Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Do you actually think that Victims need a slap or two? If so, our opinions are irreconcilably different.Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Of course it was supposed to be the way you understand it, otherwise I would have not ask you.
Thanks for the answer, your understanding in the types and quadra values is ridiculous, FYI. Maybe it's the time to take a look on the Socionics theory and old threads about the matter.
Do you actually think that aixelsyd needs a slap or two on her ass to wake up to reality?
I don't mean self-characterization, but understanding the meaning rather than the words. I had a misunderstanding turned argument turned discussion some time ago with one of my friends. We ended up defining a word in our language, which is irrelevant to this discussion. After we settled that I used it meaning of "ridiculous" and he meaning "amusing" (a bit like "funny" could be in English, except everyone knows "funny" is ambiguous), we found out we were in agreement all the time. My point is that if you're going to assume everyone means what you'd mean if you said something like that, you're never going to understand different people. In this case, I understand machoism as I described. It has nothing to do with sociotype and everything to do with the way it's used in my environment.With this, you deny that one person can't be typed or characterized by a 3rd one. Wrong, the most accurate observation is when people manifest naturally, not asked for their self-characterization, moment they become subjective. What you say sounds rather like a confession for the priest.
The example you give here confirms what I said earlier - you consider one and only one meaning, probably that which is most obvious to you. Do you also think I haveI was actually anxious to address this: this is just a baseless statement with no evidence. What you declare is a simple bare assertion fallacy with the only purpose to win the round. You also said in my debate with Vero that you might actually might be an ILE.
The truth is somewhere out there.
Considering that you lack understanding in types and their relationship, your opinion is rather useless, but good to know what you understand, for future reference, unless you change your opinion meantime.
For the question, the short answer is that one can't type by good/bad relationships. People use to have friends or models in different quadras, your approach is gravely erroneous. Socionics correct typing is about analyzing someone's personality, NOT by his/her relationships. This is common-sense, I don't get where you got this funny ideas - the same thing I was disputing with Timeless and a few others. The relationships types predict how are each two types prone to interact, they are pretty accurate, but very little useful for typing.and
shaped buckets to play in sand?
I don't get where you got this funny idea that I was typing myself by how much I liked people here. "Relating to" and "understanding" doesn't mean the same as "liking" or "having good relations".
FYI my best friend is SEI. Don't jump to conclusions.
Even though I don't like machoism, as I understand it? Unbelievable.My opinion on your type has nothing to do with "them", I think you are an ILI.
Pinnochio, you have made a grave linguistic error
She said is usually not attracted to guys because of their MACHISMO, not because she considers them masochists.
Machismo n. A strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes
such as physical courage, virility, domination of women
I dont think this is at all inconsistent with being a victim, machismo has more to do with weak Se or misplaced Se, one using such function in an unskillful way. Victims dont want to be feel actual pain. The pain victims enjoy is pleasureable, always, and that requires a skillful use of Se to not let it go too far.
As far as her preference for gentle guys; this isnt dismissive evidence either. If you are comparing from the entire socion spectrum, then yes I can see this. However, couple this with her preference for 'rough play' which caregivers do not really provide - and her dislike for machismo - this leaves the aggressors. SEE may be the softest of the aggressors and are very feminine and gentle. They are a good example of what a girly guy is, and fits aixels preferences nicely, I would say.
Also the arrogance you attribute to her is trademark ILI attitude, surely you do not consider ENFp to be that way typically? I have yet to think of one person I know, including people here on the forum who are ENFp and exhibit this.
As far as her ethical evaluations go, I dont think they're radical in the slightest. I think you have interacted with ESI, compare thier and aixelsyds 'ethical evaluations' and you will see the two are quite incomparable. Also, scanning her history, her Ni preference is obvious.
Do you see the happy go lucky/goofy type of aura in her that you see with the other ILE and IEE?
I see not a trace
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
Removed at User Request
1. My apologies, I assumed you misinterpreted because of a difference in language, as I wasnt able to see where else you could have drawn that from since aixelsyd never explicitly stated that.
