A Cry for Help

[strrrng]

Well, there's always the last resort...

[Gilly]

I'd rather drill a hole in my skull.

[strrrng]

"I'm not in the mirror, I'm inside you... you can't kill a spirit even if you tried to" sigh

[Gilly]

See, I wouldn't make that mistake. Straight to the fucking source.

[JWC3]

Here's what we do, we lock you in a room with no contact with the outside world and nothing to occupy yourself with, think a boring ass white room with nothing in it, until you develop multiple personalities cause your going to go crazy. Then we wait until the personalities have started arguing over something meaningless to fill the time. This argument will undoubtedly end in imaginary bloodshed (or possibly your own, doesn't matter), then we open the door, let you out, and type the surviving personality and since that's the only personality you have left it will also be your type. Cause in all honestly I think that would be a whole hell of a lot easier you confusing bitch.

[Gilly]

Here's what we do, we lock you in a room with no contact with the outside world and nothing to occupy yourself with, think a boring ass white room with nothing in it, until you develop multiple personalities cause your going to go crazy. Then we wait until the personalities have started arguing over something meaningless to fill the time. This argument will undoubtedly end in imaginary bloodshed (or possibly your own, doesn't matter), then we open the door, let you out, and type the surviving personality and since that's the only personality you have left it will also be your type. Cause in all honestly I think that would be a whole hell of a lot easier you confusing bitch.

I think I should actually do this.

[redbaron]

I think I should actually do this.

[Gilly]

Seriously, I have thought about sensory deprivation before, and I think it would be pretty awesome. I just get excited by the prospects, hearing about people having psychotic breaks or freaking out after being sense-deprived for even as little as a few seconds. It just sounds fucking glorious.

[redbaron]

Seriously, I have thought about sensory deprivation before, and I think it would be pretty awesome. I just get excited by the prospects, hearing about people having psychotic breaks or freaking out after being sense-deprived for even as little as a few seconds. It just sounds fucking glorious.

...maybe I'm not beta after all.

[Gilly]

Or you're sp first, and I'm sx first and sp last

[redbaron]

Or you're sp first, and I'm sx first and sp last

yip.

[Gilly]

THE ENNEAGRAM ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE

ITS AMAZING

[strrrng]

Seriously, I have thought about sensory deprivation before, and I think it would be pretty awesome. I just get excited by the prospects, hearing about people having psychotic breaks or freaking out after being sense-deprived for even as little as a few seconds. It just sounds fucking glorious.

Depends on the circumstances. For example, The Military engenders these conditions, albeit in a subtle and gradual way. I recall the first week of being there, I would lie in my little prison bed at night, while others were jabbering their gums, and stare at the cold metal above me, swept away in absurdly paranoid, conspiratorial fantasies about escaping from that place and being hunted by the government, etc. That shit was weird, but fortunately passed after the first week or two. Oh, and when I finally *did* get to experience the real world again, I felt like some retarded animal that had just been let out of a cage. ugh lol.

[Gilly]

I'm talking about TOTAL sensory deprivation, as in being submerged in an underwater tank or in a special chamber that serves to literally nullify all sense perception. Apparently it really fucks with some people.

[silverchris9]

Good luck with that one. I see one of two things when I look in the mirror: composure, perfect edges, a slick emotional sheen, competency, and exactly the right combination of penetrating intellect and elusively magnetic accessibility, or childish depravity, stupidity, indecisiveness, upwelling insecurity, a temporal lobe that looks like swiss cheese, and unforgivable physical awkwardness.

Why again aren't you sure you're IEI...?

Sensory deprivation... sounds scary. I would either become a genius for 24 hours or go completely crazy, entirely depending on the shape of my soul that day. Whatever.

[Gilly]

Why again aren't you sure you're IEI...?

