Ryu/UDP's type

[UDP]

I totally agree with this, this is my impression as well (The whole part not just the bolded part. That's just for emphasis). I was not here for your type change but to me it seems as if all you do is try to adopt an image, even when you though you were LII. You seem utterly fake and artificial to me, completely reek of self delusion. Even to the point where you can be contrasted to Joy.

What does that have to do with type, though?

Well it show Ni > Si if nothing else. From my experience Si types don't know how to adopt an image. They just can't help but be themselves. If your self perception/self image changes in any way if you change type, if it is linked to something abstract, then I don't see how you can be a Si type.

My type never changed, ever. Just because I select different letters, it doesn't change me.

And furthermore, REGARDLESS of my type, I will approach exploring socionics the same way. If it turns out I'm ENTp, I am going to make posts about the duality, and explore it, and test it out.

Exploring is one thing, presenting oneself as an authority and ones subjective views as facts is another. If you are not an ILE and are describing your own experiences as views of an ILE, describing aspects of being an ILE, and so on, then you are just lying. All you described, deliberated, explained as aspects of "being LII" are now nothing more then hollow lies. And that's what I resent you for. For shamelessly lying like that.

They are not lies. The theory fit me. You are actually trying to say I intentionally lied to you? What an insult.

It really burns your Ti, and your weak Te, doesn't it. Sorry if it makes you feel bad. Things change.
And furthermore, you again seem to be disregarding that my life circumstances have changed a great deal. And, you seem to be implying that if I knew my type from the beginning, I would intentionally disregard it - which is not true, and I don't appreciate you trying to make my character look like that.


Boo hoo if you resent me for exploring socionics to find out my best type
You'd rather I kept calling myself LII just for your sake, to make sure you wouldn't resent me? Which would be more cowardly?

For shamelessly lying like that.

You must have missed my post about how manipulation pisses me off. Do you think you are going to "guilt trip" me into begging for your blessing or something? Get real.


I did NOT lie. I was wrong. And I was so convinced, because, at that time, all my actions seemed to lead to me being that type. But then when I stepped out into the real world, LII didn't hold up, so, I looked further. And one thing I really don't like about your remarks is that you make it sound like I just haphazardly picked a type in the first place, and then haphazardly picked ESTj - it is like you don't get all the effort I put into it. You don't even want to acknowledge that I have spent a lot of time working this out. Also, you don't understand how difficult it was for me to challenge everyone on the forum - and the type benchmark project itself.

IF you are trying to blame me for deceiving you in the beginning, then accept that I'm trying being honest with you now - and appreciate it.
Don't try to imply a lack of honesty in myself, when, if I was really dishonest, I would have just stayed LII all along, to save face, and to save respect, so people wouldn't question me. If you cared one bit about honesty you would want me to find my real type, instead of just finding some opperunity to express your hurt feelings, and trying to call me a liar. But it seems like you care more about reputation and image, than real truth. It bothers you more that I lost "image points" and "social respect", than whether or not I am my real type now. You probably don't even care what my real type is, do you?

I don't really care if it hurt your feelings - I'd rather be honest and move on, than just stay with incorrectly typing myself.

[snegledmaca]

Just because I select different letters, it doesn't change me.

Are you claiming that if you through you were ILI you would have still glorified ESE-s?

You'd rather I kept calling myself LII just for your sake, to make sure you wouldn't resent me?

No, I resent you making proclamations that become invalid the moment you changed your type, for lacking integrity/validity. Here is what I saw, Oh I love ESE-s, ESE-s are sooo great, ESE-s are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm so happy I have ESE-s *change of type* ok, all that stuff I said about ESE-s is not true, but never mind that, EII-s are the new shit, oh yeeeeah, EII-s rock my world, EII-s are so great it's unbelievable and so on. If you never were LII why did you write all that stuff about ESE-s? It most certainly wasn't wrong understanding of the theory, it was personal opinion. Why did you make those proclamations if they weren't true?

I did NOT lie. I was wrong. And I was so convinced, because, at that time, all my actions seemed to lead to me being that type. But then when I stepped out into the real world, LII didn't hold up, so, I looked further.

I'm not talking about your type, I'm talking about your actions. You glorified your dual, the ESE, the same way you glorify your current dual EII. I'm claiming that's fake. I think your admiration for these types is arisen from forcing expected behavior "One's dual is the best thing in the universe" rather then it being an expression of admiration and sincere.

[Ezra]

You have to be yourself, Courage. Today, I did an experiment. I tried to act like an LSE. At first, it worked. I felt good about myself.

Alas, the true me tumbles out in all its Se and Ti glory. It is the way I work and I must accept it. I clearly use Se, Fe and Ti to great extent.

So, by all means, if you have been yourself, and you are LSE then so be it. There is no need to argue with your reasoning. But beware of the ideal - wanting to be a type because of what it represents or because it's "better" than your own.

I like LSE. I like their practicality and their methods. But I am better than LSEs in many ways. Likewise, they are better than me in many ways.

[Ezra]

But then when I stepped out into the real world, LII didn't hold up, so, I looked further.

Can I ask how LII didn't hold up?

[UDP]

Just because I select different letters, it doesn't change me.

Are you claiming that if you through you were ILI you would have still glorified ESE-s?

You'd rather I kept calling myself LII just for your sake, to make sure you wouldn't resent me?

No, I resent you making proclamations that become invalid the moment you changed your type, for lacking integrity/validity. Here is what I saw, Oh I love ESE-s, ESE-s are sooo great, ESE-s are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm so happy I have ESE-s *change of type* ok, all that stuff I said about ESE-s is not true, but never mind that, EII-s are the new shit, oh yeeeeah, EII-s rock my world, EII-s are so great it's unbelievable and so on. If you never were LII why did you write all that stuff about ESE-s? It most certainly wasn't wrong understanding of the theory, it was personal opinion. Why did you make those proclamations if they weren't true?

Are you having trouble understanding it?
I was wrong about my type. I didn't know. What is so difficult to get?

At the time, LII was making a lot of sense, and I was getting along great with the ESEs I knew. But then I had more life experience, and I realized what I thought my dual was changed. By the way, Shania twain, Aishwarya Rai - they are still very attractive, and I still like them and what they do. But they are just not my dual.

I don't really get what you problem is with this. Maybe you've been hurt in the past, but, your baggage has nothing to do with me.

I did NOT lie. I was wrong. And I was so convinced, because, at that time, all my actions seemed to lead to me being that type. But then when I stepped out into the real world, LII didn't hold up, so, I looked further.

I'm not talking about your type, I'm talking about your actions. You glorified your dual, the ESE, the same way you glorify your current dual EII. I'm claiming that's fake. I think your admiration for these types is arisen from forcing expected behavior "One's dual is the best thing in the universe" rather then it being an expression of admiration and sincere.

You know what? You are getting at something that should actually further my LSEness....


http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6245

block
To construct its personal interrelations to representatives of this type is very difficult. Subconsiously they are oriented to the system of the ethical values of Dostoyevsky. Therefore their personal system of interrelations bears a somewhat idealistic nature. With whom not they constructed their interrelations, they assume the presence in their partner of such qualities as pliability, delicacy, punctiliousness, decency, sincerity, i.e., all those qualities, which are characteristic of the ethical program of Dostoyevsky.

It is natural that genuine reality constantly disappoints Shtirlitsev. Therefore, analyzing the previous sad experience, they are very careful in the formation of new relations. Very not easily they converge with the people, they try not to tie their society, about itself, about their personal life they say very little and it is very unwilling.

I subconsciously thought ESE was my dual, but my internal programming was idealizing whatever it is I see as my "soulmate" to begin with. Just the same way I idealize EIIs now. So as I said, it is how I post, as in, my personal style. It is also how I love, so to say.... because when there is that one person, I do think the world of them.

Basically, LII was making the most sense at the time, so, I put on all my gusto and idealism for what I thought was my dual, or my special type. I looked for real examples of things in my real life that worked, and some things fit, as we know. But, as I had more and more experience and learned more and more about socionics, things change. Most notably is spending time on my own at college. I realized that I wasn't really feeling like an LII, especially after living with one of them, and then living with another one briefly. I really began to question myself. And, although ESFjs share some qualities of an INFj (femininity being something I like a lot), it always lingered that, even before socionics, there were certain people who were a little on the quieter side, very soft, but ethically strong, and I remember getting along well with them. I always said I liked INFjs, even when I was idealizing ESFjs. (And furthermore, would me not knowing which type is my dual only be more indicative of having extremely weak Ethics in general? ((Which, I know I do...more later)))

Yet, to my best of my understanding at the time, I thought I was LII, and I couldn't say I got along with ESE's terribly so, so... I celebrated them. And if you read the LSE profile, that is what they do, that is part of having INFj as your dual and Fi in your ego block (probably with Ne hidden agenda (LSE) more so than Se (LIE))).

In one sense, me celebrating and idealizing my dual is part of how I would support my dual, maybe even part of Si creative (like you know how ESEs can go goo-goo over people they like). Perhaps that is part of being a caregiver. I believe, in response, Infantiles look up to their caregivers in a reciprocal sort of way. One thing that made me realize I was caregiver was really spending time and seeing infantiles in action.... and that is why LII immediately became dissatsifying, and why I always, ALWAYS, saw myself as more logical or more severe type of LII. When in reality, that was my Fi > Fe preference, serious>merry.

[Ezra]

But then when I stepped out into the real world, LII didn't hold up, so, I looked further.

Can I ask how LII didn't hold up?

[UDP]

Did you read the above post at all?

[snegledmaca]

I subconsciously thought ESE was my dual, but my internal programming was idealizing whatever it is I see as my "soulmate" to begin with. Just the same way I idealize EIIs now. So as I said, it is how I post, as in, my personal style. It is also how I love, so to say.... because when there is that one person, I do think the world of them.

That was what I was getting at. You imagine reality in your head and act accordingly. I am LII and therefor my soul mate is ESE and therefore I worship them. Or I am LSE and LSE-s act this was therefore I will act that way. Your (proclaimed) subjective stances, opinions, feelings are a consequence of your current self perception/image. That is what I am trying to say.

Basically, LII was making the most sense at the time, so, I put on all my gusto and idealism for what I thought was my dual, or my special type. I looked for real examples of things in my real life that worked, and some things fit, as we know. But, as I had more and more experience and learned more and more about socionics, things change. Most notably is spending time on my own at college. I realized that I wasn't really feeling like an LII, especially after living with one of them, and then living with another one briefly. I really began to question myself. And, although ESFjs share some qualities of an INFj (femininity being something I like a lot), it always lingered that, even before socionics, there were certain people who were a little on the quieter side, very soft, but ethically strong, and I remember getting along well with them. I always said I liked INFjs, even when I was idealizing ESFjs. (And furthermore, would me not knowing which type is my dual only be more indicative of having extremely weak Ethics in general? ((Which, I know I do...more later)))

Yet, to my best of my understanding at the time, I thought I was LII, and I couldn't say I got along with ESE's terribly so, so... I celebrated them. And if you read the LSE profile, that is what they do, that is part of having INFj as your dual and Fi in your ego block (probably with Ne hidden agenda (LSE) more so than Se (LIE))).

In one sense, me celebrating and idealizing my dual is part of how I would support my dual, maybe even part of Si creative (like you know how ESEs can go goo-goo over people they like). Perhaps that is part of being a caregiver. I believe, in response, Infantiles look up to their caregivers in a reciprocal sort of way. One thing that made me realize I was caregiver was really spending time and seeing infantiles in action.... and that is why LII immediately became dissatsifying, and why I always, ALWAYS, saw myself as more logical or more severe type of LII. When in reality, that was my Fi > Fe preference, serious>merry.

Hmm, you sound just like me. If I don't know better I would almost call you IEI. The way you rationalize things and draw conclusions and possibilities on the go is exactly they way I do it. But I only do it when I don't really know what I'm talking about and am really exploring possibilities. Also while I do it I'm also fascinated by the new conclusions/explanation/possibilities that I've discovered. Tell me, do you get energized by doing that, rationalizing things?

[UDP]

Are you serious?

[snegledmaca]

I'm merely trying to comprehend/explain what I see.

[UDP]

Hmm, you sound just like me. If I don't know better I would almost call you IEI.

Not a chance.

The way you rationalize things and draw conclusions and possibilities on the go is exactly they way I do it.

I don't understand how you can legitimately say that. What are you basing this off of?

But I only do it when I don't really know what I'm talking about and am really exploring possibilities. Also while I do it I'm also fascinated by the new conclusions/explanation/possibilities that I've discovered.

Fascinated? You make it sound like you indulge in vagueness and pointless extrapolation, regardless of reality.

Tell me, do you get energized by doing that, rationalizing things?

No, I don't particularly enjoy daydreaming, or coming up with rationalizations just for the sake of it.
You remind me of art/art history class : /

It certainly does not energize me. Rather, the opposite effect.


Aren't you an INFp? Do you not believe me when I say I am your opposite?

[tcaudilllg]

No, I resent you making proclamations that become invalid the moment you changed your type, for lacking integrity/validity. Here is what I saw, Oh I love ESE-s, ESE-s are sooo great, ESE-s are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm so happy I have ESE-s *change of type* ok, all that stuff I said about ESE-s is not true, but never mind that, EII-s are the new shit, oh yeeeeah, EII-s rock my world, EII-s are so great it's unbelievable and so on. If you never were LII why did you write all that stuff about ESE-s? It most certainly wasn't wrong understanding of the theory, it was personal opinion. Why did you make those proclamations if they weren't true?

That same could be said for me and crosstype theory. I don't think UDP was really recognizing ESEs for what they really are; rather, I think he was projecting INFj traits onto them. He was living in his projection, not the reality. This lead him to mislabeling. In the end, it was all a matter of limited information, just as it was with crosstype theory.

You do the best you have with the information you have, and who can judge you when the status quo is clearly wanting? If you had the information to know that UDP's claims were wrong at the time he made them, then you would not have felt mislead by him. But you didn't, and to compensate for the deficit you relied on UDP for what you probably should have relied on a progressive like me for, someone who could explain the phenomena around you. UDP's purposes are in cultivating discussion and affirming the existence of understanding, neither of which was what you needed.

[aut0]

[Ezra]

At the time, LII was making a lot of sense, and I was getting along great with the ESEs I knew. But then I had more life experience, and I realized what I thought my dual was changed. By the way, Shania twain, Aishwarya Rai - they are still very attractive, and I still like them and what they do. But they are just not my dual.

How do you know? Have you met any EIIs with which you can compare ESEs? Maybe your idealism is actually genuine - maybe ESE is your dual.

FTR, Schwarzenegger is an INTJ in MBTT and an LSE. Perhaps you too are like him.

[aut0]

Anyone have a gun I can borrow? (Not being serious)

[UDP]

At the time, LII was making a lot of sense, and I was getting along great with the ESEs I knew. But then I had more life experience, and I realized what I thought my dual was changed. By the way, Shania twain, Aishwarya Rai - they are still very attractive, and I still like them and what they do. But they are just not my dual.

How do you know? Have you met any EIIs with which you can compare ESEs? Maybe your idealism is actually genuine - maybe ESE is your dual.

FTR, Schwarzenegger is an INTJ in MBTT and an LSE. Perhaps you too are like him.

(Schwarz. still has EII as his dual. It doesn't matter what his MBTT type is)

It took me a long time to figure out the difference (in reality) between Fe and Fi.
I originally interpreted Fe as "severity of connection", and I was like - yes, that is what I want.

ESEs are not my dual - Ti is not my leading funciton, I do not have Fe dual seeking. I am not infantile. And so on.
More and more experience around them only furthers this, as, their Fe gets overbearing at times. They are too loud, compared to EIIs

Have you met any EIIs with which you can compare ESEs?