My next best guess is that you drew it from that bit about her being hurt emotionally and psychologically by males - however this would be a faulty conclusion on you part. I feel the same way towards women, but I dont consider them masochists at all as I am aware that its just the women I have dealt with in particular that have caused me trouble. Perhaps one could say that THEY were masochistic - which I personally dont - but even so this generalization would not stretch out towards the whole gender. Yes, she said most guys - meaning MOST GUYS THAT SHE HAS DEALT WITH. Of course she didnt mean most guys as a whole, thats something OBVIOUSLY not logical - and as you said yourself ILI are logical - why would one conclude something as erroneous as this? This is an implication YOU feel she made but one she has not specified to be her intent. That said, I am disinclined, much like herself, to deal with said gender BUT, again, I am not labeling them all as bad or crazy or masochistic because of this. Neither did she, at least nothing she posted indicated that. As such, there is no correlation to be drawn.
As a side note, do you know what kind of mentality this is?
Feeling fucked over or betrayed by people, like your the _________?
ILL GIVE YOU ONE MOTHERFUCKING HINT:
ITS NOT AN INFANTILE MENTALITY
...
Anyway, this is also not where you have made that distinction, my apologies again, as I can not see where you have drawn that inferrence.
2. You dont think uneccessary Se is weak Se?
This doesnt contradict theory at all, strong Se is about knowing HOW and WHEN volitional pressure is appropriate; machismo is the lack of this - such as an ILE attempting to use their role function.
Constrast this with the natural masculinity of an SLE or an LSI and the difference is quite apparent. Quite the difference, do you not agree?
3. Its not sudden at all, there was a thread prior involving some sort of sexual topic in which she posted almost the same thing verbatim. If you would like, I will pull it up for you later. As far as her Se devaluing goes, I am semi familiar with her posting history and have no recollection of any sort of thing standing out - would you care to pull up some posts?
I think what has happened is you have been misinterpreting or operating in a bias, for example take this:
"I should revise it as I very much dislike males and females who make moves on me without being up front about it and not getting to the point and not respecting my declination by pushing onwards when I have said 'no.' Those kind of people suck at life and should die."
You have used this as evidence against her being a victim, although it points to no such thing. Funny enough, you neglected the part where she mentions that she dislikes males/females who are not upfront about their moves - is this not Se related?
As far as pushing onwards after she says no goes, any type is capable of doing this. Her not liking it is not an example of Se devaluing, its not just about applying any sort of pressure - its by who, when, how, etc. All these intricacies MATTER, and basically saying they dont - which is what you ahve done - THAT is going against socionics. If what you propose is true, the intertype relationships dont matter at all and EVERYONE would be just as attracted to everyone because the degree and use of the function wouldnt matter.
Your suggestive function is one that you cant get enough of, but it must be done in the right way. For example:
What if someone kept offering you brownies and cookies, lets say, while you were attempting to accomplish an assignment. Well, although you would probably appreciate such a thing, this kind of behavior would become grating eventually, no? And if you did tend to indulge, it would eventually come to the point of deterring you from getting said thing done.
Part of maturity is about realizing that something that you may like very much may not be good for you in exccessive amounts. What makes our duals so great is that they regulate this kind of stuff adeptly, and naturally.
Anyway, this being said, she hasnt said that she doesnt like Se adept or forceful people, she has not been hysterical. She has said she is tired of being hurt/violated emotionally and psychologically - I dont see how you can correlate this with anything. If you had read her previous posts more in depth you would have noticed her taking issues with such types as delta; expressing Fi related trauma. This is the violation shes talking about.
4. I caught my 'contradiction', it was was more a lack of clarity in phrasing.
Hmm, how to explain this.
Well, pain is by definition an unleasureable sensation.
The thing about victims liking pain is that its not 'pain'. Pain to us would be boredom? or something along those lines. I only use that word because the actions traditionally in the aggressor-victim dynamic would fit under it from an outside view- casuing each other pain, look like it to others - but its not unpleasurable - and I wouldnt exactly call it pleasureable alone. Its a mix of both that creates something hard to describe.
You see this in cases where girls keep being drawn to abusive relationships even though its not good for them; unhealthy Se and Ni type relationships. There comes a point where you realize this isnt good; and it really doesnt take a genius thought or massive amount of brainpower to get there; and although these forceful unhealthy people may have an appeal to them - there is STILL something there repellant. It IS possible not to like your dual, you know. Perhaps you dont get this because your dual is SEI and in all respects it probably isnt in them to hurt a fly, but consider other peoples duals and you could see why this would vary. SLI-IEE for instance, is a common one around here with problems.
