Obviously, LIIs are capable of understanding, but not when it comes to their supervisee. The attitudes of the supervisee are processed by their own biased filters, and they -like the rest of us- have difficulty removing these filters. I admit that I basically do the same to ESIs if I'm not acting very consciously, but at least I realize that making an effort to try to see things from the ESi perspective, it does give me hints that help me to get beyond the limitations of my self-serving views.
As I once said in a blog post:
"if it wasn't for the frustration of the supervisee, the joke of Supervision relations would actually be on the supervisor, for it is the supervisor who fails to gain from a learning opportunity."
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
as if there aren't any Ni based reasons not to fall for the "deferred gratification" hard-work-trap.
a lot of weak Ni types are of the typical variety that slaves away to get qualifications for a "better" job, not realizing that ever nth $ of income they get out of it is matched by another hour of effort or another pressing implicit responsibility or limit on their freedom, something that often constitutes a net negative trade-off when progressive tax bracketing and the diminishing marginal utility of income are accounted for.
it's of course another matter when those responsibilities are an outgrowth of genuine passion toward the field the person works in, but that is to be like alphans in your example.
the problem with finale's post aside from the thing about flat eartherism i already mentioned, is that you were the only butthurt person in this thread. his description was a farcically specious reversal of the roles of the people involved.
i think i'll take a "learning opportunity" in employing your newly coined interpretation of the term and "contribute" something to my toilet bowl.Originally Posted by your silly little obsessive socionics blog
@labster: you are making a fool of yourself, by attacking me about things I never discussed nor implied and by using ad hominem arguments, which demonstrate your malevolent intentions towards and perceptions about me.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I use the word "delusional" at times.
So, I suppose I'm definitely not a "weak Ni type".
I personally could do either. I could slack or I could make more money. But I've gotta admit, I wanna be rich, and I want to do it my way. Not necessarily to buy more goods, but to be self-indulgent and live a higher-quality, easier life.
Own my own computer repair business (which has as of yet, not gotten off the ground to where it will be. I've still got a good amount of work to do, although I've already done alot). But my long-term goal is to write fairly-simple video games.
Well, sure. In order to survive, we need to eat. I think the question might be: How much are you focusing (and how much time are you spending) on the acquisition of material goods? (Pretty much the same question you asked, rephrased). My ENTj S.O., for instance, couldn't care less what he owns for the most part, as long as he has a bed and a computer. Me, however, am totally decorating the house (although I don't really enjoy doing it), dealing with building our wardrobes, etc. I go shopping at least once a week for household goods and/or clothing, and I enjoy shopping, exploring and finding new stores.
Buying goods for the house and clothes - that's called being a woman.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I disagree. I know plenty of women who do what they have to do, but don't enjoy it. Men also have to buy goods for the house and clothing, and some of them don't enjoy it either. Some of them do enjoy it (my father for instance, liked to upgrade the facets of the home a lot more than I do. He loved to undertake home projects.)
I disagree that the way it appears is that consentingadult is the only butthurt person in this thread. I also disagree that being irritated by others calling you names is "hysteria".
My post was as serious as this whole thread...
anyway @consentingadult , if I were to tell you that my ESI girlfriend has a similar attitude towards spending to your SEI one, what would you derive as a result? That either one is mistyped? Or that, perhaps, trying to connect all this to types is nonsense...?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Seems to me it depends more on biological reproductive success. If someone is in a community and has a mating partner in this community that are all into an eco way of living then no someone probably doesn't need to aquire things. If someone is in an environment that does require to have money and material possessions in order to obtain a desired partner and take part in the society, eg hobbies, doing things with friends, house in an OK area, then yes someone will want to have money to spend money and aquire goods. Otherwise this person is a looser (not saying I necessarily find them a looser, but biologically/evolutionary wise other people will be having more success than them in their environment).
I don't think it's type related I'd say it's necessity related if it's required to adapt and survive. I suppose i'm addressing consentingadult with this post as well....maybe I am saying...step away from the trees there might be a forest
I think you're definitely viewing from an So perspective. I have a problem with the fact that first, you say it depends more on biological reproductive success, and then in the next sentence, begin adjusting to the fact that environment is actually the most essential additive. It's not a necessity for me to survive, when all I have to do is beg on the streets for money to gain food and shelter.
Yes, it's type-related, whether someone finds it necessary to spend money, and/or make their environments look attractive, and/or look for a rescuer, etc etc etc.
Women buy goods for the house
Some men do that
Chuck Norris waits for the goods to come to his place
I should start another thread
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
A little bit here, a little bit there. Hohum. The revelations of obtaining Te valuers, women, men and non-Te valuers.
Similar is not the same, I can't tell until you are more specific. IMHO, on the outside ESIs can display similar behaviors as SEIs, but is is the underlying motivation that matters, and these are different for ESIs and SEIs. ESIs are not motivated by a need to create comfort, in the true Si sense of the word. They can certainly, for example, create nicely decorated homes (yes, another stereotype), often much better than SEIs, and with a lot more taste, but their purpose is not so much to create comfort as SEIs do. I have noticed many ESI women beautifully decorating their homes with antique or vintage or high class furniture, very pleasing to the eye and the intellect, everything very well matched and expensive, but often totally unsuitable for true physical comfortable relaxation.
So, perhaps you can tell us a bit more about your GF, and how you interpret her underlying motivations for her behavior. Then we might be able to say more.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree on both points, but as to what qualifies as flat-eartherism is subjective as well as the fact that nobody actually can be cited as stipulating "I'm butthurt" so therefore we're each forced to decide where we think such motive is behind their text.
I personally don't consider theories of "gold-diggerism" as potentially related to certain types tantamount to flat eartherism, and the point of butthurt being reached I judged being in reply to CA simply stating theories that alpha's usually don't have money and that two types are outward and inward gold-diggers.. whereas the replies to such theories involved them being "embarassing", "plain dumb", "ridiculous", and CA being a potentially "insipid troll"... The former do not strike me as butthurt motivated discussion, whereas the latter do. But to each their own as it's clearly a matter of subjective opinion.
On this topic though, I find there is merit to his claim on inward gold digging with ESI's, but I personally believe the merit may be from simple misunderstanding. I don't agree with the inward gold-digging, but I can theorize where that opinion may stem.
Of the many ESI's I've known, their life requirements have stereotypically been fairly average.. i.e. like everyone, they enjoy a lush, extravagant lifestyle and quality of life, but unlike all types it's not usually a 100% strong need nor would they kill themselves working to achieve such a life style. More importantly, if they reach a said level, anything above and beyond that is optional, albeit enjoyed. In these cases, even a solo ESI has a tendency to be more charitable than other types I've seen. Take for example a particular ESI at my work- as she enjoys more promotions and raises, she takes on more personal charity in the form of bringing more food to food banks monthly/holidays and well as adopts rescue animals whenever possible/affordable. I'd theorize that an ESI is more likely to adopt a rescue animal vs. buy a new Corvette when compared to other types when personal success starts to roll in.
If an ESI marries into wealth, there is no doubt this trend would continue and/or amplify. After marriage, the two incomes normalize into a community income, so if salaries are uneven, I can see there being perception of an inward gold digging, but I'd also bet if the income disparity in an ESI+XXX couple favored the ESI in reverse, the same level of charity would also be employed.
In a purely socionic way, it makes sense too since more practical minded types seem to be dubbed compatible with types that may stereotypically push themselves towards wealth/success, yet also have a nature to piss those rewards away. If not in socionics, but just natural selection, people that are wealthy and piss away their rewards would be better grounded/matched with those that have more practical sense or can do better things with said rewards... say, investing in the home, donating to community, rescue options vs. snorting cocaine off a stripper's tits with a rolled up 100 dollar bill.
Sorry, we've officially sucked all the sarcastic humor out of slater's thread. Perhaps we need a few cat pictures included next time to better categorize humor vs. seriozz bizzness.
-
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
-
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
My final words on the subject, then I will no longer bother you with my silly, trolling and moronic flat eartherism:
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ld-digger.html
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.