In my view he wasn't interested in "bonds", but in something distinct, separate that people could feel and share with him when listening to that. Sure that's just one interpretation, I'm not saying that thread only is decisive for his type. Actually he doesn't seem an easy case to me, maybe someone with more insight shows up.
That thread is more imaginative engagement with he music, what people get out of the experience of the music, if it conjures thought or memories. Like, Nitrogen, the third song, is described by its composer as evoking spaceflight imagery. The second song seems to capture the emotional processes of its composer in his solitude; he's a very "romantic", communicative musician at times. I was interested if people could relate to or engage with the picture he painted of the emotional processes in solitude.
Originally Posted by rosewood
Hehe:
- Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions such as "From my point of view", "According to my understanding", "To my knowledge", "personal criteria", "it corresponds to my understanding" "I have concluded" "he insisted" and so on. They describe verbal communication in detail—how their intervention in the situation is transpiring or why it's not happening.
I can see how he might be difficult to type, but I'm pretty convinced he's ILI. I think JoetrentheCacti got it right:
Any Ni or Ne type knows the world is much about interpretations, unless they're a retard or something. But feel free to use Reinin out of context on me - why only what I've said in that reply though?! Or have you been studying me da capo al fine according to all Reinin dichotomies and you can share your subjective, personal opinion.
Not sure, maybe later I'll take a deeper look to the video, but for now, Fe creative seems to me more likely than Fe PoLR.
Seriously?
Because I don't care enough, lol.
The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else's actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his "subjective" view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, "his system", his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation.
What do you self-type as?
If your understanding of him is correct then both of us agree. Sharing feelings is closer to Fe than Fi, whereas Fi is interested in weighthing interactions. Not that Fi valuers do not share feelings, but this is subordinated to the stablishment of positive bonds. They're not shared with everyone in the same degree, so to speak (neither searched from everyone).
A bit offtopic, but that's one of the reasons that I have always seen "free love" (polyamour or similar descriptions) an Fe valuer thing, or at least, more statistically common in those types.
Fi valuers will never treat everybody in the same way, because there would not be a significant differentiation between formed bonds (this does not prevent cheating, of course).
Ok, you're using the same thing as in previous post, you haven't said anything new and valuable. And from what I know you're a troll, so stick to that.
wrong, being poly or not depends only on what someone individually values, not on functions. I know many Fi egos who are.
Just read the text and learn about subjectivists. It's pretty clear to me that you fall into that camp.
No, I'm just misunderstood. I used trolling tactics when I first started posting here, but I realized the futility of such maneuvers and now I'm just posting "normal".
of course
Values are not defined by functions but they're influenced by them (among other factors, or course). The same could be said about any topic where any opinion could be formed. "I know many Fi polys" does not disprove my argumentation.
I did not say there are no Fi polys, but I'm rasonably confindent the statistics are not the same in both groups. Unless you want to affirm it is as likely to be poly in delta quadra than in beta, for example.
can you show me some statistics or some results of investigations where polyamory or polyamorous tendencies have been linked to Socionics quadras? They'd better be reliable sources, your hypothesis is not enough.
I don't blame you for being skeptical. I have zero credibility. But the whole reason I started posting here is because I have a good eye for types, and the reason I used trolling tactics is because it pissed me off when I'd post something like "so-and-so is this type" and people would respond with "no lol" or "you're stupid" or something equally dumb and/or disrespectful. I also thought I was the shit -- people would post typings that I thought were obviously wrong, so I'd feel the need to ridicule and harass them with trolling.
I've been chastised for my lack of tact in real life, so maybe it's just me.
I cannot. But you're arguing the opposite and in the same way you can't also show me statistics which validate your position. Or can you? Affirming there's no correlation only because you know some (or many) Fi polys is no proof either. At best, it's a stalemate.
Despite of this, what you cannot affirm is that funcions do not influence values or, in a broader sense, opinions. I repeat, influence, not determine. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with the whole concept of quadra values.
