Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 146

Thread: Member Questionnaire (Nunki)

  1. #81
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    ONLY focus on Model J for type. Do not go deep. You know your type, you are also just fucking with us. You are an ILI.
    *smiles* You're very perceptive, mister. . . . I don't quite know my type, but I'm much closer to knowing it than I'm letting on. And I sort of am fucking around with everyone in this thread, because I'm not giving socionics any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. I'm letting myself be as hard to type as I really am instead doing what most people do and accepting any half-decent suggestion that comes along. Possibly there is no type at all that really matches me; socionics is in the uncomfortable position for a typology of being very detailed, rigid, and specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    1) You have faith in your ability to introspect. Nobody can take that away.
    5) You need other people to motivate you. You are a lump.
    True and true again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    4 & 2 are harder to understand: Function 4 triggers Function 2 to appear.

    Function 4 is you experience pain at the idea of savoring the permanency of positive experiences with others. You believe that the universe is without love. There is no life in the void - and the void is endemic to reality as you understand it. Consciousness is an illusion and so on. You want to replace the permanency of shared joy with objective logic. Your goal is to experience a form of concrete truth that transcends any and all group ethics. Quit pulling our leg, Balzac. We know your type now.
    Nope, this one isn't ringing any bells for me. Well, that's my initial reaction, anyway, but let me think for a moment. I guess your first sentence is true, since I'm a lonely person and all. . . . I don't get much out of interaction with most people, and that saddens me, because I long for at least one deep, positive connection with someone. Second sentence is false. I believe there's plenty of love all around, only I don't get to take part in any of it; the only people who love me are people in love with a false conception of me. Third sentence I'm not seeing myself in. Fourth sentence: yes, consciousness is probably an illusion. Shared joy? It's something I like (I would have to be in a bizarre state of mind not to, no offense to 1/8 of the human personality spectrum). Objective logic? I'm ambivalent about it; it sounds like a solid foundation, but it's restrictive and ultimately unattainable. A concrete truth that transcends group ethics? That could be good or bad, depending on whether the truth was pleasant or not. Of note: the more concrete something is, the more satisfied I am of its truth. Subjective logic is a cobweb of fictions; the air I'm breathing, the light pouring down from the ceiling, and my fingers typing this message are real, genuine truths.

  2. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    This sounds a great deal like the way I think and see the world, so you're actually making me think I'm DA even more.
    You do realize you cannot be DA unless you're an ILI, and I think everyone has ruled that out by now because it's clear you are Ti-Fe valuing? If you're still an introvert and a DA thinker, then you can only be SEI, unless you are lying about yourself in this thread but what would you gain from that?

    I'm an atheist and doubt anyone created this universe, so common intent in creation does not really apply, but everything else you said is resonating with me (a special kudos goes to you for symbolism > scientific explanations). How I would say it is that there is an implied unity in the manifest lack of unity that pervades any two things. This unity is a negative existence, like the full moon implied by the quarter moon or the filled-in disk implied by an empty circle. The fact that I recognize this unity as a nonexistence, a thing that is absent, and believe that this absence is inherent to reality by definition, is part of what distinguishes me from theists.
    Though this isn't what I wrote, quite. What you write about the full moon and such strikes me as intuitive but it's not DA reasoning. Your thinking isn't like mine. I can tell that much, and one of the reasons why is because you're Ti-Fe over Fi-Te.

    It is because I say it is. : P And here is why: there's a difference between how I think and how I express myself. Internally I'm basically a postmodernist--it's all a matter of perspective, nothing is set in stone, and the only escape from that is that some things impress me (all that matters is the impression) as being objective facts (postmodernism, like most or all systems of thought, contains the seed of its own destruction)--but I like to express myself in a confident and decisive fashion, so I don't say "here is how it could be," "here is how I think it is," or "this is one way of looking at it." I say, "this is how it is." That feels good to me; it's fun and sounds confident.
    I could see an argument for IEI here, you appear a little fluffier now and more Fe-ish, though this sentence is still very driven by Ti.

    Ti is basically one of my nemeses. I hate how restrictive logic is.
    Why? Then why utilize it so much cognitively?

    I want to believe anything I like, and break as many rules as I can while I'm at it; I'm not going to let some system tell me what to think.
    That sounds more like Te than Ti. Te takes known systems and applies it onto people. Ti devices its own systems and understanding.

    And I think that logic is an illusion; things are basically unjustified, absurd, irrational.
    Why so?

    I embrace that; I don't run from it or punish myself by trying to live up to the standards of logic when rigorous logic isn't natural, reasonable, or even possible.
    What does rigorous logic mean to you?

    You wrote a lot of very thorough and interesting things outside of that quote. Let's see if I can address some of them in a fashion more direct than the one so far employed in this message.

    - I understand that reality is basically dynamic--stasis is an abstract nonexistence. This is a consequence of, or to put it more correctly, entailed by what I said about reality in the first paragraph. Whether this translates to me being dynamic in socionics terms, I do not know.

    - I'm very much a planner, so that aspect of Ni is a good description of me. I'm a J in the MBTI. And like you said of Ni doms, I want someone who will spur me to action, someone who will give me that extra little push. I get trapped in my ruminations and hopes and dreams and don't act even when I realize it's imperative for me to act.
    And you know what? I'm a P in the MBTI system because I'm messy, disorganized and I don't know how to structure my life. One cannot make such direct correlations. If anything, the direction correlation is that a J in MBTI is likely to be a rational type in socionics because those descriptions overlap more.

    Also, I am considering about your sincerity when you write stuff like this. No offense but I feel you are part saying things because it fits you here, to give a certain idea of who you are. Why didn't you write this earlier about yourself? There was a good question for that in the OP, the question about being stuck in a rut.

    Yes, all the time. I do the same thing pretty much every day, and I'd rather be doing something different. The chief thing that causes it is the fact that I'm very isolated from other people, who would present me with fresh opportunities to do things. I'm isolated from other people because I'm shy/self-conscious (mostly about my appearance/body; also afraid of my personality being unappealing: I have professionally diagnosed social anxiety disorder) and, possibly worse, can't drive. My reaction to it is to be very grouchy, albeit in a way that I don't express openly, because that isn't pleasant to be around. Also, to think of ways to correct the situation while hardly ever acting on them.
    You don't emphasize or stress what you wrote to me in the above. Instead you are actually writing you seek fresh opportunities to do things. That suggests the inertia of Si ego more than it does Ni per se. Se isn't so much about possibilities as it is about just doing things. I call it action. Not opportunities to do things. Ne ego types may present opportunities though.

    - There's a little bit of irony in how you're saying that you don't identify with my way of seeing the world, and yet I largely identify with the Yin and Yang example you gave.
    Yes, but it doesn't mean you actually identify with the way I intended to make it seem to you. Clearly it didn't. Again, if you are a DA thinker and an introvert you can only be an SEI since you cannot be an ILI. I think everyone can agree on that you're at least not Si ego. You don't have Fe PoLR. You actually seem to actively seek Fe in your life. Unless you're lying about yourself here.

    - Stagnation is a part of the flow, but it still exists and sucks. The word is certainly not meaningless, at least not especially more so than any other word (all words are a little bit meaningless, a view which surely exemplifies a partial absence of Ti).
    Ti with Fe relating. Empty. Feels like you're avoiding the core issue I actually presented by simply voicing what I already said. And if it's one thing I don't like about people is this way of relating. For one thing it's meaningless when it comes to typing people because it is impossible to tell whether the information is your own. For another reason, it makes you appear insincere and as if you're saying it in order to fit a certain idea of what type you already see yourself to be.

    - No one has really asked me to describe my thought processes, and so I really haven't done so. I'm not sure, therefore, what you're referring to when you say I'm not describing Pi in the ego.

    - I don't really observe the world at all. I'm basically cut off from reality. So if observing the world is a part of Ni, I must not be Ni unless "world" means something like . . . your thoughts and feelings. I mean, I watch movies sometimes, and occasionally I come across something that catches my eye, but the main thing I observe is just the things going through my head; I have a bunch of little imitations of worldly things in there.
    Intuition but doesn't point towards anything specific.

    - There's a lot of Ti in me right now, but for the larger portion of my life, there was very little that was Ti about me. Ti is something I started doing in my teen years, and which I've probably gotten rather good at (it stems from a streak of perfectionism; Ti is a way of ensuring that I'm not making mistakes in my self-expression, and it allows me to perfect the structures of various artistic projects that I do. It's also a general way of checking for errors in different claims and, by extension, determining what statements can't be true because they simply don't express anything coherent). The earliest function I remember using would be Ni, I think. I was very mystical, spiritual, and intuitive, from an early age. That isn't to say that I think I'm Ni, though; I leave that as a hanging question. I could be wrong about the IM that was responsible for that.
    Buzzwords. Meaningless. Mystical, spiritual, intuitive? Doesn't say anything, has no content. They're words you see people frequently use to describe Ni but words themselves have no content. So if you make these claims it doesn't prove Ni or anything, really, because can anyone can namedrop a few buzzwords and say it applies to them, but there is a certain lack of evidence to support those claims. What about your childhood? What did it look like?

    - Throwing options on the table and determining how true they are is something that everyone who starts a thread like this is doing on some level, usually a very direct and obvious level
    No, not everyone does this. You are trying to justify yourself here and your behavior to ward against a certain typing. I'm beginning to think you're a 2w3 sx type. And quite the obnoxious one.

    So I don't see that as having anything to do with Ne. And most of my commentary really has nothing specifically to do with the logical correctness of people's suggestions. I'm not saying that the descriptions or labels are logically self-contradictory (incidentally, I'm a fan of contradiction; I view the ability to be inconsistent as something that is healthy and desirable); I'm saying that I do or don't identify with them.
    Yes, but Ti doesn't all just deal with logic in that Ti always logically corrects. I first of all see each elements as lenses of how people understand the world and it infers their worldview in various ways. People get hung up on specific behaviors but that's not what Jungian functions are at their core. They're mentalities and we can infer some behaviors over others based on this, but that's way too simplistic to understand it. So a lot of Fe types claim they're not Fe because they don't always do the outwards expressions of Fe or care about doing Fe type-of-actions in socionics. That's not why they are Fe. They are Fe because they view the world through the lens of Fe. Behavior is irrelevant because behavior has nothing to do with cognition per se.

    That could just as easily be Fi as Ti, and it could also simply be common self-awareness. So for Ne, in particular, I'm going to need something more substantial.
    Not Fi. Clearly not Fi.

    - I'm still not seeing the Si valuing in me. Si is basically my least favorite function, and certainly not something that I want people to provide me with. And if I were Si-valuing, it would be Delta Si, not Alpha Si.
    Instead of repeating what you've said, why don't you explain why you don't see Si in yourself?

    - By novelty I don't mean anything related to Ne. What I'm trying to get at is that I spend all of my time sitting around the house doing nothing. I like to be doing things, I like to be moving my life forward and having fun and all of that wonderful stuff, and that requires me to be somewhere other than my house: i.e. a novel environment. That's the limited sense in which I crave novelty. I don't by any means like novelty as a rule, and frequently find it silly or annoying when it isn't directly to my purpose. It would be clearer, perhaps, to say that I crave activity and currently lack activity.
    It doesn't point towards anything else than Pe. Both Pe types are capable of doing this.

  3. #83
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    You do realize you cannot be DA unless you're an ILI, and I think everyone has ruled that out by now because it's clear you are Ti-Fe valuing? If you're still an introvert and a DA thinker, then you can only be SEI, unless you are lying about yourself in this thread but what would you gain from that?
    I consider EIE to be a possible typing for me (and I wouldn't want to tell people to rule out anything), since it is a result that I get fairly often on socionics tests. I don't know that I'm Ti-Fe valuing, because I have a somewhat mixed attitude toward Ti; I regard it as something that can become tiresome (when there's too much of it unmitigated by other IMs, such as in a math textbook), overly restrictive (telling me that I must form conceptions by following artificial, inessential rules of logic), or simply pointless when it's not equipping me to achieve my goals in life. On the other hand, I obviously use Ti and regard it as a helpful tool; I also see it as having great aesthetic value; a good work of art is one that is not just meaningful and emotionally rich but also very rigorous on a Ti level: complex and carefully structured. SEI is unlikely, IMO; I would consider any N type to be more likely than an S type. Again, I don't want to rule it out, though; I want to let people use their fullest powers of typing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Though this isn't what I wrote, quite. What you write about the full moon and such strikes me as intuitive but it's not DA reasoning. Your thinking isn't like mine. I can tell that much, and one of the reasons why is because you're Ti-Fe over Fi-Te.
    *shrugs* All right.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Why? Then why utilize it so much cognitively?
    I find the question of "why?" to be difficult to answer, because I feel that I, and other people, really have no fundamental reason for doing the things they do. But I suppose I find using Ti satisfying because (this touches on what I've said already) using it perfects me; Ti is a tool that spots my errors (as of reasoning, belief, or expression) and corrects them, and it allows me to achieve things in life, particularly in the creative realm, that I believe have value. It makes me more perceptive, more insightful, more accurate, and a better artist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    That sounds more like Te than Ti. Te takes known systems and applies it onto people. Ti devices its own systems and understanding.
    I do both, but more frequently the latter, as I distrust known systems invented by other people, and like to be original and independent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    What does rigorous logic mean to you?
    Math and formal logic are the perfect cases in point of what I'm talking about. I prefer them to be treated as imperfect tools rather than the ultimate arbiters of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Also, I am considering about your sincerity when you write stuff like this. No offense but I feel you are part saying things because it fits you here, to give a certain idea of who you are. Why didn't you write this earlier about yourself? There was a good question for that in the OP, the question about being stuck in a rut.
    You should be asking yourself whether I'm being sincere or not; it's good practice. As it happens, I am being perfectly sincere; I'm trying to give as full and honest a portrait of myself as I can. As to the question in the OP, I don't really remember what my response was or why I responded in the way that I did. Whatever my response was, it wasn't intended to be misleading. Possibly I misunderstood the question. Either way, I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    I think everyone can agree on that you're at least not Si ego. You don't have Fe PoLR. You actually seem to actively seek Fe in your life.
    Yes, agreed, particularly to the first two points. For the last point, I find that XLE and LXE types often look expressive to me, so it might be more that I'm looking for extroverted people than that I'm specifically looking for Fe people. I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Ti with Fe relating. Empty. Feels like you're avoiding the core issue I actually presented by simply voicing what I already said. And if it's one thing I don't like about people is this way of relating. For one thing it's meaningless when it comes to typing people because it is impossible to tell whether the information is your own. For another reason, it makes you appear insincere and as if you're saying it in order to fit a certain idea of what type you already see yourself to be.
    I apologize if I created the impression that I was mindlessly parroting your words. I wasn't. I repeated your idea because I genuinely agreed with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Buzzwords. Meaningless. Mystical, spiritual, intuitive? Doesn't say anything, has no content. They're words you see people frequently use to describe Ni but words themselves have no content. So if you make these claims it doesn't prove Ni or anything, really, because can anyone can namedrop a few buzzwords and say it applies to them, but there is a certain lack of evidence to support those claims. What about your childhood? What did it look like?
    I'm not naturally a detail-oriented person, and so I'll resort to what you call buzzwords immediately, as a way to cut through the minutia and get straight to the point I want to convey. To answer your question, I don't remember much about my childhood; it wasn't a very pleasant one. What I do remember clearly is my personality. I was very sensitive--prone to cry, emotional, and easily hurt--and extremely imaginative in a couple of senses. First in a storytelling sort of sense; I was the one who invented and was in charge of the imaginary journeys that my classmates and I went on together, and these journeys were far richer, far more imaginative than the usual game playing that children engage in. They were distinctly non-physical in nature; they were entirely about what we were seeing in our heads. Second, in the sense of beliefs. I had a large number of mystical or otherwise unusual beliefs, as a child, and I often got very pseudo-profound about them. Things about magic and the nature thereof, the existence of unrealistic beings, etc. All of it was pulled directly out of my head; it wasn't inspired by real-world beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    No, not everyone does this. You are trying to justify yourself here and your behavior to ward against a certain typing. I'm beginning to think you're a 2w3 sx type. And quite the obnoxious one.
    I'm sorry that you find me obnoxious, and I'm certainly not trying to affect you in that way. As to your enneagram typing, I think it's very unlikely that I'm a 2 of any sort. I type myself as a 4, an unhealthy 4, and unhealthy 4s are said to resemble 2s.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Yes, but Ti doesn't all just deal with logic in that Ti always logically corrects. I first of all see each elements as lenses of how people understand the world and it infers their worldview in various ways. People get hung up on specific behaviors but that's not what Jungian functions are at their core. They're mentalities and we can infer some behaviors over others based on this, but that's way too simplistic to understand it. So a lot of Fe types claim they're not Fe because they don't always do the outwards expressions of Fe or care about doing Fe type-of-actions in socionics. That's not why they are Fe. They are Fe because they view the world through the lens of Fe. Behavior is irrelevant because behavior has nothing to do with cognition per se.
    A mentality is a behavior; it isn't something that just sits there as some kind of . . . I don't even know what it would be if it weren't a behavior. Everything in your head, every concept, every feeling, every mentality is an action you're engaging in. If an IM means anything, it means a particular way of being.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Instead of repeating what you've said, why don't you explain why you don't see Si in yourself?
    It's not so much that I don't see it in myself (every human being has some awareness of Si) as it is that I don't place much importance on Si, and tend to minimize it rather than maximize it. I do not like focusing on bodily comfort--I'm perfectly fine as long as I'm not experiencing pain, and, somewhat ironically, feel uncomfortable, in an emotional sense, when other people start trying to make me bodily comfortable. I'm disgusted by bodily functions. I'm also disgusted by an attitude of doting on one's body, of feeding it, nurturing it, caring for it, loving it. And I do not like talking about relaxation, nor do I want anyone to help me relax. If I'm anxious about something, it's because there's a problem that needs to be dealt with, not because I need to relax.
    Last edited by Nunki; 10-09-2013 at 04:20 PM.

  4. #84
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
    ONLY focus on Model J for type. Do not go deep. You know your type, you are also just fucking with us. You are an ILI.
    Probably ILI, crank, baiting and obfuscation. He could be IEI as well, as certain variation of IEI are just as bad at this.

  5. #85
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not trying to confuse people. I want to know what my best typing is, and I'm being entirely honest with my responses. Right now I feel like the boy who cried wolf, only I've never actually cried wolf.

  6. #86
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    *smiles* Possibly there is no type at all that really matches me; socionics is in the uncomfortable position for a typology of being very detailed, rigid, and specific.

    True and true again.

    Nope, this one isn't ringing any bells for me. Well, that's my initial reaction, anyway, but let me think for a moment. I guess your first sentence is true, since I'm a lonely person and all. . . . I don't get much out of interaction with most people, and that saddens me, because I long for at least one deep, positive connection with someone. Second sentence is false. I believe there's plenty of love all around, only I don't get to take part in any of it; the only people who love me are people in love with a false conception of me. Third sentence I'm not seeing myself in. Fourth sentence: yes, consciousness is probably an illusion. Shared joy? It's something I like (I would have to be in a bizarre state of mind not to, no offense to 1/8 of the human personality spectrum). Objective logic? I'm ambivalent about it; it sounds like a solid foundation, but it's restrictive and ultimately unattainable. A concrete truth that transcends group ethics? That could be good or bad, depending on whether the truth was pleasant or not. Of note: the more concrete something is, the more satisfied I am of its truth. Subjective logic is a cobweb of fictions; the air I'm breathing, the light pouring down from the ceiling, and my fingers typing this message are real, genuine truths.


    What you are doing is looking for a high degree of precision in my language. I view things in terms of it all being a conversation. I do not typically feel the need for precise language. In fact, as I wrote that, I was imaging to myself that I am merely inserting some "materialist philosophy template" into what I was trying to say. This is characteristic of merry types. I am Fe valuing. A conversation (Fe) allows for each statement to be a trigger for the conversation to branch forward. A merry type will say what they think you will basically get, because the conversation is not serious. However, I provoked the information that I needed from you.

    To me, you are very Te / Fi - You interpret words as being detailed, specific, rigid just as you see Socionics. That is the definition of serious on one of the other websites...

    ILIs have a hidden agenda to love. That is their mobilizing function which is Fi. I triggered you to reveal your hidden agenda. Your PoLR Fe is found in the experience of pain or sadness with Fe, and a longing for Fe (which is unobtainable.) This statement is sufficient : I quote "I believe there's plenty of love all around, only I don't get to take part in any of it; the only people who love me are people in love with a false conception of me." That implies that you cannot attain Fe and so are sad about it. From this pain, you mobilize to valued Fi -- that you can understand -- and reasonably hope to attain. I quote you again: "I'm a lonely person and all. . . . I don't get much out of interaction with most people, and that saddens me, because I long for at least one deep, positive connection with someone." That is the valued Fi.

    I do not know this "epheme reality." He has only 3 posts. I have not checked but they all seem to be in this thread. Is he you? Are you making a soliloquy? A soliloquy with two accounts? People have done that here before. You are like Saint Augustine arguing with Reason! Hamlet speaking to Yurok. Very dialectical.

     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  7. #87
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    ILIs have a hidden agenda to love. That is their mobilizing function which is Fi. I triggered you to reveal your hidden agenda. Your PoLR Fe is found in the experience of pain or sadness with Fe, and a longing for Fe (which is unobtainable.) This statement is sufficient : I quote "I believe there's plenty of love all around, only I don't get to take part in any of it; the only people who love me are people in love with a false conception of me." That implies that you cannot attain Fe and so are sad about it. From this pain, you mobilize to valued Fi -- that you can understand -- and reasonably hope to attain. I quote you again: "I'm a lonely person and all. . . . I don't get much out of interaction with most people, and that saddens me, because I long for at least one deep, positive connection with someone." That is the valued Fi.
    Yes, this is checking out pretty well; you seem to know exactly what you're talking about. (I was under the impression that having a function as your PoLR meant you don't like that type of information element or are oblivious to it, in which case I would not be Fe PoLR. But apparently I was wrong.) Hmm. But I do have to point out that the things you're referring to are strongly related to me having social anxiety disorder and severe self-esteem issues. The signs of Fe PolR you mention really have nothing to do with how I was when I was more psychologically healthy. I definitely did not have trouble attaining Fe (I do not say that lightly), got a great deal out of interaction with people, and intimate Fi connections were not something I was focused on, aside from a desire for romance, which probably has more to do with being a human with a heart and a libido than valuing Fi. If type is considered changeable, then your suggestion is still ironclad; if not, I'm having serious doubts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    To me, you are very Te / Fi - You interpret words as being detailed, specific, rigid just as you see Socionics. That is the definition of serious on one of the other websites...
    Actually, I experience words as being very vague. But I definitely try to make them detailed and specific. This stems from a strong desire to make myself understood, which requires the use of clear language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm
    I do not know this "epheme reality." He has only 3 posts. I have not checked but they all seem to be in this thread. Is he you? Are you making a soliloquy? A soliloquy with two accounts? People have done that here before. You are like Saint Augustine arguing with Reason! Hamlet speaking to Yurok. Very dialectical.
    lol, That would be very amusing. But no, Ephemereality and I are not in any way the same person. And apparently he finds me obnoxious, so I'm a little bit scared to see how he's going to react to this suggestion. : P

  8. #88
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I'm not trying to confuse people. I want to know what my best typing is, and I'm being entirely honest with my responses. Right now I feel like the boy who cried wolf, only I've never actually cried wolf.
    If you know what your best type is, there isn't much other people can say which is as informed as your self-perception. You say you're honest and I can take that as true, but frankly what you say about yourself is often trivial and uninformative. Honesty isn't terribly important in typing as long as you are unscripted. Liars have a type the same as honest people.

    A lot of what you say is obfuscating because you say something like, "I'm like this or I dislike this and then, I'm kinda of not like this as well or I do this thing I dislike."

    It leads people in different directions and is unclear. Other things you say is like this, "I'm like this some of the time, I'm like this some other times." What you say is actually not very meaningful, however, why you might say it is.

    Then you say some stuff like this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    On a side note, while I do like being mysterious, I really, really hate being unclear.
    Yea, what is someone supposed to get from this? What do you really like, what do you really want? You don't know, how can anyone know... good thing, this is a observed stereotype for some variations of egos.

    I think you are difficult to type, mostly because you haven't developed fluently the ability to communicate with your creative function(or is simply not using it). I'm not sure how old you are, but are you young?

  9. #89
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    Yea, what is someone supposed to get from this? What do you really like, what do you really want? You don't know, how can anyone know... good thing, this is a observed stereotype for some variations of Ni egos.
    I agree with you that I'm probably an Ni ego, since, among other things, all of the descriptions on Wikisocion of Ne in the Id Block sound like me. As far as me coming across as confusing and ambiguous, that's just how I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    I think you are difficult to type, mostly because you haven't developed fluently the ability to communicate with your creative function(or is simply not using it). I'm not sure how old you are, but are you young?
    If Ni is my main function and not my creative function, you're probably right about this. I'm in my mid twenties. However, I'm extremely isolated due to geography and other circumstances, and have been for a long time, so my creative function is likely to have atrophied.

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post


    What you are doing is looking for a high degree of precision in my language. I view things in terms of it all being a conversation. I do not typically feel the need for precise language. In fact, as I wrote that, I was imaging to myself that I am merely inserting some "materialist philosophy template" into what I was trying to say. This is characteristic of merry types. I am Fe valuing. A conversation (Fe) allows for each statement to be a trigger for the conversation to branch forward. A merry type will say what they think you will basically get, because the conversation is not serious. However, I provoked the information that I needed from you.

    To me, you are very Te / Fi - You interpret words as being detailed, specific, rigid just as you see Socionics. That is the definition of serious on one of the other websites...

    ILIs have a hidden agenda to love. That is their mobilizing function which is Fi. I triggered you to reveal your hidden agenda. Your PoLR Fe is found in the experience of pain or sadness with Fe, and a longing for Fe (which is unobtainable.) This statement is sufficient : I quote "I believe there's plenty of love all around, only I don't get to take part in any of it; the only people who love me are people in love with a false conception of me." That implies that you cannot attain Fe and so are sad about it. From this pain, you mobilize to valued Fi -- that you can understand -- and reasonably hope to attain. I quote you again: "I'm a lonely person and all. . . . I don't get much out of interaction with most people, and that saddens me, because I long for at least one deep, positive connection with someone." That is the valued Fi.

    I do not know this "epheme reality." He has only 3 posts. I have not checked but they all seem to be in this thread. Is he you? Are you making a soliloquy? A soliloquy with two accounts? People have done that here before. You are like Saint Augustine arguing with Reason! Hamlet speaking to Yurok. Very dialectical.

    Eh, I don't think an Fe PoLR would ever seek out Fe. How many Fe PoLR types have you asked about this? I think if anything, an Fe PoLR type seeks Fi love, not Fe. Why the fuck would you ever seek Fe as Fe PoLR, the very thing that bothers you the most cognitively? Makes no sense.

    And I think you need to understand the difference between Te and Ti. Ti is actually the function that seeks precise language, especially in ego types. Te types care about effective communication, but this is different to precision when it comes to word choices. Te looks for information outside of oneself such as facts, systems and ideas and tries to streamline it utilizing Pi to fit into a model of reality. I don't see the OP as an ILI unless the whole Fe portion is just troll and I don't think it is. It seems rather serious to me. Thus, the OP seems to be an Fe seeker. One of the things that makes the ILI a serious type is how unresponsive they are to Fe type of actions and interactions. The PoLR is part what makes them not give a fuck so again, if you don't give a fuck, why seek it out?

    Also, what about your communication here? I actually find it rather meaningful in terms of intertype. Seems your cognition is clicking in how you "understand" each other in that the OP for example notes that he feels he is being read and understood the right way. Often occurs when communicating with people from one's own quadra and the validation in particular may occur when communicating with someone who fulfills one's HA which I think you just did - Fe seeking. If you are supposed to be of opposing quadra this wouldn't be the case necessarily.

    If OP isn't an LII I could see ILE as a possibility too, the more introverted type. I am shying away more and more from Ni because something doesn't ring as true to me here when it comes to the OP as an Ni type. I considered beta NF but nope, engaging and reading some posts by some beta NFs, even the Ni subtypes, clarified to me that the OP isn't a beta NF. And I know for a fact he's not a gamma NT because I don't see his thinking being oriented by Te. One of the reasons being that he seems to be more concerned about the precision of language than effective communication, but also in that he's overall very poor at invoking and creating what appears to be Pi models. He's not creating any narratives in the OP despite that he could very well do that. There are plenty of opportunities to, and he's been given opportunities after this too.

  11. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I consider EIE to be a possible typing for me (and I wouldn't want to tell people to rule out anything), since it is a result that I get fairly often on socionics tests. I don't know that I'm Ti-Fe valuing, because I have a somewhat mixed attitude toward Ti; I regard it as something that can become tiresome (when there's too much of it unmitigated by other IMs, such as in a math textbook), overly restrictive (telling me that I must form conceptions by following artificial, inessential rules of logic), or simply pointless when it's not equipping me to achieve my goals in life. On the other hand, I obviously use Ti and regard it as a helpful tool; I also see it as having great aesthetic value; a good work of art is one that is not just meaningful and emotionally rich but also very rigorous on a Ti level: complex and carefully structured. SEI is unlikely, IMO; I would consider any N type to be more likely than an S type. Again, I don't want to rule it out, though; I want to let people use their fullest powers of typing.
    Again, what you describe here is actually more akin to Te, not Ti. It seems it is Te you devalue, not Ti. As for the work of art, did you ever consider it to be Si? I was looking through your OP and found stuff like this:

    When I'm in an environment, such as a museum, whose beauty or other striking characteristics cause me to become absorbed.
    This logic here is honestly very Si-informed. Focus on aesthetics and it seems to be the physical aspect of aesthetics, not a feeling component or similar you might see in ethical types who might like something because feels pretty. It goes on later too:

    My answer to this may not be the most indicative one, because I've only been to a pair of museums. But it would be the art museum I went to with a friend of mine, about a year ago (and I will point out that, in theory, I prefer an art museum to a science museum; I'm more fulfilled by the humanities--things with emotional richness or spiritual depth--than I am by information about the workings of the world. What exists in the physical universe is very arbitrary, while what is human is of the deepest significance possible.). I took particular pleasure in the things there that spoke of aristocracy--the golden spoons, the towering wardrobes covered in carved in angels, and all of that. I wish I had been born in a place filled with such things; a golden spoon with rubies set into the handle turns the act of eating into an act of immeasurable grace (I would still wolf everything down, though. That would be good for the aesthetic contrast.).
    This is actually very Pi. This is you creating a narrative though it's still not quite the narrative you see in actual Pi ego types, but it's closer to one. And you know what is striking about this narrative here? The Si focus. You are focusing on the material world and the impressions it leaves behind as if you are experiencing it inside of yourself, something I think is exemplified when you wished you had been born in such a place. Seems to be the comfort-seek you see in Si types you are describing, and it also seems enmeshed with some ethical perspective. Also, do note, in socionics Si is about the appreciation of aesthetics, beauty and the arts.

    I find the question of "why?" to be difficult to answer, because I feel that I, and other people, really have no fundamental reason for doing the things they do. But I suppose I find using Ti satisfying because (this touches on what I've said already) using it perfects me; Ti is a tool that spots my errors (as of reasoning, belief, or expression) and corrects them, and it allows me to achieve things in life, particularly in the creative realm, that I believe have value. It makes me more perceptive, more insightful, more accurate, and a better artist.
    Right. Not a very Ni-type of answer you provided here. What is striking is how you go on defining the question where you define Ti. If you were Pi-leading this answer would be more open-ended. Also, you essentially made it even less likely that you are a DA type considering that you express here that you think there is no fundamental reason for people doing the things they do. DA looks for reason, cause, intent. It's the basic way of how DA types understand cause and effect.

    I do both, but more frequently the latter, as I distrust known systems invented by other people, and like to be original and independent.
    More Te-devaluation.
    Math and formal logic are the perfect cases in point of what I'm talking about. I prefer them to be treated as imperfect tools rather than the ultimate arbiters of truth.
    Yes, this logic here is very Ti and again seems to be that you devalue Te. Te informs rules and operations. You don't seem to appreciate them.

    You should be asking yourself whether I'm being sincere or not; it's good practice.
    And why is it a good practice? This response here is very Fe. I don't think you realize that my post was part rhetorical. I ask because I already know the answer to the question with regards to myself, and I don't think you fully understand what is going on here either. I think for most of the part, people tend to be honest in questionnaires, but the real problem is that they often have ideas of who they think they are, which is an impression of who they are, which may or may not always overlap with how they actually are (a repression of the shadow and over-identification with the persona in analytical psychology) and this leads to a wide variety of problems when people try to type them. One of them is that when something is suggested that goes against the idea the person has of themselves they will reject it, even though this idea is only in relation to how it is understood within the system. Most often people already have formulated some vague idea about their type and what they think they fit more. The problem is that people might not always be able to see through their own persona.

    As it happens, I am being perfectly sincere; I'm trying to give as full and honest a portrait of myself as I can. As to the question in the OP, I don't really remember what my response was or why I responded in the way that I did. Whatever my response was, it wasn't intended to be misleading. Possibly I misunderstood the question. Either way, I apologize.
    hhkmr has already pretty much expressed what I think about this.

    Yes, agreed, particularly to the first two points. For the last point, I find that XLE and LXE types often look expressive to me, so it might be more that I'm looking for extroverted people than that I'm specifically looking for Fe people. I don't know.
    What is Fe to you? How do you understand Fe? How do you understand social atmospheres? What do you seek in social atmospheres? What is pleasurable and what is not pleasurable?

    I apologize if I created the impression that I was mindlessly parroting your words. I wasn't. I repeated your idea because I genuinely agreed with it.
    More Fe apologies.

    I'm not naturally a detail-oriented person, and so I'll resort to what you call buzzwords immediately, as a way to cut through the minutia and get straight to the point I want to convey. To answer your question, I don't remember much about my childhood; it wasn't a very pleasant one. What I do remember clearly is my personality. I was very sensitive--prone to cry, emotional, and easily hurt--and extremely imaginative in a couple of senses. First in a storytelling sort of sense; I was the one who invented and was in charge of the imaginary journeys that my classmates and I went on together, and these journeys were far richer, far more imaginative than the usual game playing that children engage in. They were distinctly non-physical in nature; they were entirely about what we were seeing in our heads. Second, in the sense of beliefs. I had a large number of mystical or otherwise unusual beliefs, as a child, and I often got very pseudo-profound about them. Things about magic and the nature thereof, the existence of unrealistic beings, etc. All of it was pulled directly out of my head; it wasn't inspired by real-world beliefs.
    And what kind of stories did you invent? What was the nature of them?

    I'm sorry that you find me obnoxious, and I'm certainly not trying to affect you in that way. As to your enneagram typing, I think it's very unlikely that I'm a 2 of any sort. I type myself as a 4, an unhealthy 4, and unhealthy 4s are said to resemble 2s.
    Yes they do. You are certainly image-oriented.

    A mentality is a behavior; it isn't something that just sits there as some kind of . . . I don't even know what it would be if it weren't a behavior. Everything in your head, every concept, every feeling, every mentality is an action you're engaging in. If an IM means anything, it means a particular way of being.
    Why must it lead to action?

    It's not so much that I don't see it in myself (every human being has some awareness of Si) as it is that I don't place much importance on Si, and tend to minimize it rather than maximize it. I do not like focusing on bodily comfort--I'm perfectly fine as long as I'm not experiencing pain, and, somewhat ironically, feel uncomfortable, in an emotional sense, when other people start trying to make me bodily comfortable. I'm disgusted by bodily functions. I'm also disgusted by an attitude of doting on one's body, of feeding it, nurturing it, caring for it, loving it. And I do not like talking about relaxation, nor do I want anyone to help me relax. If I'm anxious about something, it's because there's a problem that needs to be dealt with, not because I need to relax.
    What kinds of problems? How do you understand body? What is your relationship to body? Why do bodily functions disgust you and why does it bother you so much to feed it, nurture it, care for it, love it?

  12. #92
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    As for the work of art, did you ever consider it to be Si?
    All of the information elements have their place in good art. Si is not one that I see myself as especially focused on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    This logic here is honestly very Si-informed. Focus on aesthetics and it seems to be the physical aspect of aesthetics, not a feeling component or similar you might see in ethical types who might like something because feels pretty. It goes on later too:
    I like an environment that inspires me to focus outward and forget myself, not one that causes me to focus on my bodily sensations. I'm seeking concrete, objective sensory data, not anything to do with my body.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Also, do note, in socionics Si is about the appreciation of aesthetics, beauty and the arts.
    Not really. . . Read this page: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Vocabulary . Aesthetic evaluation is specifically attributed to Se, while Si is entirely about bodily sensations (and sounds repulsive to me). Note also that a large part of what appeals to me about the type of environment I described is the status-oriented aspects of it: richness, royalty, etc. as well as the emotional effect that attends all of that. This sounds more like Se than Si.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Seems to be the comfort-seek you see in Si types you are describing, and it also seems enmeshed with some ethical perspective.
    It has nothing to do with comfort; golden spoons and carved cherubs do not make me comfortable. What I like about them is the quality of luxuriousness and aristocracy that they have about them, as well as the fact that they're graceful objects.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    You are focusing on the material world and the impressions it leaves behind as if you are experiencing it inside of yourself, something I think is exemplified when you wished you had been born in such a place.
    Where do you see me talking about the impressions the material world leaves behind? Saying that something pleases you or that you wish you had something is not really in itself Si. It would depend on what I was saying I wished for or found pleasing. In this case, I was talking about physical objects and their setting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Also, you essentially made it even less likely that you are a DA type considering that you express here that you think there is no fundamental reason for people doing the things they do. DA looks for reason, cause, intent. It's the basic way of how DA types understand cause and effect.
    I do look for reason, cause, intent, and that is a major artistic ideal of mine. But that search for reason, cause, and intent reveals to me that there is no ultimate reason, cause, and intent. People do things because they do them. A thing in itself, such as a person's action, is its only best justification, and such a justification is always subject to weaknesses, because as soon as something rises up, such as a justification, it's already slipping away. This is why I find it impossible to surrender myself, heart and soul, to Ti. Ti is always dissolving into mist and, as it does so, it falsely claims to have achieved stable truth. This whole topic is a chronicle in Ti dissolving into mist; every time I seize on something, it slips out of my grasp. Every truth I discover anywhere is something that I immediately see is false. Every conclusion at once destroys itself. When I proclaim that something is really, truly the case, I blush at the lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    I think for most of the part, people tend to be honest in questionnaires, but the real problem is that they often have ideas of who they think they are, which is an impression of who they are, which may or may not always overlap with how they actually are (a repression of the shadow and over-identification with the persona in analytical psychology) and this leads to a wide variety of problems when people try to type them. One of them is that when something is suggested that goes against the idea the person has of themselves they will reject it, even though this idea is only in relation to how it is understood within the system. Most often people already have formulated some vague idea about their type and what they think they fit more. The problem is that people might not always be able to see through their own persona.
    lol, this is a bit ironic, looking at your thread on Personality Cafe. I say this playfully rather than maliciously, because I think you're a pleasant person, although my initial reaction was to feel the opposite. Also, I think all of the main suggestions in your typing thread are wrong; I get a different impression of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    What is Fe to you? How do you understand Fe?
    It's exactly what the descriptions say it is; that's how I try to consider it, because otherwise I'd just be inventing my own version of socionics, which would be useless for typing myself in a socially valid fashion (i.e. in a fashion that would allow me to be recognized by other people as a certain type according to commonly recognized standards). So my answer to this part of your question would consist of me parroting mainstream theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    How do you understand social atmospheres?
    Social atmospheres have certain auras about them, somewhat akin to the auras individual people have about them. A social environment can be creepy, lively, friendly, dull, etc: different overall qualities that the people there shape and transform by means of communication with each other and interaction with the objects around them. I feel there are more profound things I could say about social atmospheres, but what I've said is my basic, most immediate impression of them as I sit here typing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Te informs rules and operations.
    I like rules and operations as long as they're ones I think are suitable to achieving my purposes. My artistic projects are heavily rule-guided and fairly procedure-oriented. I like to have a method; once you have the right method, you get the right results smoothly, as if by magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    What do you seek in social atmospheres?
    This is an excellent question; it's the sort of thing people should be asking me. Okay, what I seek in social atmospheres is, in large part, a sense that I'm moving toward my goals in life: for example, learning to feel less self-conscious, expanding my range of experience, and creating satisfying connections with people. I also like there to be small-scale purposes to the interaction, by which I mean everyday things like trying to reach a specific location, solve some kind of common problem, or simply have fun. So basically it's the sense of not being idle but of accomplishing something; that's likely my favorite aspect of it. I also just enjoy having fun on a social level: humor, meaningful discussions, games, etc. I therefore dislike people behaving in a flat, emotionless fashion, which is not fun and turns even a serious and meaningful discussion, where it would be most appropriate, into a dull affair. It's something that I'm very sensitive to; I have a keen awareness of what is good for the atmosphere and what drags it down.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    And what kind of stories did you invent? What was the nature of them?
    I would describe them as being a mix of The Chronicles of Narnia (which I loved as a child even though they didn't stop me from becoming an atheist) and having a dream. Or like daydreaming on a social level, although most people's daydreams are considerably more mundane than the type of thing we did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Why must it lead to action?
    An IM doesn't have to lead to an action; it is an action, right from the very start. Even if you refer to an IM instead of directly engaging in it, you're still performing an action.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemerelity
    How do you understand body? What is your relationship to your body?
    I understand the body as self-equivalence, as being what one is. Self-equivalence is only imperfectly achieved, so the body has a quality of non-reality about it; it doesn't quite manage to be a body, nor does it quite manage to be anything else; hence the ability to feel disconnected from one's body (the body doesn't fully assert itself as a reality). On a more personal level, I experience it as something thrown onto me like an unwanted child. I didn't choose this body, I didn't make it, and now I'm forced to wear it. I would like a different body, one that is more powerful, more beautiful, and more durable. Most of all, I would like a body that characterizes me as the person I wish to be; that would solve everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    Why do bodily functions disgust you and why does it bother you so much to feed it, nurture it, care for it, love it?
    Honestly I don't know. I just have a visceral reaction of disgust toward such things. I regard all of that as crude and don't like to emphasize it. Also, the attitude that the body should be loved irritates me because I don't like my body; I don't like my appearance. The body is a tool and form of identification, not a precious little baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality
    One of the reasons being that he seems to be more concerned about the precision of language than effective communication
    Actually, this is one of my top pet peeves in other people. I'm all about the meaning behind the words, not whether things are "technically correct" or not. I often say things that are self-contradictory, incomplete, or outright false because they convey exactly the meaning I'm going for. I hate when people respond to that by nitpicking the technical correctness of my words; it makes me roll my eyes. However, I do think that precision has its role in conveying meaning, and it's also polished and professional-looking, so under certain circumstances, I make use of it.
    Last edited by Nunki; 10-10-2013 at 10:09 PM.

  13. #93
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, I'm going to take a slightly different approach here. One thing that has been mentioned is that there's an apparent lack of creative function in me. I will therefore post a link to a page that displays me being creative (albeit perhaps not in a socionics sense; nevertheless, it might prove enlightening. Before you click it, let it be noted that "God" was vandalized by the website: several curse words, very important to the effect, were without my permission replaced with stars. The climax is completely ruined by this; you can't even guess what the swearwords were, because they weren't normal ones but unusual variants of them): http://allpoetry.com/Ophiucus

    You can't realistically claim that anything on that page was me trying to mislead you about my socionics type, since I haven't used that website in over a year.

    I have a second link, this one to a different person's poetry page. This is someone with whom I had an extremely negative relationship; he was likely my Supervisor. If people could tell me what they think his type is, that would be a major clue to my own type. IMO, he's probably an SEI; not so much on his poetry page but in real life, he showed clear signs of valuing Ne (for example, most of the people he admired and found attractive were strong Ne types, including Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, and Carl Sagan. And he showed clear signs of specifically disliking subjective intuition.). http://allpoetry.com/Mr.

    EDIT: A few test results:

    1.
    ILI
    IEI (INFp): 85% as likely as ILI.
    LII (INTj): 81% as likely as ILI.
    LIE (ENTj): 77% as likely as ILI.
    http://www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/47056

    2.
    ILI
    EIE (ENFj): 89% as likely as ILI.
    LII (INTj): 87% as likely as ILI.
    IEI (INFp): 85% as likely as ILI.
    http://www.sociotype.com/tests/result/ost/10636

    3.
    IEE Your result

    EIE These types might also be considered
    IEI
    ILE

    EII These types are not very likely
    LIE
    ILI
    LII

    SEE These types are quite unlikely
    ESE
    SEI
    SLE

    ESI these types are extremely unlikely
    LSE
    SLI
    LSI

    http://www.mizami.nl/public_html/questionnaire/results
    Last edited by Nunki; 10-11-2013 at 07:46 PM.

  14. #94
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, this weird soliloquy continues...
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  15. #95
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality View Post
    Eh, I don't think an Fe PoLR would ever seek out Fe. How many Fe PoLR types have you asked about this? I think if anything, an Fe PoLR type seeks Fi love, not Fe. Why the fuck would you ever seek Fe as Fe PoLR, the very thing that bothers you the most cognitively? Makes no sense.
    That is exactly what I said... because he cannot have Fe, he seeks Fi. But he does not hate Fe, he just finds it unobtainable.
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  16. #96
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - My use of Ti is too episodic for me to be a Ti ego. I never really used Ti until I was well into my teens, and even now, my use of it is mostly limited to times when I'm alone or talking to someone who fails to engage me.

    - I identify well with all of the descriptions of Ne in the Id block, so it's unlikely I'm an Ne ego.

    - I'm probably more capable than the average person is of being confrontational and using my force of will against other people, so it's unlikely that Se is my PoLR.

    - The more I participate in this thread, the more I can see that I have an unstable mental landscape.

    Therefore, I say no to LII.

    - I could buy creative Te; I can't, however, buy Fe PoLR. I would sooner say that Te is my PoLR.

    - Over the course of my life, Fe has probably not been more prominent in me than Ti.

    - I'm 100% sure that I'm an INFJ in the MBTI; INFJ is easily the type whose function-use best describes me. The function-use of an INFJ translates fairly smoothly to that of an IEI in socionics.

    I conclude, therefore, that I'm probably an INFp.

  17. #97
    Esaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    876
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    - The more I participate in this thread, the more I can see that I have an unstable mental landscape.
    .
    What do you mean by that?

  18. #98
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esaman
    What do you mean by that?
    I mean that my thought processes have more in common with an ever-shifting video camera than they do with a bookshelf.

  19. #99
    Esaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    876
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I mean that my thought processes have more in common with an ever-shifting video camera than they do with a bookshelf.
    Having trouble imagining a person who would say otherwise. Ohh well.
    I still think you are rational and Ti>Te based on the impression from your writing. Take that as a compliment if not as typing.
    And Beta.

  20. #100
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esaman
    Having trouble imagining a person who would say otherwise. Ohh well.
    So am I, but socionics makes it sound like there are lots of people with very archive-like inner worlds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Esaman
    I still think you are rational and Ti>Te based on the impression from your writing. Take that as a compliment if not as typing.
    And Beta.
    I don't really relate to the LSI profile, so that would make me an EIE (with a very strong Ni subtype, surely). It would fit nicely with the fact that I think I was Supervised by someone who was likely to have been an SEI.

  21. #101
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I went through the IM descriptions on Wikisocion, and listed the function usages that could reasonably describe me:

    ne - 8, 6, 2, 4,
    si - 3, 4, 1,
    fi - 8, 6, 5, 3
    ti - 2, 5, 6, 8, 1
    se - 4, 5, 7
    te - 3, 4, 5, 7
    fe - 2, 5
    ni - 1, 2, 8

    Only one type is fully consistent with my use of the IMs: IEI, which is the main type I've always considered. LII comes in at a close second place, the nail in its coffin being that I don't identify with mobilizing Si, nor am I the same personality type as people like James Randi (who is a charming man), Larry King, Douglas Adams, or Spock. I also happen to know someone who very realistically self-types as an LII, and our interactions have been much too rocky in certain ways for us to be Identicals; Relations of Benefit would be far more plausible. Moreover, my impressions of ESEs are somewhat mixed rather than idealistic. For example, every time I go to my grandparents' church for a birthday party or whatever, I encounter an ESE lady there who feels the need to hang herself on me. She gets right up in my face, so close that I almost see double, wraps her arms around me, and spends the next five minutes telling me, with a smile on her face, how sorry she is for picking on me when I was little, even though she never actually picked on me in her life. When it's over, I typically have to ask someone if there's a spot of lipstick on my cheek. Why her fiance, who sees her do this to me every time, friended me on Facebook is a real mystery. He probably likes threesomes.

  22. #102
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All of these years later, my Socionics type remains, in my mind, highly questionable. I have therefore decided to resurrect this thread. I will begin by posting some pictures of myself as well as some pieces of music (they're rough and incomplete--they were written shortly after I started learning to compose music) I have written. Without further ado:





    http://www.4shared.com/music/etr23Wgd/42_online.html

    http://www.4shared.com/music/uX8mXeye/107e.html

    http://www.4shared.com/mp3/TisQ8bRr/clips.html

  23. #103
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,317
    Mentioned
    630 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Nunki LSI seems the closest. What do you think?

    And EII don't do this

    - I'm probably more capable than the average person is of being confrontational and using my force of will against other people, so it's unlikely that Se is my PoLR.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  24. #104
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would be very surprised if I'm an LSI. I can't really think of anything that makes me similar to that type. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right things.

  25. #105
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,317
    Mentioned
    630 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I would be very surprised if I'm an LSI. I can't really think of anything that makes me similar to that type. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right things.
    LSI think of things categorically and systematically.

    EIE are more disposition to humanitarian tendencies like literature but LSI too love to spend reflective hours reading on the couch

    Originally Posted by Maritsa
    Nunki, what is your favorite type of art and why?
    This is a difficult question for me to answer. It's literature, of course, but literature is of very mixed quality, and there are many movies, paintings, and musical compositions that are far better than many books. Part of what appeals to me about literature is that the written word is a medium that can communicate deeper things about the human condition than any other medium in existence. Words peel away appearances: when reading, one doesn't see what is there; what is there vanishes and reveals what is absent (imagination, ideas, thoughts, concepts).

    I like what I can do with literature. I can carve my deepest thoughts and richest imaginings onto a page, to be shared with others (and self-expression is a huge motivation of mine; it allows me to experience release, prove myself to others, and be in communion with them), and this can be done with the greatest of ease, because there are no physical obstacles for me to contend with, only emotional obstacles of my own making.

    This response gives good insight to EIE tendencies. Just depends on whether you are inclined to change charm and influence other people's emotions,
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  26. #106
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know that I'm especially inclined to view things categorically and systematically. I do it sometimes, but for the most part my mind is floaty and drifty rather than library-ish.

    I sort of have an inclination to change, charm, and influence people's emotions, but it's only an inclination. It never manifests itself in practice, perhaps because I have social anxiety disorder or just plain can't be bothered. Well, maybe it does manifest itself slightly. I do try to charm people, and I succeed to a limited extent. I try to get on people's good sides, and most people would say that's where I am, although I can be very stand-offish.

  27. #107
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I took the test in this thread (it looks at Reinen dichotomies) and it gave me: EIE>IEI>SEE>ILI>IEE>EII>LII>LSI>SEI>SLE>LIE>ESE>IL E>LSE>SLI.

  28. #108
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,317
    Mentioned
    630 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes I agree with EIE
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  29. #109
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Two years later, I'm still not convinced I know my Socionics type. If someone would help me clear up my doubts, I would greatly appreciate it. Here are some things that might be of use:

    My page on Booksie, where I've posted a short story and chapters 1-6 of my first novel: https://www.booksie.com/portfolio-vi...-245008/page-1

    My page on Soundcloud, which has a few minutes of extremely amateur-sounding music that I wrote: https://soundcloud.com/user-321964225

    An ongoing investigation into the nature of death (this one should say a lot about my thought processes):


    A popular view is that when I die my consciousness will cease to exist. The resulting void would be imaginary as all voids are, and the imagination is a function of consciousness. So the theory's two claims--that consciousness will cease and that a void will consume everything--are inconsistent with each other. Moreover, the idea that my consciousness's end would blot everything out tacitly assumes the continued existence of my consciousness, for it is only from my own point of view that everything would cease to exist, and my own point of view is precisely what this theory wants to say will come to an end. Consequently, the position is either solipsistic--i.e. my point of view is the only one that exists--semi-solipsistic--i.e. there are other viewpoints but they are in some way dependent on mine--or just plain inconsistent with itself. In any case, it is wrong.

    It is difficult to know what line of investigation is available for those wishing to know what will happen to them upon bodily destruction. Ordinarily, to learn what will happen in the future, you would turn to other people's testimony or undergo the experience yourself to find out firsthand what it's like. But when someone's body has been destroyed, they no longer seem to be in a position to detail their experiences. And I'm not about to go and get myself killed if I can help it.

    The question, of course, has an assumption behind it, which is that the body can die. We, of course, know from personal experience that parts of our body can undergo destruction. But that doesn't mean the whole thing can be destroyed. It could be that there must always be at least one little atom of physical self left over.

    There is some kind of relationship, of key importance to the question of death, between consciousness and the body. Generally, it is believed that certain states of the body correspond to certain states of the consciousness. This idea is supported by the fact that doing a particular thing to my body, such as burning my hand, brings about a somewhat predictable mental experience. It will probably cause me to suffer. But there is no reason I must suffer if I burn my hand. Perhaps I'm deranged and take some sort of pleasure from it. Or perhaps the nerves leading to the burnt hand are blocked or severed, and I feel nothing; perhaps I don't even notice I've been burnt. There are a million such cases, and in every one of them, one can see that looking at what is happening in a particular region of the body doesn't tell us anything definite about a person's mental state. Well, then, perhaps we have to look at the whole system at once to determine what the mental state will be. That's the only alternative to looking at things on the local level, which we have already seen fails to do the trick. A hand and a burn don't by themselves necessarily equal suffering, but a hand and a burn and a functioning nervous system and a particular signature in the brain equal suffering. No part of the system corresponds to pain, but the whole does; just as no pixel in the letter "T" corresponds to the sound made by that letter, but the whole does. But the letter "T" does not exist in a vacuum, and its surroundings change its significance. If I put an "H" after it, it stands for an entirely different sound. In the same fashion, depending on what is going on elsewhere in a person's body and brain, they may not be suffering in a specific, predictable fashion from the burned hand even though all of the right nerves are firing. The only way we could be sure they were suffering in X fashion would be if we could take account of every single mind-to-matter relationship involved in the person's consciousness. Only that would be able to tell us with any degree of accuracy what the person is actually feeling. That is, unless we suppose that it isn't like the letter "T", after all, but instead that, like the physical states that are said to correspond to them, the mental states are built up out of parts that can be interpreted in isolation. So, for example, if a person has this particular brain activity, there must be a certain definite kind of suffering mixed up in their broader mental state. In that case we have to explain why it is that some collections of matter must correspond to certain definite mental states--i.e. the burnt hand connected to the brain firing in a certain fashion always corresponding to suffering--while certain other isolated collections of matter sometimes do and sometimes don't, depending on what they're linked up with. In other words, we have to explain how it is that on one level the mental state is determined by looking at an object in isolation while on the other level the mental state can't be determined at all by looking at the object. We can't have it both ways unless there is some special mechanism that makes local considerations of total importance in one case and of purely relative importance, if any, in the other. I, of course, don't think there is any such mechanism. And from that, it follows that I can't say anything definite about what a dead person's mental state would be.

    ----

    If we're going to learn anything about death, we're going to have to investigate the relationship between consciousness and its body. This relationship is not, as we have already seen, such that a specific mental state corresponds to a specific physical state. This means that doing something to the body, such as destroying it, can give us no clue as to what is happening on a mental level. It can, however, perhaps tell us some things about what is happening on a broader objective level.

    Death is basically a more or less permanent cease of bodily function. It isn't a disappearance of the body. If I were to remove my hands from sight and never look at them again, they wouldn't have died because of it. This doesn't, of course, mean that a disappearance of the body does not accompany death. But the two are different things.

    What does it mean when we say that death is a loss of bodily function? It means that a corpse--a totally dead body--no longer does anything; it has totally lost its power to act. A corpse can, of course, impact its environment. But when it does so, this impact is channeled through it by some external force. When it decays, it is because bacteria are acting on it. When it dries out, is because heat is acting upon it. So, when we say that death is a loss of bodily function, we mean that the thing that dies is no longer functioning as a prime mover. It is now fully embedded inside a causal chain outside of itself (it must be embedded in some causal chain through the simple act of existing, which necessitates that it has some influence on other things). This suggests that a corpse is really only a corpse when considered on the local level. A corpse is always, in fact, part of some larger living body. That is, if we define life as independently acting energy.

    Where does consciousness enter this picture? What we really want to know--the key question--is what a person whose body dies will become conscious of. Could it be that they continue on as the prime mover that is utilizing their corpse? Answering that question will necessitate an investigation into the relationship, if any, between being a prime mover and being conscious.

    ---

    In the previous post, I said that a corpse must be part of some causal chain outside of itself. This is only the case for a perfectly corpselike corpse, however. Such a corpse is perhaps unrealistic; it is likely that a dead body will always function to some degree as an independent mover. And if a perfect corpse is unrealistic or exceptional, it has limited power to tell us about actual death.

    What can we learn about death, then, from the fact that it involves some degree of loss of bodily function? To the extent that the body is functioning correctly, it is a special kind of object, one that places me among other objects, puts them at my command, and renders me vulnerable to them. When a part of my body ceases to work, I actually become cut off from the world. If it's my hands that have stopped functioning, for example, I can no longer write or wield a spoon; a whole reality has become inaccessible to me. Now, an object exists for me only if I'm able to do something with it. If I can do nothing with an object--if I can't even examine it from afar--it simply doesn't exist. So there really must be, for the dead person, a partial or total loss of objective reality. What, in light of that, can be said about the the subjective reality of the dead person? When an object disappears, an impression of the object remains in the mind. This impression is basically something like a negative image of the object. When an apple disappears, we have a sense of the apple-as-absent. At first, this negative apple is usually attended by some mental imagery representing the apple. But in many cases the representation and all mental content in general that specify the apple disappears, and we're left with a pure apprehension of absence, as when we have the sense that we saw something but can't remember what it was. This absence is the residue that an object must always leave behind. The shape of an object, its color, its weight--these are all subject to disappearance. But an object's absence is eternal. This phenomenon of absence will, of course, be of central importance to the question of death, whether death means a partial or a total loss of the body.

    ----

    In the previous post, we saw that an object, such as a body, leaves behind a void or, in other words, a tangible non-presence, when it disappears. The object's absence is, in fact, always involved in our experience of it, no matter what the object may be. When I encounter an object, it is always at some distance from me. That means there is always a position it is absent from and a resulting sense of it not being somewhere. Moreover, when I encounter an object, none of the impressions I have of it last but for the merest instant. The aspects of an object are always already slipping away and leaving behind a sense of absence. That an object endures at all is owing to the activity of the mind. The mind integrates the fleeting impressions with each other and in this way constitutes the object. One could not have an object without a mind to construct it.

    Can one have a mind without an object? To answer that question, we will first have to consider what distinguishes the subjective from the objective. The difference is not a sensory difference. A mental impression can be wet or red just as easily as a physical object. It isn't that objective impressions are more intense than mental ones, either. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. One thing that does distinguish the two is that the mental is eternal. There is no blotting out a consciousness. Now, the only thing that is eternal in our experience of anything is its absence. All of the sensory impressions we have of a thing are fleeting; but a thing's absence is permanent. So, by saying that the mind is eternal, we're saying that the mind must, in fact, be something that is absent. Do we ever experience a kind of absence that isn't the absence of an object? There are objects and there are absences. The only kind of absence other than the absence of an object would be the absence of absence itself. But that would mean a lack of consciousness, which we have already determined is impossible. So it would seem that consciousness must have an object, which means that consciousness must have a body, since all objects are either the body or accessed through the body.

    What does this tell us about death? It tells us that death is not, as some might think, the total loss of a body. It doesn't tell us much more than that. To learn more about death, we'll need to examine the nature of bodily continuity across time.

    -----

    We have established that a consciousness always possesses a body. What determines which body it is that my consciousness possesses? It clearly isn't the case that my consciousness is glued to a clump of matter and carried along with it wherever it may go, otherwise there would be no possibility of amputation nor would growth be possible.

    One way in which consciousness comes to acquire bodily substance is by assuming control of external objects by means of the body it already possesses. When I take up a spoon, for example, the spoon becomes an extension of my body--in other words, a possession of mine that opens the world up to me in a particular fashion.

    Is there any way to acquire bodily substance besides taking up objects with the body that one already owns?

    A body is something that my consciousness always already had, right from the beginning; it wasn't acquired through my earlier body's contact with it. Or was it? When an object disappears--and an object is always already disappearing--it becomes situated in the past. Right from the start, there must have been a past for my body, then. That means my body came into existence with a history. When a thing has a history, it means that it has endured for a time.

    How is it that the fleeting impressions of an object can give rise to a sense that the object endures? Consciousness is responsible for this. But what happens, exactly? An object presents me with fleeting impressions, and these fleeting impressions have something in common with each other. Basically, what they have in common is their disappearing. But they can have other things in common, too. When I encounter an apple, its redness, its sweetness, its size, its shape--these things all have not just disappearing in common but also, more specifically, the fact that they are related to each other as qualities of an apple. The factor that relates these qualities to each other as facets of an apple is what endures across the fleeting impressions and binds them together. The facets of an object need not be directly connected to each other. I can get the sense of an object when it is broken to pieces and dispersed. In fact, the facets of an object are never truly connected to each other except through the mind that integrates them. Without that act of integration there would be nothing to say that this impression and that impression present one whole.

    The body is a particular collection of facets; it is the facets of consciousness itself. How do these facets come to be bound together and identified with consciousness? That will be our next line of investigation.

    ----

    When we get the sense of an object, it is because we have encountered a series of impressions which have in common and are linked together by their being facets of the same object. What allows us to recognize that these facets belong to the same object? The fact that they have things in common with each other--some elements are static across the fleeting impressions.

    Our consciousness is given to us in the same way as an object: as an underlying point of commonality behind fleeting impressions. Not all fleeting impressions directly give us our consciousness. Insofar as I'm absorbed in the process of examining an apple, I get a sense of the apple but not, in so being occupied, a sense of my consciousness of the apple. My sense of my consciousness of the apple is not given to me directly by the apple but rather by my body which stands in a certain relationship with the apple. External objects absorb consciousness while the body not only does that but, at the same time, involves consciousness in self-reflection.

    What factor is it that makes some objects absorb the attention while other objects reflect the attention back on itself? If consciousness recognizes itself in the body, it can only be because the body is something that, like consciousness itself, is constant and static. We, of course, know that the body is an object that is there with us all the time, no matter where we go. An apple, on the other hand, is something we encounter but briefly. So it is perhaps a matter of constancy. But that can't be all it is, because not all constant things become integrated with the body. I see my bedroom walls more often than I see my own eyes, but it is only the latter that I experience as a part of my body. This is true if we consider constancy of presence. But consciousness is not presence; it is absence. And that's just what my body tends toward constantly being. My hands are perpetually vanishing from sight, my feet are usually concealed by socks, and I see my face only when I look in the mirror. All of these bodily structures exist in an almost constantly concealed fashion. They appear long enough to remind me that they exist and then they go out of sight. When they chance to appear, I recognize them as that which was absent--that, in other words, which was consciousness. My body's concealment is different from that of an external object's concealment in one sense. My body has to be concealed; as a facet of my consciousness, it can't appear before me or it would cease to be consciousness in the first place, since consciousness is absence. An apple, on the other hand, can be totally concealed or totally visible without ceasing to be what it is. So it is a matter of constancy, yes, but more deeply necessity. My body is a thing that must be concealed.

    How can I ever see a part of my body, then? In reality, I never do see my body; as soon as I look at my hand, it becomes alienated from me. It starts to look foreign, like an external object. It is no longer what it was. And when it disappears from view, I feel like I've reclaimed it.

    The relationship between my hand and my consciousness is not one of identity, then, but rather one of transformation. My consciousness becomes my hand when I hold it out in front of me; my hand becomes my consciousness when I put it out of sight.


    A picture of my face:

    Some visual art that I made:

  30. #110

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,137
    Mentioned
    1111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Join Date Mar 2010"
    "I'm still not convinced I know my Socionics type"

    make a videointerview if you want the help
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  31. #111
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd rather not do a video interview if I don't have to. My camera makes me look ugly, I'm very awkward when being filmed, and I have limited privacy in this house.

  32. #112

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,137
    Mentioned
    1111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I'd rather not do a video interview if I don't have to.
    The alternative is to think about own type on yourself what you tried for 8 years. It's not so hard, but needs efforts: reading, typing people, checking IR effects with your possible type until all will fit ok. Even with the knowledge of own type - you'll need to check it by the described way to be sure in it. As there are no objective typing methods and significant % of mistakes exists.

    External help is useful as you may know in which directions to think about own type is better. This needs videointerview as the closest information to common IRL typing. No other way to give good nonverbal info.

    > My camera makes me look ugly, I'm very awkward when being filmed, and I have limited privacy in this house.

    It's for typing, but not a beauty show. Mb smartphone camera is better. Cameras need good light and do not hold them too close. Also the important is to relax like you talk with friendly people. This will make you natural. You may talk about anything you like, any comfortable theme.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  33. #113
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just tried taking some video of myself, and the result was, much to my lack of surprise, humiliating. Posting a video is not an option for me.

  34. #114

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,137
    Mentioned
    1111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I just tried taking some video of myself, and the result was, much to my lack of surprise, humiliating. Posting a video is not an option for me.
    there is no big difference with when you'd communicate with people IRL
    some minutes of "humilation" with photoshooting (what cameras do) may help you to find your type in much shorter time than 8 years it took already

    if you'll do the clip, posting my nickname near '@' alike @Nunki will attract my attention
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  35. #115
    Hamada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Egypt
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Digesting what you said. The only impression I came up with that kept growing as I read would be very surprising. EII. Socionic's infj or mbti's infp.
    Not much to explain.

  36. #116
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm a clear-cut INFJ in the MBTI--that one I figured out a long time ago. If I look at Jung's original writings on the psychological types, the two that I most relate to are introverted intuition and introverted thinking. The one I least relate to is probably extroverted intuition. I do realize, however, that Socionics uses somewhat different definitions than Jung used, so that may not mean much.

  37. #117
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My thoughts on death, continued (for typing purposes):

    To encounter a part of my body is to encounter something that was but no longer is a part of my consciousness. There is always an aspect of my consciousness severed off from itself in this fashion. Why? Because consciousness exists, and the only thing that grounds this existence is the used-to-be body. The used-to-be body grounds consciousness in the sense that we can only speak of a thing existing if we are in some way aware of it, and it is the used-to-be body that makes us aware of consciousness.

    An aspect of the question of death is: what used-to-be body will I possess as a part of my present reality when I'm dead? To answer this question, we will need to look at the laws governing the birth and transformation of the used-to-be body.

    We'll begin with birth. The used-to-be body arises through an appearance of that which was formerly hidden. It is born ex nihilo. And for some reason I recognize myself via this thing that comes out of nowhere. Plenty of objects come out of nowhere without my seeing myself in them. The appearance of the used-to-be body is somehow different. It differs in the sense that the used-to-be body isn't unprecedented. It was already there, only I didn't see it. When an object outside of me appears out of nowhere, on the other hand, it wasn't already there. "There" in this case means where I was, the former position of my consciousness. The used-to-be body is something that not only was where I was but still is there while I stand over here apart from it. It is something that I shed as I move through space and time. It is my afterimage. How do I know it was where I was? Because my consciousness--the disappearing of things, in other words--persists across the moments, presiding over them and linking them together as one event. What does the used-to-be body do? It repeats the actions of consciousness in a negative fashion. When I was over there, I was absorbed in that moment; now my used-to-be body is over there, and that moment is closed off from me. I only remember it. My used-to-be body is thus the end or the death of my consciousness. My used-to-be body exists where my consciousness has ceased. The two are in a constant race with each other, but the used-to-be body never occupies the current position of consciousness, thereby bringing an end to it, because the used-to-be body only exists in the past. Death in the sense of an extinction of consciousness is always already surpassed.

  38. #118
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I saw that someone made a new questionnaire, so I decided to take a stab at filling it out. Here goes:

    What do you study or do for a living? How did you come to do that? What do you like or dislike about it?
    I do not do anything for a living. As for what I study, I study anything that I think will prove useful for achieving my goals in life. That includes philosophy, computer programming, music composition, and literature.

    What are your values, and why?
    I value a clear conscience, intelligence, good art, my stomach being flat, strength, passion, self-expression, conviction, and a host of things besides. I don't feel that I particularly have a reason for valuing the things I value.

    What else do you do on a daily basis? What are your interests and hobbies? Why do you do them?
    I write fiction, I compose music, I occasionally make computer programs, and I attend an art class where I create visual art such as paintings. I perform these activities because, among other reasons, they allow me to express myself, improve my self-esteem, and inspire a positive reaction in others.

    Describe your relations with family and friends. What do you like and dislike about them?
    I am not particularly close to anyone in my family, and my relations with my friends are fairly normal, I suppose. Not much to say here.

    What do you look for in friends? In romantic relationships?
    I look for someone who inspires me to talk a lot. I can be very quiet, and when I am, I am, because of it, not feeling very good about the relationship. What I look for in a romantic relationship is physical attractiveness combined with euphoria resulting from the person's presence combined with a feeling of brotherly closeness.

    What conflicts have you encountered recently with other people? Why did they happen? Which kinds seem to happen on a regular basis?
    I rarely get into conflicts with people. I'm generally quite easy to get along with.

    How would your friends describe you?
    My best friend says that I'm sensitive and describes me as a prince.

    What do people generally see as your strengths? What do you like about yourself?
    I'm easy to get along with, imaginative, intelligent, and generally good-natured.

    What are your weaknesses? What criticism do you often face from others? What do you dislike about yourself?
    As far as I know, people do not criticize me. My greatest weaknesses is inactivity. It isn't that I'm less active than the average person; it's just that inactivity happens to hold me back more than anything else.

    In what areas of life can you manage well on your own? In what areas of your life would you like help?
    Paperwork makes me nervous, and, in spite of my best efforts, I invariably fail to fill it out correctly. And chores such as laundry and doing the dishes bore me to death unless they take place in the context of socialization. I don't particularly want help with these things--I tend to dislike receiving assistance. But if someone were to offer to take over my duties in some areas, those are the areas I would (reluctantly) direct them to.

    What things do you dislike doing? What things do you enjoy more than others?
    Already answered.

    What goals, aspirations, or plans do you have for the future? How did you come to have them?
    My main aspiration is to become God. I would also like to become a popular writer, compose hours of decent music, get in a relationship with a hot guy, and live forever.

    If you had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life without working, what would you do with your time?
    If I were filthy rich, not much would change, really. I would give myself a makeover, and that's about it.

    What traits do you find endearing that others might dislike? What traits are considered positive/neutral by others but tend to annoy you?
    I think I'm annoyed by the same things most people are annoyed by--needless distractions, etc. As for what traits I find endearing that others might dislike, I think the answer is any trait whatsoever that I find endearing, since what one person finds endearing another could very well hate. I find endearing sensitiveness, kindness, self-confidence, assertiveness, uniqueness, and probably several other things I'm not thinking of right now.

    What kinds of things do you do to manage and/or beautify your environment (your room, your house, etc.)? What do you think of daily chores?
    The only thing I do to beautify my environment is occasionally display artwork that I've created. Aside from that, my environment is rather unattractive, a fact that I'm largely indifferent to.

    How do you behave around strangers?
    Friendly but very quiet and painfully shy.

    How do you react to conflict? What do you do if somebody insults or attacks you?
    How I react to conflict varies quiet a bit with the circumstances. Usually, though, I try to react in a good-natured fashion or at worst with cold silence. Fueling conflict is bad on my conscience, and a clear conscience is not a luxury I'm keen on parting with.

    What is one common misconception that people have about things? Explain why it is wrong.
    I don't have a strong opinion when it comes to most beliefs besides those that I can see are right are wrong with my own eyes. So, there aren't many beliefs people have that I would go so far as to call misconceptions.

    What did you do last Friday?
    I went to a small music concert with a cellist who went badly out of tune several times.

    What is your biggest accomplishment?
    Managing to become a member of the highest species we know of. That required a lot of work starting with the Big Bang, moving along to the first organism, and concluding, for the time being, with the godly person that is me.

    What is something you regret?
    I find that every mistake I make sets the stage for something wonderful. So I don't have any regrets.


    Who do you admire, and why?
    Ayn Rand, Anne Rice, Stephen King, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, J.K. Rowling and a host of others for their artistic achievements and sheer personality.

    What's been on your mind? Has anything been worrying or concerning you? What problems have you encountered lately?
    I worry a lot about death, the problem of other minds, and my identity. I haven't had any serious problems lately.

    What are your religious or spiritual beliefs and why do you hold them?
    I'm a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and an existentialist rolled into one. My believe what I find instinctively convincing--which is very little.

    What are your political beliefs, and why? To what extent do you care about politics?
    I'm a liberal, but I have little personal involvement with politics. I have never even gone so far as to vote.

    Would you ever be interested in starting a business? Why or why not? What role would you play in it? What kind of business would it be?
    The only business I have ever thought of starting is buying houses for people to rent. It's very hands off, I would imagine, and lucrative.

    What kind of work environment do you prefer? What do you look for in a job?
    I like a work environment where there are friendly people about, or one where, on the contrary, I have a great deal of quiet and privacy so that I can concentrate. Each is suited to its own type of work.

    What is or was your favorite school subject and why?
    English, because it came effortlessly. I hated Math.

    How do you approach responsibility? What do you tend to expect of others?
    I have hopes but not expectations when it comes to other people. I take responsibility very seriously--it weighs on me--and for that reason, I tend to avoid it.

    Where did you go on your most recent vacation? What did you do there? How did you like it and why?
    I never really go on vacations. I'm largely indifferent to them.

    What were you like as a kid? How have you changed since you were a child?
    As a child, I was imaginative, sensitive, and very strong-willed. I'm not that strong-willed at all, these days, but remain imaginative and fairly sensitive.

    What was your high school experience like?
    I got into trouble for arguing with teachers more often than the average student, and had highs and lows of popularity with my classmates. Puberty was no big deal to me--they exaggerated it in those school books big time.

    Talk about a significant event from your life.
    I haven't had any significant events in my life. Well, just one, and it's much too traumatic to discuss right now. If someone wants to ask me about it, I might go into detail for them.

    Do you like kids? Why or why not?
    I like kids the same as I like people in general, which is to say I like them pretty well.

    If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?
    I would want to set a foundation for them to achieve great things in life. I would also want to treat them humanely and with love.

    Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.
    I never really feel stuck in a rut. I am in a rut, but not really stuck in one. That is to say, my life is very repetitive, but I don't mind that particular aspect of it.

    How do you see other people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one.
    Other people strike me sometimes as being like my children. I am there to take care of them and guide them. I also consider other people as one of the ultimate mysteries--there is no genuine possibility of understanding them.

    I consider moralism to be a big social problem. The worst atrocities in human history have been a result of people doing what they believe is moral. People should not try to follow moral laws; they should just follow their consciences.

    What do you do if you're not getting what you want? What approach do you use?
    It depends on the circumstances. The question needs to be more specific to get a more specific answer from me.

    Are you comfortable taking leadership roles? In what areas? Why or why not?
    Being a leader requires a degree of involvement that I can find exhausting. I prefer to follow.

    How often do you get angry? What kinds of things make you angry?
    Pointless distractions make me angry, which means I get angry a lot. That's because someone in my household feels the need to watch CNN for 12 hours a day in the room right next to mine. Aside from that type of thing, not a lot makes me angry.

    What is the best thing that happened to you during the past week?
    I finished writing a couple of chapters for my most recent novel, and posted them online.

    What is the worst thing that happened to you during the past week?
    Nothing notably bad has happened this week.

    What is the purpose of life? What do you find personally meaningful in life?
    I'm not aware of any purpose of life. There is very little that I find personally meaningful. Most things leave me dissatisfied.

    What is the most interesting place you have been, and why?
    A mental hospital. I had so many bizarre, almost spiritual experiences there, and the patients had the most fascinating things to say. I almost wish I worked there.

    How do you dress or manage your appearance?
    I wear clothes that I think will look good on me and convey something about me that I wish to convey. That's when I'm in public. At home, I give little thought to what I wear, beyond choosing to wear things that aren't outright uncomfortable.

    Do you like surprises?
    Generally, no. I like it when what happens is what I was expecting to happen.

  39. #119
    Praise the Si qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    SLI-Te
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI or EIE-Ni
    Trial but why always error?

  40. #120
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you for dropping by.
    Quote Originally Posted by qaz00
    IEI or EIE-Ni
    Those typings are plausible, considering that they're what I've most frequently scored as on tests. Out of curiosity, and to really cement these typings, what is your reasoning for them?

    Also, here is a recent picture of me for VI purposes:

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •