Quote Originally Posted by Encrustacean View Post
I agree that Ni can impart cleverness to social interactions but anything approaching concrete behavioral patterning is overdetermined by ies, so people aren't being total dopes

Can I just mention how tickled I am that you went back and organized the quotes properly using bb codes



I trust that your system has internal consistency...this checks with what I've seen and what I know of you. But I never trust that the systems align necessarily between people....I mean look at the wide variations between canonical socionics writers in simple matters such as ascribing traits to processing modalities
Yep I know what you mean.


What about him vibes gamma?
A certain distance from my Fe valuing POV (I'm not the only one who noticed this). The way I've seen him evaluate people based on usefulness.


Gamma isn't only not afraid of embarrassing themselves, especially if it involves a significant other, they're also just different than merry types. Merry type might be able to date someone they can't trust, keep them at arms length, even have fun doing it, but gamma (who tbf aren't *necessarily* more paranoid than another quadra) can't stand certain trust violations. Gamma quadra extroverted valued functions are ST, so there's no quick way of communicating warmth that rings true to this quadra, so they need an implicit Fi structure to anchor them (more true of rational) or else they gradually go insane and wind up slicing each other. There's no middle ground or building trust.
That actually makes some sense.


So I just figured all that pent up angst means that whenever two gamma hop in bed together they wind up crying during sex ......
Lol I don't know.


I always have to remember not to do this, but in my defense I'm still waiting for good solid explanation of what explicit versus objects and implicit versus fields means—because of this information gap, my self typing is weird to people: I can identify that I'm dynamic, mostly conscious of dynamic functions and unconscious of static and further, DA, if you buy cogstyles...then all I can say is, I'm not strong in BOTH Ni and Fi because I miss some implicit fields information. And from there I usually eliminate delta st because I'm ridiculously impractical and bad at time management, always have been, and LIE ESE because their mirrors are the more likely temperaments AND cogstyle. The forum never bothers to understand SEI nor get good examples of the type (Mu should hire someone) and I don't come off as very similar to what the forum deems ILI, so my processing hangs trying to decide between those two. Going back and examining where this logic might have erred would take 10pg but I think about it when driving...basically eg if I'm wrong about being dynamic I could be LSI, by other loopholes could make a case for ILE or aristocratic Ej, and if I'm feeling really muzzy I might decide I'm positivist and add back the other two Ej, which leaves me with 6-8 types that don't strike me as obviously categorically wrong (Ej, dem Ip, CD Ti)
I've worn grooves in my mind thinking about this: truly I've considered quite a lot of information that forumite don't have access to. And so typings like IEI, ESI, and EII just based on 1) a forumite seeing me as similar to some archetypal description or invented VI standard, or worse: 2) a forumite seeing me as similar to someone they know irl (I question @Adam Strange being logics ego as opposed to like IEE because he apparently sees this method as nearly as good as any other.... Where do I begin describing how this will yield so many more errors in a system already plagued by vaguery masquerading as incisive categories... Even 3) gestalt impression of even the forumite who knows me best won't seem high level of evidence if it falls outside the parameters I've set. Apparently I keep implying others are Bad at socionics—not my intention. They're simply wrong
Why don't you just go by finding base function first, is what I don't get. Not LSI, though


There is a blue pill and a red pill....