Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I think the gang on Scooby Doo must all be Beta... Except Freddie... That a-hole.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Oh wow that musician, I've never heard anything like it, they were . . . really average.
This artist, did you see the detail, and color and the emotion in their work, amazing, no, more than amazing, they were really average.
That stunt driver, his control of the vehicle, speed and accuracy was a beautiful sight to behold, don't think I've ever seen anything so . . . really average.
That sharpshooter, perfect shot every time, impressed by how really average he was.
If you were actually Ti base, you wouldn't be so pompous with your Ti. You're basically jerking it to the fact you Ti'd something lol
Jeremy8419. now Kill4Me
Any who was repeatedly typed to dual, I suppose has a good probability to gather all 16 types.
We need "Club 16" here for such lucky ones who were typed to all 16 types. If here are such victims of Socionics typings, they have moral right to create such club (a forum's thread, for the beginning).
Argumentation... sense... Not more than any other doubtfull specualtions to rather random typings wich match with any other in <50% of cases (when both sides type purely themselves). You may choose any typer and become the "true believer" of his demagogy "argumentation". There many such to choose, not much in English so.
type me plz
My typing is innacurate here. It's not that I don't like IEE for myself, I get along with IEEs well, but we're not identicals. But have we chatted in some manner, please explain to me on which basis you're typing ME as ANYTHING because you never talked to me as far as I remember. Well you type spider as LSI so your typings are totally invalid from thereon.
What is my type from this recent pic? For everyone who wants to share an opinion. Besides me it's my grandmother who's LSI and very old and strong, my mother who is ESI. I cannot see a type for myself apart from LSE or LIE.
11794415_10152885105302531_7027604523450933544_o.jpg
That's funny. I've got Jack as a pretty clear LSE-Si. Initially, I thought Jack was an ENTp. But I started to come across markers that were very delta-ish. I then saw Jack as an ENFp, but eventually retyped him into LSE. Let's be clear, LSE-Si. I could list a number of reasons for that but I will just boil it down here to the key markers for telling the two apart, as referenced through two things he posted on the WSS thread which absolutely rule him out from being ILE and make LSE your best bet.
Keep in mind, that with ILE and LSE, you are dealing with two types both more than capable of starting up a socionics community. So you have to peel off a few more layers than just that to see the differences. The first thing that stands out is that Jack is missing the ILE’s antagonism towards interdependent arrangements:
Jack is a team player. ILEs aren’t team players. They don't share well. They don’t function well in team scenarios. ILEs only start communities where they can set themselves up in the role of ultimate knower. You will find this to be true of both subtypes. LSEs are more democratic in the way they go about forming communities. When ILEs form communities they keep the distribution of knowledge centered in their Ne. their own intuition/insight/wisdom is the main reason for the group’s existence as far as the ILE is concerned and they wear that reason on their sleeve like a badge of honor. The way Jack structures the 'type services' around a DiagnosticTeam dilutes the primacy of his own intuition in favor of backing a group of people. Jack is not using the group to set himself up as a special authority on socionics but rather as a kind of crusader for classical socionics. An ILE doesn't wind up in that position given the range of their cognition, but it's very typical for an LSE to assume the function of bringing about a more cooperative like decision making process and wanting to back the knowledge of others even more than their own. George W bush was noted for surrounding himself with smart people like Colin Powell when he became president. It was a key part of his 'admin style'. The formation of committees is very LSE.Jack Oliver Aaron:
The interview is paid for and the participant then has my analysis along with the opinions of our WSS Diagnostic Team which new people have to demonstrate considerable ability to be invited to. For the most part, we reach the same or similar conclusions and from our conclusions (and given explanations) the participant can decide on their typing. This is all to improve the objectivity and quality of my service but even without these measures, my service is not a scam.
But let’s be flexible. For argument’s sake, let’s say that an ILE did set up a Diagnostic Team. They most certainly would not be satisfied that the diagnostic team reaching the same conclusions as them. For an ILE, unanimous consent leaves their Ne stifled and claustrophobic, whereas, for Jack, it seems more objective. The more people that agree with an ILE the more ILE will assume a piece of the truth is being lost, not accounted for. it's far more typical for the LSE to be the one asserting consensus truth as evidence of objectivity.
The second nugget of insight into his type is where he lays out his reason for starting WSS:
the last sentence in the second paragraph is the key sentence as it shows Jack dismissing innovations to classical socionics as controversial. He is firmly entrenched in maintaining the classical stance, to the point of segregating a large segment of the socionics population, unless they assimilate their views into the classical position. This is so LSE I find it remarkable that Jack could even self-type ILE given how antagonistic Ne is to his own aims and cognition.An answer to the solution is the forming of a World Socionics Society, a group for all socionists to unite under and affiliate the various Socionics societies around the world to.
The WSS operates with the use of an established canon for Socionics based on the Classical Socionics found on Wikisocion. It accepts Model A as the foundation of Socionics and only canonises those dichotomies or qualities directly deducible from the structure of Model A and function and IM element dichotomies. This would rule out more controversial theories such as VI, subtypes (including DCNH) plus/minus elements and the Butterfly Model as well as a few of the Reinin traits such as Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result and Asking/Declaring
So let’s say one of Jack's main goals in starting WSS is to try and save/maintain/grow Classical Socionics and to keep out what he considers the outliers. First of all, ILEs would be slow to cast out any innovation to socionics theory as controversial. Second of all, an ILE’s natural reflex is to find value in whatever theory they regard as controversial, if even just for the fact it is controversial. This is not the function of ILEs to set up a bulwark against the controversial. It was Howard Stern that was constantly being censored by the government for his controversial radio style…it was not Howard Stern calling for the censoring of controversial radio hosts and requesting such styles of radio MCing be ruled out. ILEs are the proponents, pioneers, and founders of the controversial in whatever endeavor they pursue. Their function is to bring controversy into your parlor regardless of whether their interest is in. ILEs are quite often the ones ushering in the new eras/theories/models and pressuring themselves to keep ahead of the curve in their chosen endeavors. Jack's focus on "maintaining-the-fort" against its perceived unruly and controversial invaders is a lot more conducive to Te than it is to Ne. ILEs are like the last people on earth to be found trying to curb the tide. IN many cases, they are themselves the agents of the controversy.
Jack also says his main goal is unification. He's out to unite. Both ILE and LSE can speak in platitudes, but ILE platitudes speak more to the primacy of their own expertise bordering on a "prophetic" belief in their own intuition. Jack's unity theme also brings up another parallel with George W Bush. Bush employed that same exact theme when he had run for president: "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider” but in practice Bush had a very divisive and militant outlook towards the democrats. Jack takes a divisive and militant stance towards Reinin, Model A, VI but in the same stroke pulls out the bush-like rhetoric of unity to contextualize that stance.
At the end of the day....It's just all very LSE-Ti.
First inclination is SLE but really, it's just a picture, and it's not like I *don't* see LSE. Based on what you say you're probably safer with LSE. But if you want me to type you from what i've seen in the chatbox I'd give an edge toward SLE. Again, not saying LSE is unthinkable.
Hey, @Contra. Type me. I wanna know your thought process.