Page 13 of 73 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 520 of 2884

Thread: Your typing of forum members (archived '15-'17)

  1. #481
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Flaxe

    Everytime you say XYZ type, or UVW type, you're going back to Ex. Two varied people can self-type as the same type, and both be correct, because they are telling you their view of themselves in relation to their world, and "world" is a different size and scope of application as varied as any individual in the world.

    In relation to the forums, the TIM's on here would be very varied. However, in relation to general society, most people on here meet the qualifications for SLE. Lack of normative relationships, rejection of normative relationships, stress at being confronted with lack of normative relationships, formation into a group based upon numbers to have the aforementioned relationships, utilization of situationally altering logic in place of situationally altering normal relationships, over-confidence of intuitive capabilities while missing the big picture, necessity to be the initiator of positive emotional atmospheres, poor to no distinction between external displays of ethics and internal comparative ethics, poor forecasting of the outcome and unconscious desire for someone to do it for them, etc. What is missing from the counter-premise is that they ignore the norms of relationships of society, and that they equate their extroversion/introversion to themselves while ignoring the norms of society; i.e., they ignore that their 1D Fi is the progenitor of all subsequent actions and understandings.There are a few on here, which see all of this as completely obvious, and they generally are speaking a different language than the rest.

    Also, a sidenote on modelling personalities: Although there is a large part of Socionics attempting to model personalities or even going towards a theory of "social progress", the core of Socionics is modeling of an individual's information metabolism.
    The core is modeling of an individual's information metabolism from a single viewpoint. No matter how much you study it, it will still ultimately be your experience of others. Also, information metabolism isn't real; it's a theory. You'd be better served reading on neurobiology.

    Personality models are a side-effect of this, which vary to a great degree, depending on your source.Socionics don't explain everything, but it's a good step on the way to self-discovery. (As much as I have tried, I have yet to find a psychological model that accounts for all aspects of personality)
    To know the self, you have to see from outside the self. You can't know someone's personality without knowing the people in their lives, their own impressions of themselves, as well as their impressions on the person in question and yourself.

    Indeed, relationships do involve more than one person. This is why I didn't talk about relationships between people at all, in my post. What I talked about was my experience, which is - and forever will be - subjective. Anyhow, that point is passed already.
    Typing someone is just your relationship to them.

    Getting back on topic:

    Cool theory, bro.
    So let's put it to the test.

    Can you provide two practical examples - as in, applicable and verifiable in real life - of:
    a) A 1D experience of a relationship
    b) A 3D (or 4D) experience of a relationship
    1) How you see someone
    2) How that person sees themselves and in relation to how others see them
    3) 2 altered to the specific situation in question
    4) Keep doing it

    All of Socionics is relationships. You, and others on here could have an epiphany and all come to consensus on correct typing; however, at the end of the day, you will still be giving your placement of others into TIM's in relation to yourself. If you present it to someone else, who has not had this epiphany, and ask them to type themselves and you, it most likely won't be the same. At this point, you're faced with the option of disregarding their views or attempting to make yours their own, both of which are 1D. The third option is to keep both sets of views in tact, and comparing the two, while disregarding the system as capable of ever being real, outside of a comparative analysis tool.

    This way, we can discern the difference and validate if there is an application to the theory.
    Not as specifically designed, because it is designed with the mindset that a "correct answer" exists, even within just the scope of it being a model based upon objective data, as human beings still process everything in the world on a subjective basis. The only application it has is as a tool to flesh out other people's viewpoints on matters, without any viewpoint being "correct," and people have been using far simpler and far more effective techniques for ages in counseling and psychology. Counselors offer viewpoints, under the premise that it is their viewpoint compared to the counselee's, for the counselee's consideration in relation to their own viewpoint(s). They don't say, "no, you're wrong, and this is who/what you actually are," but rather provide the counselee with the opportunity for normative dimension.

    Only practical application of Socionics outside of the self's self-analysis for thought cohesion: From Ex, to Nm, to St
    Last edited by Jeremy8419; 01-12-2016 at 11:34 PM.

  2. #482
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonka View Post
    Jesus why the fuck did I post that video in here?
    Well, I liked it hahaha.

    Most people type such predispositions to IEE.

  3. #483
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    well, imo, most of K4M's "ESE"s (myself included) are not ESE. i also would not really consider dom for myself as a serious option.
    Its nice that you are willing to affirm suz's self-typing when you qualify your statement with "most of K4M's eses". Surely it would be something if there was a way to do the list that had all of your friends' and/or member self-typings come out accurate. But that's just not reality. The hard reality is people do mistype themselves and how much they know about socionics doesn't always make a difference and whether you are friends with them or not doesn't make a difference and you are much more like the ESEs excluded from the "most of K4M's ESEs that aren't ESEs" then you are like anybody else on the list, so I don't see any problem here.

