derail-Suz's type

[chemical]

wow so from what you guys are saying, SEIs (esp 9w1) are supposed to let people walk all over them? If so, then we can cross that type out for me...

Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.

And even socionically speaking, there are more abstract definitions of the information elements that bypass these kinds of associations that I think work better if we want to acknowledge variation.

As for 9s, my view of this type isn't as a peacemaker. I'd say inertia is better as a theme -- you could have agreeable 9s and not so agreeable 9s. Personally think there's no reason really a phobic 6 wouldn't be *more* of a peacemaker than a 9 in many cases, due to fear being the motive for peacekeeping. Many 9s strike me as more numb and/or somewhat self-forgetting than peacemaking in nature.

[Exodus]

Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.

Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics. Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.

[Radio]

Jung has almost nothing to do with socionics. Being compliant vs forceful has everything to do with Si vs Se in socionics.

the return of Expationics.

[Suz]

Just to be clear, unless this is a very socionics-specific insight, I would say Jung-wise, etc, Si+feeling has very little to do with being compliant. I personally find the idea that Se~force in the sense of being a forceful person, Si-valuation implying not so much force, to be a rather too narrow a view.

And even socionically speaking, there are more abstract definitions of the information elements that bypass these kinds of associations that I think work better if we want to acknowledge variation.

As for 9s, my view of this type isn't as a peacemaker. I'd say inertia is better as a theme -- you could have agreeable 9s and not so agreeable 9s. Personally think there's no reason really a phobic 6 wouldn't be *more* of a peacemaker than a 9 in many cases, due to fear being the motive for peacekeeping. Many 9s strike me as more numb and/or somewhat self-forgetting than peacemaking in nature.

Thank you for voicing this, I totally agree...

When people start describing "typical" type behaviors and invoking their "XYZ" type friends, I get very skeptical... maybe *their friends* happen to be like that (and other people of XYZ type could be slightly different, maybe even their friends would be different when faced with a different situation), perhaps their friends' behavior is like that for NTR reasons, and who knows how they're typing their friends even... maybe they typed their friends type XYZ because of their such behavioral stereotype...questionable.

Additionally, to comment further not specifically to you chemical, but to the other participants in this thread, my own behavior is very situational. In this particular derail, I wanted to put an end to the put downs i've been receiving, not just from radio but from a select few other forum members, for identifying with a certain type. It was a response to many such instances which i had previously been fairly diffusive of, but it's really getting very annoying and i felt that its not fair to infringe on my personal freedom like that. Even so, i dont think anyone can say that the way i handled this rudeness served to escalate the situation; on the contrary.

Neither was I "imposing" my opinion on anyone -- in fact, i clearly stated people should feel free to type me whatever they please. Generally, while I can feel quite at liberty to express my opinions on things, it goes very much against my style to impose my opinion on others, so i dont really know where that assessment of glam's came from (even if it was made in goodwill). I'm quite tolerant and inclusive of other people's views, in general. Most of the time differences in views actually don't even matter to me, but I do enjoy a nice intellectual discussion, with mutual respect of one another's views, and being agreeable to disagree if the differences are irreconcilable.

At work, i actually have a reputation for diffusing polarized social situations and being quite laid back and calm. My bosses and peers talk about it all the time, and it has been a large part of my character references from my higher ups. Additionally, even on this forum, several people have noticed on multiple occasions my ability to do so, but i do so quite inconspicuously most of the time that often people dont even notice, yet the situation has been diffused. It's similar among my IRL friends as well.This is what i mean when i say, i know myself better than you guys likely do. You dont get this kind of info from me here, because i dont typically care to brag about it or even think to mention it. This is also a reason i've never made a type me thread (this one kind of happened inadvertantly). As i've said, my judgement on my type will trump anyone else's opinions of what they *think* i'm like. I'm here simply trying to learn the socionics, and i make my own final decision on what type i think i am, with good reason.

I do speak up when i need to though. I dont tolerate being a doormat, and i expect to be treated in a courteous fashion, just as I do for everyone else. So if that makes me not SEI, that's totally fine with me.