EIE works better for lots of reasons. Although there's nothing stereotypically extroverted about me, I do think I am "object-focused," an extrotim, according to Socionics definitions. I tend to feel responsible for initiating contact and getting things moving, even if it is not my natural inclination. Intertype relations also work much better, nearly perfectly even, assuming I am EIE, especially within my family and with my closest friends. Most of my apparent "irrationality" is easily explained by being Ni/Harmonizing subtype, and being an Enneagram sexual variant dominant and having a 7 fix both contribute to my impulsiveness, a trait not directly related to Socionics in any way, but often taken as an indicator of irrationality.

Sensory deprivation... sounds scary. I would either become a genius for 24 hours or go completely crazy, entirely depending on the shape of my soul that day. Whatever.

I don't see how it could be anything but exhilirating. It seems like such a challenge.

[strrrng]

Most of my apparent "irrationality" is easily explained by being Ni/Harmonizing subtype, and being an Enneagram sexual variant dominant and having a 7 fix both contribute to my impulsiveness, a trait not directly related to Socionics in any way, but often taken as an indicator of irrationality.

Since when are you Harmonizing subtype? Dictating and Normalizing both work better IMO.


And mentioning things that are unrelated to socionics irrationality yet could make you seem irrational, is rather redundant.

[JWC3]

My roommates where doing this sensory deprivation thing when I came home one day, apparently it was like being on drugs. I didn't get a chance to do it cause it took like 30minutes and I had friends over, being polite I let them go first.

[Gilly]

Well it's theoretically redundant, yes. But looking at typical behavioral manifestations, if impulsiveness is commonly correlated to irrationality, and yet typically impulsive sx variants can be rational types, then it means that my impulsiveness does not necessarily an indicator or result of irrationality. I didn't say it was entirely unrelated, because, well, it isn't, but it's also not a direct corollary; more of an indicator, one point for one side, which this explanation negates.

I've been reading the Wikisocion article on the subtypes and the different polarities, and I do think that Harmonizing makes the most sense. I'd say the two most obvious things are that I am both Distant and Initiating, and, well, that makes me Harmonizing. What makes you think Dictating or Normalizing?

My guess is that a Dictating EIE-Ni would be more like Jack Nicholson; I don't think I'm really gregarious or generally extroverted enough in any sense to be either D or C. I suppose I could be Normalizing, but I identify much more with Initiating than Terminating, and the overall picture of a Normalizing subtype doesn't really fit my bill.

Also, according to Gulenko, being a Harmonizing subtype could partly explain the minutia of my behavior which might be attributed to valuing Si:

— Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic (see: Asthenia) behavior. This is the primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort. — Strengthening function forms shut-off and self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is harmonization in terms of a secondary, spiritual-mental plan.
Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body.

[strrrng]

Well it's theoretically redundant, yes. But looking at typical behavioral manifestations, if impulsiveness is commonly correlated to irrationality, and yet typically impulsive sx variants can be rational types, then it means that my impulsiveness does not necessarily an indicator or result of irrationality. I didn't say it was entirely unrelated, because, well, it isn't.

Well yeah, you can write off some behavioral correlations. But that doesn't explain why you aren't a socionics irrational; it just prevents people from stereotyping you as one.

Nor does it really explain why rationality works better.

I've been reading the Wikisocion article on the subtypes and the different polarities, and I do think that Harmonizing makes the most sense. I'd say the two most obvious things are that I am both Distant and Initiating, and, well, that makes me Harmonizing. What makes you think Dictating or Normalizing?

It's sort of tricky, because it partly depends on the breakdown of the dichotomies and how they work with specific types. For example, D subtype makes more sense in the context of IEI, because it implies extroverted introtim; it would also make the most sense with ILE, simply because of the Fe focus. But with EIE, harmonizing subtype seems too... Ni emphasized. I don't see you as being that internally submerged, especially in polarizing contrast to an EJ temperament.

As for the dichotomies... if you're contact, then terminal works best, and ignoring doesn't make sense. Second thought makes harmonizing seem a bit more plausible than normalizing, only because distant+ignoring seems a bit too removed and immobile for you.

