i decided to just respond to this whole damn thing.
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 disagree that i'm submissive to rules. i often think rules are lame.I strongly disagree that you aren't ESE...you are too submissive to rules and those in charge for any other type but ESE.
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.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 about if they are "troublemakers." it's more about if they are psychos.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.![]()
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 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.
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 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.
yes well you told chips about how she was ILI. there was more than one post. i was actually considering it for a moment.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.
ha. ha. ha. no fucking way.the only other type you could be is LSE
so LSEs have the "big extroverted energy" while ESEs don't? what is a "delta ST pillar" anyway?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.
see, what on earth is this? delta NFs mimic and mirror and are phony. ok.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![]()
that's kind of creepy.and makes a nice little fort for you to play inside of. You just have to give it a chance to settle in.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.)
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.Wacey gets a little fiery sometimes, but like i said, Wacey isn't an obvious ESE.
i agree with this actually.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.
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...
lol.My list provides that, better than any other list you will come across. It's a total success.
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.![]()