    I strongly disagree that you aren't ESE...you are too submissive to rules and those in charge for any other type but ESE. your ethical/humanity compasses are much too strong and exaggerated for even some of the more humanistic Delta. Even maritsa, who calls herself a humanist, has been known to type people by their jaw lines and other such means that you ESEs would consider neanderthal. I've been looking at your type ever since you questioned me about my name Kill4me. You asked, "do you really want people to kill4you" as you often throw those kind of "are you serious" questions at people who do or say something that could spell potential troublemaker. you also display an airy stubbornness in debate that is characteristic of intellectual ESEs, as if you're unwilling or unable to process new information about a topic or yourself. You are intellectual, sure, but you have a more tender-mindedness about you, that's easily given to metaphor and imagery. Just the overall cognition lacks the ILI precision and tough-mindedness.

    You aren't even one of the people on the list that I would call one step away from not being ese (like wacey, xerx, and mu). I think you are one of the more obvious ESE here with chips and a couple more. the only other type you could be is LSE and that's not likely. you don't have the big extroverted energy like a Laurie's Crusader and you are too flexible in your cognition so as not to buy into the delta ST pillars. You are not IEE.... you don't really mirror people, not in the reflexive, immediate, phony way that IEEs appear too. ESE is the more introverted of the extroverts and makes a nice little fort for you to play inside of. You just have to give it a chance to settle in.

    And all of a sudden you know what type you are NOT, when you've been bouncing back and forth on your type for like the last year. let me suggest that the SEI descriptions are written with a strong bias towards 9w1 and the 9w1 in you can't let go of that. For instance, the SEI description at sociotype.com has a very extreme slant towards type nine and I'm sure that could lead many an extroverted 9 astray. Right now, you are typing SEI and ILI. SEI and ILI are nothing alike in my book. I think that speaks to the poor self-awareness that ESEs typically have when it comes to typing themselves. All in all, this type hopping you do looks to me like you don't have a solid handle on your type....not enough to make a genuine claim that you and the other eses on my list aren't ese. And you have been here how long now.

    You do have the SF part, down, so that's a start, but no telling how long it will be there for as you have changed your self-typing frequently. You won't be the first ESE imo to start off with SEI. Others that have wound up at ESE started at SEI. It tends to be the typical route ESE 9w1s have to take before landing on their type. Once you accept that you're alpha SF, ese is rather simple. ESE is the most delta-ish of the Alphas. You are one of the people here that has no chance of ever being banned from the chatbox or the board. Not only does that exclude you from my ILI grouping, but that also excludes you from the other types in Alpha. You are too nice guyish for ILI. ESE is the only type in Alpha that can accomplish such a feat. Wacey gets a little fiery sometimes, but like i said, Wacey isn't an obvious ESE.

    I suggest you don't look at "Ti Dom argument" type arguments. That's the map, not the territory. Such arguments don't have any weight typologically. If you traverse long enough through the intellectual labyrinth of socionics, you can find reasons to argue that you aren't Ti dom or that you are. OJ Simpson's lawyers used the labyrinth of the law to convince a jury that their client wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....people can do the same when it comes to their type and socionics. Take what you read in the descriptions with a grain of salt. The best way to come at socionics, for you and anybody else, is to build your own profiles of the types using real life examples. My list provides that, better than any other list you will come across. It's a total success.

    Anyways, carry on with your type journey, I'm just giving you some cool little type-yourself shortcuts in case you want to cut the time in half that it takes you to reach the finish line.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 01-17-2016 at 01:59 AM.

  4. #484
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is the breakdown for subtype:

    ESE-Fi: Chipsnunderwear, Suz, Inumbra, Subteigh
    ESE-Si: Mu4, Wacey, Xerx, Esaman, KrigtheViking, Hacim

  5. #485
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,404
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Wacey gets a little fiery sometimes, but like i said, Wacey isn't an obvious ESE.
    I disagree with wacey as ESE. I actually think SEE is not an unlikely typing for him.

  6. #486
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Anyways, carry on with your type journey, I'm just giving you some cool little type-yourself shortcuts in case you want to cut the time in half that it takes you to reach the finish line.
    never mind that you are utterly wrong. one thing that you *can* do is toss every rational type out of consideration for me. my type changing is probably also not what you think. what's changing isn't my self-perception so much as how i'm applying socionics, although i do like to be changeable. even if i was certain on my self-typing i might change my type a lot under my avatar anyway. you are too wed to surface appearances and your categorizations of them.

    that said, i still think your ability to actually make these arguments in the concrete way you do is really valuable. perhaps you cannot have one without the other easily.

    after reading this description though i don't think you really understand how i operate. i'm also still kind of floored that you can switch someone from ILI to ESE (re: chipsandunderwear) so flippantly while at the same time being all "SEI and ILI are totally different." no kidding. the contradiction is fully acknowledged in my mind. but ESE and ILI are even more different.

    i have long known what i am probably not. serious typings for me were ILI, IEI, and then after years and reinterpreting the IEs a bit, i began to question my initial ideas and that's how the rest of this mess entered the picture. i can't really consider beta or delta seriously for myself anymore. i don't have enough interactions with people irl who i see as alpha or gamma to get a feel for those intertype relations.

    also, i don't remember suz even being on your ese list when i made my comment... i remember looking for her and not finding her.

    you just don't understand what is beneath things. it kind of makes me want to bash you over the head. (not literally exactly. i am posing as the enemy, i'm not really your enemy.)
    Last edited by inumbra; 01-16-2016 at 02:46 AM.

