I suspect a Te-POLR type as well... insistent against all evidence to the contrary.Originally Posted by Kill4Me
I suspect a Te-POLR type as well... insistent against all evidence to the contrary.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
"even a broken clock is right twice a day"
lol, why?
where? I think my whole problem boils down to me not being able to give logical explanations:
you would make for a good cult leader
"let me tell you something but give no logical explanation for it, you only need to have faith in me that I'm RIGHT"
Why?? because one of the strengths of Ne is being able to consider multiple viewpoints.
lol this is Maritsa's "excuse" too. Is this what you say at work too, when you dont want to do something? I dont even see an effort on your part to explain, much less anything illogical in there. At least Maritsa tries.
However, being able to explain something is not type related. It doesn't need to be logically laid out to be an explanation, a good one even.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
but there aren't multiple viewpoints in this case
it's not that I don't want to explain, it's that I can't explain in a way that will make sense to you
uhhuh... and you've reached into my mind to be able to know what will and won't make sense to me...
nah, it's just that you dont know what you're talking about. You just want to act like an "authority". You must be proud of your non-existent socionics skills for some reason. Maybe you've tried "implementing" your knowledge to manipulate people, and perhaps it worked, not because of socionics, but because of some manipulative strengths you might have.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Ti =
Ti
System, analysis, instruction, mathematics, structure, classification, register, parameter, regularity, law, synthesis, proof, understanding, right, duty, responsibilities Logics of Relationships Ti
Dimension – more-less, long – short, parameter, distance, commensurability, comparison, standard.
Understanding – analysis, detail, synthesis, universality.
Order – leveling, classification, control, sequence, to range, strictness, register.
System – regularity, hierarchy, organization, cause and effect relations, theory.
Structure – positional relationship of objects, interrelations, construction, subordination, position, correlation, chart.
Formal logics – algorithm, distance, proof, “if – then”, law, instruction, informatics, cybernetics, mathematics, official relations, rights and duties, rules (including etiquette), programming, equality, justice, statistics, equation.
Te =
Te
Technology, function, action, deed, fact, knowledge, use, benefit, business, method, reason, instrument, tool, expediency, business team, effectiveness, price, movement, mechanism Logic of Actions Te
Action – movement, activity, transfer, deed, achievement.
Knowledge – qualifications, method, skills, fact, erudition.
Work – business team, instrument, mechanism, process of production, technology, ability to work, functioning.
Reason – adequacy, profit, common sense, use, pragmatism, reasonable actions, rationality, rationalism, expediency, effectiveness.
Economics – enterprise, worth, ability to do with money, price.
again, not true, but you can think that if it'll make you feel better
Well there, you are just cutting and pasting a whole lot of word associations. But do you know how those things actually manifest? Much less in each different Model A position? You can read those lists day in and day out, and come up with some image in your mind, but the whole challenge of socionics, as i've realized over the years, is to translate those word associations into a practically useful application. The image you come up with just from studying that kind of theory can be very very off.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
1. this post is incredibly ironic
2. for someone who is supposed to be strong in Fi, you sure are mean
3. though I'd wager you don't think I'm deserving of pity,
also,From the point of view of the Supervisor, Supervisee seems to be endowed with great abilities, even talented, but also somehow deficient, "pathetic", and deserving of pity.
These relations are characterized by the fact that the auditor, as a rule, is always dissatisfied with the actions of audited person. As soon as supervisee shows some initiative or expresses a thought, he may feel bombarded with corrections and criticisms by the supervisor or have them simply dismissed. At the same time, supervisee cannot counter these charges - supervisor suppresses him.
indeed, as you've proven that even LII can be stupid
Weren't you impressed with my logics earlier?
I take it you are starting to realize you are not winning this debate. Sore loser huh...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Being strong in Fi does not mean always being nice. It means I know exactly where to hit because I've successfully assessed your character.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
How i see it is that in a field like socionics, it's good to keep one's mind open to possibilities. Of course some possibilities can be ruled out, but being wrong is not impossible.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
How i see it is that in a field like socionics, it's good to keep one's mind open to possibilities. Of course some possibilities can be ruled out, but being wrong is not impossible.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
lol, you're such a bitchoh yeah that's why it hurts so much... i believe you.
.
I know, I know... all I can say is "eye for an eye"
you're an IEI now?
wut
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey. A kiddley divey too, wooden shoe?
gotcha
allow me to rephrase: in this case there is only one correct viewpoint
by the way, I think ILE for you is a step in the right direction
or maybe it's just an entertaining coincidence
a coincidence that i supervise the both of you, as two different types? I would say that's the opposite of a coincidence. It's a divergence.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
clearly no, just a coincidence that we both named you as our supervisor
perhaps Maritsa is wrong about her self-typing
perhaps Maritsa is mistaken about the nature of supervisory relations
perhaps Maritsa doesn't know how to distinguish an en-tee from an ess-eff
wouldn't that be a huge coincidence that Maritsa mistyped herself as EII instead of IEE, AND mistyped me both from a quadra standpoint, rationality standpoint, introversion/extraversion standpoint, and club standpoint. wowee... meanwhile you are just squeaky clean perfect...
I dont always agree with Maritsa, and i think sometimes she is a bit stubborn with her opinions, but I do think she knows socionics a bit better than you. A lot better actually.
And it would be weird to say Maritsa is mistaken about the nature of supervisory relations when both of you cited the same reasons for naming me your supervisor. So if Maritsa is mistaken about it, then you are as well. My take on it is that the both of you are mistaken about this. In fact, it's more likely that YOU are my supervisor, as I have been irritated enough by your self-importance and trying to "teach" us all your erroneous "wisdom" enough to finally have this debate with you. The supervisor usually doesn't mind the supervisee (at first anyway, until the supervisee starts lashing out), while the supervisee can't stand the supervisor.
So LII for you, as someone had suggested earlier, actually fits well.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
"clearly no" says Chris Clearly, Chris Clearly clearly not Mozart, no Chris Clearly clearly not, can Chris Clearly be clearly Chesney, or Ken he not? Johannes you like to know, clearly...or clearly not.
it's a possiblity
clearly you don't think very highly of her, otherwise you wouldn't have mockingly compared me to her
Supervisee tries to resist and even to fight back: puts on a show of deliberate crudeness, orders the Supervisor around, gives him assignments. Things may even progress to use of physical force. In this manner, Supervisee can create a lot of problems for the Supervisor, but the effect in the opposite direction is much more devastating.
Supervisor speaks in the most offensive to the supervisee words, but himself also doesn't feel well in these relations. Supervisee is persistently and unconsciously annoying and frustrating his supervisor. Although they both feel stressed, since this is an asymmetric relationship, the supervisee suffers more.Supervisor suffers as well and is annoyed by the Supervisee.
These relations are characterized by the fact that the auditor, as a rule, is always dissatisfied with the actions of audited person.
Revisee seems stupid not because he is unable (which is how it actually is), but simply because it's as if he does not want to listen. This periodically causes frustration for the auditor.
But suppose that close to this man was a person of his audited type ... And it turns out that any harmless remark is perceived with great sensitivity, that he takes it all too close to heart, because here pressure is exerted on his vulnerable third function.
TBH the above constitutes a lot of personal insults mixed with Te "Facts" like summaries from chats and quotes. I don't think anything constructive will ever come out of this approach.
But maybe this is just another one of your crusades... that LII typing isn't that wierd in that light ;-)
Not sure what type of mediation would be required to get you guys all to see eye to eye but i'd like to provide it where possible.
So; now now kids, don't fight; pappa is here and anyone who calls names won't get dessert tonight!
omg! a socionics rape attempt on woof's mind!He tried to force a ILE typing on woof.
[My brain came up with a very interesting image when I read this quote.]
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
One thing to note is his instant liking towards maritsa soon after he showed up.
As I recall, Timmy also had a fondness for maritsa.
Very rare ime.
are you frakking kidding me? she annoys the hell out of me
The irony
Originally posted by Chris Clearly:
honestly, if I could be any type, I would choose SLE
what a tangled web he weaves when he practices to deceive
@woofwoofl @WorkaholicsAnon
@allothers
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...37#post1016137
this may have costed me dessert, but I'm baking cookies after midnight again
@Reficulris, most of my frustration here stems from there being precious little external or internal consistency from CC/KC/JB, and even less in terms of explanation. Wild approaches to theory are things I love to see; even if there's dissonance between my results and someone else's, the rationale used to get there will reveal to me things I'd otherwise never be able to find out. At the end of the day, I expect to learn a hell of a lot about Focal Ti from all of this. Anyone bringing "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" is going to be asked to supply some form of "why".
In absence of a "why" from CC, it would unfortunately be on everyone else to supply a "why". Looking for a form of consistency in the typings is one way to try to reverse-engineer an approximation of the CC system. Bringing all of the rationale together in clear sight. Finding pieces of consistency and coherence in what's very shrouded. Aggression is met with aggression; when one person spreads it around towards various other people, especially without prompting, the next step is for all of that aggression to go from those various recipients to one concentrated location, which is the person who started all of the aggression. Looking at that final part in isolation sure would paint a picture of a lot of people ganging up on someone, but the prelude shows who organized the gang in the first place.
I'd love to see a CC system fleshed out by its creator, and I'd love for it to stand high. I'm hellbent on not destroying anything without building something of my own, and I'd wanna shoot beyond whatever standards I might have for anyone else, which are pretty relaxed anyways; this is a large part of what got me off my ass to flesh out a Model W. It sure is hell for me to show my work, to systemize a previously piecemeal and case-by-case approach with DCNH interconnecting everything beyond my current explanatory and notational power, all manner of cross-references and visual and audial cues that go beyond what I see and hear at the moment, well into abstract imagery that one day I'll have to write out; but it's all on me now. I ain't gonna accept a "PolR"-related excuse out of myself either.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
COOOOOOKIIIIEEEEES!!!
I know and understand this. I'm not opposed to this at all. Not sure the nature of the questions don't influence the possible answers but still.
again agreed. I've spoken out against the initial agression as well. Taking your analogy and hijacking it for my purpose, i'm the guy who disperses that gang and gets everyone to fight the monsters instead of eachother!In absence of a "why" from CC, it would unfortunately be on everyone else to supply a "why". Looking for a form of consistency in the typings is one way to try to reverse-engineer an approximation of the CC system. Bringing all of the rationale together in clear sight. Finding pieces of consistency and coherence in what's very shrouded. Aggression is met with aggression; when one person spreads it around towards various other people, especially without prompting, the next step is for all of that aggression to go from those various recipients to one concentrated location, which is the person who started all of the aggression. Looking at that final part in isolation sure would paint a picture of a lot of people ganging up on someone, but the prelude shows who organized the gang in the first place.Just a different stage in the progression of this conflict ;-)
You and me both. One thing I think though, is that if Johannus is going to give us something to work with, it'll be something different from a structured system. He has admitted to not being good at that and I think that trying to filter his approach through such a lense might distroy its value. I'm not saying he should be excused for polr (no-one should) but maybe we need to work with him and find a way for him to communicate his intuitions. I thought about for instance, him using poetry or other types of art (without a need to justify the details) to show what type qualities or information elements are. I think that would be more suited to his style than logical arguments. The inability to explain consistency does not prove inconsistency.I'd love to see a CC system fleshed out by its creator, and I'd love for it to stand high. I'm hellbent on not destroying anything without building something of my own, and I'd wanna shoot beyond whatever standards I might have for anyone else, which are pretty relaxed anyways; this is a large part of what got me off my ass to flesh out a Model W. It sure is hell for me to show my work, to systemize a previously piecemeal and case-by-case approach with DCNH interconnecting everything beyond my current explanatory and notational power, all manner of cross-references and visual and audial cues that go beyond what I see and hear at the moment, well into abstract imagery that one day I'll have to write out; but it's all on me now. I ain't gonna accept a "PolR"-related excuse out of myself either.
excellently put.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Thank you, I appreciate your humaneness. However, I actually think woof makes a good point here:
All I can say is that I regret being so aggressive, not just because I've met with a powerful multilateral response, but also because I don't think it's very much helped my cause. Perhaps socionics can help us to understand why I chose this approach:
- IEE: Logic of anti-intergration. Dysfunctionality. Lets denote it by +<Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes "objectively known" facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct". In contrast to Subjectivists, Objectivists are not inclined to compare and verify concepts. They assume that these can have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one)—often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework.With enthusiasm defends his views. The enemy hierarchy, and servility. Before the command is not shy, boldly defends his point of view and interests. Impressionable and easily offended. Sometimes irascible, unrestrained, sometimes even aggressive.Or maybe I'm just an assholeA few words about the indispensable role of the harmonizing personality in a stable group. The Harmonizer is designed to ensure feedback in the communicative system. It sends the signals of correction, being an indicator of the psychological atmosphere. H-subtype at first sharply and even violently resists forcible demands, but then gradually submits and adapts to it. On the one hand, he is the weak link, but on the other hand, without his contribution the system loses vitality under conditions of the lack of energy resources.
It's not a system, it's an instinct. It's like, I can easily distinguish a logical person from an ethical person, and I can almost as easily tell whether a logical person uses introverted logic or extroverted logic and whether an ethical person uses introverted ethics or extroverted ethics. It's also really easy for me to distinguish between between sensors and intuitives. The difficulty lies in providing a list of traits or tendencies that help me make those determinations, because the process is pretty much automatic in my head; I simply look at a person and think, "who are they?" I've said before that logical types are more "deliberate" and "seamless" in their speech, and that intuitive types tend to have more extensive vocabularies, and I still stand by those two observations. Another huge component of my method is "social dynamics", i.e. how do people get along with each other and how do they get along with me. Certain Reinin dichotomies like positivism/negativism have also proved extremely helpful.
Ultimately, though, I pretty much just go by the text; the only reason I redefined the information elements is because I felt they didn't match my experience. I still think that Fi is "Implicit Object Statics" and that Ti is "Implicit Field Statics", but I honestly don't care much for those kinds of definitions anymore; I think the true nature of the functions extends beyond "explict", "implicit", "objects", and "fields".
Great, hopefully we can realise that the purpose of socionics isn't really to brand people with types, but rather to understand people more completely and that you can't do that by enforcing opinion either through individual force or through group consensus. Accoringly, that means that the aggression and force isn't valuable and can be destructive, from yourself and others.
There is a point at which I hope you will see that those instincts actually do derive a rigorous system and that with more rigour there is the opportunity to understand that the information can often be too limited to provide a outcome with high certainty which is why these discussions drag on and on.
Come forth socionists, liars and leopards and direct thy gaze towards my conclusive collection of 404 links not found!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