5. As far as arrogance goes, its just not a word - in its traditional manifestation - that I can see applying to IEE. But perhaps you see it differently, anyway she hasnt really struck down retribution. She says she wishes they would die - she didnt say she acted on that wish. Actually, this ALSO correlates with victims - wishing for volitional pressure to be exerted. I dont know ANY IEE that would wish death upon anyone - I dont want to question your typings of IEE but at the least it does make me suspicious of said persons typing - and there are certainly no IEE on here that fit that, now are there?
6.Lol, I wasnt assuming you were talking about ESI, I brought that out as an example. Okay, we can use IEE if you like. Even then, the ethical evaluations of IEE are really not comparable to what aixelsyd is saying, I dont think their much of anything to point at.
7. Yes, she jokes from time to time. Thats not her at her core, she confronts pain and has insight into her struggles and words phrases in a way I find hard to imagine an ILE doing as they are generally not that 'deep', not by Ni standards and certainly not in the way aixel has displayed here. Its not that they dont have the capacity to, but just prefer not to operate in that channel - which aixel HAS done so continuously, to a point where I would say thats her MAIN state.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Removed at User Request
I must say this thread has lost its cuddlyness.
yeah really, I want to show love through rational discussion and objective movements.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Removed at User Request
Well pinocchio, actually pirate's responses to you are a little more like mine when you retyped me as Fi. If anything he's ENFj. Se dominant types are not so easily provoked, but I wouldn't even say you "provoked" him. If you knew anything about people you'd understand what he's doing. He's trying to humiliate you, not destroy you. This is how Fe types deal with extraordinarily stubborn people. Yes. We humiliate you. And you lend yourself to humiliation.
The saddest ESFj
...
Pinnochio, your problem is that you assign motives where there are none, worse off, you're horrible at it. You are no psychologist, and realize that you have Fi PoLR right? I didnt want to say this before because I didnt want this to come off as a cheap shot or whatever, but THAT is what is contributing HIGHLY to your mistypings. You assume the worst behaviors in others and its making you a shitty typist, if you dont eliminate this from your formula, it is highly unlikely you will ever be able to type accurately. You understand functions, but as a typist, you are shit. There are, what, like 20 people you feel are typed wrong here? This is nothing less than ridiculous, you are somewhat of a male Maritsa in this aspect.
Look, SEE manipulate Fi in order to get Se gain. Correct?
Answer me this: What in the FUCK do I have to gain from a bunch of people on the internet thinking Im a certain type?
Now, Ive been trying to be fairly polite with you, so how about this. Instead of cursing at me why dont you:
A. Respond to my comments here
OR
B. Start a thread and make a case for my type
or, better yet, how about both?
As the correlations you are drawing here(using aggression for defense, attributing it to IXE) are misguided as a HANDFUL of different types do the very same thing you talk about
Last edited by thePirate; 05-02-2010 at 05:58 PM.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Also, if you disagree with that PoLR comment, and think Im just being a 'manipulative little bitch' I issue another challenge, put up a thread on it and ask the other forum members; well, that is unless your PoLR has diluted you enough to think EVERYONE here has bad intentions. If you explore this statement, you will find it an objective truth. No one gives a fuck about the internet OR YOU, to go to lengths to deceive someone about a 'type'. Come on man.
You are not that special.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Removed at User Request
Lots of truth there, thePirate.
This is also a very good point regarding Gamma quadra in general.
@Pinocchio - thePirate's definition of and opinion about "machismo" is basically the same as mine was. How is one consistent with being a Victim and the other isn't? Also, I mean no personal attack on you, but it's a fact you judge others by different norms than yourself. Not sure if and how this relates to Fi, but it's worth considering.
Removed at User Request
Pinocchio is exit.
Its not irrelevant at all, I feel it interferes with your typing proccess. You cant call me manipulative and then type me SEE, that assumes you know what my intentions are which I ASSURE you, you have no clue of.
Are you kidding me?
You naive fuck, it has EVERYTHING to do with typing. You use what you assume to be peoples intentions in your typing proccess, its INFLUENCING what you see and causing you to mistype.
Yes, this is true and of course I agree with this. However, this isnt Pinocchio thinking the world is round when everyone else thinks its flat. Considering that some of the people you mistyped arguably have at LEAST the grasp you do, if not better, insinuating that you know better than so many people; especially after having viewed some of those arguements is abit ridiculous to me. This considering that they usually have this element of you knowing the person better than they know themselves; you being the one knowing their motives while they remain oblivious. Usually when there is truth to these statements people will resonate and say 'whoa I never thought of that' not 'No, pinocchio, you are blatently wrong' this should clue you into thinking maybe theres something off. Unless it is possible that you are the most aware person in this whole forum which would be a completely different arguement all together
You literally used the word masochism in your posts, are you retarded? If you were not talking about it at all, then WHY is that word in your posts?
EXAGGERATED sense of domination is different from being NATURALLY that way. I thought you were talking about me calling aggressors domineering back when I thought I was delta, in this particular exchange you have to realize the difference between aggression that is exaggerated and aggression that isnt;
Are you missing these keywords purposely?
Of course I can't disagree with the fact that I'm Fi-PoLR, that's just irrelevant in our discussion, an ad-hominem to insinuate that my activity here is motivated by antisocial impulses and distract the attention from the real point. What else?
No, this is not what I said. You are so unaware of things its mind boggling. Look man, what I was saying was to make a thread asking if your Fi PoLR is interfering with your typing, you apparently do not see this:
(PoLR problems are usually not noticed, but you probably already knew that)
you do not agree with it, and probably wont take my word for it so make a thread and maybe some SEI can knock some sense into you.
also Im not saying this in regards to an arguement, it is INDEPENDENT of your criticism of aixelsyd; remember when you said you have no intention of discussing with me about the matter anymore? that was the end of that; also in case you forgot, this is my thread jackass, its not yours, its a thread you decided to hijack for your own purposes. If this discredits you, so be it, your points had no validity in the first place so there wasnt much to damage anyway.
also, again, you misinterpret motives. your arguement was done when you bowed out so quit bitching.
To feel secure? thats bullshit, and to say SEE only feel secure when they manipulate is an insult to their type. The only thing your making evidently clear is that you are operating under heavy bias, and you do not understand SEE. Yes, they are called the politician but do not twist that into meaning something it was not.
Make a thread on it, this is abit silly. Theres a grain of truth here, but not as much as you think there is IMO.
No, or at least I don't think so. They are simply manipulative. Indeed they use to make appeal to human values for that, but not exclusively. I have made a lot of observations on them, and would be a lot to talk about this. Actually should I say "them" or "you"?
What you consider bullshit, I consider valid points; and vice versa. However, I have given you the courtesy of responding to yours; if mine is such bullshit then it should be relatively easy to shut my points down and perhaps maybe some members will gain something from the exchange. If you argue exclusively on the grounds of what you see valuable, well, I dont think it takes a genius to see this is a pigheaded, narrow minded approach. This would only allow arguements to be on your terms instead of a mutual exchange which is what I prefer. Unless you see this as unreasonable?
You can easily put the context and the quotes in a new thread, I dont see the problem. If your arguement is a strong one there shouldnt be alot of evidence needed. unfortunately for you, yours isnt. Plus you already did this with the 'pirate get in here' thread or w/e, or attempted to anyway
Im going to save this for another thread, this one has already been hijacked twice.
Yes, but this doesnt stop them from doing it.
I dont give a fuck enough to deceive, fighting or defending is something different.
lol ok
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Removed at User Request
The fact that you think so is precisely Fi-PoLR problem. In your comparison to animals, you fail to realize you're one of them.
Removed at User Request
Jesus christ
Removed at User Request
Memories of the smell of formaldehyde...
I think I'll go back to the Delta Lounge. It's peaceful there.
Yes, its hilarious that he doesnt see it.
Pinocchio, you are giving a great example of how unaware one can be of the PoLR, unfortunately once you come to understand this you will realize how much of a fool you have been.
My point is, with an Fi PoLR, you shouldnt even be doing that. You should not use thinking Im being manipulative as 'back up' or reinforcement for anything; this is a weakness of yours. You were on the right track when you were accepting I wasnt SEE, but because of this, you have come back to the same wrong conclusion. Also, this behavior that you see as SEE is non existant. You see what you want to see, you are chasing phantoms.
LMAO
No pinocchio, you are a testament to how off Fi PoLR can make you when it comes to typing. Other people have biases too that affect them, this is your beast. You can not type based off Ti alone, you NEED a mix of both the persons subjective evaluations and your own objective knowledge of the system. People do things for different reasons, the SAME action from someone can make them Se valuing or Si valuing depending on the reason for that person doing it. You, alone, cannot objectively determine what this reason is - it takes some help from that persons subjective reasoning. You do not think that a persons intentions matter or thoughts on the subject matter? On the contrary it clues you into MANY aspects, ones that are essential in putting the pieces together. Of course, what Im doing here is attempting to convince you that your PoLR has merit - probably isnt going to happen but I have to put it out there, regardless.
No, I didnt.
Now let me tell you what you actually intended to suggest: that I'm too distrustful and suspicious, but that's cause by Ne, obviously. Nevertheless, "Fi-PoLR" sounds trendy, touchy
I already told you that you are horrible with this, why do you persist?
Distrust and suspicion is not caused by Ne, not the kind that you have thrown out in this thread - you have accused people of deception, of trying to 'pull one over on you' - this is related to Fi. Worse, you factor this into your typing. I feel like Im just repeating myself, why dont you think about this for a second before replying?
"Habit to overstate its own abilities "
This is also in the stratievskaya profiles - under Fi PoLR - and something that you should become aware of - the members here find this as obvious but you remain oblivious. Think about this too.
When you tell someone something about what their behavior means and they tell you something blatently different, yet you stubbornly persist, this is EXACTLY what you are doing. You and maritsa are in the same boat.
Gee, I remind you of crazed, WHO TYPES AS IEI.
What a fucking surprise, yes its typed related you little douchecookie.
We are the same type.
Because socionics is about cognitive proccesses, not behavior. I cant believe I have to tell you this, I really thought you knew better. This is actually the exact same shit I had to tell Maritsa. Your example is faulty, you do not have the objective knowledge to say a certain action is related to a cognitive proccess because you dont know that particular persons proccess -its not as black and white as looking at someone, seeing how they act, and giving them a type. As this is yoru approach, I suggest an MBTI forum.
LOL, oh PLEASE do not pull this bullshit on me as you YOURSELF have said "I TRUST THE PIRATE'S REASONING", it wasnt 'too subjective' when I didnt voice disagreement with you. I can tell whose better at typing by who I personally feel arrives to someones type accurately.
Bottom line: You are assuming things about people that arent true and it is interfering with your proccess, so yes there is bias. Socionics has a HUMAN element to it, you are studying HUMANS, there isnt just RAW DATA to consider as the humans are a part of the puzzle - so guess what? YES, you have to consider their opinions.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post645132
take your smugness and shove it bitch
What it has to do with the original issue is that HER NOT LIKING MACHOISM is not related to her NOT LIKING Se or 'being hysterical at Se types' because it is a MANIFESTATION OF WEAK Se. Your logic was flawed, thats how it correlated. It really doesnt matter if you can comprehend that men are like that now does it? Thats her opinion and as a VICTIM shes more tuned into this then you are jackass.
You mean Fi PoLR?
LMAO, this is such complete and utter bull, where the hell are these Fi PoLR god typers you speak of? this is a bullshit theory with no evidence to back it up.
1. That was in reference to you saying it was ad hominem
2. You can do whatever you want :/
3. Exit - No when you said you didnt want to discuss the aixelsyd matter with me anymore - Thats what I meant.
Well, IMO, saying that they need to manipulate to feel secure was pretty dramatic.
1. If I were to skip over your fallacies, there would be no arguement here in the first place - I probably wouldnt address you when you type people at all. I have done so in an attempt to make you and others who are making the same mistake aware of biases that are operating behind the scenes. You can do whatever you want, but to me, that just amounts to having a weak arguement.
2. My plans were to have some fun at your expense, so no, not quite.
3. What? I dont get how you got this from that; you are still making faulty evaluations - so Im calling this out to you so you can be aware of it and re-evalute your methods to find some way of becoming more reliable/consistent.
4. Im going to make this as clear as possible:
I dont give a fuck about YOU, pinnochio, some internet 30 year old from who knows where, enough to attempt to 'cyber deceive' you in any way shape or form - What I do care about is getting this theory right and having as many people as possible typed correctly. So yes, when you come out with bull like this, defending is worthwhile to me.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
I'm curious Pinocchio, how many female ILIs do you know? How many do you know well, outside your work environment - female ILI's you know close enough to discuss personal matters with? And, of the ILI's you know quite personally, how many are North American by chance?
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