  7. #487
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i decided to just respond to this whole damn thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Its nice that you are willing to affirm suz's self-typing when you qualify your statement with "most of K4M's eses". Surely it would be something if there was a way to do the list that had all of your friends' and/or member self-typings come out accurate. But that's just not reality. The hard reality is people do mistype themselves and how much they know about socionics doesn't always make a difference and whether you are friends with them or not doesn't make a difference and you are much more like the ESEs excluded from the "most of K4M's ESEs that aren't ESEs" then you are like anybody else on the list, so I don't see any problem here.
    i checked. suz wasn't on your list. when i said most of the ESEs what i meant was i literally looked at each name and noticed that most are not ESEs to me. you also assume friendships with users like suz when they aren't there. and you talk to me as though i am dreadfully naive. i can play naive when i talk to egotistical people, but don't be fooled.

    I strongly disagree that you aren't ESE...you are too submissive to rules and those in charge for any other type but ESE.
    i disagree that i'm submissive to rules. i often think rules are lame.

    your ethical/humanity compasses are much too strong and exaggerated for even some of the more humanistic Delta. Even maritsa, who calls herself a humanist, has been known to type people by their jaw lines and other such means that you ESEs would consider neanderthal.
    it's not "neanderthal" unless what you mean by that is: it is dumb and has nothing to do with type. i also think that you see this "humanist" image of me way blown out of proportion. it is a part of me, yes. is it all of me? no.

    I've been looking at your type ever since you questioned me about my name Kill4me. You asked, "do you really want people to kill4you" as you often throw those kind of "are you serious" questions at people who do or say something that could spell potential troublemaker.
    it's not about if they are "troublemakers." it's more about if they are psychos.

    you also display an airy stubbornness in debate that is characteristic of intellectual ESEs, as if you're unwilling or unable to process new information about a topic or yourself.
    lol. according to you. i think that you have this need to claim dominance in typology as you have said before. and that is more important to you than looking to see what is actually there - to understanding another person. i sense this about you and i sense when someone is placing me in boxes with an ulterior motive and i do try to defend myself against that. or at least i try to keep from getting too close.

    You are intellectual, sure, but you have a more tender-mindedness about you, that's easily given to metaphor and imagery. Just the overall cognition lacks the ILI precision and tough-mindedness.
    i don't know if i'd even call myself intellectual (it depends what the standard for that is). metaphor and imagery - something ESE is more into than an N lead? fascinating.

    You aren't even one of the people on the list that I would call one step away from not being ese (like wacey, xerx, and mu). I think you are one of the more obvious ESE here with chips and a couple more.
    yes well you told chips about how she was ILI. there was more than one post. i was actually considering it for a moment.

    the only other type you could be is LSE
    ha. ha. ha. no fucking way.

    you don't have the big extroverted energy like a Laurie's Crusader and you are too flexible in your cognition so as not to buy into the delta ST pillars.
    so LSEs have the "big extroverted energy" while ESEs don't? what is a "delta ST pillar" anyway?

    You are not IEE.... you don't really mirror people, not in the reflexive, immediate, phony way that IEEs appear too.
    see, what on earth is this? delta NFs mimic and mirror and are phony. ok.

    ESE is the more introverted of the extroverts


    and makes a nice little fort for you to play inside of. You just have to give it a chance to settle in.
    that's kind of creepy.

    And all of a sudden you know what type you are NOT, when you've been bouncing back and forth on your type for like the last year.
    you buy that picture, do you? you don't seem to understand that a person exists on multiple layers. the surface layer is doing things like playing with different types, but there are a lot of layers underneath that which are more serious. just because i don't expose them doesn't mean they're not there. you only see surface appearances. also, i have long had a good idea about many types i'm not. allow me to list: ESE, LSE, SLE, SEE, LSI, ESI, LII, EII, EIE, LIE (that's 10/16); with IXE being unlikely (although i'm actually kind of considering this now); and IP types being most likely. others have kind of noticed how i type myself primarily IP temperament. but you, omniscient one, have not.

    let me suggest that the SEI descriptions are written with a strong bias towards 9w1 and the 9w1 in you can't let go of that. For instance, the SEI description at sociotype.com has a very extreme slant towards type nine and I'm sure that could lead many an extroverted 9 astray.
    in your arrogance you assume i have no critical thinking skills. although i don't even know if your point has anything to do with anything... in all honesty i've never strongly related to SEI and i still don't. it's something i started considering after i started questioning myself. it's not a sense of feeling like i am SEI - i don't and never have. it's more a fear that this is what i am, or a thought of the lead vs. role fcts and how one might want to think their role is stronger and then of course wouldn't want to see that... i have to account for the layers of self-delusion that are possible (it's possible to be wrong and not think you are wrong). and there are a lot of ways to interpret things.

