.
.
Last edited by 717495; 03-08-2011 at 12:58 AM.
It's because you seem to have little self-awareness of what you actually do.
You put people down for trying to force fit things into socionics terminology, but then you do it yourself.
You claim that you type people a certain way, yet you don't actually do that.
You claim that you don't talk about temperaments, and when someone else brings it up, you dismiss it, but then later you bring up temperaments as support for your own typings.
You dont seem to grasp how socioncis' elements describe you, where the elements actually describe the things that you do/think/etc. Nor model A, etc. So you ask other people. You describe yourself one way one day, and a day later you describe yourself completely different.
You make maritsian connections between things that people say/do, and don't seem aware how...grasping..those connections are. It's like, you have this hammer (the theory) and you're treating everything as nails. Which is one of the methods of learning, I'm not totally dissing it. But you just can't seem to admit that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. And when your 'impressions' are threatened, or reality starts to kick in, then instead of opening your mind up, you shut reality down by putting the person/other down. Anything to protect your own ideas.
You don't just do this with one person, you've done this with other people and other subjects as well. (Seeing this often enough is why I was finally prompted to say something.)
You don't approach socionics in a logical way, so alpha nt is out. Yet you like to attempt to play the logic games. You're too set on pushing your own judgments onto others, instead of being open to altering your perceptions. J>P You interpret what people say as if they are trying to influence your emotions. Not because they are making a point, but you're so focused on how things influence your emotions that that's how you seem to keep interpreting things...how it may/may not or whether it's supposed to be influencing your emotions.
You also seem to rely fairly heavily on other people's perceptions of you. Your sense of self, as i mentioned, keeps changing. Dynamic>Static.
You're certainly quite expressive and outgoing in your attempts to learn socionics and to figure out your own type. And as much as you jump around, it suggests Xe>Xi. Now, if your jumping around actually is caused by you learning more about yourself, and those learnings stabilize into self awareness, then I could see P>J But as yet, I haven't seen anything to hint that that may be happening.
While I see more Alpha than Beta, I can't pinpoint anything yet. So I'm open to ENFj as well.
You did, after all, ask for a poll and opinions. All I've done is offered mine.
You are, of course, free to ignore it, it's not like my opinion is set in stone. (lol, not like my opinions mean anything to you anyways, nor do my opinions influence your type, etc. This whole post is meaningless to you..and not important enough for me.)
Oh, and also, you're a dead wringer for XoX. He had similar issues trying to find his type as well.
Good luck in your search.
May you figure out how socionics describes YOU before you further attempt to solidify how you think socionics fits in with others.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think these are good points.
I think these are silly arguments.
You don't approach socionics in a logical way, so alpha nt is out. Yet you like to attempt to play the logic games.
You're too set on pushing your own judgments onto others, instead of being open to altering your perceptions. J>P
You interpret what people say as if they are trying to influence your emotions. Not because they are making a point, but you're so focused on how things influence your emotions that that's how you seem to keep interpreting things...how it may/may not or whether it's supposed to be influencing your emotions.
Your sense of self, as i mentioned, keeps changing. Dynamic>Static.
You're certainly quite expressive and outgoing in your attempts to learn socionics and to figure out your own type. And as much as you jump around, it suggests Xe>Xi. Now, if your jumping around actually is caused by you learning more about yourself, and those learnings stabilize into self awareness, then I could see P>J But as yet, I haven't seen anything to hint that that may be happening.
You have my tentative vote.
Removed at User Request
ENTP-Ti
I'm sticking with INTj atm, regardless of how much you kinda sorta look like Rebecca Hall on cam.
So wait, you ask people for their opinions of your type, then attack them for giving their opinion of your type?
poli what are you doing?
I just don't want to hear about "socionix" and all the emotional baggage that goes along with it. So ashton's socionix typing is not respected in this thread. That also means your typing is not respected, because it's always the same as his.
I'd like to hear real comments though. If someone is going to type me INTj, they'd better have a good reason to stick me in a category with a bunch of people I don't relate to, and which is plainly obvious to others here I don't relate to.
And the things Ashton and I say aren't real comments? What does constitute real socionics to you, and if you already have your opinions set in stone then why would you bother to seek other people's opinions? If you don't consider socionix people to be implementing 'real' socionics, then why would you even post at all in socionix if you don't respect the people who post there or the methodologies people there use?
Something seems very wrong here, something more than socionics. This isn't adding up at all.
What has ashton said: He's asbergers like niffweed, so he's INTj? Which I'm not. I've already illustrated the problems with ashton's conception of Socionics. Reread.
Real Socionics makes sense--it isn't excessively contradicted and isn't fishy sounding. It's something I've already found, but continue to question and change. Older posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s). This is so obvious if you just read the forum's history, and attend to the mace of ownage Expat and others hath struck.
It's called before and after. Cause and affect. Search and destroy.
If polikujm wants to be typed utilising Model A Socionics in a section dedicated to Model A Socionics, I think that's quite reasonable.
Ashton has made it quite clear that he doesn't utilise Model A Socionics.
I still think ILI makes the most sense. Statements like this point more towards a Te>Ti valuing approach as well
I also think the fact that Niffweed sees you as a probable ILI (and I think Expat and Rick too?) certainly gives a substantial amount of weight to the credibility of that typingOlder posters who don't post here anymore knew about real Socionics. But the made-up subjective BS continues, and tons of conceptions have little relation to the more original writing(s).
btw anyone who thinks Niffweed is an LII should read this, this is not someone who values Ti, let alone as a base
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the feeling that you're set on your self-typing .
I do agree. I think those curious about any of this should refer to these people and their analyses. Or else continue to mindlessly play your words around the forum not have them stand for anything in this forum's past--lest you know what I'm talking about. I see the same ridiculous things being reinvented by those who care to read and learn.
I'm honestly not planning on staying on this forum much longer, due to vast majority of irrelevant subjective opinions that many beta TI valuers who rely on their own systems have and defy true authority on the topic. After a while, it's just sort of pointless trying to defend yourself in this type of environment, hearing all the attempts to contradict the facts with layman's logic. Obvious ignorance to my ears. It was better back when we had some Gamma socionicists, and I've had to mostly live parallel to their time and stay true to the old discussions. I'm not the best at clarifying these, which is why I don't really see myself as a value to this forum, but I have been known to make some excellent points last year that showed my understanding about it.
Apathetic + cynical + quasi-intellectual != INTp
Poli, you are either instigating for the sake of your own amusement or you are being a hypocritic fool.
The end is nigh
Irrational, intuitive. Not IEE. Probably 4/5 axis, sx primary.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Many posts (including 6 copies) moved to new thread:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pe-thread.html
Don't you have something better to be doing?
Hey, polikujm - what's the point in having a poll, "discussing" your type when you're certain that you're ILI, and the same time changing your type every week ?
Last time you said you're SLI and considering LSE. That's some emotional instability or something ?
You were probably too drunk to understand anything I was implying.
I made the poll so people can discuss why they type me whatever. It's open to rational explanation.