My guess is that a Dictating EIE-Ni would be more like Jack Nicholson; I don't think I'm really gregarious or generally extroverted enough in any sense to be either D or C. I suppose I could be Normalizing, but I identify much more with Initiating than Terminating, and the overall picture of a Normalizing subtype doesn't really fit my bill.

Makes sense. I can't think of a normalizing Ni-EIE off the top of my head.

[Gilly]

Well yeah, you can write off some behavioral correlations. But that doesn't explain why you aren't a socionics irrational; it just prevents people from stereotyping you as one.

Nor does it really explain why rationality works better.

I definitely agree; I'm just addressing my own misgivings and, by proxy, those I anticipate others having, about seeing me as rational.

If I were to explain what makes me actually think I AM rational, I would say that on a very deep, underlying psychological level, I assume that everything should have order, that everything should and does naturally operate in a particular manner. My natural assumption is that there is order in the world.

It's sort of tricky, because it partly depends on the breakdown of the dichotomies and how they work with specific types. For example, D subtype makes more sense in the context of IEI, because it implies extroverted introtim; it would also make the most sense with ILE, simply because of the Fe focus. But with EIE, harmonizing subtype seems too... Ni emphasized. I don't see you as being that internally submerged, especially in polarizing contrast to an EJ temperament.

Well, when I read the polarities, I immediately recognize that I am Distance>Contact; the characterization of the introverted extrovert makes the most sense for me. Despite engaging quite naturally, I rarely feel strong urges to maintain or initiate contact, while I quite often feel intense needs to maintain distance or isolation.

If I don't seem that "internally submerged," remember that you're an Ni-IEI but also, think of me in contrast to the Nicholsons, the David Bowies; I may not seem constantly lost in thought, but I'm not exactly super engaging (unless I'm in a certain mood, or really forcing it), and it's easy for me to drift off. Also I try not to be really inside myself when I'm around other people, I sort of intentionally ignore my internal state and focus on others', because submerging makes me intractably unsociable and more emotionally vulnerable.

Also I'm a 3.

As for the dichotomies... if you're contact, then terminal works best, and ignoring doesn't make sense. Second thought makes harmonizing seem a bit more plausible than normalizing, only because distant+ignoring seems a bit too removed and immobile for you.

See, I'm definitely not contact. Like I said, while it is natural for me to engage and be active on some level, I have very strong urges for isolation or inactivity at times, which seems to be pretty much the exact characterization of an "introverted extrovert."

Also, think about it: I don't really have that perkiness of Fe-IEIs, the little bursts and smatters of Fe; Fe is more a constant, heavier undertone for me, mostly colored by Ni but sometimes emphasized or taken to extremes to draw out Se.

Makes sense. I can't think of a normalizing Ni-EIE off the top of my head.

Maybe Paul Walker? He has a sort of flatness that is not entirely characteristic of EIEs, especially in his vocal expression, that could easily be attributed to emphasized Ji functions in an EIE.

[Gilly]

And see, this is another reason why ILE can't work: way too much Fe focus to be anything but D, and yet I'm just so obviously NOT that much of an extrovert by any definition.

[Gilly]

Steve Vai could be a H EIE.

[strrrng]

If I were to explain what makes me actually think I AM rational, I would say that on a very deep, underlying psychological level, I assume that everything should have order, that everything should and does naturally operate in a particular manner. My natural assumption is that there is order in the world.

This sounds too general to really interpret. I've heard both temperaments espouse opposite things about order and such. Plus, it's not like ideological dispositions bring about temperaments.

Well, when I read the polarities, I immediately recognize that I am Distance>Contact; the characterization of the introverted extrovert makes the most sense for me. Despite engaging quite naturally, I rarely feel strong urges to maintain or initiate contact, while I quite often feel intense needs to maintain distance or isolation.

Makes sense.

If I don't seem that "internally submerged," remember that you're an Ni-IEI but also, think of me in contrast to the Nicholsons, the David Bowies; I may not seem constantly lost in thought, but I'm not exactly super engaging (unless I'm in a certain mood, or really forcing it), and it's easy for me to drift off. Also I try not to be really inside myself when I'm around other people, I sort of intentionally ignore my internal state and focus on others', because submerging makes me intractably unsociable and more emotionally vulnerable.