    Right now, you are typing SEI and ILI. SEI and ILI are nothing alike in my book. I think that speaks to the poor self-awareness that ESEs typically have when it comes to typing themselves. All in all, this type hopping you do looks to me like you don't have a solid handle on your type....not enough to make a genuine claim that you and the other eses on my list aren't ese. And you have been here how long now.
    yes. yes. the dreaded "for how long" argument. if you haven't picked a type and declared it and stuck with it by x number of years you are ni polr. i almost wonder if you are copying the "for how long" argument. i almost wonder if you employ a great deal of "mimicry" yourself.

    You do have the SF part, down, so that's a start, but no telling how long it will be there for as you have changed your self-typing frequently. You won't be the first ESE imo to start off with SEI. Others that have wound up at ESE started at SEI.
    lol. i didn't start with SEI. SEI wasn't in serious consideration for like the first 3 years. but please override reality with your ideas.

    You are one of the people here that has no chance of ever being banned from the chatbox or the board. Not only does that exclude you from my ILI grouping, but that also excludes you from the other types in Alpha. You are too nice guyish for ILI. ESE is the only type in Alpha that can accomplish such a feat.
    maybe to you not getting banned is a feat, but to many people it is rather obvious how not to do that. also your categories here are kind of silly. it's amusing that you think SEI (the stereotypical soft little introvert can't manage the feat, but ESE (the more explosive extrovert) can. but perhaps this is because of your ideas that introverts are more talkative in the chatbox than extroverts. oh wait. i'm ESE so i should be quiet in the box. never mind.

    you may have a point about ILI here - but i wouldn't assume all ILIs to be assholes who get banned. surely there must be ILIs out there on internet forums who don't get banned. (i actually did get a temp ban on a different forum but you wouldn't know that because you do not know me.)

    Wacey gets a little fiery sometimes, but like i said, Wacey isn't an obvious ESE.
    i considered ESE for wacey until i talked to him privately in chat. i think he's gamma sf. i had actually wondered about SEE.

    I suggest you don't look at "Ti Dom argument" type arguments. The best way to come at socionics, for you and anybody else, is to build your own profiles of the types using real life examples.
    i agree with this actually.

    although it's almost as though how you approach this is you look at the mass of all the people and realize you have to organize them into these 16 categories. so the easiest way is to just start grouping them individually and then seeing what things the people in those groups have in common (building your list of traits). you're able to then give the traits back in your argumentation in posts. <--i don't agree that this method is a good idea. it's a top down sort of approach of people-sorting by traits.

    so perhaps it's that i completely disagree (i think i didn't realize at first what you meant by that). to me spotting the IEs is important.

    and actually this reminds me of something i was curious about the first time i looked at your list. i almost wondered at first if you were sticking all the anomalies in ESE... but it was only a very faint thing...

    My list provides that, better than any other list you will come across. It's a total success.
    lol.

    i decided btw to feel free to let fly with presumptions through this entire post because that's what i think you did to me. it's only fair.
    Last edited by inumbra; 01-16-2016 at 08:59 AM.

  8. #488
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,850
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why don't you think you're IEI any longer, @inumbra? Just because you don't identify with Beta and because intertype relations? The most logical typing for you from my perspective is IEI e9...

  9. #489
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All the types are very similar. If they aren't, then you're simply dealing with very weird people that happen to be the type in question lol

  10. #490
    Perennial Wanderer Phantom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, I think I've finally arrived at a definite type. I've been considering between LIE and SLE. At this point, I think I'm a logician who values Se. Feel free to comment on this, I'm open to input. Or better yet, ask me questions, I'll answer them, and then you can draw conclusions.

  11. #491
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,487
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

  12. #492
    jaein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    USA,Midwest
    TIM
    Eii
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh thats funny I wondered if I was an lse mistyping as my dual because of some psychological issue

  13. #493
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the world would be a better place if we could be the types @Subteigh has offered us.

  14. #494

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,814
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol @ Subt trolling.

    Kill4Me... you are really overly exaggerating inumbra's "ESE-ish" superficial housewifeness and aren't seeing the depths and nuances/complications of her like at all.

    She can be a cunt, a non-humanist not following the rules cunt. I like her anyway but c'mon. You are turning her into this mary sue image and I don't know why. It's like what- somebody has to kill like a harsh serious sadistic male for you to ever take them seriously, and it's getting old. Females in general are rarely going to hit you over the head with a large brick when they are frustrated about something - it doesn't mean they are these princess peaches in a paisley power puff dress.

