Originally Posted by
grumpyvic81
Alright look. I was friendly to you, so take your sucky personal criticism somewhere else. Like, up your ass, it would fit well there.
Also, pot calls the kettle black about being literal and black&white ......... I'm (was) just more patient with you about it because it's a thread about discussion of LSI subtypes and not a thread about criticising the other person.
What I said was that I have a different image of LSI-Ti/LSI-Se than you. Which I shared with you. So what?
Yep, I still have a different image of it. To me it's still the Ti sub that's all the stuck up shit that doesn't like breaking the rules, can't adjust to a little unpredictability and is never impulsive. Though tbh even my friend (Ti sub) is able to adjust e.g. his schedule no problem, otherwise yeah he's not impulsive or adaptable.
Also you said I'm the one who uses theory first, while you seem to be the one going by theory primarily, not me ..... I mean I really don't believe that people ACTUALLY fit in these neat boxes, like "people do NOT compromise their lead function", lol. I see that compromising all the time just fine. Life is not Socionics, pardon me, Astronics. Alot of people are ambiverts and "ambirationals" and all kinds of "ambi".
What I try to do instead is see patterns and images (but not the archetypes shit, thanks), but I don't expect everything to neatly fit for those, even when I'm actively exploring the patterns/images like I have been in this thread.
Anyway I was originally willing to engage on discussion on the patterns but I can't be bothered now to actually think about this discussion so all that's my final statements and I'm not interested if you agree or disagree. It's not worth the pain in the ass to remain patient with it.
Now who's the one taking things literally and using literal boxes? Bc I never said that in the way you thought I did.
And what the fuck is this about archetypes?
Overall fuck Socionics rabbitholes if it creates schizophrenic disagreements, lol.
Who the fuck cares if Socionics uses the word "P-ness". You are taking me too literally again. I was just curious how you are with these things so IDK what you got so stuck about here.
No, it was not obvious, because you didn't say anything before about this part. With your description, I see now what you were/are doing, I'm not a psychic so I'm not gonna guess without actual info. You said I shouldn't go by theory, there you go because I wasn't, I asked you instead about how the actual reality of this is for you. So it's really ironic you'd complain like that. Thanks.