-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I agree with this.
I would also suggest that as official forum policy that the forum only types forum members who wish to be typed: perhaps those who do not wish to be typed could lock previous typing threads about them, or for example, request that a specific user not type them in future.
I don’t believe people are doing that. I suspect that many are doing so to uncover a double standard, because she has always been oblivious to more direct forms of reasoning.
For many months, me and Maritsa have been told to ignore each other and not refer to each other unless it is directly relevant to the thread in question, after Maritsa complained I was harassing her finding posts she had written that did not match in with the idealised portrait of herself that she frequently paints. I thought it was unacceptable for this to happen, as it made it seem like neither or both of us were at fault, and it meant that I could not take her methodology to task anymore. However, in this thread and in many threads since, I have seen her routinely battletype and insult others, often in threads that are not relevant, and allude to old posts, messages, and emails which may or may not have actually been made.
This is strange because for years she has constantly battletyped people as a form of attack, typically using negative traits associated with not being “Delta”, or even “EII”, even after people have made it clear they do not wish to be typed and/or they have no respect for her methodology.
Considering her many years of being interested in Psychology and even apparently with all serious considering herself a professional Socionist who has reputedly charged people for her services, I am especially astounded that she is unaware or uncaring about basic ethics of conduct not only as a psychologist, but as a human being. Her frequent habit of battletyping private individuals who do not wish to be typed (at least by her) and her regular practice of using a typology such as Socionics as a means to degrade others (most people) as anything other than the perfect EII and Delta ideal that she is fanatical about, is completely unacceptable.
People often say “Well, she is like that, but she means well.” However, it seems like she is totally oblivious to acceptable conduct despite years of being informed and warned – and it means you get regular occurrences where her defenders essentially accuse others for not been accepting of such behaviour that they seem to put down to a trivial quirk of personality, essentially meaning you get Maritsa’s insults being amplified.
To highlight a glaring inconsistency in her methodology or her self-portrait is to be called a “stalker” or “mean”, even though she has used insults as a form of labelling in her “system” towards countless individuals. Indeed, she would probably say they are not insults or “mean”, they are merely accurate and that you are a bad person. She may also say that it only shows she is a feeling type, not cold and logical. However, if you point out that she has been continuously rude in such a fashion for years, she will represent you as a cold, uncaring, logical type, and a bad person. By contrast, you can tell someone is caring because they say they are. I say all this in order to be descriptive of her personality in this thread, although I have no specific thought on what type she is. I have said before that there is no point in attempting to type someone who is obviously too invested in being a type rather than a human being, to the extent that you cannot be sure what represents the individual and what is merely an act.
I also say this because separately from Maritsa as a private individual on this forum whom talks about how much of a Humanist she is, she is a public figure in the sense that she seems to genuinely consider herself a professional Socionist, which has reputedly involved attempting to type others for cash (which is obviously a deeply Humanistic act): I believe that is perfectly fair to address Maritsa as Maritsa the Socionist (as a School of Socionics) and be able to raise issues with her methodology without being accused of being stalker. This is completely separate from Maritsa as a private individual, e.g. concerning her private life, concerning her personality type (unless directly relevant to her methodology). I think that more should be done to defend this distinction on this forum. Forum members should not be allowed to battletype and degrade private individuals (especially without their permission), only to then claim they are being harassed when their methodology is challenged or when a double standard is raised (in the case of Maritsa, citing her rights as a private individual as a means to block valid criticism as a public individual or school). If methodologies are above criticism, especially those of self-proclaimed professionals and/or experts, then Socionics has no hope of being improved and genuine discussion on forums like these will dry up.
Her insults towards others, whether explicitly or implicitly, typically via typology theory, is so endemic that it has become normalised. People defend her by saying that is the way she is, and they criticise others for responding in kind (even if it is less severe than the provocation), claiming that “You’re better than that” (Which may be true: but it only shows that they consider it acceptable behaviour for Maritsa, and that she should be above rebuke, because she is allegedly a nice person sometimes). I certainly believe she is one of those individuals who broadly speaking, are in the 20% who cause 80% of the problems. I suggest that forum members do more to raise such behaviour with the admins (@mu4 etc.) and the mods, and hopefully, over time, the negative behaviour will reduce.
not being able to battletype (cool term, by the way), is like not being able to bring your own snacks to the party. Strat has a great analysis on this EII'ism
I believe she regularly posts that video (I'm not sure, as I've never actually watched it): I can only imagine that this suggests that it is a selectively chosen sample under conditions of her own choosing, which depicts traits that she thinks represents the epitome of the EII. Maybe it has traits like being calm and stoic and reserved, although she has before said that EIIs are "reactive" which she believes explains her angry outbursts.
I believe by contrast that many others have observed her online via video chat for an extensive period of time, and have commented that she has displayed a full range of "emotive expression", including stormy outbursts and tantrums, which would not fit in with her idealised EII image that she has frequently churned out. Although of course she would deny the events took place, or say that she was being "reactive", or that others were being "mean" etc.
