The real question is; how do you know that and how can you make that assessment?Originally Posted by lungs
The next question is:
Do you trust the wiki socion descriptions of types? and when you read external sources, are they convincing to you?
The real question is; how do you know that and how can you make that assessment?
The next question is:
Do you trust the wiki socion descriptions of types? and when you read external sources, are they convincing to you?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Actually three different. Wait until you get to eight.
So the process is this:
1. You watch my activities. I typed you two different things.
2. You observe my activity patterns. I am confused a lot.
3. You make an assessment based on the above? Errotic typings and unmanageable approach, which is Te DS, you assumed I was confused.
4. What do you think you were doing most of? Perceiving (watching things happen) or judging (concluding things that happened)? And, what were you perceiving/judging, my conscious functions or my subconscious functions?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Why do you remain so quiet when you're asked questions? Does it hurt you to think and ponder on these things?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
She's just not so humanist as you are.
Pretty certain that remaining quiet doesn't have anything to do with the qualities of being a humanist.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Judging by your behaviour, the only true EII humanist who jabbers 24/7, it doesn't have anything to do with being a humanist. I think you confused those scholars of the Renaissance who were called humanists with a person having concern for other peoples values and so on.
Anyway, what is your unchanging and confimed typing of lungs?
lol. i was getting dressed because i was about to go to the store but now i'm waiting for someone and i have a little time. i'll have to be brief.
wikisocion/external sources
i find them useful but i don't know any particular reason to trust one more than any other unless they correspond to my own experience in which case i'm just going by my own experience anyway.
What do you think you were doing most of? Perceiving (watching things happen) or judging (concluding things that happened)? And, what were you perceiving/judging, my conscious functions or my subconscious functions?
i can't exclude one or the other. i observed and i made a guess based on my observations. i never did make any conclusions; though, like i said, it was just an educated guess.
Does it hurt you to think and ponder on these things?
what things in particular? socionics? it depends on how its framed and what questions i'm being asked to ponder.
k, later
Te PoLR
Yes you did observe and yes that was followed by a guess based on the observation, rather than you making a theory and following it or gathering facts to support it; hence the reverse of what I or any other rational type does. Jung makes a very specific point that Perceptual types observe other people's subconscious and that Rational types observe other people's conscious functions; that would actually mean that you were looking at my Te DS and not my Fi. That would also mean that you're a perceptual type.
nevermind about this point
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Oh yay...it was nice getting to see you.
edited to add:
Just saw this post:
You sounded more...smiley...than I expected. I know that means little, heh, sorry I can't be more helpful.god, people. comment, do i come off the same or different than you would expect from my posts? i'm dying here ok? ok
Still...Yay!!
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
i like your looks, lungs. i can sort of see why people see you as "earthy" like you once said. you have a nice deep voice, i had imagined it higher pitched for some reason.
ISFj makes sense based on your vid.
lungs is the E4ingest E4 who ever E4d
I only wrote this because it pertains to you but doesn't explicitly involve your sociotype.
The one thing about you that would have me think ESI > EII is your tumblr account, lol.
aw ok thank you for participating
hm yeah i think the art i'm drawn to would be described by most as se/ni and the part of myself that is very much, idk, associated with that imagery (?) is what had me questioning eii from the very beginning but then ive been kind of afraid that what i'm drawn to and what feels beautiful to me are completely contrasted with what i actually am and its made me really antsy and confused about the sociotype issue. no idea if that makes sense but i think its a point for 4 lol. its about a little more than art but i don't know how to explain it.
Yep, that sure sounds like the core E4 mentality: rejecting the self-identity, instead opting for its opposite as the ideal (heart center + idealist triad).aw ok thank you for participating
hm yeah i think the art i'm drawn to would be described by most as se/ni and the part of myself that is very much, idk, associated with that imagery (?) is what had me questioning eii from the very beginning but then ive been kind of afraid that what i'm drawn to and what feels beautiful to me are completely contrasted with what i actually am and its made me really antsy and confused about the sociotype issue. no idea if that makes sense but i think its a point for 4 lol. its about a little more than art but i don't know how to explain it.
something about this doesn't really sit right with me. i can see it fitting with e4 but then it also seems like an "oh she blocked my number and got a restraining order because she's playing hard to get" kind of thing. i feel like the 4 thing is convenient. but then its also painful to think about so maybe im just being difficult. you basically confirmed a big fear.
i dont think we'll ever see eye to eye about types though because i think you take a much more rigid "types are real things that are a part of you like your lungs and brain" approach that is intrinsically frustrating for me and has made me hesitant to talk about type with you. like once somebody is typed nothing about them can possibly contradict what theyve been typed because the type is them and they are the type, or something. which is why i havent been very open to real conversation about it.
:/
Eh, I feel like I look at types in a highly systematic way, so it makes sense that you'd feel that way. I don't think I'm that rigid about how type affects the discrete ways in which people act and respond, at least that's not what I intend to convey. But yes, I am under the impression that there is something about connections in the brain or whatever that gives some sort of concreteness to the issue of type, although what that mechanism is I can't say. And while I try to pin down the definitions of whatever dichotomies I'm talking about, I definitely take note when I say something inaccurate or that others don't relate to, so I probably come off as vacillating and confused because of that.
While we're on the subject, I'd love to hear your perspective on the issue, even if we won't be able to agree on it.
what is this? i call bs lol.
ive given my perspective a million times, that its not something real, its just made up stuff superimposed on reality, the map is not the territory, etc.
i think its impossible to really debate with someone who sees types as concrete as you do because once so-and-so is ESTj then automatically any thought patterns or behaviors they display can be attributed in some way to their ESTj-ness - not because of what theory says ESTjs are but because, well, they ARE ESTj, and so of COURSE every traceable pattern about them is indicative of ESTj. it becomes a circle. you change your mind not because of convincing evidence but because you want to. that's why i get annoyed with the "Se is gravity" (or whatever) crap because its like anybody can say anything because it doesn't even mean anything. like i can say right now galen i think you're INFp because the way your manner of articulation gives me a sense of trees growing like Ni's stretch through time or some bullshit and who can contradict that? as long as enough people agreed with me because i sounded convincing enough i'd be good to go.
okay its like I don't have a problem with nanashi or Timmy but when anybody types them ili its like a litmus test for me to take them with a grain of salt. when something is that far removed from any kind of external validation it makes me skeptical about the motivations of the person espousing it.
It means I don't know how to respond to what you said, particularly the "confirming a big fear" part.
This is all well and good, but I'd like to hear what you think type is, not what it isn't.
I don't think I try to attribute every pattern I see in a person to their type; that's just reckless disregard for what I consider type to be. I feel that I demonstrate a lot of intellectual skepticism towards even what I put forward, accepting that I could just as easily be wrong about what I'm saying if conflicting evidence is posed. I would like to imagine that there is something there though, even if the theory constructed around whatever it is that's hypothesized to exist isn't a perfect replication of what "really is," and I get how that frustrates you; seems like just a matter of perception. I have no explicit evidence to demonstrate that my position on this issue is any more true than anybody else's, but it makes intuitive sense to me so I'm going to instinctively speak from that mindset.
And yeah, that correlative logic stuff I see thrown around a lot annoys me too, because it isn't actually explaining what you're observing.
Last edited by Galen; 05-23-2012 at 08:56 PM.
you cannot be inxp. i rid you of this demon.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
