Be wealthy
How to obtain a :Te: valuer
Be wealthy
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.
BEST PIC EVER!Originally Posted by Absurd
This just turned my miserable day around, thank you!
Absurd: You Ti dominants sure say things I don't really know where to put.
labtard: fml
Absurd: Hah.
that would work for me
Which Alphas usually are not...
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
;;
[citation needed]
Concise and accurate. Best post in 16 types history.
Apparently Slater; it's the "practicality" even though LSE will swear up and down that they aren't looking for that, that they are looking for something meaningful. It's so sad.
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
I thought IEIs were the "most likely type to marry for money".
Though I'm sure that assertion is a gross generalization, I've only seen such a thing in an IEI description. So...
Just thought I'd point that out.
Also, I don't care about money beyond what is vital. "Vital" is subjective I guess. I'm sure I could manage to survive on 5 dollars a week, but that's not really the kind of life I'd prefer to live, given a choice.
Though doing something like Aquagraph did where he backpacked across Europe with like no money...that could be a cool experience. But given the choice between destitution and having resources to at least do the things I value the most...I'd choose the latter.
Resourcefulness is always attractive in a biological way I guess.
Having money doesn't always suggest resourcefulness, as simply having resources at the moment doesn't mean that a person is resourceful.
And also money isn't really the main resource. Simply being resourceful is more important than just having money.
Money CAN be an indicator of resourcefulness...but not always.
And money certainly isn't the only resource.
This thread should be:
How to attract people pretty universally
Resourcefulness
Not sure if this applies to women moreso than men. Maybe it does. Probably does. Since having babies requires lots of resources that being prego kind of makes obtaining more difficult.
I'm just basing this off of things I've learned in my family development class.
Okbye.
Last edited by fen; 03-21-2013 at 08:56 PM.
And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
Nope. The thing with IEIs is that they are gold diggers openly. ESIs are gold diggers secretly, meanwhile holding up the appearance of moral integrity and perfection.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
No, it's true.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
thinking why i'm uncomfortable with the idea of dating somebody wealthy - a lot of my family has a pretty strong distrust of people with money and it was kind of instilled growing up how different they were. when i think of wealthy people i think of a completely foreign mindset and culture that is irreconcilable with mine, whether that's true and fair, or not. which i wouldn't say is type related - culture related. or i guess you could call it ne-polr xenophobia. or aristocracy. haha.
Yeah my family also was like that. I always thought it was mostly bullshit and envy. They would sometimes consider "wealthy" simply someone upper middle class.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I had the same exact thought. Also LSEs are caregivers, so my impression is that they generally aim to be well established in order to be able to support the people they love.I thought IEIs were the "most likely type to marry for money".
Though I'm sure that assertion is a gross generalization, I've only seen such a thing in an IEI description. So...
Just thought I'd point that out.
Okbye.
I can see the LSE sociotype as the sort of people to refuse to get married until they are established in their profession and/or have enough money to support a family.
In a stereotypical sense, the IEIs are the divas who want to live the life (or have a certain "status") without lifting a finger, hence the "marrying for money" concept.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
since its being taken seriously?
i would feel weird dating a wealthy person. unless i ever became wealthy myself. which probably won't happen.
even though my duals are supposedly the rich venture capitalists or whatever.
i don't pay as much attention to the practical traits of who i'm attracted to as i should.
Was the thread meant as a joke?
I can never tell.
And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
I've dated all across the board; I never look for anyone of any socio economic status; I just meet someone who I find interesting, relatively attractive, funny (I HAVE TO HAVE FUNNY), someone who will hug me when I cry (who just grabs me and holds me in their arms), someone who will go to things with me (art museum, shopping, walking around, family gatherings). I ask for the simple things in life and I've met wonderful men; I'm just asking that of a dual, that's about it for now.
Dual type
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
CA, this is embarrassing.
I say it is time to split this thread into a drama one where I show up and get hypnotised by another 'decoy.'
Yeah, Te ego blocks. So money hungry.
Om nom nom.
@consentingadult
Imo, you've fallen into the IEE trap of getting too caught up on a generalization that makes sense to you intuitively, but is difficult to explain rationally. I've done this myself enough times and it's a silly trap to get into. Regardless if its true or not, it's pointless to argue because it's almost impossible to prove since it's based on an imagined theoretical framework. I recommend you let it go for these reasons, but in the end it's up to you.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I can see your point, and to some extent it is true, because after all, Socionics is not a positivistic science (if it is a science at all). That being said, I do think about these things, read sources, try to put things together and come up with a construction of my own insights. Sometimes it is difficult to elaborate these insights on a website such as this one for various reasons (such as time constraints), but to me it's not so much a problem to explain it rationally (my blog serves as an example). I respect the fact that people disagree, and don't make much of it if they think my understanding is wrong or stereotyped, that's not the issue. But a line is crossed when people become too personal and start calling each other names.
After all, we are here to discuss Socionics. If there is nothing to 'prove', if there are no cases to be made, what the use of having this site?
Just my two cents.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I see your point, but in forums people tend to have lower inhibitions so one will need a thick skin when making threads or posts and try not to take anything personally. You said it yourself, they are ad hominen attacks and hold no weight over your argument so you should try to not let them affect you. I think why people are upset over your comments is that they're politically incorrect and you didn't provide any evidence. Of course, the evidence is your own personal observations that you have witnessed over time and that can't be demonstrated to anyone on the forum so there's not much that can be done to prove it unfortunately.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Anyway, I want to be wealthy so that I can provide for people I love. And, find the time and energy to find a cause in the world I can support.
Dual type
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
Yeah, he thinks he can slide one past me, he can, but eventually it's not gonna be very nice.uh oh lecky.
Dual type
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
@FoxOnStilts have you considered trading in your Ti valuing ego-block for a slim, efficient and more profitable Te valuing ego model? Perhaps Galen's Personality Warehouse can do a special price for you?
I read this thread and I laughed so much. That's what you do when something is funny, you laugh. I did that. Many times. You just weren't listening.
I was listening. Schizophrenics can hear you.
People are supposed to love each other because the opposite person brings out the qualities within them that they find hard to deal with or express; these are complimentary traits, and supplementary traits, not because of the price tag on their head.
When you feel this work within you, you begin to recognize the person's soul and when that happens you come to love that person. You love their soul.
For me it works from within me first; I'm sure others approach it differently, but the gist is that money isn't everything.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-24-2013 at 08:34 AM.
Dual type
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
Maritsa Darmandzhyan socionics love police; ensuring everyone is loving the way she specifies or else. Never has a person been more open minded; or more successful in using socionics to find a partner.
oh WOW you spelled my name right
No I don't make people love the way I do, this is just conveying my ideal.
Dual type
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
Galenogram revisited.
What is that, some kind of theory proposed by Galen? When i google it, I can't find.
ETA: or do you mean Galen's view on temperaments
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