Yes. In real life, absolutely. And, as I said, that is one of the main things.
When I first came to socionics, my experience with different people in different situations was extremely limited.
Coming to college has made it much more clear - seeing the different people's type functions in reality.
It is exceptionally clear that I do not have Fe as a quadra value, and that I am serious, and rational.

Even when talking about ESEs as my dual, I always commented how EIIs always stood out to me. Being around the two types more in working situations, in real life, and seeing a genuine duality between LII and ESE, I began to realize.... wow, this is not what I want. It was ok I suppose - they were very kind to themselves, which I appreciate. But, the roles were not appealing to me. As an LII, I would be infantile, and was not working for me. I'd much rather take care of someone else in that way, than be the INXx type which was more dreamy and in need of hugs, so to say. I am the hugger, not the one who secretly wants someone to come along and hug them.

[eunice]

If Schwarzenegger is the *quintessential* ESTj, I must be an INFp. j/k.

[UDP]

He is not my personal hero- I will assure of of that, Eunice.

[snegledmaca]

The way you rationalize things and draw conclusions and possibilities on the go is exactly they way I do it.

I don't understand how you can legitimately say that. What are you basing this off of?

Well this:

Basically, [initial claim (no longer supported)], so [consequences of initial claim]. [More consequences of initial claim], as we know. But, [grounds for disproving initial claim]. Most notably [main point for disproving initial claim]. I realized [negating initial claim] especially after [main point for disproving initial claim]. I really began to question [initial claim]. And, although [consequences of initial claim] it always lingered that [currently supported claim]. I always [currently supported claim] even when [believing initial claim is valid].( And furthermore, would me [believing initial claim is valid] only be more indicative of [currently supported claim])

Yet, to my best of my understanding at the time, I [believing initial claim is valid] and [support for initial claim] so [consequences of initial claim]. And if you [support for current claim] that [support for claiming initial claim + not contradicting initial claim]. ([Expanding upon the nuances of previous statement]).

In one sense, [actions supporting initial claim] is part of [support for current claim], maybe even [support for current claim] ([Expanding upon the nuances of previous statement]). Perhaps that is [consequences of supported claim]. I believe [support for current claim]. One thing that made me realize [currently supported claim] was [support for current claim] and that is why [negating initial claim] and [support against initial claim]. When in reality, that was [support for current claim].

But I only do it when I don't really know what I'm talking about and am really exploring possibilities. Also while I do it I'm also fascinated by the new conclusions/explanation/possibilities that I've discovered.

Fascinated? You make it sound like you indulge in vagueness and pointless extrapolation, regardless of reality.

Wow, you've summed it up beautify. I've been trying to find a way to describe what I do but it all sounds so valid, proper, like it's not a waste of time and nothing more then mental masturbation. Yes, that's precisely what I do for fun.

EDIT: Hell, even this exchange is that for me. As you have noted.

Aren't you an INFp? Do you not believe me when I say I am your opposite?

Why would I take your word on it? No, I don't believe anything people say, seeing is believing to me. Or you have to prove it to me first. And I do not see why you should be an exception.

[Ezra]

Could someone dig this up for me, please? I've looked countless times; can't find it anywhere. I want to see his rationale, because he's so bad at giving actual reasons why he is something; he'll only give a rationale when no one asks for one. Also, one about LII would be nice too.

[strrrng]

Rationale for LII:

-complete avoidance of Se and paralysis when presented with it.
-bases his interpretations of socionics off of theoretical definitions which he memorizes, and then proceeds to impose his framework on himself and others.
-has the energy level common to IJ's - not actively focused on the external world enough to be a EJ+Te leading type.
-rambles endlessly about Si matters (the greatness of his subway routine) and literally seems enveloped in the function

That's all for now

[tereg]

There was this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18798

Though I don't think it was necessarily a "declaration" he was rather involved in this thread.

[Gilly]

lol @ UDP in general.

[tereg]

Tereg: What's with the avatar?

Because I couldn't have this as an avatar

[tereg]

Oh wait, how foolish of me.

Let me put this into terms you can understand.

[Gilly]

chuckle

[DirectorAbbie]

lol @ UDP in general.

Why? He was the first person I met here who made sense.

[discojoe]

Rationale for LII:

-complete avoidance of Se and paralysis when presented with it.
-bases his interpretations of socionics off of theoretical definitions which he memorizes, and then proceeds to impose his framework on himself and others.
-has the energy level common to IJ's - not actively focused on the external world enough to be a EJ+Te leading type.
-rambles endlessly about Si matters (the greatness of his subway routine) and literally seems enveloped in the function

That's all for now

I agree, though my main argument is that he looks like the guy who plays Peter Petrelli on Heroes, who I typed as INTj.

[Gilly]

Why? He was the first person I met here who made sense.

Apparently our views on sense are very, very different.

[Gilly]

Socionics is sense.

[DirectorAbbie]

Long paragraphs don't make sense, no matter how logical they are. Expat makes sense. He usually uses bullets, or at least short paragraphs. And his posts are totally logical, an extra bonus.

[strrrng]

Why? He was the first person I met here who made sense.

lol @ you

long paragraphs don't make sense, no matter how logical they are. Expat makes sense. He usually uses bullets, or at least short paragraphs. And his posts are totally logical, an extra bonus.

I would expect such an answer from an Ni-void ESTj lol. And I find it highly amusing that you enjoy reading Expat's posts the most (hears an echo in the socionix chamber)

[Gilly]

Long paragraphs don't make sense,

laugh my fucking ass off

[Gilly]

Nick, don't be a retard; Expat knows his shit.

[strrrng]

Nick, don't be a retard; Expat knows his shit.

I know that he does, and I have found his recent posts to be highly informative (the government thread, in particular). I was merely making a jocular slight at Abbie, mostly because I find her annoying.

[Gilly]

*sigh*

[UDP]

Let's see....

Could someone dig this up for me, please? I've looked countless times; can't find it anywhere. I want to see his rationale, because he's so bad at giving actual reasons why he is something; he'll only give a rationale when no one asks for one. Also, one about LII would be nice too.

Have you ever considered that people's attitudes toward me might not be conducive to discussion or explanation?

This seems to drive you and other people further into looking at old posts here on the forum, which must reveal so much.

"He'll only give a rationale when no one asks for one" is false.
Well let's see.
You have never pmed me to discuss my type or socionics.
You have never tried to contact me outside of the forum to discuss socionics or my type.

And yet, I talk to various people and discuss things in detail, but as it stands, Ezra, (among others who posted in this thread) isn't part of those discussions.

Now that Ezra wants to understand my past rational for being LSE, well, that's great. I don't understand this indirect approach, though.

And if you don't trust me enough to actually talk to me, well, why bother typing me? It's a strange sort of ostracizing and belittling process here. You'd rather talk "about me" than "with me".


And then you say things like

because he's so bad at giving actual reasons why he is something; he'll only give a rationale when no one asks for one.

It's like.... what incentive do I have of respecting your opinions or requests anyways?

Has it occurred to you that so far, in your attempts to understand my type (which I'm not sure what they are), you've failed?

So, it must be "because he's so bad at giving explanations" and that I "give rationale when no one asks for one". Clearly, things that point to my socionics incompetence and general foolishness, ignorance, stupidity, and so on. So as you put it, it's entirely my fault that you don't understand me.


And yet, you want to look at my rationalizations that I wrote several months ago, which will apparently be more fruitful than..........
The discussion(s?) you had with me about my type.


I'm even tempted to ask what you recall from those discussions, just to see what you are actually drawing from. But the truth is, I really don't care; I know you're drawing from essentially nothing - perhaps some possible stickam skirmishes are your best bet - but that you are going off of things like that already show you don't really care, or perhaps don't even know how to use other forms of evidence.

I've prompted you here to having a discussion with me about socionics. And yet, I'm rather uninterested in talking with socionics about you, on a personal level. I suggest the direct communication for any people trying to understand each others types, not just 'myself'. But, again, being totally honest, I don't really see how spending time or energy on talking to you is going to do anything. So, despite my recommendation to communicate with me, I'm going to give you another that you don't bother. If you really have some sort of sincere desire to understand, sure, give it a try - why not. But if it's just another line of bullshit, then why bother.