Ultimately, she will still be guaranteed to say that she is the ideal representative of EII-kind.
I don't think she's an ideal representative of EII - is there even such a thing? But unless she's a really good actress, she's no Fe dom (like a lot of people here type her). She even reminds me of a few IxFJ girls I know. Getting simply angry doesn't exclude Fi dom - having an outburst isn't an indicator of Fe. I dunno, would have to see what kind of emotional expressions those were - were they for herself or trying to affect others. From Fi's I think ESI's are most reactive ones, EII's are usually more quietly snippy or sarcastic.
Anyway, don't know what else to say - enjoy your war with Maritsa ; )
I think it is a fundamentally bad practice to type private individuals who do not wish to be typed. I don't think that really needs explanation, but aside from going against the PsychoAnal-ytical code of conduct, it isn't especially respectful.
Using the ignore feature is also an unacceptable measure for attempting to resolve an issue who not only goes against the Forum Rules when they insult others, but goes against Basic Standards of Decency for polite conversation between strangers on High Brow matters. Finally, considering that I think that methodologies should be open to fair criticism without being liable to be restricted by Hurt Feelings, I do not consider the ignore function to be at all useful in this case, even without considering the fact that I would still indirectly be expected to tolerate the person's influence while being unable to effectively counter it.
I think your observations are perfectly valid, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
She could indeed be EII, but I don't think it is advantageous to attempt to type someone who is very much playing a part, as has often been shown. I don't mean to wind people up by implying that she might be the same or similar type as them - I think that is another good reason to abandon attempts to type such individuals, because even to describe things as you observe them can be seen to be a political act, not least by the individual who is so problematic. If a person is so invested in their self-type that they consider themselves that type first, and a human second, it is clear that you should not attempt to reason with them except to attempt to persuade them that having such a de-Humanising ideology is fundamentally flawed and to no one's advantage.
I don't have an issue with people typing a specific way in itself, it is when they politicize their type and harangue others as being less than-perfect ("not EII", "not Delta" etc.) examples by their standard.
I think the splitting of people into tribes (e.g. quadras, Ti\Fe vs. Fi\Te), especially in all seriousness (I've only seen a few people take it to that level for prolonged periods of time), has been especially poisonous, and I hope the most pronounced instances will become far less frequent.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-11-2017 at 02:48 PM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
IN THE NAME OF AUGUSTA
STOP THIS SHIT
Note to self: Never piss off an EII. This is some pretty cutthroat shit going on here.
I was asked to, not obliged to (by @mu4, via PM, as you were too), after you pressed him to take action. The first person to "break the rules" was you, almost immediately, by publicly making some catty remark about me.
I have not broken the rules. You have just now by needlessly throwing abuse my way, as you frequently do towards others who think or act differently to you. We should try to limit ourselves to making constructive comments.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Socionics is a virus that infects and destroys people's minds, much like politics.
Holy crap, I'm not even going to derail this. But some kindness please...
There isn't anything inherently derogatory in re-typing someone that makes it an insult. This is more of a case that you personally find it insulting, which is fine, but I don't think the rules should be changed according to your sensitivities. I think it might be helpful to learn to seperate yourself from the discussion and get value from posts that are worthwhile. Personality forums tend to get very heated due to things such as this, and even if you attempted to do so, wouldn't be able to establish rules enough to solidify the kind of environment you want without sacrificing significant value to do it. The ignore feature works for what it does if you allow it to do its job.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
I never said that I considered the process of re-typing someone insulting. I only commented that it was bad practice to type a private individual without their permission (and certainly if they have explicitly wished to opt-out from the process), and that perhaps we should avoid doing so. This would have the added positive impact of limiting potential side-effects such as battletyping.
Again, the ignore function would serve no utility for me. If a post is against the forum rules, it should be addressed by the mods. If its methodology is questionable, it should be addressed on its own merits. If something is conducive to a negative atmosphere on the forum but is not addressed by the forum rules, then it would certainly be worth looking at revamping the forum rules. I don't see a situation where using the ignore function would be an option in an optimal environment.
As a private individual, a person has the right to a private life. This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by 192 countries. It is also against the code of ethics that is recognized as essential in the field of Psychology, and indeed in most fields of life that involve human affairs.
how is that related to typing people against their will
and do you think the 192 countries had battletyping in mind when they signed
pretty sure this is a private notion of "privacy" that if we were to extend it thusly, would basically be limitless in scope terminating in only in some kind of hopeless idealism
i also think someone setting policy that effects me in such a way based on their private notions would likewise be an invasion of privacy understood in the broad terms as above, which would entail an absurdity. it seems like it comes down to we let people defend and speak for themselves or we let the INFjs do it for us (which lends a touch of hypocrisy to their rulership--in that they retain for themselves the rights they determine for others)
I don't think people fighting is bad because at least its real human engagement... I mean do we really want this forum to amount to 24/7 andy beer-sack discussion? is that the pax imperium of the INFj?
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-11-2017 at 10:13 PM.
I was talking about where you said that it wasn't respectful, and this also speaks to your point now about it creating a negative atmosphere. These are things you are putting on re-typing that is not inherent in re-typing, lack of respect and negative atmospheres are created by individuals who decide to re-type out of a variety of reasons. This isn't a problem in re-typing itself, it does not inherently show of lack of respect, neither does the word itself create a negative atmosphere as in not everyone that throws out a re-typing for someone unsolicited will create a negative atmosphere, be disrespectful, or be devoid of value. Thats the point I was getting at. For that reason, we can't erect a rule against it.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
I think we could take it a step further and say lack of respect isn't really a problem anyway, because its always only been about the appearance of respect anyway. for example, you can post the most disrespectful offensive shit, but if its phrased correctly it will get widespread approval whether people know the spirit it was truly done in or not. the idea that we can somehow regulate such a thing is illusory. at best we can create limits on how people express themselves but its always going to be a negative form of regulation, we will never succeed at creating respect if for no other reason than entire quadras revolve around subverting such attempts by their very nature
the second you put rules in place on what can and can't be said beta is going to have a field day playing with those rules (obvious vulgarity or obscenity is excluded of course)
the concept of labeling others "trolls" is one of its most obvious attempts at mobilizing against enemies for ostensibly noble rule-oriented reasons, not because of legit concern for trolling but for the implicit goal of excluding a competitor or threat to one's own personal agenda, "lawful evil" if you will
I would agree that if someone asks to not be re-typed by a certain individual and the individual still attempts to re-type the person without permission, then that should be considered a harassment.
On a side note, attempting to intimidate or silence a person's freedom to speak his/her own mind by attacking his/her type or pointing out supposed stereotypical negative qualities of his/her type shouldn't be allowed. Typism, quadraism, excessive stereotyping and attempts to pit against another type or quadras also shouldn't be allowed. Also a person shouldn't be held responsible for whatever supposed stereotypical negative qualities that each types or quadras supposedly hold. A person shouldn't be held responsible because somebody had a "bad experience" with a certain type - they should address the very individual that is causing them problems instead.
Basically, don't create a negative or hostile atmosphere that is not conducive to the discussion at hand, where people would feel uncomfortable to speak themselves and their own minds.
Back when @Adam Strange typed @Jeremy as ESI, I thought "oh no, Adam is attracted to Ghost..." But really, she's just an obvious ESI, once you see through the broken English and weird play-acting. Well, obvious HA is obvious? But it's glaring that she has basically no intuition, which seems much more common on S Creatives than S Leads, and there's not much logic to compensate in the area of Abstract > Involved functions either. ESIs and EIEs tend to clash like no one's business regarding Illusory relations, so Se-ESI seems very good. Like she's expecting me to be her dual, and can't see why I wouldn't be except that I'm somehow just deficient (weak PoLR = poor judge of motives, potential, character, etc., > subtype).
Duals, Look-a-like, and Illusory relations in general just tend to cause weird reactions in people in general, I've noticed. Like if a dual isn't quite the right subtype, or they have some other issues, it's viscerally unattractive in the same way as someone telling you to go out with a sleazy person of the opposite sex is viscerally unattractive. But ESIs just must feel this all the time, due to poor and devalued and often weak that cannot help compensate. LSIs much less so due to the whole "Investigator" thing.
Lol. I don't type people based on how much I'm attracted to them. Not at all. I mean, how would that work? I decide I like a woman, I type her as ESI, and she turns into one?
Ghost just displayed a whole bunch of small, individual actions which together seemed to me to add up to ESI.
I feel like even if you did it out of anger that would be ok if the anger was in response to a perceived injustice and your reaction was rooted in a good faith effort to right those wrongs
in other words, anger in of itself is niether right nor wrong, but rather a way the self mobilizes in order to effect a change, and if your motives are pure then the anger that helps you act in accordance with them is a good thing
Well said, it's beyond me why anyone would take offense over what someone types them, unless it's spam typing or done in an unrelenting manner which I could understand. To me it seems indicative of a fragile ego. Either that or it is probably just an excuse for some people to attack someone they don't like for reasons outside of typing.
Last edited by Muddy; 04-12-2017 at 04:57 PM.
You were asking me if it is not insulting and therefore "bad" in your opinion, what is the issue with typing private individuals who do not wish to be typed.
If an individual wishes to have a private life and you go against that, it is "bad" in itself.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is upheld by the countries of the world, and they are expected to enforce it. It logically follows that it is a minimum standard for each country's citizens. You may not agree with it, but to infringe on someone's basic rights is not your right.