Maritsa33

[discojoe]

Not scold, just tap gently on the arm and say "honey, cut that out"...that's not scolding. What illogical person would scold a person in public anyway.

I think they would if they were "coming to the rescue" of someone else, but you're right that they might be more low-key in their response.

[discojoe]

What is an LSE Te kinda situation or setting?

Well, it could either be a particular type of setting or any setting that happened to be dominated by Te-valuers.

For an LSE, I think an ideal setting would be a stable environment where the focus is on efficiently managing a quantified number of resources in order to maximize productivity. For instance, at my old job, we had a highly active LSE store manager who took a very hands-on approach to making sure each department in the store was clean, safely operated, and well-organized. The back hallway went from being a quagmire of ten-foot stacks of boxes and spills to a neatly sorted and easily navigable storage area where it was easy to find what you were looking for. The floors were always spotless, and the store as a whole took on an atmosphere of "hard work" yet friendliness at the same time.

He was very demanding to work for (and he got on a few people's nerves), but he was also very polite, generous, and reliable. He would always get back to you with an answer to a question, and he kept extensive to-do notes on a notepad in his shirt pocket. He never shouted or acted verbally abusive, but he would not ever back down--even from his own bosses--when he saw that there was some issue. He also singled out the best workers for managerial training in a very proactive manner that I've not seen in any of my other bosses. I remember getting a very large inventory bonus during the year he worked at my store.

[Beautiful sky]

Well, it could either be a particular type of setting or any setting that happened to be dominated by Te-valuers.

For an LSE, I think an ideal setting would be a stable environment where the focus is on efficiently managing a quantified number of resources in order to maximize productivity. For instance, at my old job, we had a highly active LSE store manager who took a very hands-on approach to making sure each department in the store was clean, safely operated, and well-organized. The back hallway went from being a quagmire of ten-foot stacks of boxes and spills to a neatly sorted and easily navigable storage area where it was easy to find what you were looking for. The floors were always spotless, and the store as a whole took on an atmosphere of "hard work" yet friendliness at the same time.

He was very demanding to work for (and he got on a few people's nerves), but he was also very polite, generous, and reliable. He would always get back to you with an answer to a question, and he kept extensive to-do notes on a notepad in his shirt pocket. He never shouted or acted verbally abusive, but he would not ever back down--even from his own bosses--when he saw that there was some issue. He also singled out the best workers for managerial training in a very proactive manner that I've not seen in any of my other bosses. I remember getting a very large inventory bonus during the year he worked at my store.

I agree that this is an LSE environment.
For the following reasons:

1. Well managed.
2. Clean.
3. Very orderly.
4. Responsible.
5. Polite.
6. Generous.
7. Reliable.

These are all very much LSE traits.

[Beautiful sky]

I think they would if they were "coming to the rescue" of someone else, but you're right that they might be more low-key in their response.

So you agree with me ...lol

[Brilliand]

I agree that this is an LSE environment.
For the following reasons:

1. Well managed.
2. Clean.
3. Very orderly.
4. Responsible.
5. Polite.
6. Generous.
7. Reliable.

These are all very much LSE traits.

While you got the right idea, I think you killed it by boiling it down to adjectives. Every one of those words is easily twisted into something else. Actually... I'm not sure those are even very close, but maybe I'm already misunderstanding them. They just aren't very specific.

[Creepy-cinq]

Too proactive and outgoing to be EII. EIE makes the most sense. Has that on-edge EJ energy in pictures.

I agree along with other points you bring up in this thread. I've maintained for awhile she has ego base. If I'm wrong and I'm misunderstanding the nature of , I'll need to re-evaluate my type based on my relations and my reactions to her comments and general disposition. Mind you, many members have her on ignore, so, her behaviour may just be an anomalie due to some other circumstance or condition.

[Ezra]

Unless all the quadras and values have been shifted around...humanists/humanitarians are the new beta? and directors as well...what happened to this description?

The Administrator is very hard working; he rationally spends his time and does not like getting distracted by extraneous talk. He is very practical and economical. He strives to be competent in business issues, accumulating necessary information on problems interesting to him. He tends to take on too many responsibilities. So he needs The Humanist, which can suggest, which actions are most promising. The Humanist willingly helps in this work, doing it diligently and qualitatively.

The Administrator does not tolerate inferior quality. He likes integrity and uprightness in relations. The Humanist, as a rule, is an exceptionally honest and conscientious partner. He willingly processes great quantities of information, draws general conclusions and schedules actions. The Administrator sees planning as a problem. On the one hand, he is sometimes too impatient, on the other – he may be distracted by outside matters, procrastinating on important issues and failing to fulfill them in due time. He accepts this fact very painfully. He needs an undemanding regulator, a provident and prescient partner.

The second bright trait of The Administrator is his ability to take care of his family's welfare. He strives for a high standard of living. He demands quality and possesses well-developed esthetic taste. He is a kind of gourmet, likes tasty and healthy meals; parties for his close friends or family members organized by him are distinguished by very high taste. The Humanist is very reserved in communication. He is devoted to his narrow but stable circle of friends. He possesses 'clever hands' and interest in various technologies, culinary and medical recipes. While The Administrator creates comfort on a whole, his dual perfects all the details.

The Humanist is very attentive towards people, which is not applicable to his dual who is interested more in results of work and communication rather than in the very process. For this reason The Administrator, who is usually reserved and polite, may give way to irritation and wrath, especially when people take his precious time. At such moments he loses the feeling of tactfulness, may become blunt. He needs an ever-reserved, diplomatic and peaceful partner by his side. The Humanist softens ethical mistakes of his dual, performs peacemaking activities. By his persuasions he softens harsh behavior of the Administrator, appeals to his inborn nobility, magnanimity and conscience. By doing this, he facilitates communication with others. This helps The Administrator to keep stable the circle of his business partners.

The Humanist also foresees well the outcome of undertakings and relations. By his advice he helps his improvident dual to avoid many mistakes, the main of which is wishful thinking, especially about health and relations with people. He recognizes well the perspectives of new theories or technologies and he is among the first to struggle for their implementation.

The Administrator is conservative enough in his views, and without such support he tends to fall into routine, may even stop in his development, stagnate in everyday chores, or lose his spirituality, romantic feelings and interest towards intellectual novelties.

On the other hand, The Administrator is capable of thinking clearly and logically, of noticing what’s most important, of modernizing inefficient, outdated structures or technologies. He strives for higher quality and better outcome. The Humanist needs such a partner, who switches his attention from trivialities to more global undertakings. In addition, his dual attracts him as a protector and leader.

The Humanist is a very softhearted and sensitive person. His kindness if often misused by the others. By contrast, The Administrator is full of initiative, but does not like when others impose their own initiatives on him. He may show aggression, but hardly perceives aggression of the others. The Humanist, in spite of his indecisiveness, defends his own interests silently but impertinently, if he is sure of his being right. In practical affairs he is not very capable of protecting his interests, letting his more penetrative dual do it. He tolerates The Administrator's inability to praise, make compliments, which is caused by his insufficient understanding of individual traits and human potential capabilities. The Humanist understands this aspect and considers it to be so obvious that he does not require words of approval. He likes the integrity and hard work of his short-spoken dual.

This dual pair is characterized with certain reticence, isolation from other people, hard work, and attention to details and integrity in everything.

Maritsa, you focus far too much on names and descriptions, as opposed to functions and relationships, and why things are the way they are. You've always got to understand what it is that a description is trying to communicate, functionally-speaking. So, you say the LSE "likes integrity and uprightness in relations". Why is this, to your mind? What function(s) are integrity and uprightness related to? In my mind, uprightness is related to weakness in ethical functions. So, anyone with weak ethics (any logical type, basically) wants uprightness because they don't see the subtle connections between people. They want trust because they can't see that a person won't backstab unless they demonstrate that they won't. The difference between Fi types and Fe types is that in the case of Fe valuing types it needs to be demonstrated with overt emotional expression. I need my partner to reassure me that she loves me still, by not putting on a cold face, by visibly giving me as much emotional appreciation as she feels at that moment in time. More smiles, more hugs, more kisses, more "I love you"s.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa, you focus far too much on names and descriptions, as opposed to functions and relationships, and why things are the way they are. You've always got to understand what it is that a description is trying to communicate, functionally-speaking. So, you say the LSE "likes integrity and uprightness in relations". Why is this, to your mind? What function(s) are integrity and uprightness related to? In my mind, uprightness is related to weakness in ethical functions. So, anyone with weak ethics (any logical type, basically) wants uprightness because they don't see the subtle connections between people. They want trust because they can't see that a person won't backstab unless they demonstrate that they won't. The difference between Fi types and Fe types is that in the case of Fe valuing types it needs to be demonstrated with overt emotional expression. I need my partner to reassure me that she loves me still, by not putting on a cold face, by visibly giving me as much emotional appreciation as she feels at that moment in time. More smiles, more hugs, more kisses, more "I love you"s.

LSE like integrity and uprightness in relations because it's dual seeking...because I provide loyalty, integrity and uprightness (not cheating, harmony, my deep values, loving, depth).

I see those suble connections between people, who loves who, who needs who and doesn't.
You have that in reverse Ezra; Fi types love emotional/relationship depth as with depth in any topic we are interested in, so we strive to incorporate all methods and all possibilities in maintaining the relationship, by "nurturing" it physically rather then in demanding the other person's emotional participation...as in providing humor to them.

I rarely agree with you on the points that you make and I don't feel that you are my activating relations.

[Ezra]

She seems to use her role function (Ti) weakly with conscious Ne, has that 'whatever I can think of will fit into my argument' logic, which is attuned to weakly trying to developing a structure of the theory and finding new personal ways to express it.

I definitely see the "'whatever I can think of will fit into my argument' logic" - which is simply indicative of Ti valuing - but the "new personal ways" stuff... not so much. She wouldn't attempt to use Ti if she didn't value it. So why Ti role rather than Ti DS?

Ni is much more about knowing things, expressing underlying currents and backing ideas up here and there by telling idiotic though poetic stories, in the beta sense, which I don't think she does at all. Rather, she's been trying to use her role Ti this whole time, and she's mainly adept at looking at people and their potential, being sensitive and attentive with all you folk and trying to keep the harmony, even though she can also be stubborn. She doesn't talk about her Te endeavors like Gilly does, she rather fantasizes about ESTjs or whomever and hasn't really a clue about Te realistically. Her F doesn't go unnoticed, she pretty much fits what Fi is, even in her long Socionics rambles, unless someone wants to explain to me why she's Fe? Just being open and curious. Pull out an old debate thread if you will.

I think you're basically going off the premise that she is Ti role rather than really considering that what she's saying is so related to Ti that it can't be anything but valued. Do you see me "weakly using" Ne? discojoe "weakly using" Fi? Of course not. We don't care about role, that's the point. If Maritsa is attempting to use Ti, in your eyes, that sensibly points towards a valued function. If you think it's weak, then it suggests that she's weak in it. Weak and valued Ti = Beta NF, and she sure as shit isn't an IEI.

This sentence sounds very Fi in essence. It's ultimately conservative and blocked off in her defense of thinking ahead about herself and what she stays true to, in the underlying nature, something which I find really annoying about Fi, in that they are choosy about what people they want to learn about and rarely want to find a place in their role, rather finding a way of harmoniously connecting with some notion of the essence of person. (And I should note, these are never necessarily real things, roles, essences, etc. They're just subjective impressions and tools for dealing with people and defining one's emotions. So they are easily "real" in the mind and in the manifestation of social harmony, just not objective "truth," though it's debatable as to what truth really is.) So Fi judgments seem predecided and closed off, yet have that positive dominant-Fi acknowledgement and acceptance, which makes them tactful in essentially finding their natural place in going against the motivations which don't fit their ethical system. Tact over logic. You will find these tones in many of her sentences. Fe on the other hand is much more likely to assertively adapt and go along with the emotional current as to gain new perspective and useful experience of the theme or role, breaking away from the self, so to speak, something she has done minimally from time to time, though much less naturally. It did not really seem to fit what she had in mind, and was probably a discomfort. It's easier to understand in the context of Fe egos on this forum. Though these are just my weak impressions, and I understand if you don't think so. Just tell me why you think she's Fe ego. I'll have to pay closer attention to her to get more insight on the typing.

Interesting idea.

Excellent work. But most importantly, I use Fi to judge and shift and catagorize the Te information...

In many ways I soften them up because they can be too realistic and too harsh with people and I give them the individual or multitude of human element to their argument which causes them to look at that perspective and not just the raw objective information.

Maritsa, this literally looks like you've just pulled this out of a reference book. Why is your only frame of reference a description? Why don't you apply it to YOUR LIFE? Or don't you have one?

Okay Maritsa, pretend your mind was a blank slate and you knew nothing, absolute nothing about yourself, Socionics, or your past life.

Then, which people on this forum would you feel most drawn to? Which people would you feel most comfortable with? Who would make you feel happy and stimulated? What people would make you feel the most alive just by hanging around them for long periods of time?

ME. SHE WANTS ME!

Too proactive and outgoing to be EII. EIE makes the most sense. Has that on-edge EJ energy in pictures.

Yeah, good point.

That was a typo, but if you would like to amateurishly infer some meaning from it, feel free to do so. I won't edit the post.

AHAHA!

they are very insecure about coming off like an ass or a fool in situations where the emphasis is on Fe.

Yeah but so are Beta STs.

I agree that this is an LSE environment.
For the following reasons:

1. Well managed.
2. Clean.
3. Very orderly.
4. Responsible.
5. Polite.
6. Generous.
7. Reliable.

These are all very much LSE traits.

I'm pretty sure LSIs could also easily fit this description. And probably ESIs too. Maybe ESEs too.

Sounds boring.

HAHA!

LSE like integrity and uprightness in relations because it's dual seeking...because I provide loyalty, integrity and uprightness (not cheating, harmony, my deep values, loving, depth).

What, and you think IEIs cheat, are shallow, unloving and don't value anything? Come on Maritsa this is fundamental shit that EVERYONE wants in a relationship. Except Alphas lol.

I see those suble connections between people, who loves who, who needs who and doesn't.
You have that in reverse Ezra; Fi types love emotional/relationship depth as with depth in any topic we are interested in, so we strive to incorporate all methods and all possibilities in maintaining the relationship, by "nurturing" it physically rather then in demanding the other person's emotional participation...as in providing humor to them.

I think you're really, REALLY underestimating my dual, and EIEs. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them hate you by now. I know some do.

I rarely agree with you on the points that you make and I don't feel that you are my activating relations.

Okay, that's your constitutional right.

[Beautiful sky]

Nice Te Ezra, combining everybody's post into one. It's so efficient...lol

I KNOW BECAUSE I LOVE TE.

I ABSOLUTELY ADORE TE AND HOW IT WORKS.

I AM IN AWE OF IT AND ADMIRE IT EMENSELY

[Ezra]

Nice Te Ezra, combining everybody's post into one. It's so efficient...lol

I KNOW BECAUSE I LOVE TE.

I ABSOLUTELY ADORE TE AND HOW IT WORKS.

I AM IN AWE OF IT AND ADMIRE IT EMENSELY

OMFGROFLMFAOZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[Beautiful sky]

OMFGROFLMFAOZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

You're not my type...you're an Se valuing Te...you need

[Ezra]

You're not my type...you're an Se valuing Te...you need

HAHAHA! You truly are a laugh a minute, Maritsa.

[inumbra]

Nice Te Ezra, combining everybody's post into one. It's so efficient...lol

I like how Ezra often does this too. He addresses everyone in the discussion. It's warm and fuzzy to address everyone.

[discojoe]

Yeah but so are Beta STs.

I guess the difference is that Beta STs are looking for environments where they can essentially let loose and act however they want (more so with ESTps) and still receive positive Fe feedback, whereas Delta STs feel like they need to act a certain way and don't know how to go about doing it.

I do think there's a degree of vague overlap, but basically what Delta STs want is for someone to say "You don't need to worry about acting a certain way. Just be yourself and we'll accept you the way you are." and Beta STs are looking for "Don't worry about us judging you. Just come have fun with us and we'll get along fine."

Another way of looking at it is that Delta STs fear killing the mood and as a consequence being denied acceptance, and Beta STs fear being judged harshly and then being excluded from the mood.

[JWC3]

I guess the difference is that Beta STs are looking for environments where they can essentially let loose and act however they want (more so with ESTps) and still receive positive Fe feedback, whereas Delta STs feel like they need to act a certain way and don't know how to go about doing it.

I do think there's a degree of vague overlap, but basically what Delta STs want is for someone to say "You don't need to worry about acting a certain way. Just be yourself and we'll accept you the way you are." and Beta STs are looking for "Don't worry about us judging you. Just come have fun with us and we'll get along fine."

Another way of looking at it is that Delta STs fear killing the mood and as a consequence being denied acceptance, and Beta STs fear being judged harshly and then being excluded from the mood.

I just want to say that I doubt any statement on this forum ever made contains more truthiness than the bolded part of what discojoe just said.

[redbaron]

I like how Ezra often does this too. He addresses everyone in the discussion. It's warm and fuzzy to address everyone.

I love that too.

[Ezra]

I guess the difference is that Beta STs are looking for environments where they can essentially let loose and act however they want (more so with ESTps) and still receive positive Fe feedback, whereas Delta STs feel like they need to act a certain way and don't know how to go about doing it.

I do think there's a degree of vague overlap, but basically what Delta STs want is for someone to say "You don't need to worry about acting a certain way. Just be yourself and we'll accept you the way you are." and Beta STs are looking for "Don't worry about us judging you. Just come have fun with us and we'll get along fine."

Another way of looking at it is that Delta STs fear killing the mood and as a consequence being denied acceptance, and Beta STs fear being judged harshly and then being excluded from the mood.

+1000

I think what I get is when I'm around a Fi person I have to watch what I say because it could very easily offend them, so I basically lose my edge, which is what makes me. For example, I have some friends, one of whom is a Jew, and he could well be Fi, he may not be, doesn't matter. But we were chilling in the park (he wasn't there), and I was with an IEI and an SLE and some other Fe people. And someone asked what Dan (Jewish fella) was doing over summer. I said "probably spending it in a concentration camp" and we all laughed but it was like THE edgiest laugh ever. Then my SLE friend said "oooh Ezra, that was a train ride too far" hahahahah I love that kind of humour. Some people really get offended by it.

Another one is my LII friend who jokes with his friend about racism and sexism and stuff e.g. sticking a British National Party flag in their kitchen, or going into a Chinese and saying "are these the ones [people] we like, again, or is it the other ones?" Their other housemate gets offended by it, but I would find that kind of thing funny.

None of us is a racist or sexist, we just enjoy edgy humour because it's controversial and dark.

[JWC3]

+1000

I think what I get is when I'm around a Fi person I have to watch what I say because it could very easily offend them, so I basically lose my edge, which is what makes me. For example, I have some friends, one of whom is a Jew, and he could well be Fi, he may not be, doesn't matter. But we were chilling in the park (he wasn't there), and I was with an IEI and an SLE and some other Fe people. And someone asked what Dan (Jewish fella) was doing over summer. I said "probably spending it in a concentration camp" and we all laughed but it was like THE edgiest laugh ever. Then my SLE friend said "oooh Ezra, that was a train ride too far" hahahahah I love that kind of humour. Some people really get offended by it.

Another one is my LII friend who jokes with his friend about racism and sexism and stuff e.g. sticking a British National Party flag in their kitchen, or going into a Chinese and saying "are these the ones [people] we like, again, or is it the other ones?" Their other housemate gets offended by it, but I would find that kind of thing funny.

None of us is a racist or sexist, we just enjoy edgy humour because it's controversial and dark.

LOL! You sir, win.

[Gilly]

It's funny, Ezra: your statement does sound just like something I would have heard out of my old LIE-Te roommate, who was, ironically enough, a Jew to end all Jews.

[silverchris9]

I love how a thread about Maritsa turned into a discussion of Beta STs.

Beta STs/betas in general do tend to joke about "inappropriate" things, whatever inappropriate is in their particular social context. I can see how a beta ST would be wary of being excluded from the Fe (emotional energy/mood) because he/she broke an "Fi" rule (i.e., got "judged harshly"). As in, "let's stop laughing and joking when Bob comes around, 'cause we don't wanna hang out with him, 'cause he hurt Suzy's feelings and is therefore a jerk." As DJ said, a delta ST would go the opposite way: mess up the mood (Fe mistake) and therefore being shut out of the circle (Fi rejection). As in, "let's push Bob out of our social circle/friend group, because he's just going to say something awkward and ruin the conversation." Similarly, I suppose an IEE or SEE could be excluded from the Te flow of information/facts/"helpful advice on how to do things" because she broke a "Ti" rule (said or believed something that is stupid according to the agreed Ti rules of the social/intellectual environment). Or an IEI/SEI excluded from the Ti for breaking not having his/her Te facts/terms straight. The dual fixes all these problems by a) not caring about the mistake on the weak function, and in some cases b) cleaning up the mistake and smoothing it over with others (as in an SLE explaining for an IEI friend, "oh, no, he means x, he just doesn't know the terminology," or an EII quickly restoring comfortable relations after an LSE says something awkward).

[Creepy-male]

Okay Maritsa, pretend your mind was a blank slate and you knew nothing, absolute nothing about yourself, Socionics, or your past life.

Then, which people on this forum would you feel most drawn to? Which people would you feel most comfortable with? Who would make you feel happy and stimulated? What people would make you feel the most alive just by hanging around them for long periods of time?

Sure...

SLE - Do it ******



Obsessed with Se, overly-decisive, impatient, pretentious-badass, egotistical, would rather engage in shameless self-promotion to attract an IEI who has lost touch with reality than do anything useful, has no real utility beside pretentious self promotion, if gulliable IEIs never existed would easily have no real utility

IEI - Tinkerbell



Lost touch with reality, believes in magic, uses stupid cliche phrases to feel better about self, easily scammed as a result of their over indulgence on giving deep profound meaning to things that appear beautiful on the surface, easily distracted by shiny objects

IEI - Dark Melancholy Cliche



Also lost touch with reality, doesn't believe in magic, passes off the constant state of nihilistic depression as being profound, purposefully chooses to be in a state of dark melancholy - if any attempts at enjoying life are observed immediately begins to point out the negative aspects of the situation, captivated by morbid fascinations in the belief that it toughens them up and makes them appear to be "badass", likely to slit their wrists or engage in BDSM sex with an ESTp







There are more. However.....












How much you want to bet professor badass is ILE? (alpha)

[silverchris9]

SLEs are so cool. I wish I knew more of them. Professor Badass could just as easily be SLE. Just 'cause you're smart doesn't mean you're not an SLE. He does VI more intuitive than sensory though. Infinite lol at the IEI tinkerbell picture.

[Creepy-male]

SLEs are so cool. I wish I knew more of them. Professor Badass could just as easily be SLE. Just 'cause you're smart doesn't mean you're not an SLE. He does VI more intuitive than sensory though. Infinite lol at the IEI tinkerbell picture.

actually two friends I've known for a long time are beta.... but that post was clearly pointing flaws in betas... you could easily do the same for alpha, every quadra has its unique indentity of flaws and virtues and what not, but its so much more fun to point out the flaws in betas =).

[UDP]

I love how a thread about Maritsa turned into a discussion of Beta STs.

Beta STs/betas in general do tend to joke about "inappropriate" things, whatever inappropriate is in their particular social context. I can see how a beta ST would be wary of being excluded from the Fe (emotional energy/mood) because he/she broke an "Fi" rule (i.e., got "judged harshly"). As in, "let's stop laughing and joking when Bob comes around, 'cause we don't wanna hang out with him, 'cause he hurt Suzy's feelings and is therefore a jerk." As DJ said, a delta ST would go the opposite way: mess up the mood (Fe mistake) and therefore being shut out of the circle (Fi rejection). As in, "let's push Bob out of our social circle/friend group, because he's just going to say something awkward and ruin the conversation." Similarly, I suppose an IEE or SEE could be excluded from the Te flow of information/facts/"helpful advice on how to do things" because she broke a "Ti" rule (said or believed something that is stupid according to the agreed Ti rules of the social/intellectual environment). Or an IEI/SEI excluded from the Ti for breaking not having his/her Te facts/terms straight. The dual fixes all these problems by a) not caring about the mistake on the weak function, and in some cases b) cleaning up the mistake and smoothing it over with others (as in an SLE explaining for an IEI friend, "oh, no, he means x, he just doesn't know the terminology," or an EII quickly restoring comfortable relations after an LSE says something awkward).

[silverchris9]

Thanks, although it's mostly ripped directly from DJ but with Fe and Fi more explicitly labeled.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, I definitely did that "quietly push person x out of my social circle for being too awkward" thing with this really super awkward ILI kid that I grew up with. He was so annoying. I think he's cool now though. Had a huge crush on this one girl, probably SEE (but maybe EIE...) now that I think about it, who totally rejected him, and then he was just a creeper about it afterwards. Sigh.

[inumbra]

He does VI more intuitive than sensory though.

yeah 'cause from that picture we can tell a lot. I VI-ed him as Se quadra and all. I was able to tell from "the walk". Since his face is all covered in sunglasses and blurry I was forced to resort to his body language. Clearly the ILE suggestion is just wrong, ILEs don't walk like that. Ever.

[Beautiful sky]

I love how a thread about Maritsa turned into a discussion of Beta STs.

Beta STs/betas in general do tend to joke about "inappropriate" things, whatever inappropriate is in their particular social context. I can see how a beta ST would be wary of being excluded from the Fe (emotional energy/mood) because he/she broke an "Fi" rule (i.e., got "judged harshly"). As in, "let's stop laughing and joking when Bob comes around, 'cause we don't wanna hang out with him, 'cause he hurt Suzy's feelings and is therefore a jerk." As DJ said, a delta ST would go the opposite way: mess up the mood (Fe mistake) and therefore being shut out of the circle (Fi rejection). As in, "let's push Bob out of our social circle/friend group, because he's just going to say something awkward and ruin the conversation." Similarly, I suppose an IEE or SEE could be excluded from the Te flow of information/facts/"helpful advice on how to do things" because she broke a "Ti" rule (said or believed something that is stupid according to the agreed Ti rules of the social/intellectual environment). Or an IEI/SEI excluded from the Ti for breaking not having his/her Te facts/terms straight. The dual fixes all these problems by a) not caring about the mistake on the weak function, and in some cases b) cleaning up the mistake and smoothing it over with others (as in an SLE explaining for an IEI friend, "oh, no, he means x, he just doesn't know the terminology," or an EII quickly restoring comfortable relations after an LSE says something awkward).

Yeah but so do LSE, that's why sometimes they need reminders that what they are saying and the way they are saying it is coming off wrong and possibly hurting people's feelings; the only difference is that LSE are very good about not doing or repeating the same offense twice unlike LSI or SLE.

Last is the point I made and it does make sense for me. EII are not very good at scolding, but we are very good at having our feeling hurt by others by what wrongful or inappropriate things are said either by the spur of the moment, without thought, or by inadvertence.

[Beautiful sky]

Ok so here are my personal values and let's see if that aligns with Beta or Delta

1. I don't like to exclude anyone from a club or a scene if I can help it.
2. I don't like clicks.
3. I find scolding people to be really mean and am only really comfortable with addressing by feelings about being hurt in writing.
4. I will easily forgive and forget people who say or do the "wrong" things, but I will make it a point to address the concern if what they did either did not come across funny to me or that it violated my sense of ethics.
5. I want a person who will feel a certain sense of magnanimity and nobleness by their good/right acts (actions) and who has a good sense of cleanliness and order about him...I think that's very character of my dual, who I feel is LSE.

[Aiss]

2. I don't like clicks.

www.dontclick.it

[DividedsGhost]

www.dontclick.it

Wow, that's annoying. You try to move to something you think you want to see and you unintentionally open other shit along the way.

[redbaron]

Wow, that's annoying. You try to move to something you think you want to see and you unintentionally open other shit along the way.

It said dontclick. So I didn't. See, if you follow the instructions, it's not annoying.

[Ezra]

It said dontclick. So I didn't. See, if you follow the instructions, it's not annoying.