maybe I've been super playful this whole time but you're just casually misinterpreting it as me holding serious sentiments that are in actuality mere exaggerations
Sure it's a deciding factor. There are different qualities you look for in different styles of interaction, some of which that are relevant and some that aren't.
Sure it should. Why would you say otherwise?
Where did I say I get on fine with "most people?"
This is because you're a blind socionics fanboy without any substantive independent thought on the matter.
Hah, not too long ago @Narc and I were talking about how saying "I'm intelligent" automatically puts someone into "I'm actually a moron" by default.
You can dismiss a terrible idea and not be in someone's conflicting quadra. Sturgeon's Law.
And how long did your relationship with Radio last, praytell?
Typing words on a computer box != being violent. You seem to have a really poor intuitive sense for when someone's being facetious and not.
It's not so much I'm 'engaged with reality' as much as I'm engaged in my own emotional experience that's passively derived from 'reality.' You'll usually find Gamma NTs on here talking about things totally divorced from that side of their psyches.
One person has said this, and I have no idea why sienna made that comparison because it's patently wrong.
I sure as hell hope it isn't
Because they are relevant differences that should not be the burden of socionics to answer.
I have no issue with her as EII and some sx/sp. We haven't talked much one-on-one before, but from what I've read we have very similar outlooks on relationships w/ others.
methinks your critical reading skills need some exercise. the hilarious demon hellspawn quip was directed at so > sx types, which as @Radio mentioned before was excruciatingly tongue-in-cheek. I didn't expect anybody to take as a serious attack on any type.
I get along with some EIIs, not so much with others, for reasons already expounded upon at length by people like @anndelise.
ugh critical reading skills jesus
I'm not going to play by your rules for argument just because it's convenient to you.
Same as before
I wanted attention.
Except that other system does explain the differences perfectly well, dingus.
ugh this is why socionics arguments are impossible. It doesn't matter how I explain any of the IEs at this point because it's all easy fodder for half-assed reinterpretation and nitpicky bullshit. Most of what I understand of socionics happens at a base experiential level that makes it really tough to explain verbally.
Of course I am, that's literally the thing I just said.
No, I'm saying that I don't identify with that description in part because it's shitty and dumb.