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.
*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.
Easy Day
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.
*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.
Easy Day
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 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 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 not LSI nor Ij and Ti dominant but still Fe seeking, then ILE and SLE.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 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 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 yes, then yes, if no, then no.if I'm assumed to be LIE - I'm Ti/Fe-valuer... or not?
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.if I'm assumed to be some other type - what, which one? I'm even less like those other types.
interesting riddle to me, which route of the five listed above should I take now to get closer to the solution?
?
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.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.
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.
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.ps.: neat pic!
What am I in your totally not subjective socionics, JWC3? Fast answer.
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.
Last edited by Absurd; 04-30-2012 at 06:38 PM.
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.
Easy Day
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 spy some punctuation and spelling errors.