    Kill4Me there is no shame in admitting you were wrong. If you're just kind of trolling and trying to get a rise out of people like a typical str8 guy that is something else. But if you are serious about how you think she is like, ur just not right.
    Last edited by BandD; 01-16-2016 at 06:38 PM.

  15. #495
    Arete GuavaDrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Now in stores near you.
    TIM
    IEI-Fe (9)64 so/sx
    Posts
    1,555
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    (snip)
    I am the king of typing, shatterer of delusions. Who will be my queen?
    I can shatter *your* delusions, O Kingly one
    Reason is a whore.

  16. #496
    Perennial Wanderer Phantom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is your impression of me from what you've seen so far?

  17. #497
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,487
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpent View Post
    What is your impression of me from what you've seen so far?
    My typing system says you are ILI, but you must not take that at all seriously.

  18. #498
    applejacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    IEE, 9w1
    Posts
    893
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh - Taken as a compliment. However, LSE would at least be wishful thinking at best. I could only hope for that level of energy and consistency.
    And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and gone tomorrow, won't he more surely care for you?- Matthew 6:30

  19. #499
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Kill4Me. i woke up this morning with several things bothering me all of a sudden.

    1. i think you are right with the air of stubborness you detect. i think you spotted something real there (although i don't think it's in the way exactly that you might think it is - because maybe it's that you think i shut out your input, which this will only reinforce that. it was more that when unfair or unreasonable boxing (of myself) starts up, and i start to feel rather significantly misrepresented or misunderstood, that i feel i must try to do something about that.

    2. i think you may have spotted something with the idea of a type being a box to play in. i like playing with type and type ideas and my personality in my mind. that's true.

    3. i *have* probably acted more agreeable/naive than i am. it's not out of an attempt to deceive. it's that i tread carefully and will seep around people like water. again i don't set out to do this. it appears to be how i roll. i make myself non-threatening and receptive often. perhaps this is quiet E9-ish of me and quite SEI-ish of me. but also, i would say it is often with "good intent." i am genuinely interested in how you approach typing, my own free-flying presumptions in the previous post aside. it's been an interesting puzzle i've wanted to solve.

    4. you are right that there is a humanistic part to me and if you think i might think even minor things are violence or even that in some cases i wouldn't hurt a fly, you are seeing something real. it's just it's not the only thing there.

    5. i am serious when i say that i imply you can be good at this typology stuff. you are able to (like i said) spell things out in these direct concrete ways. i struggle to do that tremendously. it's difficult for me to talk about socionics without being vague to the point of pointlessness. and you don't have that problem, which is cool.

    6. you seem to be developing your stuff independently, and well, the influences of group-think on the forum and how people deal with that is something that interests me too.

    7. you are right there *is* confusion and uncertainty regarding my self-typing - it's just not that i am completely lost. i also see this as something that it is okay if it takes time - i don't fear years, decades, or even a lifetime over questions i find meaningful. i also believe that you genuinely maybe (???) are trying to assist with your clear logic and way of breaking it down?

    8. despite your narratives in your posts, i don't know if you are a "psycho" only what you appear to be. that seemed like it was labeling and accusation, and a premature ruling. but i meant it in humor. (the benevolent part of me, which sometimes can be expansive, does think there's room in the world for psychos, on their own little islands sinking into the sea as the oceans rise... no, just kidding!)

    9. i do perceive there maybe being two things going on here. 1) you are genuinely interested in typology and *are* looking for truth; and 2) you wish to be a typology conqueror - to be dominant, which isn't the same as being the best exactly. although these two things can work together, they are also competing with one another.

    now that i've laid my cards on the table i feel better, and... much worse. i don't like laying my cards out and i've done it for you. FEEL SPECIAL.

    there. now it's all constructive-criticism like. and i was being a coward by giving mostly negative feedback in my previous post. and it had this "you don't know anything of me at all" vibe to it, which i don't believe is true.

    i just have to back-track and go back and forth in infuriating ways. but it's honestly that i hold multiple interpretations in my head at the same time. i am trying to hone them down, it's just it takes me forever (sometimes never).

    (also, i'm still being presumptuous - but i've granted permission to myself again due to you doing it first)
    Last edited by inumbra; 01-16-2016 at 07:52 PM.

  20. #500
    hiatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    تخت نور
    Posts
    374
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by applejacks View Post
    @Subteigh - Taken as a compliment. However, LSE would at least be wishful thinking at best. I could only hope for that level of energy and consistency.
    He's not serious. He's mocking some of the preposterous types proposed for forum members by @Kill4Me, emulating his apparently random typing methods.

