Ask Me Stuff?

[silverchris9]

So, as of tomorrow at 7pm, I will be done with my freshman year of college. As such, I will suddenly go from being a chicken madly running around with my head cut off to a placid lake of stillness and boredom. So, I need something to occupy my time. And, as I find that I understand things 400x better when I'm forced to reason them out, I would absolutely love it if people would ask me questions about socionics. Anything, type opinions, celebrity typings, what I think about the functions, I don't care. I'm up for wading through ten-minute interviews or ten-page rambling monologues about your life, whatever. I'll blather for a page-and-a-half about why I think Michael Jackson is IEI and Barack Obama is a Beta NF. I don't care. I just want something to do. And, since my fifteen minute internet study break is currently going on its seventeenth eighteenth minute, I will now end this post. Questions hugely appreciated. Also, I have a whole years worth of typings and interpersonal interactions, so I probably have at least one example I know fairly closely of most intertype relations. Obviously you have to take my word for it that these people are typed correctly (hint: I have a bias towards typing people IEE--either that or I just know a lot of IEEs), but hopefully my observations will be a little relevant? Anyway, okay. I'm really going to shut up now and get back to Oscar Wilde (btw, his poetry SUCKS, no matter how amazing Earnest is). Thanks!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

Awesome! So what makes you think Levin is ExI? What type do you think Kitty is? Also, if you'd read Northanger Abbey (Austen), what types do you think Catherine and Henry are? And have you read Mansfield Park?

[Mattie]

Here's something that's been on my mind that could use a little discourse. Recently, with some discussions here and there, I find that I could view Socionics-related issues in different lights between two distinctions: The IEs can be observed separately within a type from one another in their functions (i.e. leading + creative + role, etc. = NeFi) or are viewed in blocks, which the IEs in each block are integrated and don't have a distinguishable separation (i.e. -ego + -superego, etc = NeFi). One could also make the argument of all the blocks being indistinguishable from one another as well, meaning you can't necessarily pinpoint one IE within the mix without making note of the influence and context of all the other IEs in their positions. So far, I think of all of these and wonder if these are steps to be observed, or if there is only one of these ways that is the most affective.

I think observing the difference of these perspectives makes a difference because of how some typing goes on here, for example, I think some people type just looking for IEs and then place each in functions after they have identified them in a person. Like how someone can say they think someone is a "Detla NF," the only way you can say this is if you only observed the IEs separate from functions, or else the same person would have said "-creative," which would be NeFi vs FiNe against NeFi vs SeFi, and depending on which above perspective you prescribe to, FiNe or SeFi would be a closer typing to NeFi.

This would also decide if you can really talk about the IEs and how they relate to others separate from the type and still actually be relatable. So when we talk about , are we talking about the that is removed from types and therefore exists the same way in all types, or, are we talking about that is specific to each type. And when that's not made clear, is that when confusion/disagreement occurs?

I'll stop there to see if this catches your interest, it was something that popped into my head, and since you're asking for discourse, well, here you go

[silverchris9]

So, college still owns my soul for another seven hours, but right now, I don't care.

Awesome! So what makes you think Levin is ExI? What type do you think Kitty is? Also, if you'd read Northanger Abbey (Austen), what types do you think Catherine and Henry are? And have you read Mansfield Park?

I think Levin is ExI (and honestly, I'm pretty settled on ESI--I'd consider LSI before I'd consider EII), because of the conversation that he has with his half-brother wherein the half-brother keeps using logical arguments and Levin just sort of feels trapped. It seemed very much like a weak-Ti thing. Also, I consider him to be a clear Te-dualseeker. The passage where he loses himself in mindless work when he cuts the yard with the muzhiks is textbook Te-dualseeking. I'm repulsed by mindless work like that. But Te-DS people find that just as refreshing and enjoyable and mind-cleansing as I find riding the wave of Se. Doing boring practical stuff like that energizes them and is healing to them, just as it is to Levin.

In the discussions that arose between the brothers on their views of the peasantry, Sergey Ivanovitch always got the better of his brother, precisely because Sergey Ivanovitch had definite ideas about the peasant--his character, his qualities, and his tastes. Konstantin Levin had no definite and unalterable idea on the subject, and so in their arguments Konstantin was readily convicted of contradicting himself.