Also I'm a 3.

Well, it's not like you don't have a removed, self-absorbed quality; I was just thinking more in terms of your psychological energy. I would say you're engaging by virtue of being observant and direct.

See, I'm definitely not contact. Like I said, while it is natural for me to engage and be active on some level, I have very strong urges for isolation or inactivity at times, which seems to be pretty much the exact characterization of an "introverted extrovert."

Also, think about it: I don't really have that perkiness of Fe-IEIs, the little bursts and smatters of Fe; Fe is more a constant, heavier undertone for me, mostly colored by Ni but sometimes emphasized or taken to extremes to draw out Se.

I agree that IP Fe usage makes little sense. What do you mean by it being "colored by Ni"? (I can generally gauge relation to Se).

Maybe Paul Walker? He has a sort of flatness that is not entirely characteristic of EIEs, especially in his vocal expression, that could easily be attributed to emphasized Ji functions in an EIE.

I considered it; he's probably some field subtype.

[Gilly]

This sounds too general to really interpret. I've heard both temperaments espouse opposite things about order and such. Plus, it's not like ideological dispositions bring about temperaments.

It's not an ideological disposition; it's an innate assumption.

Well, it's not like you don't have a removed, self-absorbed quality; I was just thinking more in terms of your psychological energy. I would say you're engaging by virtue of being observant and direct.

Ok. So when you say I don't seem "submerged," it's not an interactive quality you're talking about, but rather a persistent one.

I agree that IP Fe usage makes little sense. What do you mean by it being "colored by Ni"? (I can generally gauge relation to Se).

Well, I would say in my case that Ni tempers Fe, in contrast to an Fe-IEI's Fe accentuating Ni.

I considered it; he's probably some field subtype.

Yeah, definitely either N or H.

[strrrng]

It's not an ideological disposition; it's an innate assumption.

Well, I don't think my "innate assumption" is that there isn't order in the world; such things aren't neat abstractions.

Ok. So when you say I don't seem "submerged," it's not an interactive quality you're talking about, but rather a persistent one.

Mostly, yeah. It's not like you are especially submerged in interaction, even if a bit detached; but overall, your natural state doesn't seem to be that removed.

Well, I would say in my case that Ni tempers Fe, in contrast to an Fe-IEI's Fe accentuating Ni.

Ok, so how does Ni temper it?

[Gilly]

Well, I don't think my "innate assumption" is that there isn't order in the world; such things aren't neat abstractions.

Well it's not like it's *THE* innate assumption or something; just one of them. And of course the actual manifestation, the real internal "assumption," is much more nuanced than I could put into words. "There is order" is just the best way to couch it in Socionics-relevant terms.

Ok, so how does Ni temper it?

I don't have a precise methodological explanation for how Ni affects presentation of Fe; that's just how I think of it, tempering my perceptions, influencing what I think of as the proper tone or attitude. It's the backdrop for all of my Fe perceptions, the underlying tone that helps dictate the proper place of things; if I don't focus on it, there's no guidance for Fe, no particular focus. Otherwise I'd probably just be constantly trying to optimize interactions and recalculate my own state and I would turn into some frantic, solicitous asshole

I dunno, don't prod me for expansive descriptions right now; I already have isolated late-night nicotine withdrawal and Delta brainfog to combat -_-;

[strrrng]

And see, this is another reason why ILE can't work: way too much Fe focus to be anything but D, and yet I'm just so obviously NOT that much of an extrovert by any definition.

That's not a "reason" why it can't work; it's just a categorical justification. Normalizing subtype really isn't out of the question for you IMO.