  21. #501
    applejacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    IEE, 9w1
    Posts
    893
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    He's not serious. He's mocking some of the preposterous types proposed for forum members by @Kill4Me, emulating his apparently random typing methods.
    oh! Re-routed for humor, then
    And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and gone tomorrow, won't he more surely care for you?- Matthew 6:30

  22. #502

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,198
    Mentioned
    1012 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    As Kill4Me likes to write looong posts... and for free, I suspect J type for him. ISTJ, for the starting.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  23. #503

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,198
    Mentioned
    1012 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subteigh's profile: "TIM EII-Ne 9w1 Sp/So" and then
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    IEI: Subteigh
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  24. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sweet! /puts on big boy pants and starts planning cop tv series Magnum Steel, where the Magnum comes in a wrapper, and the Steel comes in the form of my chiseled, well-toned manly body. Criminals and ladies bewar... There's a new SEE on the streets!

  25. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpent View Post
    So, I think I've finally arrived at a definite type. I've been considering between LIE and SLE. At this point, I think I'm a logician who values Se. Feel free to comment on this, I'm open to input. Or better yet, ask me questions, I'll answer them, and then you can draw conclusions.
    Ever get in physical fights?

  26. #506
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  27. #507
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by applejacks View Post
    @Subteigh - Taken as a compliment. However, LSE would at least be wishful thinking at best. I could only hope for that level of energy and consistency.
    I bet there are plenty of times you have lots of energy. And that you can be very consistent on some things. It certainly works that way for me. Then there are those times I am waiting for inspiration to materialize....
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  28. #508
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,430
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My typings:
    Person Type
    Mu SEE
    Hacim SEE
    Myst ESI
    Contra LSI
    Kill4Me IEE
    Kore LII
    Starfall ESE
    Subteigh LII
    Tonka SLI
    Pink IEI
    Maritsa LIE
    darya SEI
    Minde SEI
    Kalinoche LIE
    FoxOnStilts IEI
    N0ki LII
    JOA ILI
    Guava ESE
    Inumbra LIE
    MuddyTextures LIE
    Mercutio IEI
    Lungs LII
    Chips SLI
    May SLE
    Cpig LII
    Golden SEE
    Emmym EIE
    Kim SEI
    ScarlettLux LIE
    Woof IEE
    Suedehead EII
    Pookie LIE
    Silke SLI
    Ananke ILI
    Narc SEI
    Jarno SEI
    Suz EIE
    Jeremy SLI
    xerx IEI
    ClownsandEntropy ESI
    Krieger SLE
    BnD LII
    Spider SLE
    Ouronis IEI
    Airman LIE
    Wacey ESI
    Anyone not on this list ESE

    This list brought to you by the formula =INDEX(Types!$A$1:$P$1,RANDBETWEEN(1,16)).

  29. #509
    applejacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    IEE, 9w1
    Posts
    893
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    I bet there are plenty of times you have lots of energy. And that you can be very consistent on some things. It certainly works that way for me. Then there are those times I am waiting for inspiration to materialize....
    I tend to operate in 6 week rotations of hardcore productivity followed by sloth. But perhaps that's a discussion for the delta lounge
    And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and gone tomorrow, won't he more surely care for you?- Matthew 6:30

  30. #510
    netflix and don't touch me Emmym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hell yea SLE HOLLA!!!

    Only con to being SLE is I have to be duals with IEIs.
    someday the grapes will be wine
    and someday you will be mine


    EII-Ne 2w3 - 9w1 - 7w8 so/sx

  31. #511

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    But time exists. As you attempt to gather data, more is created.
    That's not exactly a problem on its own.


    Jeremy: Just like first questionnaire compared to second, time exists, and he exists outside of the time you see him. If he's with you everyday for 4 hours, and displays Norms of Fi the whole time and none for Ne, how do you know that he doesn't display Ne Norms and no Fi Norms for the remaining 12 waking hours of the day?
    Typer: Well, a highly qualified Typer can...
    Jeremy: Time still exists for Bill outside your own relationship with him.
    Typer: Well, sure, he COULD be different technically, yes, but it is highly unlikely.
    Jeremy: How is it "highly unlikely" if you just straight up have absolutely no idea?
    Lol. Do you wanna be Ti PoLR, now?

    Why on earth would Typer have "absolutely no idea". That's not exactly true. There is more consistency than that in this world. Simple as that.

    There is only one way it would be true - if the situations are distributed carefully in a way that when Bill spends time with Typer it's only situations where Bill uses the -say- learned Fi norms but is otherwise an SLE. But just how likely is it that Bill is going to carefully pick such situations only. He doesn't even have the means to do so.

    If we had more precise objective tools to investigate the brain and better understanding of it in general then this wouldn't be an issue. Obviously I am going beyond socionics here and talking about information processing of the brain in general.

  32. #512
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    That's not exactly a problem on its own.

    Lol. Do you wanna be Ti PoLR, now?

    Why on earth would Typer have "absolutely no idea". That's not exactly true. There is more consistency than that in this world. Simple as that.

    There is only one way it would be true - if the situations are distributed carefully in a way that when Bill spends time with Typer it's only situations where Bill uses the -say- learned Fi norms but is otherwise an SLE. But just how likely is it that Bill is going to carefully pick such situations only. He doesn't even have the means to do so.

    If we had more precise objective tools to investigate the brain and better understanding of it in general then this wouldn't be an issue. Obviously I am going beyond socionics here and talking about information processing of the brain in general.
    Ti PoLR? My logic is sound. And yes, it is exactly true. You do not know what you do not know. It is an assumption based on one's own pride to do otherwise. What isn't sound is to equate one's overall behavior to a timeframe that is a minority of one's behavior. Simple as that? No. You're making a ludicrous claim that people display the same behaviors independent of environment. If you're going to be in an environment, you adapt to suit it, or you clash with it. That's just common understanding of people and relationships. If you're not multi-faceted and display a single facet consistently, being a "TIM", that doesn't make you anything objective, other than "having no personality."

    There are better objective tools. It's called science, which socionics is not. You do realize the "objective" and "definitely something to it" aspects of socionics are all BS that's actually realistically covered and known under the actual sciences and things as simple as gender differences and culture, right? There's nothing actually "to socionics." It's just a goofy system for creative theory. You'd be better served taking entry-level college courses and paying attention to obvious social interactions.

  33. #513

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flaxe View Post
    Yes, you are correct in that - although it's unrelated to what I wrote. Please keep in mind that I said "stronger", which does not automatically equate to increased in dimensionality.
    You sounded like you equated the two like other people do but it's great if you don't.


    Ah, I see what I did there. Thanks for pointing it out. ^^Original post corrected to reflect what I intended to say: Leading Ti and Ignoring/Normative Te.
    Np. Why do you call Ignoring Te Normative?


    Alright, would you mind elaborating on what you see, in regards to the case? (Mathematical dimensionality being applicable to Socionics dimensionality. Post #603)
    Next time please link to the post... Anyway, I don't see how it's necessarily applicable in the way Jeremy imagined it, no.

    What I see is him parroting the theory without real comprehensive understanding of it and coming up with silly illogical ideas.

    I'm not following you on the actions vs functions part of your post. I see IEs as types of information, nothing more nothing less.


    That's right, although stubbornness manifests differently for different types.
    But that, together with the posts I read, I consider an indicator to the Holographical-Panoramic Cognition.
    I don't really see cog styles that clearly displayed by default. Too ambiguous without conducting a deep interview with the person (and even then it may be...).


    If you want to be specific, I was going for Linda Beren's theory of the 8 functions, which are considered a subsection of MBTI theory. Just like the Reinin dichotomies are a subsection of what we call "Socionics". No?
    Speculative crap. I don't like to guess at function positions from a couple ambiguous tidbits of data, let alone utilize two theories together that are far from being fully consistent with each other.


    Well, I'm glad I could surprise you!
    Lol ok


    My notions may seem "weird" because I prefer to relate existing information mainly to personal experience, while correlating what I can to knowledge I found relevant, rather than imagining behaviour based solely on descriptions. Just like I base my understanding of the functions to how they have come to manifest in my own experience.
    Well yes that's fine. What I called weird is how you -several times in your earlier posts here about the LII type in general- conflated personality traits with the IE's as defined in a purely information processing model.


    (Mind you, that I haven't looked over all of his activity, but only looked over the last few pages in a couple threads he has been active in. Also keep in mind that from where I am, there is no reference to age, gender, cultural upbringing or traumatic events which could have affected someone's personal development.)
    Right. I've seen two sides of Jeremy so far, one is this brainwashed socionics fan, the other one is when he talks about people related issues outside socionics.


    As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as I am relating this to personal experience of the LIIs I've known. Those who came to mind, when reading his posts, were unhealthy individuals with strong narcissistic traits. It is just as likely that I may be reacting more to the narcissistic traits perceived in the posts, rather than to the function stack. But ultimately, I'm not here to force people into boxes or insist on their psychological state.
    Yeah.


    I'm here to check how my understanding holds up, where it goes wrong - and why.
    Fair enough


    I may as well be outright wrong - about any of the points I've ever made - but in that case I want to know; where I went wrong, and how.
    (Disagreeing or saying that I'm wrong, without providing any information on where one perceives my error to be, will however make it quite difficult for me to troubleshoot my own line of thought.)
    OK if anything is unclear, just ask.

  34. #514

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    Ti PoLR? My logic is sound. And yes, it is exactly true. You do not know what you do not know. It is an assumption based on one's own pride to do otherwise.
    Again Ti PoLR-ish

    You first endorse the theory in all its entirety then you forget about all of it when you claim that the Typer cannot absolutely know a thing.


    What isn't sound is to equate one's overall behavior to a timeframe that is a minority of one's behavior. Simple as that? No. You're making a ludicrous claim that people display the same behaviors independent of environment. If you're going to be in an environment, you adapt to suit it, or you clash with it. That's just common understanding of people and relationships. If you're not multi-faceted and display a single facet consistently, being a "TIM", that doesn't make you anything objective, other than "having no personality."
    Lol, I never made such a claim. Lol. Reread.


