot of things about myself that are more easily attributed to being an irrational type.

Yeah I never bought the argument that an Fe dominant would see themselves as irrational. My EIE mom is anything but irrational and prides herself on it.

[Gilly]

So you agree that IEI makes sense for me?

[strrrng]

[Gilly]

Fuck off

[xerx]

So you agree that IEI makes sense for me?

Idk. It's worth considering I guess.

[Kim]

I just really don't see myself as a rational type. Also extroversion, although it makes sense in some ways, is pretty clearly the wrong choice in both the broader context of my life and in terms of my day-to-day behavior. I am an attention whore and can "turn on" my outgoing/energetic side if I am in the right mood and want to do it, but in my natural state I am fairly inert and not really outgoing or energetic at all.

But if I remember correctly, Kristiina said a similar thing about herself. Do you think she is EIE?

I think EIE > IEI

[Gilly]

But if I remember correctly, Kristiina said a similar thing about herself. Do you think she is EIE?

I don't know, my understanding of Socionics has evolved significantly since she has been a real presence on the forum.

I think EIE > IEI

Why?

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't see how you can be business to ISFp.

Even as boisterous and belligerent as INFp's can be in text, they still come across as pretty dopey and whimsical looking on camera (BnD just softly smiles at things, crazedrat looks like he's getting a blowjob, nick is calm and kinda hesitant looking). You yell and shout and maniacally laugh and yell at your roomies and generally act extraverted irrational. You also do that ENTp attention thing where you randomly start making some noise or contorting you face or speaking in an accent (of course this is not constant and you have more quiet moments like everyone).

On camera (hey it's the most I have), you simply don't come across as INFp. And honestly, alot of people here do not go on stickam, so they really don't know wtf they're talking about.

Extraverted, irrational, intuitive, merry...

What one of those is off? Are you a rational type? Are you an introtim?