Let's see if you can VI me

[Shagbag The Wizard]

So you're telling stereotypes to bite the dust and then come up with another stereotype to prove that you're not ILE?

Lol, 1982slater said I had to be a ILE because of the StreetFighter reference. I said that was a stereotype - in his mind, at least - assumption that all/only ILE's are into games. (I realise he was probably joking. :wink: )

anyhow, until you stop making posts like that, even if you are right about your type, your knowledge of socionics won't be enough to talk about it properly.

Hmm, fair enough, but then.......how much is 'enough' knowledge?

Also, how does anyone know how much "knowledge" I have to begin with?




In any case, as I've said, I'm here with an open mind to learn, not dictate, so if I'm wrong, if I'm not EII, by all means explain why and I promise I will listen.


I'm just confident of my type because everything I've read so far leads me to EII and nothing else. I think, as people here get to know me, they may gradually come to agree...



(Lol, why do I get the feeling almost everybody goes through this gruelling cross-examination when they join this forum )



PS - I simply do not match any of the IEE profiles I've read. I'm also definitely not irrational as far as the socionic description goes. To me, that seems like enough to rule out IEE.

But if not, I also have a couple of IEE colleagues (confirmed through testing and profiles) and the differences between us seem clearly evident to me.



(I realise there is no way for anyone here to confirm any of this, so you'll just have to continue studying my posts on the forum, lol)

[Shagbag The Wizard]

@Solidad: Thanks for the links, I'm looking into it!

[Shagbag The Wizard]

Ryu was always my default, comfortable choice.

It's funny, I always wanted to play with him myself.

[munenori2]

Supergay

[Shagbag The Wizard]

........I was pretty sloppy & vague with my statement ......

Lol. Solidad.

Stop and look at this post of yours.

Please take note the extraordinary lengths taken to apologise for the sloppiness of a previous post and attempt to defend its legitimacy in spite of poor / . (And I believe I'm quite guilty of the same. )

All of these ofc reflex actions swiftly taken to minimise our sense that we have somehow ethically violated the reader by possibly wasting their time and mental effort unnecessarily, and, even worse, that they might like us less as a result, which would be a further disaster to top it all off, lol.



Now if only people knew the pains we suffer in these cases.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

Anyway, I was actually defending your friend's self-typing as INFJ, despite other folks not seeing this.

Somehow, this endears you to me.

***LEVEL UP***


You may now join the vast ranks of my friend list, now soaring well into the twos.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

a socionics EII is not necessarily an MBTI INFP.

Not taking sides here, but I strongly agree with this.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

You're making a leap of reasoning in saying that type can be separated from behavior. In order to claim someone can "be one type but behave like another" you have to find other defining characteristics for type that are non-behavioral.

As I've mentioned previously, the difference between inherent nature & acquired persona, and their interactions with each other, is something we are attempting to explore here.

[Shagbag The Wizard]

Versus I'm SLE and I'm not a Dick (Which is very plausable and at the same time doesn't go along with SLE sterotypes)

Not merely plausible. I would say fairly well documented at this point.