    There are better objective tools. It's called science, which socionics is not. You do realize the "objective" and "definitely something to it" aspects of socionics are all BS that's actually realistically covered and known under the actual sciences and things as simple as gender differences and culture, right? There's nothing actually "to socionics." It's just a goofy system for creative theory. You'd be better served taking entry-level college courses and paying attention to obvious social interactions.
    Science of psychology lacks good enough tools and understanding too.

    Yes, there are notions in academic psychology that do talk about the same as certain socionics ideas.

    There is however some tenets in the socionics model (and in Jung's) that I've never seen anywhere else while they also seem to have some validity.

    That doesn't make the socionics model perfect. Far from it. I'm not exactly accepting of all parts of it "as is".

    Lastly, I don't exactly use socionics as my only tool or even a primary tool for social interactions, lol..

  35. #515
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Again Ti PoLR-ish
    Apparently, you're the 1D Ti.

    You first endorse the theory in all its entirety then you forget about all of it when you claim that the Typer cannot absolutely know a thing.
    You under the impression that one cannot see viewpoints without choosing to adhere to them? Of course the typer cannot absolutely know a thing; that's why it's a theory of the mind. You're attesting that a theory of the mind can be proven, when the definition of such is that it cannot.

    Lol, I never made such a claim. Lol. Reread.
    Yes, you did.

    Science of psychology lacks good enough tools and understanding too.

    Yes, there are notions in academic psychology that do talk about the same as certain socionics ideas.

    There is however some tenets in the socionics model (and in Jung's) that I've never seen anywhere else while they also seem to have some validity.

    That doesn't make the socionics model perfect. Far from it. I'm not exactly accepting of all parts of it "as is".

    Lastly, I don't exactly use socionics as my only tool or even a primary tool for social interactions, lol..
    Try biology. Psychology is still a theory of the mind itself. You spoke of information processing of the brain. That's biology.

  36. #516

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    Apparently, you're the 1D Ti.
    Lol..


    You under the impression that one cannot see viewpoints without choosing to adhere to them? Of course the typer cannot absolutely know a thing; that's why it's a theory of the mind. You're attesting that a theory of the mind can be proven, when the definition of such is that it cannot.
    You're talking nonsense.


    Yes, you did.
    No. Try to point out where I said that. Good luck.


    Try biology. Psychology is still a theory of the mind itself. You spoke of information processing of the brain. That's biology.
    Wtf is this nonsense again.

  37. #517
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Khemri
    Posts
    2,580
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now that I'm SLE, I can start putting my plans of world domination into practice and become the barbarian warlord I always wanted to be. Fear me peons!

  38. #518
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,227
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Lol..

    You're talking nonsense.

    No. Try to point out where I said that. Good luck.

    Wtf is this nonsense again.
    Socionics tries to say that people's thought processes don't change based upon relationships involved nor based on time. It's all 1D Fi lol. That's literally all it is and why it fails. You can't place a dynamic object into a static structure, without doing so under the premise that the model is simply the current frame of reference. TIM doesn't exist, because personalities aren't static; they are a conglomeration of one's own experiences from and to the environment. If you think they are real, or that there is any validity to them, you either fail to realize a person is capable of changing personality "types" as needed, thus eliminating any practical application outside the present circumstances of people involved, or you fail to realize that, as a system based upon the immutability of personality "type," it is consequently simply individual biology due to genetics, which is irrevocably verifiable by means as simple as having an expert participate in the blind typing of twins. The only counter for the former is the necessity to view the typee for "accurate" typing, in which case, any means of empirical research is invalidated by inclusion of the conclusion as a necessary component for testing. Socionics is nothing more than faulty circular logic aimed at denying the reality of the environment's effects on the individual. If you think it is magically "more," then your time would be better served in education on neurobiology and genetics.

  39. #519
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    229 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subtypes is significant to socionics as it one of the main ways for distinguishing Socionics from MBTI. Here are some more:

    ILE-Ti: Myst, Transkar, LuchoisLurking
    ILE-Ne: Geneiouws, Lagerdemon, Cubazoan

    ESE-Fi: Chipsnunderwear, Suz, Inumbra, Subteigh
    ESE-Si: Mu4, Wacey, Xerx, Esaman, KrigtheViking, Hacim

    LII-Ti: N0ki, MuddyTextures, Reactance
    LII-Ne: Kimuchi

    SEI-Si: misterni, johannesbloem, chriscorey, scarletluxx, the whole english
    SEI-Fe: BnD, crazedrat, dinki


    leanest and meanest breakdown around, the list was reworked several times prior to me posting it weeks back but the final product is pure gold…

    my intelligent design method for typing trumps all approaches.

  40. #520
    Arete GuavaDrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Now in stores near you.
    TIM
    IEI-Fe (9)64 so/sx
    Posts
    1,555
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    *sheer amusement at assigning @Myst some sort of Ne-ego*
    Reason is a whore.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •