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

[Bertrand]

Whatever I do, there is something about me that your type will find fault with.

super true, I bet I could really go to work on you almost no matter what topic we veered into

but its no big deal, just a difference in perspective... I've come to realize Te is basically its own language that means and usually does well, they just struggle hard with delivery

I have a LSE friend at school and one of the things he's said before is "pretty sure no matter how I answer X, Y will find fault with it" and I'm just like, yeah, but it doesn't mean its necessarily on them, its more or less a trivially true statement that places you both at fault to some degree... there's just always blame to go around, pointing that out like it absolves anything is asinine, but at the same time Te has a job to do, and can't get stopped dead, so I understand why they think that way.. its basically a statement about the futility of trying to suss out the particulars past a certain point when you can work the other end, which I've tried to appreciate better so as to bring balance to my own life... however lack of concern at all for "the particulars" in favor of "getting the job done" is just gross as hell. its the "gotta get muh dick wet" mentality that is repellent to decent human beings everywhere

also Fi suggestive types get hijacked by manipulative Fe types and then use their Te reasoning as a shield to do unethical stuff, which is really frustrating to watch happen

[ooo]

It's ok Cuiv, you're not as bad as I thought too. Just the common hateful kind of person this world is filled with : )

[darya]

I agree that EIEs are the most dramatic type, by far. The emotional highs and lows they experience are usually shared with others.

Nonetheless I wouldn't call EIEs particularly edgy (that seems more EII, tortured artist shit). Most EIEs are adept socialites, ambitious entertainers with a dramatic flair. While no Beta type is exactly loved here, EIEs are not outcasts in my society (unless SX first) so if they stir shit, they tend to have a specific purpose in mind. This means they are not usually genuine trolls, pretty much by definition.

It also seems rare for a Fe lead to harm others through their Fe use; emotional manipulation is more common in Fe creatives.

I think a lot of the descriptions we read online are lacking (articles translated from Russian should be treated with caution, as Russia is not a Western country). Often in psychology, you should stick to the core theory and form your own interpretation of it. Observe to see if the stereotypes marry up to reality.

Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted to say - that it's very out of character for EIE's to be trolly out of boredom, without a purpose. I'd also say (at least it's true for me) that childlish over the top trolling would quickly annoy EIE's - it's disruptive and pointless as hell.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the sarcasm and potential for malice in EIE's - they are one of the most sarcastic types ime and can definitely be cutting and ragey if needed. As everything, this varies from individual to individual (there exist EIE's that somehow manage to always stay extremely polite -it's probably variants related). Same with ESE's - some are almost naively sweet, but others can definitely be mean. It's because they are emotional and they act on their current emotional state - which is not always positive. Particularly ESE's can sometimes be like toddlers: when they are emo and annoyed, they definitely kindly share it with their closest (family is perfect for that) in a form of a temper tantrum. Their remarks can be very mean in this state. As Jung said: " unconscious thoughts reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obssessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depricatory. Women of this type (lol) have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings." These temper tantrums were officially called hysteria back in the day : )

Manipulation: I disagree on that as well heh. Ime the most manipulative people can actually be Ni-creatives. I'm not saying it's their default MO, far from it, but there's potential there when it's needed to win arguments and gain stuff.

Fe creatives are more subtly, covertly manipulative, but probably not any less successful at it (for their own personal goals).

This is all coming from my personal observations of people irl I type as those types, but various describtions actually say similar things about EIE's sometimes being cold, brash and sarcastic. From my observations I certainly can't agree that it's very out of character that they hurt people on purpose - i dunno, maybe we have different definitions on cunty behaviour : D.

Tortured artist is IEI > EII imo.

Since I'm already disagreeing, I'm going to throw this out there as well: i don't agree with your devide (if i understood you correctly) -> Beta NF's politically right: delta NF's politically left. Not every liberal person is Fi valuing - at all. In fact, I'd say the majority of NF's are left leaning and progressive. There are definite exceptions though - and I'm willing to bet there are more conservative EIE's than there are conservative IEI's.

[Bertrand]

openness is correlated to liberalism and is identified with intuition

politeness is identified with Fe and correlated with conservatism

so betas are more of a mixed bag with EIE leaning conservative and IEI leaning liberal, on the whole

[Sol]

It's ok Cuiv, you're not as bad as I thought too. Just the common hateful kind of person this world is filled with : )

uncommon hateful kind of persons write lie on the forum, like about many socionists in my bloggers list

[Sol]

openness is correlated to intuition is correlated to liberalism

social segregation made by liberalism does not correlates with openness

[ooo]

openness is correlated to intuition is correlated to liberalism

I think openness is better paired with intelligence and culture... all these stereotypings are not so good. There are idiotic people everywhere, it's a state above left and right... or below

[ooo]

uncommon hateful kind of persons write lie on the forum, like about many socionists in my bloggers list

they make better incorrect bloggers lists in your thread though!

[Bertrand]

its also correlated with G because openness includes "interest in ideas", which is highly correlated to G (IQ)

basically you can go all sorts of ways with intuition and openess because they're broken down into sub categories that offset one another and are paired with another ego function that further serves to offset them. that's how you can get highly intelligent beta EIE authoritarian conservative overlords, that's almost entirely the appeal of the alt right right now, which is evola style "intellectually" fashionable fascism

[wasp]

ApeironStella: LII or EII

squark: LSI
thelocust : IEI purely from V.I. I don't know you

FDG: LIE
wasp: ESI because you're not as "soft" as Vespertine. Now that I think about it...your name is wasp!

UDP: LSE
Vespertine: EII
Chae: IEE you V.I. as ENFp and I'm not sure where my previous brainfart came from
Syrup: SLI

kalinoche: Ip-temperament. I find you really hard to type.
You have such big friendly eyes like Filatova's ENTp portraits but you don't vibe like that type (in my view)
chips and underwear: values Fi
Simo: Fe-Porl?

finally I have an excuse to participate

I don't have a strong attachment to my type but I'm always slightly amused when I'm typed introverted, serious, and rational.

what makes you think so?

[ooo]

how did this thread turn into an open war since 2 days lol

[Spermatozoa]

It's ok Cuiv, you're not as bad as I thought too. Just the common hateful kind of person this world is filled with : )

I hate very, very few people. Probably only about five people and nobody you would know.

However, I don't feel obligated to share anything I have with other people. My money, my creativity and my love are all very precious to me. They would be worthless if everyone had a right to them.

I think you are confusing my hostility to altruism for hatred and prejudice.

[Cosmic Teapot]

finally I have an excuse to participate

I don't have a strong attachment to my type but I'm always slightly amused when I'm typed introverted, serious, and rational.

what makes you think so?

I think what I wrote sums it up pretty well. I see you in the same league as lungs and Delilah.
However I don't feel like arguing about it. If you think you're EII that's alright.

[Bertrand]

how did this thread turn into an open war since 2 days lol

lets kill everyone

[ooo]

I hate very, very few people. Probably only about five people and nobody you would know.

However, I don't feel obligated to share anything I have with another person. My money, my time and my love are privileges you have to earn.

I think you are confusing hatred for indifference.

You're so right but I think I can distinguish the two.
When one throws hateful comments about whatever groups of people, or individual, he's just showing his own weakness. Not his indifference... Hatred is related to such weakness.

[wasp]

I think what I wrote sums it up pretty well. I see you in the same league as lungs and Delilah.
However I don't feel like arguing about it. If you think you're EII that's alright.

I didn't know politely asking for reasoning was equivalent to sparking an argument. I'm genuinely curious about your input. I went from being typed IEE to LIE to SEI to EII, the list is truly endless, but it's for this reason that I'm always keen on hearing how different people came to different conclusions.

[ooo]

lets kill everyone

let's steal all their types yo

[Spermatozoa]

You're so right but I think I can distinguish the two.
When one throws hateful comments about whatever groups of people, or individual, he's just showing his own weakness. Hatred is related to such weakness.

It is so pointless to try and find common ground with you. You just double down and reassert your own, incorrect assumptions about me.

[Bertrand]

let's steal all their types yo

haha Im working on it!!!

as far as hate goes, I think, most the time its a sign of weakness, but not always... to me it is care + disapproval, for example, I hate certain members of my family, but its more like the other side of love, which is just a high degree of care... obviously the capacity to care and to see what's worth approving of [1] (Ne) is the highest form of concern, aka love

speech that dehumanizes people is actually indifference, and I think that's what we mean by the evil kind of relations--epitomized by "hate speech" (which as incitements include elements of Fe)--and I would associate that with thinking over ethics in general, its a kind of reduction out of their human worth into a an abstract factor that is dealt with "accordingly" aka stalinism

[1] and everyone has something inside of worth

[Cosmic Teapot]

I didn't know politely asking for reasoning was equivalent to sparking an argument. I'm genuinely curious about your input. I went from being typed IEE to LIE to SEI to IEI, the list is truly endless, but it's for this reason that I'm always keen on hearing how different people came to different conclusions.

I guess this got lost in translation. I didn't know that the word "to argue" has such a negative connotation. Let me phrase it differently: I don't feel like having a conversation about it. It's a really small issue that (as you can see know) easily blows out of proportion

[ooo]

It is so pointless to try and find common ground with you. You just double down and reassert your own, incorrect assumptions about me.

yeah such is life, all about incorrect assumptions.
see we have a common ground already :]

[darya]

openness is correlated to liberalism and is identified with intuition

politeness is identified with Fe and correlated with conservatism

so betas are more of a mixed bag with EIE leaning conservative and IEI leaning liberal, on the whole

These leanings are often connected to family background - they often get "inherited" so to speak, as does religious affiliation, so you find familes consisting of very different types, but same political (general) view. At least that's prevalent in families in my country, where there s very strong left (mostly atheist)/right (mostly religious) devide. Actually I think most non-religious right leaning people in my country are Te/Fi rationals with a random LSI thrown in the mix.

Edit: also, my country as a whole is significantly left leaning (only had one right wing government ever), so my experience could be skewed : )

[Bertrand]

These leanings are often connected to family background - they often get "inherited" so to speak, as does religious affiliation, so you find familes consisting of very different types, but same political (general) view. At least that's prevalent in families in my country, where there s very strong left (mostly atheist)/right (mostly religious) devide. Actually I think most non-religious right leaning people in my country are Te/Fi rationals with a random LSI thrown in the mix.

yes, like I said, those factors are just correlates (and they're weak ones), something like upbringing is going to be like 10x as strong

i think people often make the mistake of seeing something as correlated as it being some kind of absolute when its more like its just "measurable beyond random" which frequently works out to 1% or something like that, but the fact that it is steady and measurable means it is real to some extent and that's all I meant to point out

obviously, if you're born in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't matter your IQ or your cognitive functions, you're probably more conservative than a Dane

[ooo]

These leanings are often connected to family background - they often get "inherited" so to speak, as does religious affiliation, so you find familes consisting of very different types, but same political (general) view. At least that's prevalent in families in my country, where there s very strong left (mostly atheist)/right (mostly religious) devide. Actually I think most non-religious right leaning people in my country are Te/Fi rationals with a random LSI thrown in the mix.

agreed about family and upbringing, but society and cultural environment mean a lot as well.
my grandparents were active fascists all their lives, I could not even say the name Che Guevara in front of them, and my mum, their daughter, grew as a sort of commie. the city she was born in, the university where she studied and the atmosphere of the 70's especially, shaped her into grow "her own" views. she had to keep it as a sort of secret for all her life tho.

[darya]

agreed about family and upbringing, but society and cultural environment mean a lot as well.
my grandparents were active fascists all their lives, I could not even say the name Che Guevara in front of them, and my mum, their daughter, grew as a sort of commie. the city she was born in, the university where she studied and the atmosphere of the 70's especially, shaped her into grow "her own" views. she had to keep it as a sort of secret for all her life tho.

Yup, certainly true - that's exactly why I added my edit. I come from an ex-socialist country so religion was forbidden for many years and the whole climate is still half-commie (for Americans that's called full on commie : ).

[wasp]

These leanings are often connected to family background - they often get "inherited" so to speak, as does religious affiliation, so you find familes consisting of very different types, but same political (general) view. At least that's prevalent in families in my country, where there s very strong left (mostly atheist)/right (mostly religious) devide. Actually I think most non-religious right leaning people in my country are Te/Fi rationals with a random LSI thrown in the mix.

Edit: also, my country as a whole is significantly left leaning (only had one right wing government ever), so my experience could be skewed : )

I was just thinking about this today and I have an observation which is only tangentially related to the topic

but while reading the gender-specific type descriptions, I made my way to the female SEI description and the way it was written made me feel like the female SEI they were describing had to have come from a middle or high class household. (well brought up, polite, well-mannered, "worthy" and elegant) BUT it'd be unusual (albeit not impossible) to meet someone who displays those traits after being raised in an abusive low-income household. if they were raised in a low-income household then they probably wouldn't have the funds to dress as well as they're being praised for dressing in the description. on a similar note, if they were raised in a verbally abusive household, then I'd find it even harder to imagine that they wouldn't adopt at least some of those "rude" and inappropriate behaviors. not all of them, but a few definitely would. as for female ILEs, I can't imagine that they'd be allowed to act boyish in their youth, like it's stated that they do in their respective type description, if they grew up in a country which prohibited those behaviors in females.

[squark]

Now I get it though. It's what I call a type mask, and surprisingly some Socionists wrote about it -->>> here, it's really worth a read. I would be interested what you think about the concept.
Hm, alright!

Yes, I've seen it. I think that it can help to think of yourself as a kid, before any of the adaptations and baggage that can be added over time and consider what you'd type that kid. Then, compare that to who you are now and what parts of that kid you can still see in yourself. That can help separate mask from the type imo.

To completely mask as another type I think is probably uncommon, but temporary masks often happen with the role function particularly especially if a person thinks that how they're "supposed" to be.

From the article I found this part especially interesting

If a person has a "mask", i.e., if in some way there coexists two types in one person, one can then say that between the type and the mask there is an intertype relationship, which also signals the presence of similar unresolved personal problems.

which suggests a way to find and solve the cause of the issue if there is one. As in if someone is acting as their own supervisor that suggests one kind of problem, whereas if it's their superego they're acting as that's another.

[wasp]

and don't even get me started on the female ExI descriptions

[Bertrand]

yes to add what squark said I think your earliest childhood memories can be very instructive as to how you perceived the world and what your concerns were... I would even say it was your consciousness itself (the ego) that emerged at that point and that is why we can't remember prior to a certain point, because there was no ego formed yet

those earliest memories are your most simple 2 function ego

[ooo]

I've read somewhere that ego appears around 7!

[Bertrand]

I also feel like traumatic experiences centered around certain kind of information can "lock" you in to a type because it sort of becomes your life mission to sort out that trauma and not repeat it

[wasp]

agreed but I don't think people finding it difficult to fit themselves within the system is the only problem

the system itself presents its own set of issues because now you're trying to fit a dynamic being into a static yet incomplete system where most of the descriptions were written by a small subset of people who are assessing your type through the lens of their own type, which in turn breeds inadvertently biased type descriptions that attempt to measure your strengths/weaknesses against their own strengths/weaknesses. the system drew inspiration from jung's observations, which I love, but they're still in the process of sorting out the mountain of disparities between vastly different people who belong to the same type. for all we know, socionics could be discarded 10-20 years from now. socionics could be just yet another foundation for a future system which splits the populace up into not 8 types, not 16 types, not 16 types with two subtypes each (oh, and hello DCNH!) we may very come full circle and find out, "hey, I guess we should've stuck with basic psychology because what we hypothesized all those years ago was disproved by the simple fact that we've got several forums worth of anecdotal evidence that everyone more or less has a different opinion on everyone else's type! upon further evaluation, we've concluded that most of those typings were influenced by everyone's biased perceptions of each other. tbh I have no clue how we missed this..."

with that said, I think socionics is interesting. I just don't think the descriptions matter as much as the simple notion that enough people (that's us xo) have noticed similar patterns play out in reality, which adds a sprinkle of validity to the system, but I think it's important to view the system as a work-in-progress, otherwise we start questioning and defending facets of our identity (fuck you Strat) based solely on the grounds that some people just have different opinions than we do, and that's okay. there's a corny life lesson somewhere in there, maybe even a clever joke, but I can't quite get to it

seriously though those ExI female type descriptions are like a tumor in my left hip. "here we have the ESI specimen at the grocery store. watch closely as she struggles to choose between two objects. she will stand in line complaining for half an hour, she will have a mid-life crisis in the middle of the grocery store because she is that incapable of choosing between two objects. this is why she needs the LIE. he will fill her with a sense of purpose... and a baby, because as we all know, the ESI's sole purpose in life is to have a baby. but what she does before and after being impregnated? beats me, honestly."

[darya]

Yeah, I kind of hate the whole Fi feminist and political correctness correlation thing I've seen on here. Most type me Fi base, but I hate political correctness, love freedom of speech, do not consider myself a feminist, and am a libertarian. I was raised a democrat, leaned more left in my youth, before I dabbled a bit in anarchy. But now I just consider myself a libertarian. Recently my family started leaning republican>democrat. My state is also red...there are more republicans here than democrats.

Radical sjw folks are predominantly Fi egos from what I've seen, but that's just one branch of lefties. I categorize myself centre-left and I don't share the same views with radical anything, I'm not a fan of kumbaya hippie people or PC police, I don't feel any burning need to protect the environment and I feel violence and force, army and police are definitely needed in many cases - you can't let others fuck with you and retards of this planet should be eliminated. I do have very strong opinions about public welfare and exploitation of poor and disadvantaged though and also about any outdated notions about gay marriage, different types of families, racism, etc. So I'm torn and also have problems with putting myself in a box - anything radical is probably the problem.

