hmmmm....well, you certainly aren't responsive toOriginally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
suggestive :wink:
if you are IEI, you are probablysubtype, because most of the Fe-IEIs I have met are aggressively nasty and often annoying (that is, if you don't act like they are a gift from god)
"Understanding socionics" right now, is somewhat akin to understanding literature, because, at least on this forum, there is no standardized body of knowledge comprising "socionics". I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but... perhaps people could focus more on finding out where the disagreements lie in differing conceptions of the theory and less on whining about their existence, in the form of "no one on this forum/thread/topic/board/whatever understands socionics! Blah blah blah."[/soapbox]
Anyway, I've tried on five separate occasions to compose my (further) thoughts on why Bulletsanddoves is IEI > SEI, and honestly, it feels so obvious that I can't quite explain myself well, perhaps because when I first came to this board, I identified so much with some aspects of what BnD said (or at least, they fit well into my emerging system/conception of socionics) that his forum personality is part of what I consciously/subconsciously built into the definition of IEI that I have in my head, in which case, perhaps I really am blind to the more logical idea that he is SEI.
But it seems to me that BnD's posts on the forum, in general, are almost entirely focused on theoretical (abstract, intangible) thoughts and information. This is more in keeping with Ni than Si, in my view.
Si-external dynamics of fields. I interpret this as "how tangible relationships change." Si is concerned with information about how a sense perception (which is the relationship between subject and object) changes based on various stimuli. Maximizing this relationship, in theory, produces comfort, an internal sense of positive sensory stimulation. I don't see any focus on comfort in BnD's writing, and especially not comfort as harmony-in-sensation. It seems to me that he is more focused on individuals improving their lives, and more than anything, the relationship between (mental) perception and reality, as in this thread.
Ni-internal dynamic of fields. I interpret this as "how intangible relationships change." That thread I linked above is a perfect example of information about how intangible relationships change. It's all about how different mental stimuli (beliefs, etc.) affect the relationship between the abstract entity known as "reality" and individuals. Something like "applying meaning to something" is perfectly in keeping with Ni-style thinking (not that other types can't learn to think that way, but it comes most naturally to Ni-egos). Concern with intangible relationship dynamics is a much better predictor of Ni > Si than context in the form of definition of terms. Don't the Russian socionics people often refer to the IEI as the Lyrist? If that connection is at all accurate, it's useful to mention that poets almost never define their terms, and often the context remains (as it presumably does for BnD) a web of associations between ideas and observations in their heads.
BnD often follows up this sort of argument about intangible relationships with something about how one should act, but it's about how to get results/accomplish goals in "real life," i.e., Se.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
There is actually a huge focus on tangible percepts and bodily sensations in there that is completely lacking in anything BnD writes.
Last edited by krieger; 01-02-2010 at 04:57 PM.
These things have a way of changing over time. The first time someone's established typing is challenged, people always stick with the current general consensus. Six months later, however...
I didn't feel comfortable expanding on or explaining my original thoughts for why Sam is INFp because I feel I'll be attacked or belittled for it. For example the other night on stickam I was trying to explain a thought and crazed and strrrng subtly emotionally attacked me for what they thought was poor or redundant word choice, and proceeded to have an exclusive little intellectual session.
It's that kind of thing that I've been seeing as a trend here lately, and so I think the frustration from that kind of bled into what was supposed to be my original thoughts about Sam, and became an attack on crazedrat's motivations. I tended to think afterwards that I leaned too much on the side of rude, and for that I apologize to you, crazedrat, because I think being so acidic about your brother was low spirited and mean. But oftentimes I feel frustrated because I don't see much of an alternative for introducing opinions that are differing from a certain format someone like crazed has in mind, ie, he's defining his understanding of Si as external fields, etc. It's kind of like the "If you are talking on my terms, then we can talk" sort of thing. Well what if it's different or at first you don't understand it? Do you belittle people as default, like a knee jerk reaction? The nature of a type poll or "tell me your thoughts on this" usually implies a desire to amass lots of opinions or points of view, not simply bolster the one of the poll starter. But I feel here it's become a bit of an echo chamber for a few.
I understand why starting with the same terms makes sense because otherwise people are speaking past each other, but I don't see a lot of room to rectify errors in understanding by explaining one's own terms or point of view, if they differ significantly from the prevailing intellectual battle hungry mofo (and/or subtle derision) of the moment. I see kind of a pervasive trend here as of now of people constantly feeling uncomfortable sharing their opinions because the instant reaction is to tear them down both emotionally and intellectually like it was a scene from Fight Club. Or I have seen in crazed's case, to go very terse and annoyed and then spout variations of "idiot/s". The alternative if you don't agree with them in a way that they accept is to emotionally/intellectually submit to them, or get "in" with them so you're somewhat safe from attacks, and I see a lot of excuses/double standards being held in this way.
I don't like that the options for response are so few. You either have to take what they throw at you like a rock or you have to completely own them, stomp on them, and throw them in the gutter before they have respect or even neutrality about your opinions/arguments. Or it's just stuff like moderation on a whim, discarding/accepting ideas on a whim, like a me/you/we're all against the world sort of mentality, like we're in some sort of battlezone, like this is a minefield. I know that in the past I have engaged in such behavior and encouraged it, and that the forum has become my outlet for personal problems, but I'm trying to fix and regulate that so it isn't a problem, and I don't think it should simply be siphoned onto the nearest person as something they're forced to deal with. I don't wish to stifle anyone's ideas/style but I think there should be room to let others live without being ravaged 24/7. You shouldn't have to become some sort of online babysitter/bondage initiator to be able to volunteer your ideas peacefully or at least neutrally on a type forum, or to have them carry weight. What frustrates me is that there isn't really any good way to approach this, that absolutely every angle will be attacked or dismissed and if that doesn't work, your value as a person and to humanity as well.
And fwiw, I don't think this is a conflict between the epic saga of Ni vs Ne or something, because I see a lot of types that don't engage in that, respectively, and I don't think it's a reason to reconsider their type. I don't think that was crazed's original thought about Sam's type, fwiw. But I feel often that the primary vibe of his argument/s is "this is how things are, I am absolutely right, deal with it or fight me" instead of attempting to explain in greater detail or allowing for a different opinion without saying "Go fuck yourself" or snapping at eachother like rabid dogs.
I think that reflecting upon it later, in general this is one of the things Expat got right when he did that mass banning. It's unfortunate in my mind that some people only really respect a forceful display of aristocratic power or something. I feel that perhaps there were differing situations according to the people who were banned, but that the action did indeed set a baseline standard for behavior, and it worked even more because Expat refused to negotiate, instead putting the brunt of his decision on his subjective moral judgment of people. I feel that this approach is probably too harsh for people of a more naturally democratic mindset, but is a good move for others who are not willing to engage in such a thing. I have sometimes felt this is a bit of a trend according to some Socionics aristocratic interplay, because although the opposing aristocratic quadras seem to not always understand/appreciate where the other is coming from, they both seem to often gain mutual respect for each other in the matter of purely aristocratic enforcements of power.
I don't think this is always the case when dealing with aristocracy vs democracy on a Socionics level, though, because I could see anyone who was opportunistic and had little consideration of others taking advantage of the type of leadership the forum we have at the moment. At this point I don't feel there would be much of a difference if one simply removed moderation, except that it would be less upsetting perhaps to have the thread of random whims of the moderators being acted upon by actions of power.
But anyway, I talked to Sam last night and tried to elaborate on my view of the language thing as explained in my other post, and he understood me, and so I thought I would tell him perhaps it would be nice to post the conversation or a summary of it to see what people think, because I don't always feel confident that other people see the same things that I see. But it would be nice not to have the looming threat of ridicule/dismissal, because to me a forum is something of a leveling ground according to ideas. I already get ridiculed/dismissed/overlooked a lot in real life because of various circumstances, and if the forum simply becomes a repeat of that I don't really see a point in posting here anymore.
C-EIE or something.
okay dolphin, i will try to allow opinions which i think are dumb to grow and then die out on their own. maybe there is some value in that.. (it allows the dumby to learn, maybe?) I will think more about this. Anyway, this forum does need some more love. maybe we should have a love czar initiated
I think you need to be more realistic, and ponder the effect the words "dumb" and "smart" have on your survival. For example, I thought that it was one of your goals to get people to do what you want? You might be marginally more successful with that if you pretend you understand them and their pond scum ways.
Also, I tend to believe we sacrifice a part of innocence when we become "not dumb". Basically, I think you should appreciate your dual more.
There is a fine line between attacking "wrong-headed" opinions and being so dogmatic that you damage the very enterprise you're attempting to preserve. It's even worse if behind that dogmatism there lies a conceit about your own abilities and an open, mocking contempt for those of others. Hubris, as you know, is a tragic flaw.
