True enough.Originally Posted by Mariella
True enough.
Sure ok understood, but I was saying I think the only people I can really understand getting offended are people that seeing it recreates a very vivid recollection of the holocaust they experienced.
Other people just seem like they are trying to enforce political correctness, in school our teachers used to get really upset about the holocaust and nazis and it was nailed into our brains with very little historical or psychologyical education from an early age. ****** = EVIL/SATAN ... Martin Luther King = GOOD/JESUS .... BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT ******S BUT ARE AFRICAN AMERICANS. We were turned into little humanist drones, and its not like I don't have a problem with humanism. I actually listened to martin luther kings speeches and they are very well articulated and inspiring, the man had a very firm grasp on some cosmic form of justice that inspired me.... but when I was in school I was taught this without being inspired, it was taught like a law, and I resented it. We were taught that nazis were bad by the same tools the nazis used to teach their teachings, propoganda, and etc..... It just annoys me and on more levels than communication. I feel guilty everytime I even graze closely to the topic of nazis, its like I immediately feel compelled to insert a disclaimer that ****** = satan and nazi germany = hell. Really I'd much rather adopt my own personal outlook on how I feel about the events, yet its such a sensitive issue, that its like, the slightest mistep and immediately your an evil person in there eyes.
Also it could be a sign of weak Fi, I really don't care about this, and I'll remain netural to this debate.
I agree about offensiveness. That's why I personally don't think "religious feelings" and such are valid reasons for censorship. It's very relative and people are overusing the argument to the point of causing others to dismiss it entirely.
I don't think political correctness is Fi, I referred more to not understanding this difference. Anyway people here seem to think it's not Fi-related, so that's it for this piece of speculation.
Removed at User Request
Yes, perfect
So knowing that Ne types are not tuned into these meta channels - what makes you think you are not missing something when it comes to typing? You are a perfect example of this illustration, and while it does not mean Ne people cant type, you in particular are an exemplar of typing gone wrong; and since you persist moreso than other Ne types here in typing people I would assume you would do more in an attempt to compensate for this. I personally had to learn what to disregard in peoples descriptions and what not to - to rely more on objective than subjective analysis.
Btw, this is seperate from my Fi PoLR point, you just have a whole mess of things to deal with here.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
I should quit picking on you this way, then. It actually fits nicely with communication problems we experienced.
Ne might go for most likely, except there are times when what it considers "most likely" doesn't happen to coincide with the intended meaning. And it does happen, especially when the person who writes is Ni-ego. That's why I find your previous post unfair - you're doing it (i.e. claiming something different was said) yourself at times. You've misinterpreted my posts in the past and I think the same might be happening with a few other people. This is a "don't get it" complain, by the way. Possibly I don't get your meaning, or rather look for something more than there is, too. Which doesn't work together well and we end up speaking past each other, in a way.
Another thing, have you heard of Lojban? I had an argument over the desirability of underlying meanings in language a while ago with a guy who I think is Delta NF. Do you find the concept interesting? I thought it was a Ti thing, but it could be devaluing Ni (and makes more sense in typing my friend).
Edit: I wrote at the same time as thePirate. Don't take my post as simply seconding him, but our interpretations of what's happening seem similar - i.e. that you might be taking what Ni types say too literally at times.
Yes, this is currently happening with me and seems to be a common criticism of Pinocchio. Perhaps it is the language barrier that is proving difficult for him? It makes it worse that Pinocchio is a stubborn individual to begin with.
The two don't mix well.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Removed at User Request
Our interpretations go hand in hand with type and as such can not be disregarded. This is a science that deals with people, people are a part of the proccess, and so their opinions matter whether you would like that to be the case or not. In terms of things not correlating, you have to work WITH the person in order to come to a conclusion - your comparisons to socionics are always these black and white analogies which fail to measure up; you dont even hold the subtypes as valid because of this. When working with people, things arent going to be black and white all the time. If something doesn correlate, you work with the person to figure out why that is - not draw your own conclusions out of a haystack ala pinocchio. You seem to have a decent grasp of the functions, the problem is that alone doesnt make you a good typer. Also, I specifically said that this was another problem seperate from your Fi PoLR because it is; there are 2 roots of 2 different problems I see so far.Thanks for acknowledging my understanding, at least.
Because types are a natural category, they don't depend on our interpretations and stuff, one has to look behind this relativism. What could one miss, an undercurrent of nature?