[Bertrand]

fuck strat

i think your problem is you're expecting too much from the behavioral descriptions when its taken for granted that there's a implied neutral background (or explicitly biased, like how Strat paints ESI/LIE) and the behavior is set against it as a reference point so as to illustrate their relationship to the world, not as a concrete deterministic set of behaviors that themselves indicate type directly (which as you point out run the gamut based on differing backgrounds).. in other words they're not literal indicators of type but rather paint a picture of how the person as a whole relates to a impliedly neutral world... one must be capable of doing the math on the fly to see how as the ground underfoot could shift so too would the behavior.. the point is to paint a picture so you could plug them into different circumstances and see how perhaps behavior would be different, but fundamentally relate back to their type and how it relates to whatever environmental factors present themselves... I mean that is after all what type is, not a set of behavior

[wasp]

@darya nah that was to me, you good

i think your problem is you're expecting too much from the behavioral descriptions when its taken for granted that there's a implied neutral background and the behavior is set against it as a reference point so as to illustrate their relationship to the world, not as a concrete deterministic set of behaviors that themselves indicate type directly (which as you point out run the gamut based on differing backgrounds).. in other words they're not literal indicators of type but rather paint a picture of how the person as a whole relates to a impliedly neutral world... one must be capable of doing the math on the fly to see how as the ground underfoot could shift so too would the behavior

most definitely, and that's a good point because I agree that they're merely generalizations and that the specific manifestations of those generalizations shouldn't be taken at face value, but if you read Strat's more in-depth observations (which I reckon you probably have) then you'll find that a lot of those observations are negatively tainted by her own individual perception of people and relationships, which stem mainly from her perception of herself. there was one article in particular where she described ESI as being "in constant conflict with the entire socion" before going into scrupulous detail about why and how they're incapable of getting along with each individual type. stuff like that should be kept separate from socionics because regardless if you can glean the gist of what she's saying, I don't see how that contributes to a better understanding of socionics. that's the only part I really take issue with

don't get me wrong though, her quadral complexes articles are still among my favorites

[Bertrand]

that's the only part I really take issue with

I think that's true, but I think of it more as a rare treat than a scab that someone went her route and gave personalized first hand perspectives on type, because we have very many "objective" accounts but not very many personalized ones (especially from true experts), so I like Strat for the same reasons you dislike her

your point is well taken though, I can see how it might rub people the wrong way

I think this might indicate a preference for Fe v Fi for what its worth... it seems to me you find her impolite ("rude" is a favorite watchword of Fe) and rather "ethically biased" rather than "logical" in developing her system, Fi v Ti

[darya]

Yeah, this video pretty much sums up why I don't consider myself left.

Very interesting video, makes a lot of sense. Will look further into this guy.

[darya]

@darya nah that was to me, you good



most definitely, and that's a good point because I agree that they're merely generalizations and that the specific manifestations of those generalizations shouldn't be taken at face value, but if you read Strat's more in-depth observations (which I reckon you probably have) then you'll find that a lot of those observations are negatively tainted by her own individual perception of people and relationships, which stem mainly from her perception of herself. there was one article in particular where she described ESI as being "in constant conflict with the entire socion" before going into scrupulous detail about why and how they're incapable of getting along with each individual type. stuff like that should be kept separate from socionics because regardless if you can glean the gist of what she's saying, I don't see how that contributes to a better understanding of socionics. that's the only part I really take issue with

don't get me wrong though, her quadral complexes articles are still among my favorites

Strat is biased as hell, very unprofessional descriptions imo.

[Bertrand]

eat the scab!!


















































eat it..!

[wasp]

I think that's true, but I think of it more as a rare treat than a scab that someone went her route and gave personalized first hand perspectives on type, because we have very many "objective" accounts but not very many personalized ones (especially from true experts), so I like Strat for the same reasons you dislike her

your point is well taken though, I can see how it might rub people the wrong way

I think this might indicate a preference for Fe v Fi for what its worth... it seems to me you find her impolite ("rude" is a favorite watchword of Fe) and rather "ethically biased" rather than "logical" in developing her system, Fi v Ti

maybe, but it'd be more insightful if we had each type representative do a separate evaluation. especially in the case of Strat's duality descriptions which tend to take precedence over all other duality descriptions (unless she's the only one - all I know is that her articles pop up more than anyone else's) because as much as I find them enlightening, in their own lil Strat way, which borders on terrifying and stomach-dropping, it's like asking a monogamist to evaluate a polyamorous relationship. which is just my long-winded way of saying that I think we need gulenko to renovate the entire system

and from now until the end of forever I maintain that the only appealing duality description is SLI-IEE