Here comes Hydrangea, undefeated champion of socionics.
Hear ye, hear ye! By the decree of lord almighty hkkmr, our lord, saviour of the fucking people, I hereby grant you my shield and armour.
Hkkmr, organise the cages, I want to be left alone with Hydrangea.
Why not ILI? She sees Te-subtype to me. And besides, could any IEI possibly be that weird and disconcerting?
Sure, why not?Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
When you're tossing types left and right, how about LII ?
Anyway, I'm sure of her type.
Not IEI but EII.
Fixed.
Proven most people don't know how to type Fi egos, so whatever.
@poli
Like yourself?
Just kidding
But what if you're wrong... about everything
@Gilly
Definitely Beta/Gamma Ethical.
I always see her with fairly low energy, but high energy control. Possibly IJ or IP. Maybe EP with IJ subtype.
Hence IEI/ESI/SEE.
@MD
Her expressions are very scathing at times, and very warm at times. Sometimes sultry, sometimes self-deprecatory. IMO, it seems very Fi to me, but I may be wrong about how IEIs express themselves IRL (usually they're either laughing very loudly about something stupid with their friends, or saying nothing at all... and just waiting for something or someone to happen).
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
"Yes, it will be done."
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
No. She's not Fe.But what if you're wrong... about everything
As usual...
top 3 reasons why?
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
I say IEI..... when I first saw your posts I thought you were EIE. Beta NF is obvious enough but after seeing the clip you're most likely an IEI.
There are no reasons. Just learn to type.
Teach us your method(s) poli.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Given that I've had extensive and often candid interactions with individuals like Hydrangea, Megadoomer, nil, and others via IRC it's always rather grating when I look on the forum to see that "obvious" type identifications have been made on the basis of infrequent, terse, or otherwise limited data samples. My initial impression of her was also IEI but that eventually had to be discarded in favor of another typing after a fair bit of dialogue and observation.
So far, he/she is pretty weird.
Hope it's not a borderliner again, I seem to attract that kind of people.
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.
Fuck you.There are no reasons. Just learn to type.
Last edited by Gilly; 09-08-2011 at 02:48 AM. Reason: Lick my nuts, you spineless cunt
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...
Wow. This is an utterly hubristic statement and I hope people remember this whenever they read your typings.There are no reasons. Just learn to type.
@k0rpsey better to give explicit arguments based on a small body of evidence rather than to claim greater familiarity while giving no arguments whatsoever.
Weird is an imaginary concept. It's a conditioned response, you know?
Tcaud, please note this as well.
@k0rpsey better to give explicit arguments based on a small body of evidence rather than to claim greater familiarity while giving no arguments whatsoever.
Hote, Korp is withholding his explanation as he is aware it is my preference.
Thanks for adding your very personal opinion to a forum that is stocked with little else.k0rpsey better to give explicit arguments based on a small body of evidence rather than to claim greater familiarity while giving no arguments whatsoever.
This is more likely to make me doubt your typing mechanism then anything. You prioritize candid interaction where you get a side of her that is non-public and different? Ego functions are public, not private.
There is huge value in RL/visual/audio/real time interaction, but I think people can also easily just read every post she has ever made by clicking find all post by user button here.
Also easy ways to type people is by simply verbalization when they're being natural and unforced with themselves.
If your initial interaction is IEI then this may actually be the right typing, because once you got candid with her it might actually sway the typing erroneously. It's very common that family members are hard to type.
ok, I wasn't aware of that.
But still, as hkkmr points out, k0rpsey could just as easily use your reasonably extensive body of public posts here for his justification if he really wanted to, or perhaps make general observations without referring to specific details. I agree, I was hasty to come to a conclusion, as I noted in IRC.
ok, I wasn't aware of that.
But still, as hkkmr points out, k0rpsey could just as easily use your reasonably extensive body of public posts here for his justification if he really wanted to, or perhaps make general observations without referring to specific details. I agree, I was hasty to come to a conclusion, as I noted in IRC.
My posts here aren't personal enough to go off of. There are a few here who know me well enough to have some actual insight on my typology and any of them could justify that my posts alone aren't a good representation of me.
\o
Wow. Your typings are always ass-backwards, so I hope people remember this whenever they read your typi... er, reasoning.
You honestly think she's like any IEI on here? That's hilarious.
I will withhold judgment on Hydrangea's type pending further data.Wow. Your typings are always ass-backwards, so I hope people remember this whenever they read your typi... er, reasoning.
You honestly think she's like any IEI on here? That's hilarious.
I'm not sure it really works like that, I'm not sure your type but usually when you think you're being impersonal and non-revealing is when you use your ego. This way you don't expose any of your weak and/or subdued functions to criticism and only express your strongest most confidant areas.
And since I haven't explained that methodology your position is comically prejudicial.
Not at all. I holistically regard thread posts, chats, videos, preferences in music and artwork, social life, interests and activities, clothing choices, dietary habits, regular mien and moods, frequent expressions, etc. etc. etc. as interdependent aspects of a whole, no one ultimately being of greater importance than the rest. Similarly, I regard IEs within their functional framework as being a set of attractors with situationally variable charges and polarities, each working in concert with the others to produce the observed/experienced range of human cognition and behavior.You prioritize candid interaction where you get a side of her that is non-public and different?
That said, since there's no rush in making typological identifications I'm quite content to make lengthy observations and generally suspend judgment until justifiable conclusions can be drawn.
So are the others to some degree. Parapraxis, phobia, general anxiety, enthusiasm, love, hope, and a million other deep-seated impulses of the human mind peek out from behind our consciously maintained public faces each day.Ego functions are public, not private.
It's amazing something so obvious would merit mention. However I criticized the hastiness with which people are sometimes "obviously" typed after receiving little information to work with. One shouldn't assert the inviolate truthfulness of something that is merely plausible, and assumption of potential error should be implicit in every conclusion.There is huge value in RL/visual/audio/real time interaction, but I think people can also easily just read every post she has ever made by clicking find all post by user button here.
Yet if it's so simple one wonders why an often broad plurality of typings exists for nearly every bit of text and video put before the forum for analysis. Even more, some of our greatest wizards of typology are incapable of settling on a comfy pigeonhole for themselves or abandoning those that are patently improper fits. And like all other people they spend more "natural time" with themselves than anyone else possibly could, particularly as they're privy to their inner workings in a direct manner that is unavailable to anyone else.Also easy ways to type people is by simply verbalization when they're being natural and unforced with themselves.
Apperception occurs within the framework of previous experience, and so when a hunch arises I examine both the phenomena that evoked it and also my experiential history for clues of what informed that first, spontaneous reaction. Accounting for bias in this manner assists in increasing the objectivity of assessments. It's the widespread failure to account for unconscious elements in one's analysis that spurs me to bang on about the likes of pareidolia, apophenia, and hot cognition so often.If your initial interaction is IEI then this may actually be the right typing, because once you got candid with her it might actually sway the typing erroneously.
In some respects so is Hydrangea, though I'm fairly confident at this point in my typological analysis. If it suits me to explain it here at some point without feeling like I'm compromising her interests then I may well eventually do so.It's very common that family members are hard to type.
I'm sure you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong... but...
IEI is the same conclusion you made initially, so pot calling kettle black.
She seems very cool and nice tho...
I'm not immune to error, so your confidence has led you astray. As you've just illustrated, confounding mere appearances with ontic reality is a universal human foible that produces malformed reasoning. This tendency is what piques my interest in fallacies, biases, cognitive distortion, and the like, so that I can recognize them in others and guard against them in myself. So lay off this "you think you're above it all" posturing. It's silly and false.I'm sure you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong... but...
Despite your sloppily attempted miscoloration, IEI was an initial tentative impression, not a conclusion. It occurred in the first few minutes of encountering Hydrangea, before she joined 16chan or #socionics. And though that type-impression persisted for a time and competed with other ideas it was never conclusive (I generally expressed it as IEI>EII>LII until IEI was safely discounted), nor did I cease considering other typings. My general analytical method is a skeptical one involving something akin to epoche, which, in addition to suspension of belief or judgment, aims to pare the subjective away from objects of contemplation through examination of the analyst along with the analysand. This dovetails nicely with Gulenko's Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking, which, though it doesn't do so perfectly, suits my manner of thinking reasonably well.IEI is the same conclusion you made initially
Despite where it was posted and who was held up as an example (and recall that there were two others, neither of whom I've definitively typed), the gist of my original criticism was against hastily evaluated "obvious" typings based on often (comparatively) scanty data.
You're finally on the right track.She seems very cool and nice tho...
k0rpsey is on FYA!
Danke. Your recent posts have been pretty stellar, too.
Once again, I'm sure you feel that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Initial conclusion, tentative initial impression, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. It's basically a easy conclusion/impression to reach. I don't think your criticism of the "obvious" comments is wrong, in fact I think it's probably a good idea to be relatively skeptical as I have been through out this thread.