I don't have a precise methodological explanation for how Ni affects presentation of Fe; that's just how I think of it, tempering my perceptions, influencing what I think of as the proper tone or attitude. It's the backdrop for all of my Fe perceptions, the underlying tone that helps dictate the proper place of things; if I don't focus on it, there's no guidance for Fe, no particular focus. Otherwise I'd probably just be constantly trying to optimize interactions and recalculate my own state and I would turn into some frantic, solicitous asshole

Ok, well I'd still be interested to hear how you see Ni working with Fe on a personal/psychological level; behavioral characterizations are limited, anyway.

[Gilly]

That's not a "reason" why it can't work; it's just a categorical justification.

That's not a categorical justification; it's simply the direct implications of my behavioral tendencies and how they are best explained by functional processes. I am simply not extroverted enough in any manner to be D ILE, and I couldn't possibly be any other subtype of ILE.

Normalizing subtype really isn't out of the question for you IMO.

Well I certainly don't see it. For one, there's nothing much IJ about me in general; there is a general emphasis on Ti insofar as it is my preferred logical and Ji function, and it generally governs the way in which I process information, but not such that it manifests in any sort of rigidity or any of the typical outward manifestations of IJ temperament, nor is my style of thinking naturally rigid, consistent, or even well-aligned If there's one temperament I know I'm NOT, it's IJ.

A Normalizing ILE would be MUCH different from me, much more naturally Ti focused, consistent, grounded, etc, like Jake or jxrtes. Harmonizing ILEs would be the Steves of the world. And a Normalizing EIE would obviously be much more overtly rational than I am.

Ok, well I'd still be interested to hear how you see Ni working with Fe on a personal/psychological level; behavioral characterizations are limited, anyway.

Those aren't behavioral categorizations; that IS how I see Ni working with Fe on a perceptual level. It's not categorical at all.

[strrrng]

That's not a categorical justification; it's simply the direct implications of my behavioral tendencies and how they are best explained by functional processes. I am simply not extroverted enough in any manner to be D ILE, and I couldn't possibly be any other subtype of ILE.

I really think you're miscalculating your extrovertedness and/or emotive expressiveness. Consider how a Ti-ILE D subtype would be. The natural field focus would make for a more introverted disposition, and the D coloring would add an enhanced sense of Fe to their expressions; and given that it's a super-id function for them, this focus would be consistent yet still sporadic, instead of some pervasive display.

N subtype for ILE would probably be too Ti-focused for you, but I have to think over the DCNH stuff before I can fully filter things out.

Either way, do you think you're maybe placing a bit too much emphasis on this model? I mean, all it really accounts for, are general behavioral tendencies that typically manifest in group settings. There's a lot more to a type than that, so simply writing off other, relevant things under this context is flawed.

Well I certainly don't see it. For one, there's nothing much IJ about me in general; there is a general emphasis on Ti insofar as it is my preferred logical and Ji function, and it generally governs the way in which I process information, but not such that it manifests in any sort of rigidity or any of the typical outward manifestations of IJ temperament, nor is my style of thinking naturally rigid, consistent, or even well-aligned If there's one temperament I know I'm NOT, it's IJ.

I agree that you don't display much IJ temperament tendencies. But there is a solidity to your general presence and attitude, and even if you're impulsive at times, you do always seem to maintain a personal anchorage of sorts. Why do you think I complement you?

Those aren't behavioral categorizations; that IS how I see Ni working with Fe on a perceptual level. It's not categorical at all.

I wasn't specifically saying that it was a behavioral categorization; I threw out that phrase in contrast to the comment about "personal/psychological manifestations" for the sake of clarity. And I don't see how you've explained the 'how' of Ni working with Fe for you?

[Gilly]

I really think you're miscalculating your extrovertedness and/or emotive expressiveness. Consider how a Ti-ILE D subtype would be. The natural field focus would make for a more introverted disposition, and the D coloring would add an enhanced sense of Fe to their expressions; and given that it's a super-id function for them, this focus would be consistent yet still sporadic, instead of some pervasive display.

But my Fe IS pervasive; it's just not overt. My behavioral manifestation of Fe is comparable to Paul Walker, I'd say; it is CERTAINLY nothing like Vero, a D ILE-Ti, or any other ILE I know.