(from Part 3, Chapter 1)

Exposing contradictions in others' arguments (and using that to prove that you've "won") is close to the essence of Ti argumentation. Levin, being an Fi-valuer, has more subjective, and therefore less rigid, ideas about "how things should be done" (the general realm of introverted judgment is "how things should be done," imo). Thus he is constantly "convicted of contradicting himself"

The better he knew his brother, the more he noticed that Sergey Ivanovitch, and many other people who worked for the public welfare, were not led by an impulse of the heart to care for the public good, but reasoned from intellectual considerations that it was a right thing to take interest in public affairs, and consequently took interest in them. Levin was confirmed in this generalization by observing that his brother did not take questions affecting the public welfare or the question of the immortality of the soul a bit more to heart than he did chess problems, or the ingenious construction of a new machine.

(From Part 3, Chapter 1)

Common Fi complaint about Ti valuers. They act "for the wrong reasons". Levin wants to act for emotional reasons, out of compassion. Sergey wants to act for logical reasons, because it is intellectually "the right thing to do".

"Do you admit that education is a benefit for the people?"

"Yes, I admit it," said Levin without thinking, and he was conscious immediately that he had said what he did not think. He felt that if he admitted that, it would be proved that he had been talking meaningless rubbish. How it would be proved he could not tell, but he knew that this would inevitably be logically proved to him, and he awaited the proofs.

(From Part 3, Chapter 3)

Typical Fi "helplessness" to deal with Ti issues. Levin knows that by consenting to proposition x, he will be shown how conclusion y logically follows from that agreed upon proposition (classic Ti methods), and he can't figure out how to stop it, because he just can't get his mind to work that way, just like I can't get my mind to work in a Te way.

I'm not sure about Kitty. I'm tempted to lean EIE, but then she also seems potentially Te-seeking. Varenka is a Te-ego, I'm pretty sure. Certainly Te/Fi. Stepan is clearly EIE, with the beta NF weakness for taking care of practical details (with a decidedly cause-he-was-too-busy-indulging-his-emotions flair rather than a cause-he-was-too-busy-having-his-head-in-the-clouds flair).

Sadly, the only Austen novels I've read are Persuasion and most of Pride and Prejudice. But I'm sure I'll get to Northanger and Mansfield eventually!

What are the main differences between you and the IEEs you know?

Well, it's a socionics cliche at this point, but it really is true to say that they are "nicer" than me, in a certain sense. They are more concerned with the well-being of others, making sure others feel "okay" with a certain decision. They also tend to be more politically active than I am, especially as college kids. They really take a strong stance on an issue, and consider it almost a moral failing if you fail to agree with that stance. Just as a Ti ego will say, "oh, if you don't agree with this, you must be stupid," an Fi ego (esp. Delta NFs) will say, "oh, if you don't agree with this, you must be inconsiderate/mean/a bad person," or if they really like you, the alternative is that you "just don't have all the facts" or understand the situation fully.

The IEE I've spent the most time with over the past year is Fi subtype, so she doesn't exhibit much of the typical "wild n' crazy Ne zaniness" that one might associate with an Ne subtype. So I act much stranger and much more random than she does.

What else... they seem much more focused on not "jumping to conclusions," whereas I'm completely willing to jump to conclusions. We just tend to have typical communication difficulties---what I emphasize is not what they emphasize. Like, last night, I was in a conversation with myself (IEI), a good friend (IEE) and an acquaintance (Beta NF, not sure which type yet). The conversation was about sophomore slump and following one's passion and what is good or bad about the school we go to, etc. The IEE was focusing on "not taking yourself too seriously" and was clearly somewhat shocked when the Beta NF acquaintance started talking about hazing in the greek life on campus. And she totally did not understand or accept the philosophy of "making a diamond" with a lot of pressure during the pledging process, whereas, even if neither of us were willing to undergo it ourselves, the Beta NF and I sort of had a natural sympathy for that position.