Finally, I'd say I'm flattered you are so concerned with seeing what I wrote months ago, but that's not really the case.


PS:
People change, and basing people on past things isn't accurate - so perhaps I have misconceptions about Ezra. But please be assured (to all) that I'm only interested in talking about socionics itself. If anyone wants to talk socionics on its own, or talk about me in a very direct way, we can do that. I'm not yet totally averse (I'm still posting here, I suppose).


PPS:

I agree, though my main argument is that he looks like the guy who plays Peter Petrelli on Heroes, who I typed as INTj.

Don't forget, "UDP looks exactly like Steve", too.

[strrrng]

Nice Ti argument there, Jesse.

[Ezra]

There was this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18798

Though I don't think it was necessarily a "declaration" he was rather involved in this thread.

That wasn't the one I was thinking of, although I may have read it a while ago.

Let's see....


Have you ever considered that people's attitudes toward me might not be conducive to discussion or explanation?

This seems to drive you and other people further into looking at old posts here on the forum, which must reveal so much.

"He'll only give a rationale when no one asks for one" is false.
Well let's see.
You have never pmed me to discuss my type or socionics.
You have never tried to contact me outside of the forum to discuss socionics or my type.

And yet, I talk to various people and discuss things in detail, but as it stands, Ezra, (among others who posted in this thread) isn't part of those discussions.

Now that Ezra wants to understand my past rational for being LSE, well, that's great. I don't understand this indirect approach, though.

And if you don't trust me enough to actually talk to me, well, why bother typing me? It's a strange sort of ostracizing and belittling process here. You'd rather talk "about me" than "with me".


And then you say things likeIt's like.... what incentive do I have of respecting your opinions or requests anyways?

Has it occurred to you that so far, in your attempts to understand my type (which I'm not sure what they are), you've failed?

So, it must be "because he's so bad at giving explanations" and that I "give rationale when no one asks for one". Clearly, things that point to my socionics incompetence and general foolishness, ignorance, stupidity, and so on. So as you put it, it's entirely my fault that you don't understand me.


And yet, you want to look at my rationalizations that I wrote several months ago, which will apparently be more fruitful than..........
The discussion(s?) you had with me about my type.


I'm even tempted to ask what you recall from those discussions, just to see what you are actually drawing from. But the truth is, I really don't care; I know you're drawing from essentially nothing - perhaps some possible stickam skirmishes are your best bet - but that you are going off of things like that already show you don't really care, or perhaps don't even know how to use other forms of evidence.

I've prompted you here to having a discussion with me about socionics. And yet, I'm rather uninterested in talking with socionics about you, on a personal level. I suggest the direct communication for any people trying to understand each others types, not just 'myself'. But, again, being totally honest, I don't really see how spending time or energy on talking to you is going to do anything. So, despite my recommendation to communicate with me, I'm going to give you another that you don't bother. If you really have some sort of sincere desire to understand, sure, give it a try - why not. But if it's just another line of bullshit, then why bother.

Finally, I'd say I'm flattered you are so concerned with seeing what I wrote months ago, but that's not really the case.


PS:
People change, and basing people on past things isn't accurate - so perhaps I have misconceptions about Ezra. But please be assured (to all) that I'm only interested in talking about socionics itself. If anyone wants to talk socionics on its own, or talk about me in a very direct way, we can do that. I'm not yet totally averse (I'm still posting here, I suppose).


PPS:

Don't forget, "UDP looks exactly like Steve", too.

Yeah, I didn't read any of that.

Where's the post you originally wrote about why you were LSE?

And for extra points, please someone find me the post where he originally claims that he's an LII.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There isn't an post where he originally claims to be an INTj - he was an 'INTj' to begin with. He had various ponderings about his type over a period of time - I can't find a specific instance where he laid out the case for being an ESTj.

The whole business makes me feel very uncomfortable with ascribing types to people - everyone was happy with him being an INTj for ages and even sought to reassure him of this.