My criticism of you had nothing to do with your criticism of "obvious" typings, but rather your introduction of candid and extensive personal interaction as a objective source of data.
It's a common fallacy to believe that candid intimate knowledge gives better typing information. In fact, I find it often detrimental to typing ego functions because of the psychological distance being close and more vulnerable functions being used more freely.
Your extensive and candid association with Hydrangea makes your knowledge suspect and your perception untrustworthy.
Anyways, in a situation that if someone acts as IEI and others type them as IEI, I don't know how you can even consider that a bad typing.
Repeating bullshit like a magical incantation doesn't make it true, though it is handy for bamboozling the credulous. The last time Hydrangea's typing came up in conversation with me I said EII>LII, with the former by a wide margin. That indicates an absence of absolute certainty and it admits for the possibility that I may well be wrong. If she were to reveal she'd been craftily pulling our legs all along I'd have to take that into account while revising my analysis.
Of course you won't because doing so would require you to admit you came off half cocked and incorrect.Initial conclusion, tentative initial impression, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
Yet another mischaracterization. I just said appearances aren't tantamount to actualities and that they should be weighed against one another to produce a gestalt; that skeptical inquiry and suspension of belief should be employed to prevent unduly skewing observations; and that the observer-analyst should also examine himself for signs of bias and other forms of self-misdirection to further reduce errancy.My criticism of you had nothing to do with your criticism of "obvious" typings, but rather your introduction of candid and extensive personal interaction as a objective source of data.
And again, since I took a poke at hasty generalization I was speaking primarily of quantitative differences in available data, far less so qualitative. To reiterate for clarity, my position on the latter is that on IRC (or other chat venues) people are often less guarded or prepared in their statements than they are on the forum, simply because realtime interaction provides less opportunity to mull responses. This doesn't mean it's automatically, axiomatically so. It means it's a general trend I've noted, and in this case Hydrangea has stated that she concurs.It's a common fallacy to believe that candid intimate knowledge gives better typing information.
Show me the research that attests to this assertion.In fact, I find it often detrimental to typing ego functions because of the psychological distance being close and more vulnerable functions being used more freely.
That duration and proximity is only greater relative to that of some other individuals, and certainly not as great as your red herring intimates or assumes. And it's ridiculous to assert that prolonged observation leads to faulty conclusions. If the case were otherwise anthropologists, archaeologists, and other field researchers would just sit home and make shit up, laboratory workers would simply phone in their fabricated test results, and statisticians and actuaries wouldn't exist.Your extensive and candid association with Hydrangea makes your knowledge suspect and your perception untrustworthy.
Despite Yaaroslav's insistence, consensus doesn't equal validity. Dunno about you but I prefer to make up my own mind.Anyways, in a situation that if someone acts as IEI and others type them as IEI, I don't know how you can even consider that a bad typing.
I'm not talking about your thinking, I'm talking about how you feel in regards to other people opinions due to your "candid and extensive experience".Repeating bullshit like a magical incantation doesn't make it true, though it is handy for bamboozling the credulous. The last time Hydrangea's typing came up in conversation with me I said EII>LII, with the former by a wide margin. That indicates an absence of absolute certainty and it admits for the possibility that I may well be wrong. If she were to reveal she'd been craftily pulling our legs all along I'd have to take that into account while revising my analysis.
Of course you won't because doing so would require you to admit you came off half cocked and incorrect.
What do you think your candid and extensive experience has done for you? What made you eliminate IEI as a type? These are position you're left unjustified, although for good reason.
"anthropologists, archaeologists, and other field researchers" don't necessarily have candid conversations with their subjects. There are ways to observe people without forming a candid interaction.
It's obvious from your posts you feel you have more complete knowledge, I think many of the posters accept this, but is it more unbiased knowledge or greater clarity about her type and ego functions, I do not agree.
As far as typing Hydrangea via her ego functions.
Until I have a reason to believe that for some reason she is suppressing her ego functions on the forum or in this thread, I don't think we can dismiss casually her posts here, impersonal as it might be. Ego function aren't necessarily always personal, but they are comfortable.
I don't feel much of anything except irritation at watching hasty generalizations being thrown around as if they "obvious" and true.
And again you're inferring greater connectedness than probably exists, not to mention decontextualizing my illustration to commit an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. Zero points awarded."anthropologists, archaeologists, and other field researchers" don't necessarily have candid conversations with their subjects. There are ways to observe people without forming a psychologically close interaction.
And yet if a person speaks about a prominent aspect of his/her life in one venue and remains mum about it in another, then the habitues of the former are likelier to have a more complete picture of that individual than those who frequent the latter. That's hardly a controversial idea. Take note:Until I have a reason to believe that for some reason that she is suppressing her ego functions on the forum or in this thread, I don't think we can dismiss casually her posts here, impersonal as it might be. Ego function aren't necessarily always personal, but they are comfortable.
That doesn't mean she's revealed nothing of herself on the forum and that reasonable inferences can't be drawn from what she's provided here, but compared to her comportment on IRC there is both a definite qualitative and quantitative difference.
This has been your strawman all along, not something I've said, though I do agree that it is true.I have mentioned this before but I will reiterate this, candid and extensive knowledge isn't the end all be all for identifying the ego type, as these functions are more public and comfortable.
I actually edited my post because I didn't really want to go there again, but you responded prior to my edit. However you keep bringing up strawman when all I've done is interpret exactly what you said.
The comment you wrote here here in my opinion values extensive and candid interactions, and devalues what you consider infrequent, terse, "limited" interactions.
It matters little if the typing is obvious or skeptical, maybe if it wasn't a "obvious" typing it wouldn't be irritating to you.
You might not have said it explicitly here, but imo you view your extensive and candid knowledge as being superior. If you don't, let me know, however my hypothesis is that you think your candid and extensive knowledge is superior.
Socionics model is pretty cool, because by observing and analyzing public persona, one can get a good idea of a entire information metabolism. One of the primary benefit of it is that it allow you to get a decent assessment with limited interaction. I think it's useful be skeptical of that initial assessment and "obvious" is probably not so obvious. However, candid interactions bring it's own area of trouble as well.
I happen to believe that extensive knowledge is superior to limited knowledge, but candid knowledge can sometimes be confusing, which is my initial criticism.
Wow this dick waving is getting intense.
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...
If your interpretation didn't lead you to voice so many false assertions about my position I wouldn't object. As it stands, however...
Implication != inference. In your "I don't want to play semantics" semantics game you're failing to make sense of the fact that the sort and the amount of information presented will affect totalized data available for analysis. Again, I view all manner of personal data as aspects of a greater whole, not, per your continued and false insistence, isolated elements selectively prioritized over others. As an illustration, one can garner a greater variety and depth of information about the contents of a room by situating oneself within it repeatedly and for lengthy periods than one could by merely peeping through a keyhole a handful of times for a very few short seconds apiece. Reasonable inferences can still be drawn from the infrequent peephole method. The keyhole method may even provide its own perspectival advantage in revealing an aspect of the room that would otherwise remain hidden from most occupants of that space. However, the peephole approach generally isn't going to reveal the fuller knowledge that more direct and extensive exposure will afford. That said, if both intermittent/remote/brief and frequent/proximal/lengthy* methods of investigation are available then their findings should both be entered into the gestalt image so the analyst is able to arrive at the most valid inferences.The comment you wrote here here in my opinion values extensive and candid interactions, and devalues what you consider infrequent, terse, "limited" interactions.
* And these terms are naturally relativistic, both with respect to the object and between one observer or observation to the next.
As previously stated, unless situational demands necessitate prompt or urgent action/analysis I usually have no qualms about letting things take their course so that the nature of their wonted trajectories can be taken in and pondered. Since there's no exigency in casual online interaction I'm in no rush to reach conclusions about anyone's type, and in fact if I make a concerted effort to do so without spontaneous interest it usually becomes laborious and unfun.It matters little if the typing is obvious or skeptical, maybe if it wasn't a "obvious" typing it wouldn't be irritating to you.
And although I think "obviously IEI, the video is enough for me" is wrong on both counts, it's primarily the hasty generalization I find irksome, not what I see as a misidentification (though I don't mean to rib THA excessively, esp. after he's seen the wisdom in postponing judgment). Note again that I originally mentioned nil and Megadoomer as well, two other individuals whose best-fit typing is still an unresolved matter of open conjecture, and with whom I've had fairly direct interpersonal dealings on IRC for some months (and this doesn't mean we're BFFs who know each others' most secretly secretest secrets, simply that they (and I in return) have provided more and different information than has made its way to the forum, and in a manner that leaves less time for contemplating its best presentation). Simply because I haven't registered similar objections about the "obvious" in their respective threads doesn't mean that I don't hold similar positions regarding the same. Likewise, I canceled two posts to this thread before finally submitting my first one.
"Superior" isn't the term I'd use, though compared to the "obvious" typers I'm fairly certain I've been exposed to a greater breadth and depth of information (and it is still quite limited). It's possible others are present on the forum whose knowledge of Hydrangea exceeds mine, or who possess greater perspicacity, and are thus able to perform an even more detailed and accurate analysis.You might not have said it explicitly here, but imo you view your extensive and candid knowledge as being superior. If you don't, let me know, however my hypothesis is that you think your candid and extensive knowledge is superior
"Can" being the operative word. Possibility != actuality.Socionics model is pretty cool, because by observing and analyzing public persona, one can get a good idea of a entire information metabolism.
True, though my qualifiers concerning quantity and quality of available data still stand.One of the primary benefit of it is that it allow you to get a decent assessment with limited interaction.
Yet you've only repeated this assertion and failed to adduce it. And I think you're overestimating the degree of openness Hydrangea demonstrates in one venue over the other; though it's relatively greater it's is still rather limited. This is part of why I said she poses some difficulties in making a typological identification, though that in itself is indicative of certain personal traits.I think it's useful be skeptical of that initial assessment and "obvious" is probably not so obvious. However, candid interactions bring it's own area of trouble as well. I happen to believe that extensive knowledge is superior to limited knowledge, but candid knowledge can sometimes be confusing, which is my initial criticism.
Lastly, if you want to continue this pissing contest then let's move it to another thread and continue it on general grounds instead of messing up Hydrangea's fun and games. If not I'm claiming total victory over you and taking my criticisms to Krig's typing fuckups thread.
Korpsey, you're a troll and it's kinda of pointless to debate you as usual. You spent most of the debate trying to avoiding any discussion on socionics but rather trying to obfuscate the various biases in your initial post with varying level of denial.
I hope the people reading this thread at least got a good idea of what Ego functions are and how candid information may be confusing when typing the Ego functions and how public information is useful in analyzing the ego.
That's vague handwaving that says nothing. I've given you the straight dope as I see it. If you're unable to comprehend or disprove what I've said then admit as much and move on instead of continuing with your routine attempts to discredit through mischaracterization and selective interpretation. If the instruments, methods, and standards of philosophical and scientific investigation (not to mention common sense and everyday experience) can't be brought to bear against socionics then I'm curious exactly how you expect to explain or demonstrate its validity, or lack thereof. If it's an entirely self-contained field of inquiry then we might as well term it religion or hermeticism.Korpsey, you're a troll and it's kinda of pointless to debate you as usual. You spent most of the debate trying to avoiding any discussion on socionics but rather trying to obfuscate the various biases in your initial post with varying level of denial.
Since the entire basis for your counterargument rests on a snippet from an unnamed website you'd assist our fine fellows in this community by explaining where you found it so it can be properly contextualized.I hope the people reading this thread at least got a good idea of what Ego functions are and how candid information may be confusing when typing the Ego functions and how public information is useful in analyzing the ego.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 09-07-2011 at 08:48 PM.
Disprove what? You essentially have said, "I have more info on her...blah blah blah, not IEI, blah..." No justification for not IEI, or EII or LII, just secret info.I've given you the straight dope as I see it. If you're unable to comprehend or disprove what I've said then admit as much and move on instead of continuing with your routine attempts to discredit through mischaracterization, selective interpretation, and hand-waving.
I'm skeptical of your bias due to your possession of candid information. You haven't provide any information on her type either but that's understandable due to her request. So lets just leave it at that.
I'm asserted that public information is the better information on the ego function which I've listed a reference for.
I recommend you substantiate your conclusions(not sure what those are) via public information on this forum if you won't reveal your secret info.
As far as the snippet I quoted, it comes from here. I don't like the user written type descriptions on Wikisocion, but many of the articles reiterate existing literature found elsewhere.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...=Ego_block#Ego
I have said a couple of things in quite a few different ways, that's it.
A. Candid info = meh for ego typing
B. Public info = good for ego typing
This is probably not the best thread for us to hash this out due to the op's discretion however.
Actually before she commented on it in this thread I explained to her on IRC why I wouldn't justify my typing of her on the forum just yet, which she appeared to appreciate as she thanked me for considering her feelings in the matter (imagine that).
Anyhow I agree that this is a poor venue for this swordfight and have no interest in continuing it here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