This is especially true in subjective, not-as-yet scientific disciplines where it's necessary to fully acknowledge alternate possibilities, even indulge in the notion that you may be wrong about everything.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of hubris among most of the self-imposed elite in the western socionics community, which is the predominant reason that forums have become less instructive as pedagogical instruments and better characterized as soundingboards for whichever respective authority happens to hold the reigns of power, by connexion with which we have been noticing a decline in posters and the overall quality of ideas.
And I agree with this:
You know, I don't really have a problem with IEI for him. It's possible that he just needs to hang out with happy Betas more irl.
lolhmmmm....well, you certainly aren't responsive to
Every night before bed I say a little prayer to dolphin and jxrtes amen.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
yes, as crazedrat does continuously.
Dolphin that was a gold post, and one of my main problems with this place, people are attacked so much the quality of discussion has gone down severely. I dont blame you for reacting to crazed/strrrng the way you did, their two huge trolls around here that attack people for frivilous reasons. If you dont agree with someone I dont see why you have to bash them or call them idiots either.Its superfluous and damaging, if you want to vent your frustrations I suggest it be done elsewhere where there is less to be gained from serious discussion.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
1: you are a huge troll
2: stating your opinion is different than quoting and responding to someone, and misrepresenting them
3: if you dont want me to bite your head off, from now on, don't quote and respond to me, don't misrepresent me.
hypocrite.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
If you honestly think crazed and I attack people for "frivolous reasons" or simply get off on undermining opinions, you might want to look a little closer.
For one, "I was just stating my opinion" seems to be the comfy recourse for people who can't stand behind their positions, but that's another issue.
I don't collude with crazed; we do not hawk out targets and attack. Stupidity is a naturally emergent and entertaining phenomenon, and to anyone who makes an effort to think things through, people who don't are pretty easy to spot. This means that being attacked for no apparent reason translates as being determined as someone whose opinion/stance is weak and being treated accordingly.
Regardless, I get nothing from simply repudiating opinions. If I sense a potential flaw, I will go at it directly, for the sake of clarity; some people find this style too aggressive, I don't. And if someone is talking in circles, what is the point of allowing them to continue? It will just inflate into a blob of inconsequential intellectual masturbation and irritate the people who care about real understanding.
4w3-5w6-8w7
strrrng
you can just ignore it, you dont have to bash them for it, it has a worse impact being that your a moderator in position of power; what message do you think it sends members when the staff actively attack other members?
"Stupidity is a naturally emergent and entertaining phenomenon, and to anyone who makes an effort to think things through, people who don't are pretty easy to spot"
people who post things you think are stupid, others may get value from, & you attacking that person may deter them from posting information, its obvious you fail to see that
theres also a difference between breaking down people and arguements, if you care about real understanding, it would be wise to stop indirectly discouraging it.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Believe me, I ignore it a good deal. The only times I bother, are when something pertains to an idea that I have an investment in discussing. Frankly, I see the implicit message sent to ~reason~ by people who whimsically proffer opinions like daisies from spring gardens for the transient smell, to be much more significant than any personal sense of disrespect I might incur by attacking them. Why would such a type of person deserve to be respected? Don't speak until your thoughts make sense; this is why I get along with crazed.
Also, I don't attack people because I'm a mod, nor would I claim to be exempt from rules for said reason (if anything, I simply know my place in the aristocracy), so drop that argument.
Fair enough. All I will say in defense of this, is that I do make a genuine attempt to rationally understand peoples' ideas before simply attacking them. I view my effort as a sign of good faith, and any consequent attacks as indicators of frustration at humanity's disrespect toward ideas (being biting toward specific individuals implies their already having been written off)."Stupidity is a naturally emergent and entertaining phenomenon, and to anyone who makes an effort to think things through, people who don't are pretty easy to spot"
people who post things you think are stupid, others may get value from, & you attacking that person may deter them from posting information, its obvious you fail to see that
Eh, whatever. There's a reason why certain people get along, and certain ones don't. It makes more sense to me to remain unfiltered, so that connections are genuine; catering to people is not worth anything, even if it feels more harmonious.theres also a difference between breaking down people and arguements, if you care about real understanding, it would be wise to stop indirectly discouraging it.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Stereotypical NF.
I don't like that word, stereotypical. If things have a common occurrence, they are merely typical. What's 'stereo' about it? And stereotypes are only things that are generally true. Sure, you can find exceptions to the rule and point them out to try and prove how 'smart' you are, like academia types tend to do. But it isn't so complicated. If it walks like a duck....
You know what I was getting at.
Last edited by Trevor; 01-10-2010 at 05:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