You are obviously misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the two functions. Fi and Fe can be both very committed and/or exclusive - I'm not talking only literal meaning here. Where does Socionics say Fe is about "free love"? Fe can very well treat people differently, as you said about Fi, it's just more direct when doing it. At the same time, it's a dynamic and object-focused function and thus more into steering things, situations etc. Just like Te, but dealing with people and more subjective content. Actually many Fe folks, especially Beta ones, have been known through history to have held extreme views and to have been very 'monoverted' in their beliefs and efforts, so to speak. Fe can very well carry out culture wars. You can't reduce how functions are used by concrete individuals or for what purposes to this extent. Or you can, but it looks like pure speculation about Socionics theory.
I agree with this as well. I think the comment about "emotionally modulated" is a very important distinction between IEI and ILI.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
Wow. Obviously and/or deliberately. Nothing less, no intermediate point. What a categorical affirmation coming from a person who also failed in providing data for supporting her POV.
It would be a bit more sensate to be less categorical and not to consider own interpretation of this (by the way problematic) topic, Socionics, as the final one.
Now I feel tempted to say that you're obviously or deliberately misunderstanding me. But I won't.Fi and Fe can be both very committed and/or exclusive - I'm not talking only literal meaning here. Where does Socionics say Fe is about "free love"? Fe can very well treat people differently, as you said about Fi, it's just more direct when doing it. At the same time, it's a dynamic and object-focused function and thus more into steering things, situations etc. Just like Te, but dealing with people and more subjective content.
Where did I say that Fe implies free love, and Fi forbids free love? That Fe people always treats people in the same way? Do you understand minute variations, shades of grey, and statistical deviations, beyond two polar opposites?
It just quite simple, really. Two different funcions represent two different approaches to the same problem. If any particular field is related to them (like in this case, dealing with people) then they would statistically produce a different observable behavior in this field. If they produce the same result, then there would be no way of distinguishing funtions at work. They would just be a void intellectual speculation. I'm not interested in that.
And now that you like to quote definitions, Fi and Fe are quite different, because Fi deals with fields (interactions) whereas Fe deals with objects. Both of them are "subjective" (ethics vs logic), but only one of them deals with fields, interactions, bonds. This is not the land of Fe. This is a positive interaction vs a negative one, I like you vs I don't like you, etc, are by definition, Fi things, not Fe.
So Fe does not know how to weight bonds, even if it weights objects (Je) but subjectively (Fe). It's blind about this topic, so to speak. As Fe does not "see bonds" it cannot distinguish between them. Fi can. And that's my point; it's more easily for an Fe type to like/dislike people [or at least groups of people if aristocratic] without making fine emotional distinction between individuals.
But even if you do not agree with my usage of functions, it's irrelevant. The point about different functions -> different approaches -> different observable behavior (statistically) is still true. For any particular field which is maganed by certain functions, if you have two possible results (poly vs no poly), there would necessarily be differences between which one is statistically produced in every case. If not, then functions are simply void, throw them to the wc and end of topic.
Because betas are aristocratic + subjectivist (Ti/Fe)? And by the way, every person has no single function. but a whole set of them (and much, much more). Betas can be polar opposites but they do not do it in a Fi fashinon, but Ti (quite strange you haven't noticed this). Their division of people between friend or foe, when it happens, it's usually caused by ideological differences, not because subjective interactive bonds as happens with Fi (which does no deal with ideologies).Actually many Fe folks, especially Beta ones, have been known through history to have held extreme views and to have been very 'monoverted' in their beliefs and efforts, so to speak. Fe can very well carry out culture wars. You can't reduce how functions are used by concrete individuals or for what purposes to this extent. Or you can, but it looks like pure speculation about Socionics theory.
I am not reducing functions to particular individuals. I'm not talking about implications, but cognitive deviations that would favor one result over the other (statistically), never determine. That's the fine detail that apparently you are not understanding.
If for not "reducing" (what I'm not doing) you negate every statistical correlation between functions and behavior, again, throw functions to the wc. Then you cannot observe differences between how they work, so you cannot simply distinguish them in people.