IEEs tend to have a natural distrust of people who are too singlemindedly focused on one goal, whereas I tend to admire those people for being driven, even if they go to extremes at times. Here's another example: I wanted to take a certain class next semester as part of this whole overarching scheme to put me in a good situation for grad school applications. The IEE was clearly very skeptical and thought I was kind of crazy for obsessing and planning that far ahead, but to me it was only natural to have an ambition and go for it, even if it seems premature. I mean, that's how you succeed, right?

Okay, that's all I can think of at the moment, but maybe you could ask some more questions if that's not the sort of thing you were looking for?

Here's something that's been on my mind that could use a little discourse. Recently, with some discussions here and there, I find that I could view Socionics-related issues in different lights between two distinctions: The IEs can be observed separately within a type from one another in their functions (i.e. leading + creative + role, etc. = NeFi) or are viewed in blocks, which the IEs in each block are integrated and don't have a distinguishable separation (i.e. -ego + -superego, etc = NeFi). One could also make the argument of all the blocks being indistinguishable from one another as well, meaning you can't necessarily pinpoint one IE within the mix without making note of the influence and context of all the other IEs in their positions. So far, I think of all of these and wonder if these are steps to be observed, or if there is only one of these ways that is the most affective.

I think observing the difference of these perspectives makes a difference because of how some typing goes on here, for example, I think some people type just looking for IEs and then place each in functions after they have identified them in a person. Like how someone can say they think someone is a "Detla NF," the only way you can say this is if you only observed the IEs separate from functions, or else the same person would have said "-creative," which would be NeFi vs FiNe against NeFi vs SeFi, and depending on which above perspective you prescribe to, FiNe or SeFi would be a closer typing to NeFi.

This would also decide if you can really talk about the IEs and how they relate to others separate from the type and still actually be relatable. So when we talk about , are we talking about the that is removed from types and therefore exists the same way in all types, or, are we talking about that is specific to each type. And when that's not made clear, is that when confusion/disagreement occurs?

I'll stop there to see if this catches your interest, it was something that popped into my head, and since you're asking for discourse, well, here you go

Hmmm... that is interesting/a good topic for discussion. I agree that people tend to either look at the IM-function pair by itself or sort of consider it in general terms. I know I use both. When I'm getting down to sort of nitty-gritty analysis, I'll usually focus on how a given statement or characteristic seems to point to a certain IM in a certain position. I think of this as analogous to analysis in literary criticism, that is, it should be used as proof, as demonstration: analysis as evidence. However, I tend to get the general impression first, and that is more of a view-it-in-blocks or as a whole type thing. So sometimes when typing someone, I'll just say they have an "SLE vibe". That really means that they seem like they have Se and Ti in their ego block, but I don't experience it as "representative of Se and Ti," I experience it as "similar to internal sensations/patterns of behavior I have experienced/noticed when relating to other people of this type." So that's when I type in blocks or in whole types or in sort of generic things like "Gamma NT" or "Beta ST" or "Alpha SF." And labels like "Gamma NT" tend to work for that whole typing-by-impression/association thing because you just sort of get a vibe, but vibes aren't very specific, and so you're sort of leaving room for the fact that while you sort of get the Te vibe and the Ni vibe and the Gamma NT vibe, it may not be totally differentiated yet into ILI vs. LIE, even though there are pretty darn clear differences between the two types, you may not have gotten enough experience to really feel that, but just to feel the Gamma NT part. And that's where the function-by-function analysis would come in to help prove that there's more evidence for one or the other. But I always try to get in the ballpark (less than 6 possible types, preferably four or less) by pure vibe and then let the evidence/analysis part of it take over from there.

The question of whether or not you can talk about IMs in isolation is also a sort of thorny one. I mean, obviously, an IM never acts in isolation. An IM also never "acts" period, but you know what I mean. What I think we mean when we talk about IMs in isolation relative to behavior is "the IM that seems to have the most explanatory power, and the most relevance to this behavior is x." When we talk about IMs relative to one another, I think we're sort of differentiating between how they are generally I guess, with awareness that they will be slightly different based on the function pairing and order, but... you know, some Ti/Fi conflicts will be the same whether it's a beta-delta conflict or a beta-gamma conflict or a gamma-alpha conflict or whatever. Some aspects of it will be similar. And so when we talk about Ti and Fi in isolation, in the pure good of theory, we are talking about those similar aspects.

I hope that makes sense and addresses what you were talking about. If not, let me know, or you can just respond to this and we can continue the conversation, or whatever.

[Mattie]

However, I tend to get the general impression first, and that is more of a view-it-in-blocks or as a whole type thing. So sometimes when typing someone, I'll just say they have an "SLE vibe". That really means that they seem like they have Se and Ti in their ego block, but I don't experience it as "representative of Se and Ti," I experience it as "similar to internal sensations/patterns of behavior I have experienced/noticed when relating to other people of this type."

This is my experience as well, and I wonder to what degree others allow this to either dominate or decide their typing. I would say I have this knee-jerk typing, and it's not only with Socionics-related information but with other stuff as well, to give me context to work with until I get a more solid typing, as you related it to literary criticism, finding "evidence" for their type. I don't think I'd ever hand out my observations about someone's type if it was just at this stage, as I feel like it easily glosses over things, and there's the MBTI part of my brain that recognizes that type as well. For instance, my newest coworker is an ESTP FeSi. So my first reaction was that he was a -creative Socionics type, but as I started to look for evidence, he ended up being FeSi.

But I always try to get in the ballpark (less than 6 possible types, preferably four or less) by pure vibe and then let the evidence/analysis part of it take over from there.

The process is pretty much exactly what you said here. A vibe gives me about 4 types, and then I start to narrow it down, and it's usually one of those types, I haven't been that off before.

So that's when I type in blocks or in whole types or in sort of generic things like "Gamma NT" or "Beta ST" or "Alpha SF." And labels like "Gamma NT" tend to work for that whole typing-by-impression/association thing because you just sort of get a vibe, but vibes aren't very specific, and so you're sort of leaving room for the fact that while you sort of get the Te vibe and the Ni vibe and the Gamma NT vibe, it may not be totally differentiated yet into ILI vs. LIE, even though there are pretty darn clear differences between the two types, you may not have gotten enough experience to really feel that, but just to feel the Gamma NT part.

I don't know if it's specifically any use of dichotomies that makes me feel disagreeable about that, but the usage of "Delta NF" bothers me, or worse, when someone feel a person is "ENFx". I feel like these, in degrees, are something of an unawareness of properties associated with the IEs, as an NeFi and FeNi are radically different when you use the perspective of typing by functions. Technically, you can't reach an "ENFx" conclusion if you type by functions, unless you just have a generally uninformed position on the person you're typing. I think I'm becoming more sensitive to those who share certain IE positions rather than any sort of grouping. But you brush against part of what I'm talking about, do you know specifically a vibe that is separate from or influence? Can the same be viewed in both and egos? Or, do you only really observe paired with the Xi IE, not completely distinct?

[Graham]

Like, last night, I was in a conversation with myself

LOL .. until I realized what the rest of the sentence said.

[somavision]

Why are you the only forum member to have featured in one of my dreams?

[silverchris9]

Why are you the only forum member to have featured in one of my dreams?

Because I'm so. damn. sexy.

[somavision]

Because I'm so. damn. sexy.

You did do that thing, just before I woke up.

[silverchris9]

[quote=ananke;650075]1. How come you use so many words?

Because words alone are certain good.

2. How come so many curse words happen to be four letters?

Because curse words, to make the sort of guttural, angry sound they need to in order to sound right, need to generally be monosyllabic, but long enough to squeeze in two consonant sounds that are somewhat at odds with one another. Damn. Shit. Fuck. All those fit the pattern.

3. How come I never fall in love?

Because you aren't willing to lie to yourself. I've decided that I've been single too long (although I haven't been lonely, not in that way), so I'm starting to lie to myself. It hasn't done me much good, but I have to confess that it makes masturbating easier/more pleasurable.

4. How come I am making a list?

It helps to organize the randomness of your brain and accordingly of life.

5. What's the meaning of life?

To know and love God.

6. Is there an afterlife?

Yes. We don't know the ratios, but we know there's something out there.

7. If you imagine for a moment there is no meaning and no afterlife, what does it change?

"Imagine there's no heaven... it isn't hard if you try... no hell below us... above us only sky..." If I imagine all the people, maybe it's okay, but you can't just focus on one side of a thing forever.

Oh, and if there's no meaning... well, I can't imagine that, because meaning is built into the world at a basic basic basic level. Saying there's no meaning is like saying there's nothing, because it's part of the necessary structure of reality. A meaningless world is a meaningless (i.e., semiotically empty) concept. Now, if you're saying imagine we can't discern the meaning or state it propositionally, well, then, I'd just write more poetry, which is what I do anyway.

8. Do I work out too much?

I dunno. I don't work out enough.

9. Should I have more sex?

Again, depends on how much you enjoy lying to yourself, but overall, the answer is morally no and hedonistically yes, although the more difficult pleasure of spirituality is also a greater pleasure. I still believe that.

Also, depends on who you're having more sex with.

10. Out of the selftyped IEIs here, who is most likely not IEI, and why?

Eh. Redbaron is the most different from the IEIs here, so she's the easiest type to question. But she's also a real adult and female and most IEIs here are lonely teenage males, so...

[redbaron]

Eh. Redbaron is the most different from the IEIs here, so she's the easiest type to question. But she's also a real adult and female and most IEIs here are lonely teenage males, so...

hmmm..... a 'real adult', eh? I'd say that it's fairly amazing how much I agree with nearly everything you say, silverchris, given the age/life experience difference. Not that that alone makes me IEI, but nevertheless.

[silverchris9]

hmmm..... a 'real adult', eh? I'd say that it's fairly amazing how much I agree with nearly everything you say, silverchris, given the age/life experience difference. Not that that alone makes me IEI, but nevertheless.

Oh, yeah, you're obviously IEI. I was just sort of side-stepping the question, because I can't really think of an IEI I don't consider IEI. Eh... Pirate might be EIE. But this is true, we do agree on a lot of things. Type transcends life experience and all that jazz!

In what way is it a lie to fall in love?

You almost always have to convince yourself that the person you're in love with is someone else, or that they will solve "the problem". I mean, if we're talking, true, deep, fall on the floor, you make my life complete love. There's probably a mature kind of love that doesn't require as much lying. And also the dating process and the whole flirting thing involves a lot of fakeness, in my opinion. I want to skip straight to the part where we're real with one another.

I tried, but I don't see any Gods around.

Bad eyes. Me too, most days. Try visiting an Orthodox service, maybe they are different, maybe they aren't. Maybe they're just different from me. But still, the spirit has a spark and the spark has an origin in flame, and I am persuaded that there is a God who lives, and in some sense lives in me.

We do? Why don't I see it?

Because you have logical ideas that make it impossible for it to be there. Because you have proofs that it is not there. Because it being there is just an assumption. But I think it is perceptible. Didn't Socrates believe in the immortality of the soul?

What is meaning, then?

When people ask that question, what they mean is, what is the ultimate referent of meaning. Because obviously you know what meaning is. Meaning is the quality whereby you are able to derive a cognitive impression from these shapes that appear on your computer screen. But if you trace meaning back and back and back and back, what is it? I think it is the same thing as being. Meaning is the property whereby one can come to an awareness of being.

Try boxing.

I might.

Morally no? Why is that?

Because God exists. But better yet, because the world is structured in such a way that having sex with lots of people rather than with one partner (and maybe even--ugh--only for the purposes of procreation, but we're going to hope and pray that's not the case) inhibits people from realizing themselves, from instressing their inscape, from achieving the fullness of their souls, from enacting all the potentials, from full instantiating their unique Form (I think BnD calls it their Idea, although he detaches the personality component of the Idea from the moral or character component. I think you can't have one without the other).

If I could choose between an IEI, an LSI and an ILE, who would you recommend and why?

Obviously it depends on a hell of a lot of factors more than type. I know an IEI and an LSI right now both of whom I've flirted with a little, I guess, and while the LSI I guess is technically closer to what socionics says I should go for, the IEI is just more attractive. She has a sexy voice.

Honestly, if it's a one night stand, unless the LSI has serious chops/experience in bed (or there are other important mitigating factors), go for the IEI.

In what way is she different? And what type would you consider for her?

I dunno. She's less externally :SOIABO"IQ V"{UQW {F@")+!@L F:U(B APCJO"ACJKOU W{EUV IW?C
}PIWQ DBU>V<CW {FPI)NV<?AIW C the meaning of life is the repetition the repetition the constant resounding resounding what a gathering gathering it will be what a gathering gathering gathering it will be O God may my soul soar so far o'er its bound that I never see ground again! #fullthroatedmusicaltheaterbelting.

But like I said, I wouldn't actually consider another type. If she had to look at another type, it would be SEI, because she's obviously Fe-valuing. The only problem is that she's only slightly less obviously NOT Ne-valuing. So IEI is by far the best fit.

[thePirate]

Eh... Pirate might be EIE.
.

Im entertaining the idea, although its highly doubtful

would like to hear your thoughts on it though =X

[redbaron]

Im entertaining the idea, although its highly doubtful

would like to hear your thoughts on it though =X

Pirate, have you done a VI thread?

[redbaron]

You almost always have to convince yourself that the person you're in love with is someone else, or that they will solve "the problem". I mean, if we're talking, true, deep, fall on the floor, you make my life complete love. There's probably a mature kind of love that doesn't require as much lying. And also the dating process and the whole flirting thing involves a lot of fakeness, in my opinion. I want to skip straight to the part where we're real with one another.

this is kind of cynical but I think I get what you're saying. You don't need the puppy love that turns out to be crap after awhile. But I'll also point out that you yourself have admitted that you've never been in a romantic dual relationship. And although I haven't either, I've watched them unfold. And I think.... you won't be disappointed.

I dunno. She's less externally :SOIABO"IQ V"{UQW {F@")+!@L F:U(B APCJO"ACJKOU W{EUV IW?C
}PIWQ DBU>V<CW {FPI)NV<?AIW C the meaning of life is the repetition the repetition the constant resounding resounding what a gathering gathering it will be what a gathering gathering gathering it will be O God may my soul soar so far o'er its bound that I never see ground again! #fullthroatedmusicaltheaterbelting.

I do that stuff in the privacy of my own mind, I guess. No need to angst about it over the internet. Especially at my age. lol

[Nowisthetime]

I'll blather for a page-and-a-half about why I think Michael Jackson is IEI

I would be very interested in this.

Because God exists. But better yet, because the world is structured in such a way that having sex with lots of people rather than with one partner (and maybe even--ugh--only for the purposes of procreation, but we're going to hope and pray that's not the case) inhibits people from realizing themselves, from instressing their inscape, from achieving the fullness of their souls, from enacting all the potentials, from full instantiating their unique Form

Reading this made me sad. I personally feel more whole as a person, happier and nicer and more connected to my soul if I have sex (with the right person or persons). Separating sexuality and spirituality is just so weird IMO. Whoever invented that must have had a really bad day. But type related maybe?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

I don't understand, but maybe that's why I don't fall in love. What is the use of it, if it's fake?

Yeah. Eh. Romance is a tricky proposition.

What persuades you?

The trees. How it sort of makes sense for there to be a God that is the source of being. How the Bible has lots of pretty words. The feeling in my tummy. The sentimental education of my childhood. The apprehension of God.

Mostly, I guess, because I see so much in the world that I expect for all of that to have a source, a cause, a generance. What makes the motor run? Or better yet, what is the source of the meaning, what means not relatively or proximately, but for itself? If there's sort of a chain of "because"s leading back to the source, the creator/sustainer of the beauty and the value in the world, what's at the end of the chain? The world is so terribly, achingly gorgeous, however cliche it is to say that, and I have to suppose there is an aggregate of that energy, a pure form. And the story of Jesus is just the best story ever. And it did revolutionize the world. And when I seriously try to study I only get half-way, but even from ten leagues away, I can feel the warmth and the heat.

And more than that, more than that there's this sort of immovable thing that's pretty far deep in my soul that realizes and accepts and communicates (in some limited sense) with God. That's why I believe in God. Because I believe in God.

So immortality is illogical?

I think immorality is contrary to the nature of things, and as such it is illogical to behave immorally, yes.

And the meaning is to believe in God? I don't understand.

No, the meaning isn't anything specific... the meaning is the inherent value of everything. The meaning is people being kind to one another. The meaning can even be guessed by the absence of meaning. Why was I sad when I heard my friend got raped? Because there was something missing. Because there was an absence. Maybe we don't notice that meaning or wholeness when it's present, but only when it's gone.

Doesn't God like sex?

It's not his favorite thing. On the serious tip, I'm sure he likes it fine, but I bet he wants people to only use it in a specific way.

How/why will having sex with lots of people prevent you from realizing yourself and your soul?

I dunno. I mean... if you sort of believe sex is a crazy metaphysical union thing, that it has some symbol-transcendent reality as a meaningful act, then the sharing of yourself with multiple persons seems like a bad thing. And I don't know, to enter into a woman's body seems awfully sacred, like something you don't deserve to do unless you've made some sort of awful sacrifice. And I understand, women enjoy sex too, this is an outmoded Victorian model wherein women are the keepers of virtue, blah blah blah. But still. If nothing else, casual sex depletes the symbol of meaning, and the symbol is important as a precursor to the symbol of life. If sex is sacred then we're better able to understand a really important metaphor for who/what God is, how life works, etc.

But really it's more the sort of attitude that leads to seeking sex than the actual seeking sex. I think it's the attitude that seeks physical satisfaction. I know I sound like an old prude, but old prudes have to be right about some things, right?

And then... I dunno, I think that it's just sort of a part of the world, a part of the nature of things that to act in certain ways is for the health of your soul, to act in other ways is not for the health of your soul. I don't know that I can prove it, just like I cannot prove that poems mean something. You have to sort of let the poem get into you, and then you find where it fits in your life, where it "comes true".

Oh.

Let's pretend that the LSI is very experienced, but married to somebody else that he doesn't care about, and the IEI is in love with you, but you don't love him back. Then what should you do?

How badly are you going to break this IEIs heart? Are you going to start crying in the middle like George and Meredith on Grey's Anatomy back when that show still had a brain as well as genitals? Is he? Honestly, I'm sort of into IEIs, so I would still personally go for the IEI, but... eh.

Is that your honest opinion?

Yeah. I'm very much cool with the idea that you don't have to be as insane as me to be an IEI. I hope that's true. Actually, Redbaron is probably closer to a classical IEI than I am. Although if I'm being 100% honest, I don't see a whole lot of either Ni or Si (but definitely Fe, and what I believe to be Se-dualseeking), and so I guess I'm taking her word for it.


Also: all people on the internet ARE IEI. We're lonely.

RB, I dunno. I'm sort of scared of being in a happy relationship. I mean, I'm scared of being in a relationship period (which is why I'm not in one), but especially a happy one. Then where will the longing in my heart go? And if I don't have longing, how will I write poems?

[Lotus]

what are you on?

[silverchris9]

f you

Hey, I think I was right, on a purely statistical level, just sayin'. (tongue stick-out smiley). But the other half are attractive and non-lonely females who I don't know how old they are but are roughly late teens earlyish twenties, right?

Other than that, the world depends on you to flush out and solve this crisis for once. You must respond!

I think it's an extinguishment thing, because at first I couldn't tell (and I still can't really) to exactly what degree you're making fun of me. Not that I'm in any way offended, but I just thought that was pertinent to this thread.

EDIT:

Also, I may not be useful on this thread until I go home on Friday, because right now I'm just staying at school and have, surprisingly and happily, found lots of friends to drink with, so, fingers crossed, I should be wasted (and therefore not up for theoretical discussions of socionics) every night until I go home.

[Mattie]

I think it's an extinguishment thing, because at first I couldn't tell (and I still can't really) to exactly what degree you're making fun of me. Not that I'm in any way offended, but I just thought that was pertinent to this thread.

I thought the tongue smiley would mark it as a joke, but I'll remember for the future. I don't think we can just make something as passing as "it must be extinguishment" other than it's hard to tell tone of voice over the internet. I can't tell sarcasm over the internet, so maybe I shouldn't use it either

[Pookie]

If a tree falls in a forest and crushes a woman... what the hell is a forest doing in the kitchen?