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
What about him vibes gamma?
Mostly it's a joke, but gammas seem to have the highest tolerance for embarrassing themselves. For instance, alphas don't like making a scene (nor I, really) but the gamma sfs I've identified understand what constitutes a weird situation yet make no effort to avoid it—the awkwardness I feel so painfully often rolling right off SEE people. ESI can be awkward themselves, and they won't strive for social weirdness, but if they wind up yelling at someone in public it's not the end of the world. My SEE friend would only get upset if either it constituted a rights violation in her eyes—and she always had emotional roughness so not many things bothered her sense of morality....uh the only example I can think of, someone was joking about lynching and we were down south where that shit has historical presence—or she'd get upset if a bunch of people ganged up on one. People could bully each other and she might find that amusing but she didn't want it to organize
..in retrospect I think my middle school high school best friend was SEE too, or possibly IEE, and she made a point of scowling at anyone who messed with her nerd friends—again, she didn't necessarily care that someone was getting picked on, but she wouldn't allow it to happen based on impersonal social groupings (beta ish: Ti gives the hierarchy, Se gives the competition for limited resources, and aristocratic ethics (NF) makes a lot of judgment calls, though probably behind the scenes). Our school was right on the edge of a big city (part of urban sprawl) so there were several clashing communities: the very wealthy white people who looked down their noses, the black city kids that the white kids tried to appease, the hispanic kids who made up about half the student body and a lot of them just didn't interact with anyone who didn't speak their language, the shit poor white and asian kids from the edge of the city...you get the picture. Then the jocks and goths and all those groups overlaying the class divisions and half-developed sense of honor going around. The nerdy kids at my school got shit on really bad, like they'd get beaten bloody or their lockers broken into and I know people got threats.UGH I'm typing slow via phone and now I've forgotten the point of what my friend did as relates to socionics so imma stop this long story
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. If you ever truly lose trust of a gamma sf, they may learn to treat you with civility, even kindness, but they'll never trust you again, period. Not sure if this applies to gamma Nts, but my sister is definitely gamma extrovert, rational subtype, and I usually type her LIE, and yeah I pulled some dumb scam back in high school and she won't forgive me even ten years later, my only sister
So I just figured all that pent up angst means that whenever two gamma hop in bed together they wind up crying during sex ......
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
There is a blue pill and a red pill....