Different quadra values is necessarily related to different functions. Quite simple, I think.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 06-29-2014 at 08:27 PM.
I thought ILE. The thought-process reminded me of this a bit, vaguely. Except he's more animate and the subject matter is different. That's all I have.
Last edited by suedehead; 06-30-2014 at 02:56 AM.
" A bit offtopic, but that's one of the reasons that I have always seen "free love" (polyamour or similar descriptions) an Fe valuer thing, or at least, more statistically common in those types.
Fi valuers will never treat everybody in the same way, because there would not be a significant differentiation between formed bonds (this does not prevent cheating, of course)."
> I appreciate many points that you make btw and I like your ideas, but I really doubt you're a Ni type.
I reference my blog in this video. In case you don't want to go crawling through it, here is the relevant post (video is below the block quote):
Beauty is a system. It is an excitation in the subject that fills the object with light, or plunges it into shadow. It is an ecstasy and a complex of superlative emotions. It is the introjection of an experience, an interweaving into the circuits of our neural tissues as much as our narrative fabric. Beauty is something you can scarcely capture in words. It is when your heart races, or sinks. It is when you fight back tears. It is awe. It is disgust. It is those things that so utterly transcend the self that the self is annihilated. But no, that is ideal beauty. Beauty in all its forms can be less intense. I would say the theme of beauty is that it blurs subject and object. Those things which have beauty are those things which become a part of us, whether with shaking hands we feverishly weave them into our being, or with meditative tenderness we realise need to be there.
So then, what is love? There are two beautiful quotes that are both highly relevant to the discussion about to take place: “Talking about love is like dancing about architecture.” and “Love is the pinnacle of human emotion. Darker than despair, and more passionate than hope.” Love is lights in the darkness, shining in so many colours. Love is the burden that breaks us such that we can no longer be buoyed above the churning waters. Love is a mournful void in our tapestries of story. Love is a hand that reaches out to us. Love is a pure smile in the twilight. Love is there when nobody else is, and love is there because nobody else is. Love is beauty embroidered with fondness. Love is a fear to reach beyond the self. Love is so many things, all of them terrible, all of them spellbinding.
I was waiting for the right moment to record this, but it's not coming, and the place I where I wanted to record it wasn't right either.
idk, maybe I am. My consciousness is certainly unstable enough! Look how my opinion changed with my inhabited image so drastically in just a week
There are reasonable arguments both in favor and aganist Ni, but it's better dealing with it in my own type-me thread. If not we could overrun Holon's with a paralell unrelated discussion, which would be extremely unpolite.
But as I like quid pro quo I will comment a bit about yours (but here, only in this comment). You have manifested what imo are extreme examples of Ti dom behavior. Problems for understandings contexts, specially in subjective personal topics, which is the Fi realm by the way. LIIs are described as Mr or Ms Literal in Wikisocion. True it's a caricature, but as all of them are, it's based in observed patterns of behavior. If not LSI, but I would say Ti-sub LXI anyway.
Another example is what you've quoted here as an apparent proof that I said what I said I haven't said. You are inclined to undertand my words without considering the fine nuances they contain. At the end of the first paragraph I pointed "at least more statistically common", which invalidates the original purpose of your quotation.
The last sentence "Fi valuers..." isn't even close to an affirmation like "Fi forbids freelove". It only means what I have developed in later posts. It's not described as a ban.
At least it seems certain understanding have been achieved; speaking "alien languages" is a bit frustrating.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 07-02-2014 at 01:21 PM.
@Holon, are you confident about your enneagram? E4 is definitely not common in ILIs (I do not know anyone, but I can conceive a 4w5 ILI). Adding E3 and E7 could put things even further.
I use the redefined enneagram types as in this post: http://research.similarminds.com/the...-enneagram/807
I think the 4, defined there as a cerebral individualist, fits me down to a T. I consistently test with high-opennes, low-extraversion, low-conscientiousness on the Big Five. Agreeableness and Neuroticism are average.