That is actually your problem, you're not relying on objective facts, but human subjective interpretation, I'm not saying that this is type-related, but it's just un-scientific. When someone comes and declares that he/she is a good person, that doesn't mean that he/she is, may be a thief but who consider that a good way of life, or simply lie. I listen to what people say, but I also compare this with the reality, observing them, when things don't correlate, that already tells a lot - eg Fi is a subjective function, where it matters how you see yourself, not how others see you.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
the Swastika has many meanings, but I put the nazi one here on purpose. This was intended as a kind of joke. somewhat acid joke, but nevertheless a joke. I also admire many things of nazism but never the killing of millions of 'sub-humans' and all this sort of sick thing... what I admire in nazism is that they stopped the communists from getting europe, they stopped jews from being the rich people in their own german land, they managed to create an enormous feeling of unity in germany, which was never very united, and is not that much united as I write. basically they made a drastic change in a whole country taking it from poverty to top three richest in the world in just 5 years. this has to be acknowledged. the discipline is also something I like.
the concept of Aryan is difficult to determine, but as the nazis understood it, aryans were all european peoples, and nordic aryans were considered to be the most intelligent, physically strong, so, the best ones, 'purer aryans'.
but I don´t totally agree. yes they tend to be strong and intelligent but there are many who fall far away from being either. so I do not uphold the nazi belief.
I do think nordic women are the most beautiful of all. but this is just my taste.
I was wondering I might be beta ST...I am definitely ST, either Delta or Beta.
I NEVER TALKED ABOUT BEATING ANY WOMAN, WHEN WILL THIS CRAZY MISCONCEPTION ABOUT MY STATEMENTS END?
YOU PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THE TERM 'HARD SEX' AS INVOLVING A GUY BEATING A WOMAN, I DO NOT. HARD SEX IS JUST HARD SEX, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A COWARD AND BEATING A WOMAN.
I´m wondering if this 'woman-beating' thing is related to americans. You may have lots of woman-beating men there. My uncle who´s american also assumed that I had beaten a girl, because she went to sleep with me in my hotel room and did not want to have sex, I tried to take her clothes off kissing her, then she punched me and I had to hold her and tell her to calm down, and we slept. next morning he and my aunt are in the hotel for breakfast and the girl goes for breakfast with a very furious expression and doesn´t say much. they conclude i had beaten her. can´t your minds function a little less on data you already have? it´s not my problem if americans beat their women. beating a woman is just very cowardly because the woman is weaker and does not have as much strength to react.
i would never slap the face of a woman, while i have been slapped by them. to me slapping a woman is just cowardly tyranny.
i think that as in the USA things are different, what I call hard sex is probably what you call normal sex or soft sex. hard sex in the USA most probably entails someone beating the other person.
Maritsa, 6w5 is an enneatype. It is 6 (vice FEAR) with a 5 wing.
the guy who said that may have thought so because you seem at types counterphobic, although I don´t see this much in you. you´re just proud and you like to pick people for arguments. this is connected with E2 as E2s generally have lots of fear, and often expect the worse from situations which are not very dangerous - similar to E5s in this regard.
but you seem very much E2. I don´t see you as a 6w5. You do like knowledge but your ways of expression are not of a 5. nevertheless, the guy was not totally wrong, there´s a small chance he might be right. but I see you as 2w1, really, or 2w3, anyway you use the 1 wing a lot.
1s can be mistaken for 6s... both are into arguing and fighting but the motivation is entirely different. 6s do that because they have to prove they´re brave, to themselves and others. 1s do that to set things right, as they see it, as they are obsessed with order.
if you want to know what is a classic 1 sx , it´s Clint Eastwood´s character in the movie 'Gran Torino'. that is a classical 1 sx/sp.
One could take sarcasm or mocking literally, and as these usually involve saying things one doesn't mean, it's simply misleading.Because types are a natural category, they don't depend on our interpretations and stuff, one has to look behind this relativism. What could one miss, an undercurrent of nature?
That is actually your problem, you're not relying on objective facts, but human subjective interpretation, I'm not saying that this is type-related, but it's just un-scientific. When someone comes and declares that he/she is a good person, that doesn't mean that he/she is, may be a thief but who consider that a good way of life, or simply lie. I listen to what people say, but I also compare this with the reality, observing them, when things don't correlate, that already tells a lot - eg Fi is a subjective function, where it matters how you see yourself, not how others see you.
Socionics isn't a behavioural theory. You need to interpret the behaviour. Just like words, if Ne goes with "most likely" meaning, you should keep in mind it could be wrong. Because you are, at times. And then you get an untrue "fact". You can derive anything from false, such are laws of logic. Crap input, crap output.
Even in court "jesting" is sometimes the acceptable explanation, for example of what would literally be considered a threat. That's because it's what happens, and ignoring it isn't going to change it.Finally you realized what the root of "my problem" is.
Let me tell you two things:
1. Anyone can say "you misunderstood". That means nothing, go tell that to the judge in the court. The conclusion is built on what was said and what happened, not on trust.
2. ILIs, because they are so relativistic people (both because Ni, Te and Irrationality) have the impression that people should think like that, or might accept that. Not all relay on this method, but that's the basic instinct.
So, when it comes to typing, all relativistic people should put that aside, real things are not relative, people who try to figure out what you're made of would not take anything you say for granted. I told several people, you included, that they misinterpret posts as well. The difference is that they "enrich" what someone else says, and choose to justify that by all sort of speculations.
The fact that you see things objectively literally means that you see them as objective, not that they are objective. One is not obliged to communicate in the way you think is superior on a public forum. Just because you think it's "objectively" better doesn't mean it is.
Yet you claim in (1) we should; in (2) you accuse ILIs of the same. Aren't you amusing.
Unless it was taken out of context (like an answer to "what kind of apples do you like" or something), it's just a retarded thing to say.Here's an example, you say "I like green". Later you say "I like blue". When someone claims that you actually like green, you say "no, I never said I like green as in color, but green as in apples". That's not an handicap of Ne/Si, neither an advantage of Ni/Se, it's simply the fact that Judicious types use mainly a perception of literal meaning (denotation) while Decisive use an extended one (connotations). So, the denotation is absolute, the connotations are relative and subjective, double meanings work in some situations (eg politics, advertising, literature) but don't in others (eg. law or science).
Now you'd be closer with "orange", but even then there's a plural form to differentiate. Keep trying.
When speaking of theory, yes.Considering that Socionics typing is a natural field, the inclination to use and "solve" double meanings is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. Types are inborn and absolute, the descriptions are not for interpretation, but imperative, for one to understand exactly what the author meant. I'm not intending to say that you're doomed, but because of this interpretative nature of symmetrical functions (Te, Fi, Se, Ni), Gammas have the worst inborn capability for analysis and - implicitly - typing. So I don't imply they can't analyze at all.
Noted Timeless's method? He was like playing poker - "I got all the four aces, here is certainly where I win". Well, consider Socionics like a card game where you have to figure out what the real aces are, where there is no convention and no interpretation.
When speaking of people, no.
What I said earlier about socionics - it isn't a behavioural theory, and you can't assign behaviours to types absolutely. If it was possible, testing would be trivial.
Yet you interpret the descriptions yourself, don't you? As you said, Ne goes with "most likely" meaning. Except, as I mentioned earlier, you might be wrong. At which point no logic will help you. What if you don't understand what the author meant? Are you going to claim infallibility?
I don't know what exactly you mean about Timeless's method, I recall what he wrote to warriar-librarian about descriptions not fitting people perfectly, but that's it. I disagreed with most of that discussion (i.e. both you and him), by the way.
Amusing you should have mentioned Tolkien and stuff. I'm interested in it as well, as are many Alphas (and other people) I know. Makes me thing of the beginning of "The Hobbit", too... meanings, indeed.Never heard of this before, looks interesting and definitely Ni devaluing. Deltas are always interested in fantastic things like Tolkien, Dunes, now Avatar, and so on, with other civilizations and languages. I don't know what exactly attract them to this, but this might be his primary motivation when he found the language, then adopted the philosophy?
It looks a bit Ti as well (eg. redundancy removal), on the other hand the lexicon seems chosen arbitrarily. I intended to create such thing several years ago, but it is very hard, it had to be something "fundamental", no word, letter or rule should be chosen arbitrarily but by some principles, then the whole language is a concept, a view of the world where you don't remember words, but compose the message by those principles, the different expressions of different people would actually show their understanding in the world, because of being non-standard, but also they are an opportunity of learning better understandings from others.
Does this language have also two terms for affirmation/negation? This is something that western languages miss, not sure about others, but our "yes" and "no" miss some facts:
- Do you like apples?
- Yes (I really like them and want)/Yes (I don't hate them)/No (I really hate them)/No (I don't necessarily hate them)
---
Btw, Aiss, do you think that expression "when a woman says 'no', it means 'maybe'" has a seed of truth in it?
I don't know details about the language, I never cared to learn it. I've heard it spoken of as "exactly as precise or as imprecise as you want it", so I suppose these problems are solved.
The question you ask is very imprecise. What qualifies as "seed of truth"? I suppose I'd go with "sometimes when a woman says 'no', it means 'maybe'". What did you expect? For example, if I don't want to insult a girl, I won't answer 'yes' when she asks if she looks fat, even though she maybe does.
I meant that since I wrote your name instead of Marie´s I should be thinking about you in some unconscious layer.
Removed at User Request
Do you have any other answer for when you run out of arguments? This one lost its flair a while ago.
I never used any of the words you mention, except "even" once, in a hardly speculative statement.
You can of course keep dismissing everything which doesn't fit your "I know better than thou" approach, suit yourself. Deluding oneself is everyone's right.
The example I gave was of a white lie. What aixel talked about was clearly a romantic situation.I asked the question because this is one thing Ni Irrational women accept, of course, not "always" - that means again a certainty for the others, so actually I agree with what you say. This is pure Ni Irrational and it's part of their Dual-seeking behavior - Se Irrationals don't let down until they don't touch their goals, while Ni Irrationals can accept that if convenient, this is one reason why Ni Irrationals can't enter conflict with Se ones, because they are never *against*, but neither easy prey - which Se despise.
Now the core of the problem - why doesn't the "ILI" called aixelsyd agree with this? She clearly stated that "no" is "no" and is bothered by people who try to force her even in the slightest. I would have asked this question to Airborne as well - a man and susceptible to be Se Irrational - but he seems to have a plan and doesn't want to answer my questions anymore.
I told you your question was very imprecise.
I do want to answer you, as far as you don´t put them in the middle of these very academical discussions about functions, which I just do not read - too much for my little mind and little time on Earth. Please whenever you address me and expect a response, put my name in bold, so I can detect by rolling my eyes down these long boring posts of you and Aiss and a couple others who seem to masturbate thinking "wow this Si pretty good right now", totally obsessed with socionics. Then I will notice that you´re actually talking to me. Otherwise as I do not read the boring posts about people discussing who´s right about very complicated socionics things, I will not notice if a questionto me is inserted in the middle of one of these without being in bold.
That having been said, I will re-read and see if I get what you asked.
Well... in fact I do not like these women whose 'no' means 'yes fuck me like hell', if that is what you mean. I find them ambiguous. I like things clear. This is why I think I´m an LSE really, not Beta, because although I like some roughness in sex, I don´t like this type of caveman behavior. I have settled very much for sure that I´m a CAREGIVER and I´m attracted to INFANTILES in the dichotomies. So although my sexual taste is a bit rough I am still a caregiver in relationships. I like to hug and watch a movie, even if I hate that movie, just for being there (I see some Si and Fe-valuing here). I love hugs (with women). I think a hug has a warmth of its own. Again this is Si in my view.
I´m quite sure I´m a Delta ST, not sure whether ESTJ or ISTP. I´m somewhat lazy so I could be ISTP. I also value Si a lot, and I seek Fi and Fe, probably Fi most if Fi is the function related to feeling a close connection to someone, like a very good friend I can really trust or a very nice girl whom I can love and feel her skin and her warmth when shes in bed with me.
I'm obsessed with things being right and you are right...
but I don't like to argue, it just finds itself to me and then I don't back out because I'm not chicken!
I love peaceful, calm, loving, emotionally calm, lot's of affection...arguing is not my fortai; I love to debate.
This place frustrates me because people don't debate a topic they pick on you and make assumptions that are completely unfounded and not true which prompts me to get them stait on things which looks like an argument, but it's just a strive to offer correct information.
Don't get upset at Mariella dear; she's wonderful and very sweet; she doesn't mean any harm by what she writes.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Considering the size of your posts, you'd have to be quite a strong Te sub type to be ISTp, even then... Extraverted Delta ST gets my vote.
Removed at User Request
Ah, ok, thanks. I like to be sure I've understood people correctly.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
LOL
interesting... I´m quite procrastinating. but somehow I find the idea of being Beta very annoying. Betas seem like unadjusted people, full of internal problems, too violent or too masochistic. But this is just my little impression. I think they tend to walk too much in group. I have a cousin who´s pretty much an ESTP, and while we have lots of similarities, I can see he gives much less attention to thinking than myself.Ok. Sorry about that.
A previous question was: Airborne: what do you think about when someone tells you "twins"?
It's not a rhetorical one, it's just I was curious what you would think about. One SLE friend of mine thinks about sex, saying that he never experienced but he'd like to. Sex with twins, of course.
This is not necessarily type-related, but tell things about your personality.
The way you talked in this thread reminded me of some SLE friends and anyway, not that I'm fixed on this, but I'm still considering it the most likely. I think what made you think for LSE is not really Caregiver-related. The caregiver is rather someone who cant figure out the physical or psychological problems of someone else, nurturing, things like this, not hugging and stuff.
Btw, LSEs are devaluing Fe, besides this I can't see an LSE wasting time on long hugging, but it's just my opinion, LSEs are like the "busy people", rarely one can find them stagnating. One more thing is that you said in the picture post that you like to lay in bed, that sounds SLE but not LSE again - SLEs are lazy and procrastinating, LSEs are always on the go with something - the bed is usually for sleep, neat from morning till the evening.
anyway, when I read the question, well I´m going to be honest. the first thing which came to my mind were two identical little Aryan twins smiling - I like children, not definitely in a sexual manner lol, but I like their being, they´re so happy and pure - and I imagined myself just smiling at them and thinking that this world is not lost at all. this might sound racist but it´s not. it´s just my obsession for white blonde people. so I imagined these little blonde twins, very small, holding the arms of their mother, and smiling to me, and when a child smiles at me, I get something very good, I feel something pure and nice, quite different from this world, is surviving here.
it reminded me nothing of sex. it reminded me much more of ****** when he smiled at little aryans and played with them. it´s kind of a love for what you really admire on Earth. something pure.
i´m going to read SLEs description again, but I´m in doubt. I think I tend more to ESTJ than ESTP.
this might sound racist but it´s not. it´s just my obsession for white blonde people.
I have a negative reaction to you, but I don't think it's type related. I don't know what type you are but I think you have some issues that are distracting from the whole typing thing.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Well I´m sorry to hear that Mariella. You are a nice person.
Anyway I was reading SLE descriptions and I have much of the traits. Yes I could be SLE too.
I will just not rush to know my type. Let life and events show me more clearly what type I really am. This is going to be nice.
I´m being very sincere here Mariella. Which is your type?
It reminded me of this short movie when I read 'twins'.
Removed at User Request
Prussian Blue are so nice. So beautiful, pure, innocent.@Airborne: That reminds me of "Prussian Blue".
This is another clue, read about the Beta values: you're too idealistic, SLE and LSE are on opposite pole considering this: SLEs are very idealistic, they are Sensory, of course, so don't think about daydreaming, but about beauty, the "perfect ..." - where this perfect can be about beauty, style, soncept, honor and things like that. Note that LSEs are the opposite, they are practical and find such things laughable and ridiculous.
Edit: btw, I'm not trying to touch your soft spot with ******, to attract you in Beta, or something
If what you write in the first paragraph is supported by socionics de facto, then I am SLE and not LSE, because I am idealistic in a sensory way, and too idealistic overall. You can imagine what lead me to get to know what could be called 'nazi' groups. Idealism. If this is laughable to an LSE, then it´s more probable that I´m SLE and my cousin whom I typed as SLE is LSE. I´m too idealistic in a sensory manner, you put it right. When I got my nose broken by that dickhead, I had gotten hypnotized by one nordic girl who was very tall (190cm or more) beautiful green bright eyes, soo fucking beautiful, and I went to compliment her and tell her she was very beautiful, she got a little shy but smiled a lot and gave me her phone number then I felt something hitting me, it was the dickhead´s hand, lol. Beauty can overcome me in such a way, and I mean physical beauty. I am very often hypnotized and overwhelmed by beauty, and it makes me happy a lot.
BTW, I know ****** was ENFP... my friend Sharrum told me, since he had also some interesting in nazism when we met.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Idealism in an SLE and LSE is different, in my opinion.
The way idealism manifests in LSE is the total perfection of whatever skill, art, or goal which they choose to pursue. Their idealism is centered more on the individual and it matters little where the LSE and others stand in the social hierarchy.
SLE idealism is different. I don't know how to say it without sounding bias, so I'll say it how I see it. Their idealism is focused more on becoming better than "the rest", to be grandeur, a symbol of greatness. It matters where the SLE and others stand in the social hierarchy (and they also happen to be very aware of it).
Both LSE and the SLE will pursue goals of honour, integrity and so on, but will have different reasons for doing so.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I am IEE.
When I read what you wrote about women and sex, it felt aggressive to me and made me feel uncomfortable. And I am not a prude or inexperienced. I'm 40, and I didn't get married till I was 28 so I was in plenty of relationships before that. I've never been sexually assaulted or anything so I'm not triggered or dealing with some emotional issue. I am not bothered by sexual talk in general. But the connection of sexuality and aggression makes me uncomfortable and I really think it's simply due to my Socionics type as an infantile type, and I wonder if I'm reacting to you being an aggressor. I'm not saying for sure, just something to consider.
Also, please don't listen to Maritsa too much. She has some issues of confusion in regard to Socionics. She'll be upset with me saying something but I am no going to sit and watch her bully everyone into saying you're the type she wants you be. ("Isn't it obvious to you he's ESTj?" she said to someone when it was perfectly clear and she had to have seen that no, it wasn't obvious at all to that person. That is a kind of bullying behavior that is not something generally seen in EIIs and might point to the source of her confusion.)
Anyway, I am not prepared to rule out LSE for you, but keep your mind open to various types until you kind of fall into one that feels right.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Removed at User Request
thanks Mariella , I sure wont. I know that Maritsa takes her own opinions as absolute unquestionable truth, so it´s kind of hard to trust much of what she says, although she has qualities.
she´s so blatantly 2w1... reminds me a lot of my mother. I´m quite used to their 'truths' and then these truths proving to be incorrect.
Pinnochio:
about ******, I´m sorry I confused myself. Sharrum said he was ENFJ, not ENFP.
the type who is able to infect others with emotion, uplift their spirits, like he did with Germany. a hypnotizing, occultist ability to raise audiences, to transmit and convince them and set them on fire. he was germany´s dual, germany´s ISTJ. this is even interesting when he was asked about marrying and he said: "I´ve already married. I married Germany."
as to SLE... you seem to know a lot and if LSEs really despise emotions to this point of finding poetry or something like that laughable, then I´m not LSE.
I´m also very aware of social status and where I stand, and where others stand, and I used to judge people based on their visible traits, like social status, race, gender, etc. But life taught me some lessons and I´m a little less prejudicial now. but again, LSEs can be elitist and stuff because of being Aristocratic too, so that´s something doubtful.
Okay, I must be speaking on a different level because I view perfectionism as a form of idealism.
Additionally, I disagree with your definition of "perfectionism". Perfection is not insisting that something is correct; perfection is being able to master something. An LSE that has prematurely assumed they have perfected something may insist that they are correct, but at that point, they feel they have reached their ideal (which is, essentially, where Ne comes in to correct this).
Also, there is a natural bias in your description. You seem to imply that something that is useful cannot be a product of passion and excitement, and any thing that is a product of passion and excitement must not be useful, which is completely false. You are introducing flawed (and vague) definitions and axioms, then using it as basis to build each type.
Consider this: it is beneficial for the LSE to act in a noble manner because it allows for the LSE to establish trust and ease with those around them and thus be more mobile within his social environment for the sake of productivity. It is not beneficial for SLE to be noble because with nobility comes responsibilities, responsibilities that inhibits their total freedom to pursue whatever ideal they please.
As I stated before, it depends on the person.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Airborne, both the LSE and SLE will appreciate poetry at the same level overall. I think it is generally intuitives that enjoy poetry, but that is not to say sensors do not.
I am currently reading some poetry myself, which I enjoy immensely. The poet, though, was introduced to me by an LSE.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Removed at User Request
Apologies for the misinterpretation. For the record, I didn't state that you meant perfectionism means to do something correctly. To me, you seem to be suggesting that perfection means to insist something is correct.
Thanks for clearing that up. If you go back to what you originally said, you did not insert the qualifier "some" or "something", and I assumed you did not intend to because you were using the original definitions to argue the LSE and SLE type. But I think it should be obvious to you that the (corrected) definitions above actually weakens your arguments and a new type of bias results in place of the old (inapplicable) one.
Okay, I see what you mean here and I can see how I have actually agreed with you. But we are dwelling on intentions here and this is even more convoluted than the current subject matter.
One thing I would like to pinpoint here is the clash between irrationality and rationality dichotomies. You interpret the SLE's reason (or maybe lack their of) to pursue nobility as more idealistic because it is devoid of any rationality, while the LSE, according to you, is less idealistic because of the rationality behind their pursuits. Slightly irrevelant, but I think it is interesting.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