N subtype for ILE would probably be too Ti-focused for you, but I have to think over the DCNH stuff before I can fully filter things out.

Especially N ILE-Ti. I'm telling you, that is NOT the solution to this problem; of that much I am sure.

Either way, do you think you're maybe placing a bit too much emphasis on this model? I mean, all it really accounts for, are general behavioral tendencies that typically manifest in group settings. There's a lot more to a type than that, so simply writing off other, relevant things under this context is flawed.

Well I don't think I'm an ILE in any manner; this is just overkill, really

I agree that you don't display much IJ temperament tendencies. But there is a solidity to your general presence and attitude, and even if you're impulsive at times, you do always seem to maintain a personal anchorage of sorts. Why do you think I complement you?

Yeah, I do know what you're talking about, but it's not in the manner of a Ti type; rather in the manner of someone with an 8w9 fix. Competency probably contributes, too. I'm cool-headed, but not level-headed; I can maintain composure and know how to act in my own best interest under any circumstances, but really I'm not grounded, mentally or physically Anything that makes me seem such is either learned behavior or the result of particular experiences.

I wasn't specifically saying that it was a behavioral categorization; I threw out that phrase in contrast to the comment about "personal/psychological manifestations" for the sake of clarity. And I don't see how you've explained the 'how' of Ni working with Fe for you?

Well, I explained how they work together; I guess I didn't elaborate much on how they exist independently.

Fe is my main focus: I am naturally in tune to the internal states of people, animals, sometimes even inanimate objects when they represent something that I can either identify with or properly place in terms of its relevence to me personally. People's dispositions are always obvious to me. I easily develop innate, subjective models of how other people behave, how they will act under certain conditions, what their priorities are, etc. I usually have strong first impressions of people, and although they evolve and become more nuanced as I learn more, the initial gauging is always factored in; I never forget what I really think of a person, even if it isn't my highest priority in dealing with them.

I am bent on having an influence on the people around me in some subjective manner, whether that be their opinion of me (an ever-present concern ), their stations or trends in their internal/mental life (my greatest use to other people), or even just their mood right then and there (I kind of fail when it comes to the Si realm of actively cheering people up, but I have been told that I have a comforting presence and have a way of bringing things into perspective for people). I HAVE to influence them, gauge their internal disposition, do SOMETHING to at least get a glimpse of how they tick; if I withold for any period of time, I have to make up for it, restore internal balance if you will, by doing something to impact them, to create a reaction. When I don't think I am having an impact on someone, especially someone close to me, I develop internal tension, and it usually winds up being channeled into conflict of some kind. I really CANNOT find myself around people for any period of time without trying to actively (but subtly) influence them, whether it be for the sake of ingratiation, testing their waters, drawing out the parts of them I haven't seen, or just sheer boredom and need to fuck with someone.

I make an excellent advisor; I can tell, just by talking to someone, even over the internet, just by gauging reaction times, word choice, general themes of conversation, abrupt changes, etc., how a person is thinking; obviously I can't read minds, but the general theme of what someone has on their mind emerges obviously and naturally to me during the course of conversation. I give good council, because I can tell how people really feel about an issue, can get them to admit their real disposition or thoughts on a matter, by placing them in the proper context and helping them understand how they are dealing with a situation.

Like I said, Ni is the backdrop for my application of Fe. I naturally interpret the things that affect me in terms of their relevance to my self-concept and subjective internal trends. This provides overarching thematic consistency for my interaction with the outside world; fortunately or unfortunately I can bend my internal landscape to my will, and will talk myself out of reservations or inclinations based on personal sentiment for the sake of advancement or promotion, but my own thematic concepts that form my basis for subjective interpretation of reality always underscore these attempts, and are in themselves the basis for any violation of another personal priority, and ultimately determine whether what I'm doing is "good" or "bad" for me at the time. This kind of self-violation is beautifully recursive, in a way; it's almost as though I am a traveling salesman or a trucker, who is always away from home, but only because desperately feels that he has to provide amply for his wife. Ni acts a sort of existential timeline for me, being the subjective sum and, occasionally, welling up of the conglomeration of influences on (words sort of failed me here but I'm doing my best) my inner life. Ni, in its purest subjective form, is a sort of inner sanctum that I wish to submerge myself into and simply exist in a world of clean fog, dark blues and the kind of sentimentality you get thinking about what it's going to be like when you die, the things you really loved or regretted about childhood, the true virtues and genuinely pure and appreciable aspects of loved ones, or the last few moments before a giant meteor hits the earth and blows us all to shit...but something in me will simply not allow this; I am not permitted such indulgence until I have proven myself.

[strrrng]

But my Fe IS pervasive; it's just not overt.

Hence how I said it wouldn't be a "pervasive display."

My behavioral manifestation of Fe is comparable to Paul Walker, I'd say; it is CERTAINLY nothing like Vero, a D ILE-Ti, or any other ILE I know.

Walker's energy is much more controlled than yours. He displays sporadic moments of mobility, but for the most part maintains a sense of detached concentration. It's not like I can't see some similarities – you both have a sense of refined composure and charisma – but you're much more fluid and present than he is IMO.

Well I don't think I'm an ILE in any manner; this is just overkill, really

You're the one who made the VI thread.


(…read the parts about Ni/Fe personal reflection, but didn't really think there was anything to add).

[Gilly]

Hence how I said it wouldn't be a "pervasive display."

The focus and emphasis are pervasive, just not the external display. This is true of plenty of EIEs, like Walker, or David Bowie (probably C EIE-Ni).

Walker's energy is much more controlled than yours. He displays sporadic moments of mobility, but for the most part maintains a sense of detached concentration. It's not like I can't see some similarities – you both have a sense of refined composure and charisma – but you're much more fluid and present than he is IMO.

He seems more anxious, a bit more brittle in speech and demeanor than me, but our Fe usage is still comparable. We're hardly the same person, but our general dispositions and methods of interaction are definitely very similar. I agree that, by comparison, I seem more irrational than he does, but we are still the same type.

You're the one who made the VI thread.

Because I'm curious about VI.

[strrrng]

He seems more anxious, a bit more brittle in speech and demeanor than me, but our Fe usage is still comparable. We're hardly the same person, but our general dispositions and methods of interaction are definitely very similar. I agree that, by comparison, I seem more irrational than he does, but we are still the same type.

Yeah, you do both come out at intervals and demonstrate a sort of smooth expressiveness; although, I would say that his seems a bit more consistent, whereas yours fluctuates more.

And I guess he's the new benchmark now?

Because I'm curious about VI.

Well then, embark.

[Park]

Steve Vai could be a H EIE.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

Yes.

[Gilly]

Yeah, you do both come out at intervals and demonstrate a sort of smooth expressiveness; although, I would say that his seems a bit more consistent, whereas yours fluctuates more.

Mmmm...I would say I have a greater range of expression than Walker, a bit more naturally dramatic than he is; he is highly composed, classic 3w4.

And I guess he's the new benchmark now?

Yes

Well then, embark.

Hunter S.



^almost looks like Em.

[strrrng]

Hunter S.





^almost looks like Em.

You VI like HST because you found a picture where he looks moderately wistful? Give me a break.

[Gilly]

Come on, you think I'm that shallow? Maybe you should LOOK at the expressions, and the qualities conveyed by the eyes, instead of just dismissing it. There's a similar lightness, a certain kind of vulnerability.

[Gilly]

I can't find a perfect shot to compare with, but this shot is relevant:

[strrrng]

Come on, you think I'm that shallow? Maybe you should LOOK at the expressions, and the qualities conveyed by the eyes, instead of just dismissing it. There's a similar lightness, a certain kind of vulnerability.

Yeah, I realize that you both look fairly vulnerable and wistful. I guess I've just seen enough pictures and interviews of HST to feel certain that you don't VI like him.





The "qualities conveyed in the eyes" are markedly different, independent of mood.

I can't find a perfect shot to compare with, but this shot is relevant: