So, I'm with you now

[Krig the Viking]

Krig: I know you are fond of her because she is your dual, but seriously? this stupidity can not be allowed to run free. I know you alphas have your gentle tactics, but I dont intend to baby an airhead on the internet.

Sorry.

Yeah, I guess our interchange here is pretty much a perfect demonstration of the difference between -Fe and +Fe. My -Fe doesn't want to see anyone's feelings get hurt and prefers to discuss things gently and calmly, and your +Fe wants a cathartic release of frustration, without caring whose feelings get hurt.

[Crispy]

Does anyone have a detailed +/- page I can look at?

[xerx]

@OP on the issue of betas.
Betas often have major conflicts when dealing with other betas.

[Crispy]

Nvm I found it. Let me clarify.
-Fe = minimization/avoidance of negative emotions. Avoidance of quarrels, scandals and emotional instability. This is acknowledged as more important than the release of positive emotions.

The Alpha NT's being mean to people is still true I think, but it might have been related to Fi, or even Ti and not Fe.

[Beautiful sky]

I thought people were smarter than this

All you Perceptual types putting an Icon of a moving object (objects in dynamics ) while I am trying to read objects in static...(words on a piece of fucking paper) ......
GIVES ME MAJORLY VERTIGO...QUIT IT!!!!!!!!!

AND BE A LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW STATIC/DYNAMICS WORK with both J and P types

[Crispy]

Maritsa are you GIF-sensitive?

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa are you GIF-sensitive?

The image is moving while my eyes are sensitive to moving objects while I'm trying to focus on constant/static things.

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah, I guess our interchange here is pretty much a perfect demonstration of the difference between -Fe and +Fe. My -Fe doesn't want to see anyone's feelings get hurt and prefers to discuss things gently and calmly, and your +Fe wants a cathartic release of frustration, without caring whose feelings get hurt.

Are you kidding me?
That's not Fe.

[crazedrat]

I'm just curious - did Maritsa actually have a real impact on Vixens self typing? Lol

Vixenfox, stop spreading lies. You are not SLI. Furthermore, you are not qualified to make claims about whether you're SLI. You know nothing about socionics. That is very clear from what you just said.

When you posted that video, you got alot of "You seem ESE".

Have you ever actually met an SLI? Can you describe them to me? They're probably the most boring type in the socion. Their lack of emotional expressiveness is immediately obvious to anyone.

You don't resemble an SLI in even the most remote sense. You are ESE, end of discussion. I understand you're a dainty alpha type who likes to entertain creative ideas.. But at this point it's just annoying.

Making claims when you clearly know nothing about the topic is arrogant and deserving of reprisal. If you have a problem with the heat you're receiving in this thread then think before you post some random, ignorant shit; or at least qualify your random ignorant shit with 'well I don't really know anything about this topic, but here's my two cents'. That would at least make it a little better.

[Mattie]

You don't want to be an SiTe, they are such a pain

[Jarno]

oke enough about you, how about your boyfriend.

He used to be an INTJ uber nerd, and is now suddenly metamorphized into a flamboyant ENFP don juan.

How do you explain that?

[Beautiful sky]

You don't want to be an SiTe, they are such a pain

No.
Is Cyrano?
Is Cyclops?

NO NO NO NO

Vixen

That tells that you're an introvert

[Brilliand]

I'm not going to fight a self-typing with this much relevant untestable-over-the-Internet reasoning to it. VDF, I suggest you put your self-typing in your signature.

[crazedrat]

Generally I view explaining myself to a person like you as a waste of time. Heres why:
1: You aren't asking questions, you're making claims. Already your mind is shut down and closed off. I don't feel like fighting against your claims. I figure if you really wanted to learn something you would try reading and asking questions.
2: Your arguments are based on ignorance, making them even harder to respond to. You obviously haven't put much effort into learning the basics.
3: You 'like the idea of being ISTp'.
4: Arguing with alpha SFs is a huge waste of time. Words for them go in one ear, scramble around in their brain, and then go flying right back out the same ear. This I've learned through experience.
5: You're responding by mentioning your right to free expression. This pisses me off because no one has the right to spread ignorance.
6: You're an alpha type in a 'dainty creative mode'.

Basically if you want to learn I expect you to respond to peoples attacks, however rude they are, by asking questions instead of restating your assertions. Or at the very least you could exacerbate on your assertions in some more legitimate way. That would actually show you have some genuine interest in learning. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand and learn it with you. Hell, I taught myself this theory.

As for the notion you don't know what you're talking about - it's just immediately obvious to any experienced person who reads your posts.


Looking into it more, it turns out you've changed your boyfriends typing. Now you suspect he is an ENFp. And that you decided you were ISTp after you were looking at pictures of ENFps.. So it's pretty clear to me what's going on at this point. You want to be ISTp so you can be the dual of your boyfriend. Well, that's not how reality works.

[crazedrat]

I do read, constantly. I would never ask you questions however because (your) pompous behavior is a major turnoff to me.

Your reply here is basically Fe. ^^^That is Fe. ISTp has Fe polr. You are not ISTp. Understand?
You don't know the slightest thing about functions.

Not really. That is why I picked about four other types to "be" before I came back to the beginning.

Well I'm talking about right now. At this point you like the idea you're ISTp and you've become very buttheaded. Not talking about whatever you thought last year or even a month ago. Completely irrelevant.

Interestingly this is subjective as type relations dictate the way a type is perceived. I'm not that interested in whether you think I am logical. I know I am not SF now though. Of that I am certain.

Oh no, it's not subjective. ESFjs will ramble on and on, clueless as hell.
Anyway, your certainty is meaningless.

Oh? You mean the way you undoubtedly do in a vast many aspects of your life you aren't even aware of. Give me a break.

Yeah, see this again illustrates why I don't talk to you regarding the theory in detail. You're telling me I'm not aware enough of who you are as a person to be able to type you, and only you can really do that. Well if that's the case then we can close this fucking thread, and you can be confident in your self typing on your own.

To that dismissive and insulting comment I can only roll my eyes and grimace.

The natural response of a person with such dominant Fe.

Wow, you must be really smart. *bats eyes dramatically* You can even use the word "exacerbate" [though incorrectly]!!!

Wow, that's alot of Fe!
But lol - that word wasn't used incorrectly, dumbass. Here's the definition:
Main Entry: ex·ac·er·bate
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin exacerbatus, past participle of exacerbare, from ex- + acerbus harsh, bitter, from acer sharp — more at edge
: to make more violent, bitter, or severe <the proposed shutdown…would exacerbate

So the sentence ''exacerbate on your assertions'' is telling you to make your argument 'more sharp, at edge'. It's a perfect metaphor which is apparently over your head.

Gosh, I'd better listen to you! I'd better ask pompous windbags like you to explain themselves because I REALLY CARE.
*gag*

Once again this is pure Fe.

I never asked to learn in this thread

Actually you just asked me why I didn't explain things to newcomers, and this was an explicit response to that question. So yeah, you did ask to learn.

, I wanted to announce my new typing. People can comment as they wish. I did not invite them to explain anything to me.

Yeah you did.

Get over yourself Crazed, you are not as smart as you believe yourself to be.

Yes I am.

Subjective and one-sided...

Yeah, well something being subjective doesn't make it untrue. And at what point does most of the forums subjectivity translate into something resembling objectivity? Anyway, I have the experience to back up that subjectivity.


That assumption is retarded. I most certainly did not decide to be SLI because I changed my boyfriend's type. It happened naturally. Once I believed his type to be different, I did question my own, but did not immediately move to SLI.

Okay so you you first dismiss his type change had any impact, but then come around to acknowledge it caused you to question your own type? Nice contradiction.

I decided to reconsider several people's types (as I do often when I learn something new about socionics and feel I have gained a small bit of new understanding). But I don't need to explain myself to you.
I DON'T CARE IF I AM HIS DUAL, I have already said. AND, SLI is my original typing years ago. Ugh.

Well honestly that's just the best explanation I could come up with for this completely baseless self typing of yours. I could be wrong about it - this could all just be some random inspiration you've had. That's actually more pathetic in my eyes.. But it really doesn't matter why you're doing this. I mean, I was venturing a guess, but it's mostly irrelevant.

.

[Beautiful sky]

Thank you, I am just about to!

I want to take a trip up to see you and hang out with you soon...

[Aiss]

Wow, you must be really smart. *bats eyes dramatically* You can even use the word "exacerbate" [though incorrectly]!!! Gosh, I'd better listen to you! I'd better ask pompous windbags like you to explain themselves because I REALLY CARE.
*gag*
I never asked to learn in this thread, I wanted to announce my new typing. People can comment as they wish. I did not invite them to explain anything to me. Get over yourself Crazed, you are not as smart as you believe yourself to be.

Putting aside the Fe I believe you show in your posts - and that's coming from Fe-PoLR female who's been managing to avoid being considered socially awkward for a while - there's still this question which bugs me. Why did you start this thread if it wasn't to ask or learn? In fact, why did you start so many threads about yourself on here, most of them pointless - like "I got a job" or whatever? This is something I can't reconcile with Fe vulnerable, even though I tried. It simply goes against it. If anything, xLI tend to do their best to avoid drawing attention to themselves, only doing so if they need a response - need as in knowledge or real help, not "support" or something of the sort. You can't deny that by starting a thread about your typing or whatever personal issue you do draw attention to yourself in a public manner. Understand that I am not trying to imply attention-seeking or whatever here, but speaking of what you actually did.

[Crispy]

I want to take a trip up to see you and hang out with you soon...

Just don't get to disillusioned with each other

[Beautiful sky]

Just don't get to disillusioned with each other

She doesn't joke around and poke and make fun of external information like Fe valuers/ego block holders do. Just remember that, and for the record, I'm a serious type so your joke just over my head...lol

[crazedrat]

Maritsa I suggest you abandon all your interest in socionics and get a job with the church, or in childcare.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa I suggest you abandon all your interest in socionics and get a job with the church, or in childcare.

You have good use of Ti, as you supposidly claim that you do...here's a test...eliminate contridictions and variables and tell me what the answer is...

What do you need to do in order to study a theory?

Disclaimer: If you fail my Ti test, you are toast

[crazedrat]

You have good use of Ti, as you supposidly claim that you do...here's a test...eliminate contridictions and variables and tell me what the answer is...

What do you need to do in order to study a theory?

Disclaimer: If you fail my Ti test, you are toast

for fucks sake..

[Creepy-cinq]

All you Perceptual types putting an Icon of a moving object (objects in dynamics ) while I am trying to read objects in static...(words on a piece of fucking paper) ......

GIVES ME MAJORLY VERTIGO...QUIT IT!!!!!!!!!

AND BE A LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW STATIC/DYNAMICS WORK with both J and P types

To be honest, your post here is quite disruptive itself. It's the equivalent to yelling.

This is a public forum with 16 types interacting in different ways. 'Yelling' is no better than icons of moving objects. If you feel the freedom to express your feelings extravertedly this way, then, there should be no issue with others posting moving objects. Adjust, and move on.

[Beautiful sky]

for fucks sake..

You're failing...........

[crazedrat]

Maritsa do you really think I'm gona play your games? I don't respect you enough for that, sorry.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa do you really think I'm gona play your games?

I don't care, it only proves my point.

[crazedrat]

Why don't you say your fucking point so I don't have to dig for it? You see... your little gay attempt at getting me to comply with you is just making me defiant. I really don't like searching for meaning in a scrambled web of imagination, either.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa do you really think I'm gona play your games? I don't respect you enough for that, sorry.

Wait, I thought you liked

[crazedrat]

Wait, I thought you liked

Okay you've completely lost me at this point. How does Se have anything to do with respect?

[Beautiful sky]

Why don't you say your fucking point so I don't have to dig for it? You see... your little gay attempt at getting me to comply with you is just making me defiant. I really don't like searching for meaning in a scrambled web of imagination, either.

Ti per Allie: "To study a theory you need to agree on what phenomena you're observing. You all look at the color red, agree that it's the color red, and then you can identify other things that are the color red. You don't sit around and discuss what it means to be red, or describe what red is like and then go and identify it. That's the wrong approach, and that technique is pretty much “Classical Socionics” in a nutshell. People will [somewhat] agree on what a type is in text, but when they go out and try to identify these types in celebrities or IRL there is never any consensus. So they criticize us for having a consensus. Well, what the hell are they criticizing anyway? Of course we have a consensus when we our methodology is observable rather than textbook. We agree on what a color looks like and therefore we can identify color in any object you throw in front of us. Maybe if we—like the people who criticize us—type based off of descriptions rather than people we'd lack a consensus too. However, once you know what red looks like it's kind of difficult to not have a consensus with others who know what red looks like too. It's observable phenomena; it's exactly what it appears to be."

[crazedrat]

Ti per Allie: "To study a theory you need to agree on what phenomena you're observing. You all look at the color red, agree that it's the color red, and then you can identify other things that are the color red. You don't sit around and discuss what it means to be red, or describe what red is like and then go and identify it. That's the wrong approach, and that technique is pretty much “Classical Socionics” in a nutshell. People will [somewhat] agree on what a type is in text, but when they go out and try to identify these types in celebrities or IRL there is never any consensus. So they criticize us for having a consensus. Well, what the hell are they criticizing anyway? Of course we have a consensus when we our methodology is observable rather than textbook. We agree on what a color looks like and therefore we can identify color in any object you throw in front of us. Maybe if we—like the people who criticize us—type based off of descriptions rather than people we'd lack a consensus too. However, once you know what red looks like it's kind of difficult to not have a consensus with others who know what red looks like too. It's observable phenomena; it's exactly what it appears to be."

I agree with allie. Now how is that relevant to you making shitty associations with the functions? Are you trying to say you're some fucking empiricist? No maritsa, you aren't an empiricist. You're a quack. You take something you see and then label it wrongly. You also take labels and misapply them.

[Beautiful sky]

Okay you've completely lost me at this point. How does Se have anything to do with respect?

If you like this then you don't need to "respect" me to offer me information...what the heck...that just means you have

[crazedrat]

If you like this then you don't need to "respect" me to offer me information...what the heck...that just means you have

Did you not learn to write as a child? Holy fuck.

[Beautiful sky]

I agree with allie. Now how is that relevant to you making shitty associations with the functions? Are you trying to say you're some fucking empiricist? No maritsa, you aren't an empiricist. You're a quack. You take something you see and then label it wrongly. You also take labels and misapply them.

Discredit someone before they wild power over you. Therefore making sure they don't have authority in what they say and write.

[crazedrat]

Discredit someone before they wild power over you. Therefore making sure they don't have authority in what they say and write.

Maritsa I honestly cannot filter down what your point is.

[crazedrat]

You aren't interested in learning shit. Save the guilt trip, it only works on alpha types.
Put out shitty, wrong information and it will be shot down. If you can't handle the heat then get out of the fucking kitchen bitch!

[Beautiful sky]

I agree with allie. Now how is that relevant to you making shitty associations with the functions? Are you trying to say you're some fucking empiricist? No maritsa, you aren't an empiricist. You're a quack. You take something you see and then label it wrongly. You also take labels and misapply them.

You think I take labels and misapply them then you should look at what your labels mean. They aren't clear, defined, and objectible.

You aren't interested in learning shit. Save the guilt trip, it only works on alpha types.
Put out shitty, wrong information and it will be shot down. If you can't handle the heat then get out of the fucking kitchen bitch!

My point is you should reevaluate the meanings of the functions, what you have in your mind now are wrong. It's creating a huge faction/seperation and no one is agreeing then it makes it even worse wrong...look at what Allie wrote, they are not consistant.

[crazedrat]

Maritsa, you basically misinterpreted what she said. She's talking about empiricism. In socionics, empiricism is tempering your application of functions and other abstract concepts with the real understanding of the limitations of your knowledge. I.e., don't let yourself get too lost in your own head. You see, functions ARE abstract by their very definition. At the same time there is an element of exploring real, external manifestations of the functions. But this is always done with respect to their abstract definitions, which is the root of what a function is.

This is different than what you do. What you do is you take an ~irrelevant observation~ and then you associate it with a function. Completely different than what allie is talking about.

[Crispy]

The best advice I can give is to keep reading ESFj descriptions and ISTp descriptions for the next few days. Look at the types of your friends and family (besides your boyfriend) and fit your piece of the puzzle in with all the intertype relations. Then post a new thread as a born again ESFj.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa, you basically misinterpreted what she said. She's talking about empiricism. In socionics, empiricism is tempering your application of functions and other abstract concepts with the real understanding of the limitations of your knowledge. I.e., don't let yourself get too lost in your own head. You see, functions ARE abstract by their very definition.

This is different than what you do. What you do is you take an ~irrelevant observation~ and then you associate it with a function. Completely different than what allie is talking about.

Allie is saying that if we are to have consensus on what something means that people should have to agree on their meaning. There's no such thing as empericism, that's a logical inconsistancy in and of itself because if that were true then science or the scientific process would be empericism.