I'm pretty happy to move 7 to 9 for gut type, and 3 is there as a process of elimination since the other two don't really fit.
I will confess to not being too keen on the Enneagram kool-aid, nor to being very knowledgeable on it. So, tl;dr, no, I'm not confident on my Enneagram, and we're probably not using the same types to begin with.
IDK, I'll do some more tests and put some more thought into it when I'm not procrastinating preparing for imminent travel
Enjoy it.
I took the similarminds lexical enneagram test. I came out as 4/5 > 9 > errything else. FWIW in the past I decided I was 459, but I don't know a thing about how I understood the Enneagram back then.
Anyway, as promised, I read around. I went with 7 because I'm very epimethean and idea-oriented. Just this morning I spent some time researching which new and exciting research chemicals and prospective medications are intravenously active, and what their therapeutic value might be. I've found a possible ADD self-medication, and an interesting dissociative hallucinogen. Somewhere on my list is an antiaddictive, a derealisation medication, a short-action cognitive enhancer, and possibly a new kind of sleep medication, but those are way down the line... this is a really expensive hobby
Back on topic, I think this is more 5 than 7. I'm definitely not experiential on a sensory level. I love novelty, but I'll take understanding over it. I'd rather see how DNQX alters consciousness and cognitive performance than visit Thailand. Psychopharmacology is only the start, though. I try to develop my cultural interests as well. Right now two of my projects are developing my interpersonal skills and developing my literacy when it comes to film and videogames. My program for the latter plan is consuming as many critical pieces as I can. I'm working through Ebert's best-rated films, listening to SFDebris's shows, and dipping into Feminist Frequency from time to time.
As for 9, all I can say in favour of it is that, as often as people describe me as "odd", they describe me as "relaxed". I can't really disagree with that. I used to live a very unambitious life until I discovered my ecstatic enthusiasm for nascent medications. I also have trouble getting away from people who make me uncomfortable, because I really struggle with the idea of hurting others. Responsibility and my failure to meet the responsibilities I hold for myself are a big theme in my life.
I revisited Rick's blog, and I can see ILI...
The begginnings of a case can be made in that my writing style, I think, is fairly dense, and tends to building upon established themes. Reading what I have to say I thnk requires "literacy" in my developing worldview on any given occasion. I also see a Serious bias towards producing facts, knowledge, and emissions of thought processes, rather than the processes themselves. If I had to exposit or explicate, my walls of text would grow to an unmanageable size, and be even more aversively unreadable than they already are...
Rick also characterised
I think an identification with IEE and holographic-panoramic is a misidentification of
I could also interpret apparentseeking as
seeking. Being aware of the "events and occasions" of people's narrative processes and at the same time sitting passively waiting for them to show true signs of life in demonstrating a personal history and sense of sentiment with the world. Everyone has their own opinion though, and this is especially true with something as convoluted and misguidedly, forcedly systemic as Socionics. I deinitely feel more at home with things that are clearly defined as being abstract and speculative, or empirical and testable.
I'm sure I'm going to be kicked out of ILI for being friendly and having feelings though.
IEE-. Speaking to you on Google Hangout, I'm fairly certain that you seem to value
and not
, at least as far as typology is concerned. Perhaps people see ILE because the
What do you think, @Elina?
you don't seem very friendly to me.
AgreedIEE-
What do you think, @Elina?
Having feelings or being friendly will not kick you out of ILI. But expressing feelings in a friendly style could
oh yes it will! ask woof.Having feelings or being friendly will not kick you out of ILI. But expressing feelings in a friendly style could
"ng friendly and having feelings though."
Visual Facebook persona for your psychoanalysis:
Cover pics
Profile pics
In that pic with plate and dude you look a bit like the ESE gf of my SEI-Si brother ...Alpha vibe anyway ....
Last edited by Amber; 08-10-2014 at 04:00 PM.
The real question is whether the guy looks ILE when he's wearing my Lennon glasses? (Side note, I think he's super ESE.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
