am being contradicted

[ambivalent existence]

you saying one thing about yourself and showing something completely different about yourself is a CONTRADICTION.

i am RESOLVING it but trusting what i can see.

you did not talk to me last year. did you? so how can you see the past? you cannot. nothing to resolve here.

[ashlesha]

you did not talk to me last year. did you? so how can you see the past? you cannot. nothing to resolve here.

precisely.

[ambivalent existence]

precisely.

then I don't understand why you questioned my statement about how I didn't start with focusing on contradictions, that only came later. again, you didn't see how I started out with socionics because it was last year.

[ashlesha]

then I don't understand why you questioned my statement about how I didn't start with focusing on contradictions, that only came later. again, you didn't see how I started out with socionics because it was last year.

so i believe that you focus on contradictions because that is what i see.

you say X

i see Y

i believe Y

[ambivalent existence]

so i believe that you focus on contradictions because that is what i see.

you say X

i see Y

i believe Y

yes NOW I focus on them. in the PAST I did NOT.

this should be clear enough.

[JWC3]

ps.: I'm only new on this forum.

I agree with this, lungs your getting fairly flustered at someone who really isn't supposed to have shit figured out yet.

[ashlesha]

yes NOW I focus on them. in the PAST I did NOT.

this should be clear enough.

it is. i believe what i see in the present and since this contradicts what you say occurred in the past i do not take your word for it.

i think this should be clear enough as well.

I agree with this, lungs your getting fairly flustered at someone who really isn't supposed to have shit figured out yet.

i think what she was saying there is that she is new to the forum but not to socionics.

and its not her view of socionics that bothers me. its her constantly being dishonest by reframing everything.

it is pointless though, ive been thinking about just putting her on ignore and maybe thats a good idea.

[JWC3]

i think what she was saying there is that she is new to the forum but not to socionics.

and its not her view of socionics that bothers me. its her constantly being dishonest by reframing everything.

it is pointless though, ive been thinking about just putting her on ignore and maybe thats a good idea.

*chuckles* I mean do what ya gotta do but she's not exactly Maritsa. I mean maybe she's making a lot of type threads but she's doing a good job keeping all her confusion sort of confined in these threads and isn't really getting in anyone's face about all her socionic problems unless she's engaged which I think is a fair attitude.

[ambivalent existence]

it is. i believe what i see in the present and since this contradicts what you say occurred in the past i do not take your word for it.

i think this should be clear enough as well.




i think what she was saying there is that she is new to the forum but not to socionics.

and its not her view of socionics that bothers me. its her constantly being dishonest by reframing everything.

it is pointless though, ive been thinking about just putting her on ignore and maybe thats a good idea.

oh wow did I just receive a neat absolute Fi judgement, about "being dishonest"?

well, feel free to view me in whatever light you wish.

I did not have any intention of being dishonest or of annoying you, I didn't mind talking to you, I actually found some of the stuff you said useful/worth considering.

but when it comes to you just nitpicking on my sentences (from posts that I did not even direct to you) for the sake of it, it all becomes rather pointless.

[ambivalent existence]

*chuckles* I mean do what ya gotta do but she's not exactly Maritsa. I mean maybe she's making a lot of type threads but she's doing a good job keeping all her confusion sort of confined in these threads and isn't really getting in anyone's face about all her socionic problems unless she's engaged which I think is a fair attitude.

I certainly have no desire to annoy others.

[JWC3]

oh wow did I just receive a neat absolute Fi judgement, about "being dishonest"?

I would say probably not.

[JWC3]

I certainly have no desire to annoy others.

Oh I know, that's why I'm sorta taking your side on this one. I think you have honest intentions.

[ashlesha]

I would say probably not.

i know you type me IEI and i'm getting the impression you lean LIE for her, is that correct? i'm curious how you would frame our disagreements in that context. do you see me being supervised by her and her Te?

[ambivalent existence]

i know you type me IEI and i'm getting the impression you lean LIE for her, is that correct? i'm curious how you would frame our disagreements in that context. do you see me being supervised by her and her Te?

I'm curious myself

[JWC3]

i know you type me IEI and i'm getting the impression you lean LIE for her, is that correct? i'm curious how you would frame our disagreements in that context. do you see me being supervised by her and her Te?

*shrugs* I dunno. Well, yes you are correct about what I type you two as, but I'm not really that interested in analyzing your disagreement from a socionics stand-point. For what it's worth I am re-considering my "I would say probably not." since I'm thinking about framing your complaint as coming from your Id and so It very well could be related to Fi but I'm not sure, I was speaking without thinking when I said that, furthermore, I really doubt anything worthwhile will come from me trying to analyze your two personalities in relation to each other in depth. More than likely it would just piss a bunch of people off and not be worth anyone's time.

[JWC3]

I'm curious myself

Yes, I know your interested but lungs is setting me up right now so i'd rather not take the bait.

[Absurd]

and this is no BS... I don't like switching types for the fun of it or whatever. I try to focus on deeper things than the surface behaviours in descriptions but I run into issues with that too. so, I thought it would be interesting or constructive to write about contradictions that make me confused about my possible typing.

All of them with the exception of delta. Besides the development arises from the contradictions inside a thing so I don't know the reason you're still searching. Nah, kidding, I do.

if I'm assumed to be ILE - the idea of Si-seeking, Si valuing and Si helplessness is definitely false. and I'm not sure I'm Ne-valuing at all. (EP temperament and Ti-creative OK though.)

If ILE but not Si valuing, then not ILE. If not Ne valuing, then not alpha (and not delta, but you already know this). If EP+Ti creative, then ILE, else SLE. SLE it is.

if I'm assumed to be LSI - IJ temperament and Ti absoluteness as leading function is probably not right. (Fe DS may be OK though, cannot reject this idea atm. so in that case it would be IJ..)

If not LSI nor Ij and Ti dominant but still Fe seeking, then ILE and SLE.

if I'm assumed to be SLE - Se absoluteness as leading function seems to be incorrect too. (EP temperament&Ti-creative is OK though, and Ni DS may be OK, haven't found anything against that.)

If not Se dominant but still EP+Ti creative, then not SLE which means you can't be Ni seeking as far this theory goes. You're shooting yourself in the foot every statement you utter.

if I'm assumed to be LIE - I'm Ti/Fe-valuer... or not?

If yes, then yes, if no, then no.

if I'm assumed to be some other type - what, which one? I'm even less like those other types.

You can't be assumed some other type(s) other than ILE or SLE from what you say. Anyway, what you say further eliminates SLE.

interesting riddle to me, which route of the five listed above should I take now to get closer to the solution?

[ambivalent existence]

(...) If yes, then yes, if no, then no.

cool analysis.

btw, I'm not shooting myself in the foot - I did not determine my DS function with absolute certainness yet. I know all those statements cannot be true together.

ps.: neat pic!

[ashlesha]

Yes, I know your interested but lungs is setting me up right now so i'd rather not take the bait.

lol

i promise i wasn't out to get you with some plot. i really was curious, even though i had no intention of being persuaded about anything and probably would have expressed disagreement with it.

i don't blame you though.

[Absurd]

cool analysis.

?

btw, I'm not shooting myself in the foot - I did not determine my DS function with absolute certainness yet. I know all those statements cannot be true together.

You're shooting yourself in the foot for all of those statements that apparently are not true, statements you uttered, render this entire thread completely useless and devoid of any substance whatsoever, ergo you're going to argue this till the end of days and not be able to come to any results. To me such approach or method is the method of going nowhere fast.

Couple people in this thread already pointed that out. How can you be sure you're EP+Ti creative, that is ILE and SLE respectively, and at the same time not Si valuing, not Ne dominant, not Se dominant, to think you're Ni dual seeking. This kind of notion defeats EP+Ti premise altogether, ergo you're shooting yourself in the foot.

ps.: neat pic!

Thanks, I wanted to post it in one of Gilly's 50 type-me threads, but seeing you just can't wait, I had to make a compromise.

[JWC3]

lol

i promise i wasn't out to get you with some plot. i really was curious, even though i had no intention of being persuaded about anything and probably would have expressed disagreement with it.

i don't blame you though.

*chuckles* Good. If either of you are still interested another context might be better.

[ambivalent existence]

You're shooting yourself in the foot for all of those statements that apparently are not true, statements you uttered, render this entire thread completely useless and devoid of any substance whatsoever, ergo you're going to argue this till the end of days and not be able to come to any results. To me such approach or method is the method of going nowhere fast.

Couple people in this thread already pointed that out. How can you be sure you're EP+Ti creative, that is ILE and SLE respectively, and at the same time not Si valuing, not Ne dominant, not Se dominant, to think you're Ni dual seeking. This kind of notion defeats EP+Ti premise altogether, ergo you're shooting yourself in the foot.

you're missing the point.

those statements were all: "IF...THEN". note the "IF".

I'm obviously not as stupid as to think that all that can be true together.

the trick is which statements are valid and which ones aren't?

[Absurd]

*chuckles*

What am I in your totally not subjective socionics, JWC3? Fast answer.

you're missing the point.

those statements were all: "IF...THEN". note the "IF".

I'm obviously not as stupid as to think that all that can be true together.

the trick is which statements are valid and which ones aren't?

Mine were as well and I arrived at a result pretty fast, you seem to be unable to which makes me question your devotion to Aushra, Jung and Yaaroslav. I can use that kind a line of reasoning, no problem with that at all but like I said, my attention goes to a clear objective - always.

There is no trick, I can say I'm a monkey having found myself in the jungle. Fact is, being in jungle doesn't make me a monkey just like standing in a garage doesn't make me a car.

[JWC3]

What am I in your totally not subjective socionics, JWC3? Fast answer.

I dunno, Crazy?

[Absurd]

I dunno, Crazy?

Not your quadra, then, whatever it is. Makes sense.

[JWC3]

Not your quadra, then, whatever it is. Makes sense.

lol Yeah, I really don't care to think about most forum member's types critically. It's a very personal subject that for the most part really isn't my place to delve into unless asked and even then not in contexts where I think the subject could feasibly not be treated with the delicacy it requires. People get offended too easily when it comes to their self-type to discuss such things publicly and without sincere invitation.

[Absurd]

People get offended too easily when it comes to their self-type to discuss such things publicly and without sincere invitation.

Nah, I don't think so although some people after some time of going back and forth to go back and forth again, etc., with their self-typings find that they're tired of chasing their own tail. I mean some do and some apparently don't.

But I get the privacy part.

[ambivalent existence]

Mine were as well and I arrived at a result pretty fast, you seem to be unable to which makes me question your devotion to Aushra, Jung and Yaaroslav. I can use that kind a line of reasoning, no problem with that at all but like I said, my attention goes to a clear objective - always.

There is no trick, I can say I'm a monkey having found myself in the jungle. Fact is, being in jungle doesn't make me a monkey just like standing in a garage doesn't make me a car.

you didn't quite arrive at a result because you did not select which statements/assumptions were invalid. of course, you lack the information to be able to do so. if you want to get information, just ask. if not, that's fine too.

[Absurd]

you didn't quite arrive at a result because you did not select which statements/assumptions were invalid. of course, you lack the information to be able to do so. if you want to get information, just ask. if not, that's fine too.

Info you have provided me already is sufficient, info you provide other people is sufficient as well. I mean how the heck could a Ti dominant (squark) relate to you in some way?

a) Squark isn't Ti dominant, nor LSI,

b) you're not Ti dominant, nor LSI,

c) what follows is, neither squark and you are Ti dominant,

d) if squark and you are not Ti dominant, then you're not mirror nor identical in beta quadra, respectively,

e) squark and you have to to be different other quadras, else, the same.

[ambivalent existence]

Info you have provided me already is sufficient, info you provide other people is sufficient as well. I mean how the heck could a Ti dominant (squark) relate to you in some way?

a) Squark isn't Ti dominant, nor LSI,

b) you're not Ti dominant, nor LSI,

c) what follows is, neither squark and you are Ti dominant,

d) if squark and you are not Ti dominant, then you're not mirror nor identical in beta quadra, respectively,

e) squark and you have to to be different other quadras, else, the same.

I lost you at point a), are you questioning her type?

[Absurd]

I lost you at point a), are you questioning her type?

Do I have a big facking vagina carved in my forehead?

[ashlesha]

lol whats going on

[Ryan]

I lost you at point a), are you questioning her type?

I think what Absurd is trying to say is that you're Ti dominant.

Absurd, say nothing of this. I got you covered mate.

[Absurd]

I think what Absurd is trying to say is that you're Ti dominant.

Absurd, say nothing of this. I got you covered mate.

I think what Absurd is trying to say you both share ego functions but he isn't here to defend himself, so I'll rest on that. Anyway, if you see Absurd, Ryan, tell him he has been quoted by you and his presence is needed.

[Ryan]

I think what Absurd is trying to say you both share ego functions but he isn't here to defend himself, so I'll rest on that. Anyway, if you see Absurd, Ryan, tell him he has been quoted by you and his presence is needed.

Haha. He will appreciate your help, so please do come again.

[Absurd]

Haha. He will appreciate your help, so please do come again.

I'm cumming already on his sight.

[ambivalent existence]

I think what Absurd is trying to say is that you're Ti dominant.

Absurd, say nothing of this. I got you covered mate.

okay, thanks. Absurd is way too absurd for me =)

[ambivalent existence]

I think what Absurd is trying to say you both share ego functions but he isn't here to defend himself, so I'll rest on that. Anyway, if you see Absurd, Ryan, tell him he has been quoted by you and his presence is needed.

lol. absurdity.

ps: so you're not sticking to LIE guess then? =)

[Roro]

I spy some punctuation and spelling errors.

[Absurd]

lol. absurdity.

ps: so you're not sticking to LIE guess then? =)

I'm sticking with whatever you want to become, that is, what you feel you are but are not - contrast this to the zygote that will become a foetus. The foetus will become a baby. There is no effort in this. It just happens.

Get it?