Ryu/UDP's type

[Gilly]

I can see ILE or LII. LSI would be an unlikely third possibility, along with IEI.

[implied]

I can see ILE or LII. LSI would be an unlikely third possibility, along with IEI.

one q. can you really see many IEIs (irrational, IP-types) demanding very high moral standards out of their dual, the ESTp? i think udp places a lot of importance on this.

[Expat]

Unless someone is seriously depressed, I don't know why they would identify with "why do I suck so much?"

It's not as bad as it sounds.

What it means is that IJs shift from two opposite states:

From postivist-narrative-process to taciturn-negativist-result

the IJ "positivist-narrative-process" state can be summarized is "I will show you how it's done!"

While the IJ" taciturn-negativst-result" state is best summarized as "why do I suck so much?"

That means, either you are confident in how to achieve something, or, you feel paralyzed because you think you're not up to it.

But it's a back-and-forth thing, depending on the situation.

[UDP]

i can't see the case for really any ethical type at all though (not that you are suggesting that, just to those who do suggest that he is ethical.)

I am unquestionably most attracted to FJ women (attracted as in, relationship feasibility, real compatibility, not just physical appearance). A relationship with FP, TP, or TJ is much, much less likely.

I can see ILE or LII. LSI would be an unlikely third possibility, along with IEI.

one q. can you really see many IEIs (irrational, IP-types) demanding very high moral standards out of their dual, the ESTp? i think udp places a lot of importance on this.

Good call, especially considering what I said above.

[FDG]

i also vaguely recall him relating more with the IJ-postivist "here, let me show you how to do it" mentality as opposed to the IJ-negativist "why do i suck so much?" mentality.

Unless someone is seriously depressed, I don't know why they would identify with "why do I suck so much?"

Identify perhaps not, but if a person asks for feedback, it is pretty clear that IJ-negativist mostly talk about troubles related to one's own inadequacies - actually, you too when you speak about how you don't have enough energy to handle this, or that - it's just another way to put "why do I suck so much"

[UDP]

^ that is a useful way to consider things.

sorry guys, but Uey is definitely INTj.

I am curious to hear your insights, as, for people who know anything about socionics, you have interacted with me the most.

[Gilly]

I can see ILE or LII. LSI would be an unlikely third possibility, along with IEI.

one q. can you really see many IEIs (irrational, IP-types) demanding very high moral standards out of their dual, the ESTp? i think udp places a lot of importance on this.

Fair point.

[Ms. Kensington]

I think he is INTj. I feel I have had a similar attitude as he seems to project, including a focus on morality. I don't really see an obsession with leadership as much as being a competent contributor to humanity. I think it fits in with what expat was saying about the fluctuations of an INTj when he's simultaneously defining standards and trying to measure up to them.

[Gilly]

Another point to LII (or at least IJ temperment) - he seems to be an Enneagram 1, at least in my mind.

[UDP]

I think he is INTj. I feel I have had a similar attitude as he seems to project, including a focus on morality. I don't really see an obsession with leadership as much as being a competent contributor to humanity. I think it fits in with what expat was saying about the fluctuations of an INTj when he's simultaneously defining standards and trying to measure up to them.

Where did Expat say that, I missed it?

[Exodus]

I can see ILE or LII.

How is there any chance in hell that UDP has EP temperament? That's just ridiculous.

[UDP]

What annoys you the most, UDP?

I did not see this earlier.

How much should I write?
You did not see the post in bad habits - I described my dislike of people who make poor relationship decisions.
However.... well.... here...

If I had to use one sentence it would be: "Not learning from your experience". * (see exhibit A)
In this way, I see so much potential wasted, so many mistakes repeated. I dislike incredibly when I repeat mistakes myself, because it feels like instead of making progress, I am having to redo something. It is also very difficult to see others act in such ways. It is extremely difficult to be in an organization, group, or setting where people are not being professional or "giving a damn" about how things are done. I cannot work with people who do not care about quality. (also, "not learning from your experience" is related to my worldview, in that I feel, as a human race, there is much experience that we have been through, and yet we have not refined all our knowledge from these experiences.... so we are prone to making old mistakes, over and over again)

This very much reminds me of the "MBTI INTJ" profiles............................
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html -- a profile I relate to tremendously. One thing is for sure, and that is my MBTI type: INTJ without question.
The ENTJ profile is also somewhat appealing, but it would be a lie to say I am an extrovert, especially in MBTI terms.

However, in working with an ENTj this semester (President of Hall Council), we got along extremely well (to me. That is to say, we are not best friends or buddy buddy at all, but our working relationship was sound).

[hr:5aea2e9fe6]

EXHIBIT A:

Answer this Dio:

Implied's type is ISTJ in my final opinion.

Now come on, Dio....

And I suppose you can explain why?

Expat, as you know I have no wish to convince, simply because I am not very good at it. It took me some excruciating effort to find her type and it even involved some percsonal risks, mainly getting very close to people that share the same type with Implied and typing them.

At the same time Implied promissed to help me develope my discovery but wants to know the actual discovery without bringing anything to the table, and I refused to tell her the discovery in such circumastance, she did nothing. I am being very very kind if I may so myself.

What is this empathy seeking? You expect others to pick up your slack because you repeatedly cannot explain things yourself? Here is a tip for your likely T-related polr: If you cannot explain it simply to others, that may be an indicator that what you are trying to say is not actually true. And even if Dio is an INTj, you have absolutely no understanding of how to check yourself with reality. But you do not strike me as an INTj:

Robesp'er fears tax occasion for the volitional action on itself; therefore sometimes it attempts to appear by man without the weaknesses ("iron Felix"). It does not love, when they play on its weaknesses. Suffer whimperers it cannot, it does not make it possible to pity itself (it does not love cheap ethical it is special effect). Never it makes possible for itself to manifest force with respect to the weak.

NO LII in his right mind would let such a glaring weakness go on continuously. Making the same mistake over and over again, -- the same remarkable inability -- would cause a certain amount of psychological pain to an LII and perhaps to any "NT". So either you are an LII with a problem - a pathological tendency of running away from things - or, you are some other type that has some issues regarding logic.

[Logos]

Again, I think that UDP is a LII primarily due to his rationality, creative use of , and his interactions with the ESE, but if he was not an LII, the next likely choice for me would be the EII. This is because his preoccupation in determining a drive, purpose, or cause is very similar to the EII I happen to know (sister, roommate). And it is possible to read his focus on morality as a symptom of being an Ethical type. I am confident at the very least that UDP is INxj. The question in some regards then is how well does he deal with Deltas and the LSE (and especially those female LSE )? Also I am then drawn to wonder how well can appear to be as and vice versa?

[UDP]

EXHIBIT B:

i can't see the case for really any ethical type at all though (not that you are suggesting that, just to those who do suggest that he is ethical.)

I am unquestionably most attracted to FJ women (attracted as in, relationship feasibility, real compatibility, not just physical appearance). A relationship with FP, TP, or TJ is much, much less likely.

I can see ILE or LII. LSI would be an unlikely third possibility, along with IEI.

one q. can you really see many IEIs (irrational, IP-types) demanding very high moral standards out of their dual, the ESTp? i think udp places a lot of importance on this.

Good call, especially considering what I said above.

@Logos: I am not sure about LSEs, I have not met many of them, especially females.
In regard to other deltas, I have expressed numerous times on the forum my appreciation for EIIs.
In regard to the EIIs on this forum - rockclimber, and Minde ----- ESPECIALLY in regard to this thread....
[web:900071787a]http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11932&start=15[/web:900071787a]
I do not relate to how EII's describe their interaction with other people.

I believe I am far, far, far too cold to be an EII, or any other ethical ego block type. Consider my vivid refutations of being thought of as an INFp

[UDP]

The types I would most want to be:

INTj
ENTj
ESTj
ISTj

So basically, the Tjs.

Other various information that is likely not essential.

(Basically, to give a brief analogy, (and from what little I know about the show), the way of the Vulcans seems most appealing to me. They found peace through logic, and were a founding people of the Federation. I enjoy improvement, and to not enjoy spending time on things very much, although I certainly am human.)

edited

[mikemex]

Some day you'll realize that Socionics isn't what it seems to be.

It is very easy to be tricked out by an appealing idea. It can even make sense. However, that it makes sense it doesn't make it real.

I'm not saying that socionics is not real. What I'm saying is that socionics isn't anything special compared to other typologies. And it's actually easy to understand:

* General population is a sample which represents 100% of the individuals.
* Throw in any dichotomy. It doesn't really matter which one you pick.
* The group will then be split into two groups which are opposing between them.
* Since the property is shared among individuals, they are likely to be driven by the same thought process. So, for example, if the dichotomy you choose is "drinker" and you randomly pick up 10 persons, and of them 8 smoke, you can safely assume that most drinkers smoke. It's basic statistics.

Let's put it a bit more complex:

Dichotomies:

Drinker <-> Abstemious
Showing off <-> Modest
Generous <-> Not generous

You have eight "types":

DSG, DSN, DMG, DMN, ASG, ASN, AMG, AMN

So you go out and observe them in action. With a large enough sample, you'll start to see some patterns: DSG could, for example, like DMN far more than average. The funny thing is that DMN is also likely to like DSG very much. Why? Because, to like each other, they must be drawn to similar places. However, they are different enough to not bore each other.

On the other hand, if DMN doesn't like ASG, it is likely that DSG will not like ASG very much, either, simply because DMN, being the prefered type, is much higher on the scale.

Obviously, the more you refine the dichotomies the better the results will be; however, the basic principles work as well with bananas as they do with complicated things such as Fe, Ni, etc.

With enough dichotomies you can predict relationships, simply because every dichotomy is a new connection to the "black box". Something causes X, something causes Y, something Z. When you have enough of them, what you really have is not an explanation of the underlying system, but, rather, two items of the sample which are very similar between them. And, since they are similar, they are also going to act similar, like similar things, dislike the same, etc.

Well, I'm tired. I'm sure that I would need to check it again for inconsistencies, but overlook them and look at the essence. I hope you can get the point.

[UDP]

[Logos]

Mike, that post was cute and all, but what was the point? In other news, Soylent Green is made from people.

[Dioklecian]

I don't think we see the real UDP 3. I think we see what he thinks when he thinks before a post, "What would an INTj say here?" Diockle mistakes this for concern for proper behaviour. I really have no idea about his type. He lives in fantasy land.

Thats' true for all of us to some degree I think, we all play some role or other, we all ideas of who we are and project them on others.

But whenever I have really needed advise from UDP he has been very generous, and usually they struck me as Fi based. Most INTJs that I know are not very good at giving advice, and when they do they focus on abstract concepts.

[aestrivex]

holy shit! dio just said something that made sense!


not that i agree with him, but at least it wasn't completely out of nowhere.

[KSpin]

holy shit! dio just said something that made sense!


not that i agree with him, but at least it wasn't completely out of nowhere.

Lol.

[mikemex]

Socionics in an inductive system: it pretends to impress a way of operation upon the information instead of deriving the way of operation from it (deduction).

This way you force persons to fit a type and its structure, which is fixed. Such structure claims unproven things, such as:

1.- That all divergent thinkers (Ne) must be weak on Si (which doesn't look like convergent thinking to me in Socionics terms).
2.- That all convergent thinkers (Se) must be weak on Ni. Idem.
3.- That all limbic thinkers (Fe) must be weak on Ti (which might be cortex driven, but not sure).
4.- That all linear thinkers (Te) must be weak on Fi (which seems more like fuzzy logic).

So functions doesn't seem symmetrical to me. And if they are not symmetrical they can't be opposite. And if they can't be opposite then the development of one doesn't prevent the development of the other. So, from this perspective, it doesn't seem that off that a person couldn't fit any of the proposed types.

That's why so many people around here seems entertained in the endless discussion of typing people: because most of them, if not all, do not follow the given structure. And they, expressing subjective perceptions, tend to be biased toward aspects of someone's personality that match the socionics doctrine.

I'm sorry for being blunt, but only an idiot says something like "I'll develop my functions" when those functions are not even proven. Think scientifically: what is not proven is not true, period.

[Logos]

And once more, mikemex, what you have said managed to be simultaneously non-sensical and irrelvant to the subject matter at hand.

[mikemex]

If you want relevance stick to monosyllables.

[CuriousSoul]

Socionics in an inductive system: it pretends to impress a way of operation upon the information instead of deriving the way of operation from it (deduction).

This way you force persons to fit a type and its structure, which is fixed. Such structure claims unproven things, such as:

1.- That all divergent thinkers (Ne) must be weak on Si (which doesn't look like convergent thinking to me in Socionics terms).
2.- That all convergent thinkers (Se) must be weak on Ni. Idem.3.- That all limbic thinkers (Fe) must be weak on Ti (which might be cortex driven, but not sure).
4.- That all linear thinkers (Te) must be weak on Fi (which seems more like fuzzy logic).

So functions doesn't seem symmetrical to me. And if they are not symmetrical they can't be opposite. And if they can't be opposite then the development of one doesn't prevent the development of the other. So, from this perspective, it doesn't seem that off that a person couldn't fit any of the proposed types.

That's why so many people around here seems entertained in the endless discussion of typing people: because most of them, if not all, do not follow the given structure. And they, expressing subjective perceptions, tend to be biased toward aspects of someone's personality that match the socionics doctrine.

I'm sorry for being blunt, but only an idiot says something like "I'll develop my functions" when those functions are not even proven. Think scientifically: what is not proven is not true, period.

How was Ni defined according to this paradigm?

All psychological theories are rough oversimplifications.
It does not mean that they cannot be useful and interesting.

[Logos]

If you want relevance stick to monosyllables.

In the words of the Virgin Mary: "Come again?"

[implied]

If you want relevance stick to monosyllables.

[UDP]

Going away always does wonders and opens insights. There are many things that came up while I visited someone, which will be discussed in the following posts.


It seems like LII is the type to beat.
Nevertheless I am curious of other types, particularly the 3 other I mentioned. The type I want to be most right now? I am not sure. There are things I desire to incorporate, and there are other needs that I see arising in my life. So I will be doing some looking into the LSI, the LIE, and the LSE.


Things that have not yet been addressed:

Some Se creative type likely

are you suggesting ISTj?

Well, I don't know honestly. His vibe is very different from the one of most INTjs, and his almost obsessive concern over leadership makes me think that he is one of the component of the ENxj-ISxj dual pairs - for clarification they have been defined in one of the "groups" by smilingeyes this way:

ENTj - ENFj - ISTj - ISFj : rational - resolute - carefree
Staying in the center stage through exertion of force, going all out.

This seems to be what has always been his plan in all the incoherent rumbles he writes everywhere. I also have other explanations but I am not sure if anybody is willing to listen or read honestly

I too am also willing to listen to any insights you may have FDG.

I think he is INTj. I feel I have had a similar attitude as he seems to project, including a focus on morality. I don't really see an obsession with leadership as much as being a competent contributor to humanity. I think it fits in with what expat was saying about the fluctuations of an INTj when he's simultaneously defining standards and trying to measure up to them.

Where did Expat say that, I missed it?

Could anyone point me to that?

[UDP]

Some Se creative type likely

are you suggesting ISTj?

Well, I don't know honestly. His vibe is very different from the one of most INTjs, and his almost obsessive concern over leadership makes me think that he is one of the component of the ENxj-ISxj dual pairs - for clarification they have been defined in one of the "groups" by smilingeyes this way:

ENTj - ENFj - ISTj - ISFj : rational - resolute - carefree
Staying in the center stage through exertion of force, going all out.

This seems to be what has always been his plan in all the incoherent rumbles he writes everywhere. I also have other explanations but I am not sure if anybody is willing to listen or read honestly

yeah, i can totally see that. i also thought ISTj or even ENTj would make more sense.

also lol i will totally read your explanations. i like that you use the smilingeyes groups because i tend to do this as well. i agree that the whole leadership thing doesn't point towards any sort of -polr and makes INTj seem less likely, but that has also been explained by him being a -subtype, so not nearly as silly/soft-seeming as the INTjs. i can't see the case for really any ethical type at all though (not that you are suggesting that, just to those who do suggest that he is ethical.)

i also vaguely recall him relating more with the IJ-postivist "here, let me show you how to do it" mentality as opposed to the IJ-negativist "why do i suck so much?" mentality. better ISTj than INFj in this case, for quite a few reasons. could also explain his affinity for INFjs.

and what a bullshit case with resemblance-based typing but he does remind me a lot of an ISTj i dated (although, admittedly this guy did have really strong .)

How so?

[UDP]

Other items:

• I am getting what I imagine as the " itch", this is to say, Te dominant style of action. At this point in my life I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable being around people and not doing anything. A large portion of my recent "visit/vacation" was spent trying to find something useful to do or plan for doing something useful when I got back.
  
• One of the appeal of ST types, the STjs, is that I am increasingly finding an enjoyment of doing things more and more, especially the physical aspect. I am enjoying working out more, and appreciating my physical body - I feel less detached to it than before.
  
• I am not sure how to address this, but here goes: I have absolutely no idea what I prefer more, or .
  The other day I had an interesting situation where, I could tell, I was looking and expecting an response from someone - it was a dual seeking move I am sure. And yet, after the initial reaction of being "taken aback", the entire emotional involvement in the process collapsed. Literally. What I was left with was "memories" of being upset or affected by 'seeking and expecting an Fe response and not getting it', but in reality that was not the case. Also, I understand logically human emotion, but I have no idea how to relate to humans, to other people. I can interact with people adequately, especially when there is something to do. I can understand, diagnose, and dissect relationships outside of myself, and yet myself I seem clueless about relating to other people, or tell my what my relationship to them is.
  
• Even more questionable is my take on . I spent almost the entire day yesterday "relaxing" with the family, and it made me somewhat uncomfortable. Notably in the presence and company of an ISTp I was staying with, the focus on was oppressive. (I am even noticing foods I used to enjoy -- Pizza & Wings; icecream sundaes, for example -- are not the same since I have returned from college. Yes, they are "good tasting" and "fun to eat", but I do not enjoy them in the same way I used to. It is not relaxing for me to eat food like that as it once was.)

If someone could explain, or show me a link to
-->
-->
- the differences between these two, it would be useful. Specifically, what Ti is looking for from Fe (and why), and what Te is looking for from Fi (and why).
Examples would also be useful.

[Expat]

I think he is INTj. I feel I have had a similar attitude as he seems to project, including a focus on morality. I don't really see an obsession with leadership as much as being a competent contributor to humanity. I think it fits in with what expat was saying about the fluctuations of an INTj when he's simultaneously defining standards and trying to measure up to them.

Where did Expat say that, I missed it?

Could anyone point me to that?

I don't remember saying that, not in those terms, not sure what it means, either --

[FDG]

ENTj-Te?

[UDP]

ENTj-Te?

That may be what I am growing into somewhat.
I am not sure if Se>Si completely.

I am not sure what I feel I need from my dual, in terms of her being Fe/Fi leading, or what would be most beneficial in terms of a creative function. All I know is that she fairly certainly must be Fj.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[implied]

ENTj-Te?

i was thinking that. on some of these issues he sounds like my da-da and i find it really odd to agree with him on a lot of things (yet really UDP is topping the scales quite often in obnoxiousness. not anathema to ENTj and especially not to INTj either.



edit: another thing. you repeatedly go on about how completely uncomfortable you are with the "infantile" role or even the term. i think this could indicate more of a / quadra and i do not chock this up to "being male" or whatever. on the other hand i think the way you go on about your requirements for your loved one (mostly physical and sort of empty-seeming IMO) makes it sort of clear that you do not value no matter how much social/humanitarian work you do. i find this weird and kind of pseudo-delta seeming but not really delta, still, because you don't seem to recognize the individual qualities of human beings, regardless of whatever ideal you have worked up on your head.


however, you're also always going on about how you have no desire to submit to someone's strong will or whatever. that could be an issue with ISFj.


i'll pm you in a few.

[Expat]

For what it's worth, you write, and VI, and generally come across, as a very strong IJ.

[UDP]

For what it's worth, you write, and VI, and generally come across, as a very strong IJ.

Indeed I agree.
Without question I believe I have demonstrated heavy IJ-ness on the forum. I am wondering if I am going to continue being that way in real life, though. We'll see.

I will read over Diana's pm in a few while I am eating lunch.

[UDP]

Concerning Diana's PM:

It seems like a conversation between Te and Fi, yes. I do not believe I am Te leading in any way, but I believe learning how to properly use Te is a next step for my progression. I believe I am an LII, nothing has changed. Figuring out how to convert Te into Ti, and then use Ti to properly arrange Te is something to work on. ((related to the Etype 5 - to - 8 transition I am sure))


Furthermore, I still plan to "visit" each quadra for about a week at a time... but it is fairly clear I am IJ, particularly INTj. Emotional neutrality, systems analysis, IJ temperament, preparing (Ne) to deal with , and it still seems like my best match would be an ESE.

[Ms. Kensington]

Concerning Diana's PM:

It seems like a conversation between Te and Fi, yes. I do not believe I am Te leading in any way, but I believe learning how to properly use Te is a next step for my progression. I believe I am an LII, nothing has changed. Figuring out how to convert Te into Ti, and then use Ti to properly arrange Te is something to work on. ((related to the Etype 5 - to - 8 transition I am sure))


Furthermore, I still plan to "visit" each quadra for about a week at a time... but it is fairly clear I am IJ, particularly INTj. Emotional neutrality, systems analysis, IJ temperament, preparing (Ne) to deal with , and it still seems like my best match would be an ESE.

*dusts off hands like she did the work*