P.S. To address some Socionics problems in your last post:
Betas aren't always "hard-hitting..." That is a misconception, propagated by ppl on this forum who haven't learned Socionics fully... All beta is, is: Fe, Ni, Se, and Ti... There are plenty of betas--of each of the beta Sociotypes--who act/are 'soft.'
This quote speaks to where you need to push past stereotypes in your understanding of Socionics... It seems like your definitions of what is "Fi," "Si," (it's not 'smoothness,' as there are plenty of beta's I'm sure you'd classify as 'smooth' too,) "non Se," (i.e. what Se seeking is,) and what "infantile" is and is not... (If you ever have sex with an infantile, you'll know what I'm talkin about... It's pretty damned evident... They act like babies and it is off-putting.. ugh, i just got a terrible image in my head... wow... regardless:.)
It's not about how Michael Jackson feels to you, whether you personally like him/his music or not... (There is a lot of beta music I don't like... The band 311 for example, to me, sucks... It's just hippie garbage... But it's beta--it's still Se, Ni, Ti, and Fe, in other words.) It's about whether he exhibits the beta functions.
Your difficulty seeing MJ as beta may be complicated by the fact that you and MJ are obviously opposite subtypes, (you = beta accepting, MJ = beta producing.)




Reply With Quote
