IEI. Likely a Fe-subtype.
IEI. Likely a Fe-subtype.
Why? She's clearly some sort of alpha and an extravert. Can we just stop typing all the women IEI by default already? IEI is actually really cool (and misunderstood), but not all of the women are it. She also comes across really rational so I'm pretty sure of ESE rather than ILE (ILEs also stick out like a sore thumb to me).Originally Posted by Chae
SEI would have been my second typing, Alpha NT as a dual does make sense
Why Ip though? She's clearly not. That's the first thing I eliminated aside from putting her in alpha quadra.
Why is Ip eliminated, can you tell me what that means? Ip?
Ni > Te for her. Her grasp on time matters supersedes matters of work.
@lilac, which Block were you more comfortable with answering, I. or VII.? Because I got negative vibes from Block I (pyramids, "can't handle my work", glad to meet specialists). Block VII was more positively connotated and well developed (forgiving, grateful... you used possibilities (Ne) to compensate here but time perception was present.)
Ip includes the types INTp, INFp, ISFp, ISTp.Why is Ip eliminated, can you tell me what that means? Ip?
Guys I looked up Hugo description and it is very nice and I am picturing a classmate of mine described to a t when I read it, but it does not fit me at all besides several points. I tend to be late for things and I have a happy expression. Also my facial features fit the picture above the Hugo description. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...SFj-by-Beskova
But I am slow moving, medium to low energy, always mildly smiling, not very imposing. I have my moments of "glee" and "radiance", but they are short sparks in a private setting with people I am most comfortable with. In the outside world I very much remind of a stereotypical IEI description. I am not efficient fast pace energy, social butterfly and teacher's pet that was described.
I'm actually quite shy, relaxed, slow, quiet and peacemaking creature with short bursts of energy and propensity for emotional manipulation if in danger. People look at me and think "aww" (be this pity for my clumsiness/vulnerability, or thinking I am cute), not "wow" (she's an impressive girl).
Could I be a broken, non-stereotypical ESE? Or maybe an EII that is not too sensitive?
Of course I got that, but I meant, is there something that Ip implies for all of those types, some common trait I clearly do not posses which tells me for certain I can't be one of them.
Ip is also called receptive-adaptive. Your post is ridiculously structured and you also don't seem low-key enough to be an introvert, but that's just my two cents.
I would say block VII.
In block I... I had to pause for every question, think on it for quite a while in order to offer something accurate and sensible that settled in my mind well. It took energy from me.
In block VII... I just went trough it in a breeze. All these topics were well digested in my mind already as they stimulate me and I had answers for them very quickly, needing little mental effort to throw out answers.
As for answers I gave, I can't say which ones I am more satisfied with. In Block I. I can't do better, that's that, in Block VII. I could sit there and ponder and I can't say if I could change my answers for that Block... But then again that just may be nature of those topics and the fact that you can never really close them.
I see. Well thanks for your feedback. If I am extroverted non-Ip and I figure that out, I will be leaving a major false trail. I will study on and consider those other types.
Probably SEI.
The Alpha vibes are heavy.
OK, please don't google this before you answer, but do you relate to these at all?
- "But the best way to do it is - to make discoveries - is to make short imperfect experiments. Don't worry about taking notes, in most cases, but just try things out. Shove nature around a little bit. Disturb it. Disturb an organism, disturb a small system and find out - to see if anything happens. And if it does, you might be on the edge of an important breakthrough, and then you sit down and devise experiments and take notes." - SLI
- "We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers - people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely." - SLI
- Tim Harford's TED talk - SLI, his presentation demonstrates the trial-and-error intrinsic to VS cognitive style
- "My thinking is alike mucking about in puddles - randomized, but following some sort of direction. Playing some music, my head clicks together properly and thoughts come into focused torrents. Headwise, I live in a world of organized chaos." - IEI
- "I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI, forum poster
- "To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI
- "Sometimes the connections and perceptions in my mind are so abstract there are no words to explain. A lot of times I just know something and can’t explain it - a premonition that’s hard to articulate. If it’s strong I usually say something or explore where it’s coming from, but I will keep it to myself if people don’t seem to understand. Informed decisions require lots of information and looking at a situation from as many different points of view as possible. I find it amusing, the absurdity in everyday situations." - IEI
- "Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI
- Videos exemplifying the search for attractors: Lorenz Attractor Simulation, Exploring Strange Attractors.
- "You imply that nature intends something. That's just you projecting your own human notions unto something that's utterly inhuman in every way. There is no natural equilibrium, no balanced system that we're parts of. There is no thought behind it. Nature is purposeless, mindless, violent, self consuming chaos, only it's so slow we barely notice it. It does not "hint" and it does not "intend" us to reproduce. We're completely meaningless results of a 4 billion long, automatic and completely mindless process of small random changes and sifting by natural selection. Whatever purpose you see here is made up by you." - LIE
- "Sometimes the time gap in between Point A and Point B is so far in between that it allows me to think of all the things I could have improved upon to have a better point B (interestingly enough while this is happening my mind is also hovering over Point C). It's this point that I begin spiraling as the immensity of all the ways I could have made it better weighs on my shoulders. Somewhere in that chaos, the thought of "OMG I'm running out of time" crosses, until of course one settles. An epiphany hits and BAM you realize, "You're way ahead in time and all things are falling into place (not perfect as envisioned) but they are aligning as you've imagined." At this point, I think Point B is just about to meet you face-to-face at the exact moment you've predicted and Point C is already peaking over in the horizon." - LIE
- An MMO game likely incepted by someone with V-S cog-style
- Visual illustration of VS cognition in music video
A lot of times extraverts can be shy and rationals can be late or make a mess for various reasons. Those aren't the main things you should look for, nor are individual function descriptions ("cares about time so").
Edit: Here are the other ones. Again, don't google this until you've decided on which one you think you relate to the most. (Personally I see the first one but I'm also sort of juggling other things right now and that might be clouding my perception.)
2.
- "But I do think in complications and contingencies, and balance a lot of conflicting possibilities in my mind all at once." - EIE
- "... my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me." - EIE
- "I have a horrible talent for entertaining and enhancing oppositions in my mind. If two things don't go together, I put them together in my perceptions. And I get paralyzed or something. I'm basically nuts. It's that I really see how a thing and its opposite fit together, locked up. And that can bring me a huge amount of pleasure, to see that. The downside seems to be that I can't ... um, function. These are gestalts. And so a good friend will come in with a nice hammer and start breaking it into pieces." - EIE
- "The best I can represent it as would be something like a scale that has weight being constantly poured onto it, and the ENFJ's role is to dictate where the weight falls in order to maintain proper balance. I think it makes a lot of sense for Aristocratic EJs: rational aristocracy is all about maintaining a social structure, so its fitting that the Ejs have a style of thinking that supports their role, one focused on "keeping things together." The mental assumption of Ej temperament is that everything is in motion, and that it should be organized, and that energy needs to be exerted in order to maintain organization; the Democrat Ejs (ENTjs) being the transition point to aristocratic quadras, take a more generative role with Vortex thinking, finding the right opportunity to promote cathectic action; once the shift is made into an extant collective, the Aristocratic Ejs (ENFjs) take on the role of holding everything together once the opportunity to organize has been capitalized upon." - EIE
- "I wanted to set up a situation where there are hundreds of sentences all of which are plausibly true to someone, but then in effect pose the question "what do you do, how, for example, would you govern given all these conflicting opinions?" - LSE, aristocratic EJ
- "I feel like a triple-agent or a fence-sitter. ... I don't think I switch sides so much as I'm thoroughly a part of both sides. In the final battle, my friend and I will just be hitting ourselves." - LSE
- "All that we identify with in reality was all brought about by the psychic current of introversion. Extraversion is like a contra-density, a force of expansion and inflation that prevents the complete nullification of all ideas and concepts, and the collapse of all psychic energy in the universe into recursive introversion. It is the mirror image of introversion in every respect, and has to be in order to function as a perfect eternal balance giving rise to infinite truths in infinite forms." - ILI
- "It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused." - ILI
- "I tend to view myself in terms of certain attributes. Like for example, I'm intelligent, foolish, amiable, distant, novelty-loving, rut-oriented, independent, afraid of losing people, savor the moment, and am pretty indolent. I have my moments, both ways. Sometimes at the same time!" - SEI (notice the juxtaposition of the opposites)
- "I suppose what I meant by grouping all these people in one thread is that I think although they're not the same type. Juxtaposing clearly different individuals side by side helps me to see the psychology of them. That's probably super obvious to everyone but me, but for some reason last night this was like a lame epiphany since usually when I think of someone's type I think of them alone, like an island, or something." - SEI
- How DA and CD thinking styles complement each other, described by ILE: "The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing. DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution. So for function A(param X) {if X = b then Y else Z} DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable. By supply X, Y or Z is determined. I don't create if-then-else propositions. By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result."
- Tao Te Ching by Lao-tzu exemplifies D-A thinking style. Notice the juxtaposition of the opposites and numerous negativist, dynamic constructions. The verses have a distinct back-and-forth rocking style.
- "I'm not raging against socionics, do not see a point in that in the first place. To me, it is the same, people who are against and people who are for, same boat, different opinion but still same boat. If it wasn't some other scenario, those people wouldn't be even here and just said "meh", and left. So they're a part of the whole to me, a cog, thinking they're going to tinker with it and it is going to sink. Well, true believers just tighten the screws seeing that and balance is achieved. So you all can rage all you want, for and against, for you all are wearing shackles that you put on yourself willingly and enjoy it. For example: Subject A: Socionics is bullshit, Subject B: Socionics is real: A+B = Socionics. Classic push and pull. - LSE
3.
- "I see flashes of instantaneous understanding of the cause and effect of every possible action I could take at that very moment, and I choose extremely quickly which one is the best choice." - LSI
- "There is like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (If I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job & work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). When I was younger, interacting with people was a huge flowchart for me, because I had no emotional intelligence (and it is debatable if I still do). I would make a complete flowchart in my mind so I could control the interaction and know exactly how a person was going to react so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. For example, I would plan an entire interaction in my mind, "I'm going to say "hi, how are you?" her possible responses will be: nothing, something non-commital, and something engaging. If the person says nothing, I will try again and stop conversation if they don't respond. If the person says something non-committal, I'll leave. If the person says something engaging, I will start such-and-such topics of conversation with him or her: X, Y, Z." - LSI
- How DA and CD thinking styles complement each other, described by ILE: "The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing. DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution. So for function A(param X) {if X = b then Y else Z} DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable. By supply X, Y or Z is determined. I don't create if-then-else propositions. By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result."
- "If one asks how one's mind works, he notices areas where it is (perhaps incorrectly) understood, that is, where one recognizes rules. One sees other areas where he lacks rules. One could fill this in by postulating chance or random activity. But this too, by another route, exposes the self to the same indignity of remote control. We resolve this unpleasant form of M** by postulating a third part, embodying a will or spirit or conscious agent. But there is no structure in this part; one can say nothing meaningful about it, because whenever a regularity is observed, its representation is transferred to the deterministic rule region. The will model is thus not formed from a legitimate need for a place to store definite information about one's self; it has the singular character of being forced into the model, willy-nilly, by formal but essentially content-free ideas of what the model must contain." - LSI or ILE
- "I think here lies the problem with the system. There has been no consistent principle put forth in the past five years, of how the system actually works. Frankly I thought Socionics was a good theory until baseless arguments begin on how the system works." - LSI
- "This is why socionics is so confusing. For some people it means one thing, for another something else. There needs to be a set description with no chance for uncertainty." - LSI, (People of types with C-D style of thinking seem to experience the most difficulty learning socionics, perhaps because some of basic axioms of socionics have never been clearly stated. The high levels of ambiguity embedded in socionics present a challenge to C-D thinkers in attempting to grasp it. V. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has also made a comment that socionics is easier to grasp for Result types, which rely on VS or HP thinking styles.)
4.
- "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" - SLE
- "Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? If I got them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might do stuff just the same. Oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation." - IEE
- "When shit hits the fan, I stop all thinking and just do a bunch of stuff, and then everything turns out awesome. Seems I'm most comfortable when all hell is breaking loose." - IEE
- "There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior. Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression. There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics." - IEE
- "I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI
- "I don't really focus on what they're doing or why. It's just not important to me. I'll meet someone for the first time and pay hardly any attention to what they're doing, tbh. Usually people say the wrong things or look awkward at first because they're nervous, shy, or just not open to me yet—I'm not going to analyze the things they say. It just isn't of much significance to me. However, I do tend to gather impressions of people when I first meet them, but it's by observing something else. I suppose you could call it a person's undertone? Like if you meet some girl who acts extroverted and bubbly, it's not hard for me to look past that and see one general face to her—a more solid, internal, static thing that serves as a core despite her outward expressions. I guess it's like spotting depression in someone even if they act like they're on top of the world. And yeah, if I do meet someone that looks like they're acting against who they are, it feels obvious to me. That sort of impression tends to last too, and I'll wonder if they'll ever start showing who [I think] they are. And even though I'm not going to really judge them for it, I still can't get over the sense of internal friction they give off, and I feel like I can't get close to people like that. I do trust my impressions, though. How I feel about them can and probably will change over time, but who I think they are pretty much stays the same." - ESI
- "Lets say that you are in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing, rules such as gravity for example. In this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However, you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII
- "My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII
- "Ne delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. There is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII
- LII's explanation of HP thinking: "It is above all stable. Where Positive/Process strives for impact, Negative/Result strives for control. It involves a kind of sluggish maneuverability where the person has the ability to quickly change course while at the same time not making a lot of movements. The best analogy for this is a kind of kung-fu fighter that stands still and only steps out of the way when the opponent throws a punch at him. The above goes for the EPs as much as it goes for the IJs. Negative/Result EP types (ESTp, ENFp) can look a little IJ'ish for this reason. Their level of volatility/abruptness is lower than that of ENTp and ESFp. ... Negative/Result/Static is about simply not acting. Positioning yourself strategically and waiting until the right moment to move arrives. This is not multitasking so much as it is simply being ready. ... Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there - slow to understand, but very relaxed control once familiar with the topic."
- "I just started writing the script and kept writing, and it evolved and evolved. It’s like filling in a crossword puzzle. You know that word has got to be abracadabra, right? Because there’s no other word it can be until you get halfway through and you see that the word down the middle has a P in the middle of abracadabra and there is no P. So therefore, one of them has to be wrong. They can’t both be right. And the same thing is true about structuring a drama. You go along and say, "I know this has got to happen at the end of the second act," until you realize you’ve spent two years, and it doesn’t work. So something’s wrong. Either the first and third acts are wrong or the second act is wrong. How am I going to fix it? The structure is the whole thing — getting the movie to eat up 15 lines on a sheet of paper so you can write it." - SLE (This quote illustrates the problem solving aspect of negativist H-P thinking. It is similar to the above quote by an LII - the SLE likewise sees his puzzle as a whole picture, then he simply proceeds to fill in the blanks and work out the particulars, since for Result/Involutionary types, the thinking flows from general outlook to specifics.)
- "Well, you can’t help but make a distinct movie. If you give yourself up to the form, it’s going to be distinctively your own because the form’s going to tell you what’s needed. That’s one of the great things I find about working in drama is you’re always learning from the form. You’re always getting humbled by it. It’s exactly like analyzing a dream. You’re trying to analyze your dreams. You say, “I know what that means; I know exactly what that means; why am I still unsettled?” You say, “Let me look a little harder at this little thing over here. But that’s not important; that’s not important; that’s not important. The part where I kill the monster — that’s the important part, and I know that means my father this and that. But what about this little part over here about the bunny rabbit? Why is the bunny rabbit hopping across the thing? Oh, that’s not important.” Making up a drama is almost exactly analogous to analyzing your dreams" - SLE (From main article: "According to Aristotle, Holographic cognition corresponds to explanation by structural or formative causes. Aristotle called it the structure of form. Returning to the sculptor example, the cause of the sculpture is its latent form, which the sculptor merely sets free by cutting away excess marble.")
Other people are going to get onto me for using weird and controversial things to type people but eh, I don't care
It's not weird or controversial, but too muchOther people are going to get onto me for using weird and controversial things to type people but eh, I don't careHow much is needed to get a good impression?
I wanted to know if she related to the first block, if that wasn't clear. If she didn't, I wanted to know which of the other 3 she did. As I said, I can see that her thought processes look like the first block from how she answered the questions, but I want a bit more confirmation, as well as to do a bit of experimenting
Also, these are weird and controversial. Most people here seem to only look at IEs and that's it (they also seem to use MBTI-like definitions of said IEs and consider them in isolation). The things I posted are derivative from Reinins, which I've heard are supposed to be weird and controversial.
Also, some of the writing style legitimately comes off like an English equivalent to (not translation of) Kafka. Compare:
(Most people here fight me over his type as well though, but even if you don't read German you can see the structural similarities even if not the other ones.)
Last edited by Pallas; 10-09-2016 at 11:46 PM.
This one, no. I don't make discoveries by poking and prodding nature. I observe it flowing as one, connected, related, complete... I start with simple truths and reach ideas I then test against the nature I see. The natural system is the intact standard and the idea is the one who is disturbed, poked and prodded later on.
When an idea is faulty and it fails to make sense of the world, it tends to be refined, or discarded. But disrupting nature may reveal something about characteristics of minute phenomenon, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a wasted effort. Like using a microscope to study if elephants are herbivores.
Most people are synthesizers. People who are not, are simply stupid.
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers - people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely." - SLI
People who are, are just average. We call it common sense.
And people who are smarter and older just have more experience/skill synthesizing and do it better. We call this wisdom.
?? lost me
Tim Harford's TED talk - SLI, his presentation demonstrates the trial-and-error intrinsic to VS cognitive style
This is close to it. It's a whole complete, a flow of colors of this world as if leaking on an artist's paper, out of which clear ideas emerge to the surface giving a moment of clarity and sharpness... (ideas that I later apply and refine)
"My thinking is alike mucking about in puddles - randomized, but following some sort of direction. Playing some music, my head clicks together properly and thoughts come into focused torrents. Headwise, I live in a world of organized chaos." - IEI
Yes.
"I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI, forum poster
No, typing for me is still a mystery. But this is how I asses others when I try to understand them. I discover myself and then I try to resonate with them. Once in resonance I amplify power and using my own instrument I try to play their music, experience their emotions and minds. But I thought everyone did this. How is this IEI?
"To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI
True I often "feel" what I cannot say, but I know how to put it into words at least halfway decently if I take some time to ground it, even if it sounds "poetic" and nonsensical, it is describable. My thoughts aren't so abstract. And I do have an inability to make decisions making myself overloaded with information and possibilities. I then delegate that decision-making so so gladly.
"Sometimes the connections and perceptions in my mind are so abstract there are no words to explain. A lot of times I just know something and can’t explain it - a premonition that’s hard to articulate. If it’s strong I usually say something or explore where it’s coming from, but I will keep it to myself if people don’t seem to understand. Informed decisions require lots of information and looking at a situation from as many different points of view as possible. I find it amusing, the absurdity in everyday situations." - IEI
Yes.
"Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI
No, no, no, no, no, no... an so on. NO.
"You imply that nature intends something. That's just you projecting your own human notions unto something that's utterly inhuman in every way. There is no natural equilibrium, no balanced system that we're parts of. There is no thought behind it. Nature is purposeless, mindless, violent, self consuming chaos, only it's so slow we barely notice it. It does not "hint" and it does not "intend" us to reproduce. We're completely meaningless results of a 4 billion long, automatic and completely mindless process of small random changes and sifting by natural selection. Whatever purpose you see here is made up by you." - LIE
More you learn about this "chaos", more you discover how perfect, sensible and complete it is. More you learn, dumber and more ignorant you feel as to how it actually works. To claim you see a purpose and harmony, a perfection of the world around us is less a matter of belief as it can be easily intuited and observed at every level of science. To claim chaos and accidents merely put into place by natural laws (which btw also "just are") is to RELIGIOUSLY believe there is no God, out of sheer desire to have some sense of control in a life that is like a leaf in the wind.
"Kinda, yeah... But I tend to have only two points. The one that ends the process and the one I'm in. If I am thinking about B, I first had to have thought about C. Had I not done that, B would be ignored. Once C is considered, I can think about as many points in between as possible.Sometimes the time gap in between Point A and Point B is so far in between that it allows me to think of all the things I could have improved upon to have a better point B (interestingly enough while this is happening my mind is also hovering over Point C). It's this point that I begin spiraling as the immensity of all the ways I could have made it better weighs on my shoulders. Somewhere in that chaos, the thought of "OMG I'm running out of time" crosses, until of course one settles. An epiphany hits and BAM you realize, "You're way ahead in time and all things are falling into place (not perfect as envisioned) but they are aligning as you've imagined." At this point, I think Point B is just about to meet you face-to-face at the exact moment you've predicted and Point C is already peaking over in the horizon." - LIE
???
An MMO game likely incepted by someone with V-S cog-style
Visual illustration of VS cognition in music video
There, does that help?
Yeah. Not a lot, but always a few. Some have to be discarded, I'm not a hoarder.But I do think in complications and contingencies, and balance a lot of conflicting possibilities in my mind all at once." - EIE
My vision of the world and comes out of me is rarely dictated by the world. The vision is balanced, but I am slow to react to the world, until I see how the world reacts to my vision first."... my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me." - EIE
Doesn't give me pleasure. Mild amusement, frustration, curiosity. Then I move on until I find someone to smash it into pieces for me. This description is too dramatic for a pair of probably very dumb ideas."I have a horrible talent for entertaining and enhancing oppositions in my mind. If two things don't go together, I put them together in my perceptions. And I get paralyzed or something. I'm basically nuts. It's that I really see how a thing and its opposite fit together, locked up. And that can bring me a huge amount of pleasure, to see that. The downside seems to be that I can't ... um, function. These are gestalts. And so a good friend will come in with a nice hammer and start breaking it into pieces." - EIE
I don't find myself to be an organizer of anything but my inner world and my alignment with the world's influence on me. If I am to influence anything, it will be slow, thorough, deep and permanent. If I am to change myself, it will be abrupt and premeditated."The best I can represent it as would be something like a scale that has weight being constantly poured onto it, and the ENFJ's role is to dictate where the weight falls in order to maintain proper balance. I think it makes a lot of sense for Aristocratic EJs: rational aristocracy is all about maintaining a social structure, so its fitting that the Ejs have a style of thinking that supports their role, one focused on "keeping things together." The mental assumption of Ej temperament is that everything is in motion, and that it should be organized, and that energy needs to be exerted in order to maintain organization; the Democrat Ejs (ENTjs) being the transition point to aristocratic quadras, take a more generative role with Vortex thinking, finding the right opportunity to promote cathectic action; once the shift is made into an extant collective, the Aristocratic Ejs (ENFjs) take on the role of holding everything together once the opportunity to organize has been capitalized upon." - EIE
Sure."I wanted to set up a situation where there are hundreds of sentences all of which are plausibly true to someone, but then in effect pose the question "what do you do, how, for example, would you govern given all these conflicting opinions?" - LSE, aristocratic EJ
Sometimes."I feel like a triple-agent or a fence-sitter. ... I don't think I switch sides so much as I'm thoroughly a part of both sides. In the final battle, my friend and I will just be hitting ourselves." - LSE
Yes. Lovely."All that we identify with in reality was all brought about by the psychic current of introversion. Extraversion is like a contra-density, a force of expansion and inflation that prevents the complete nullification of all ideas and concepts, and the collapse of all psychic energy in the universe into recursive introversion. It is the mirror image of introversion in every respect, and has to be in order to function as a perfect eternal balance giving rise to infinite truths in infinite forms." - ILI
We Muslims call that Salah. Lady is right, it works."It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused." - ILI
Eh... dunno."I tend to view myself in terms of certain attributes. Like for example, I'm intelligent, foolish, amiable, distant, novelty-loving, rut-oriented, independent, afraid of losing people, savor the moment, and am pretty indolent. I have my moments, both ways. Sometimes at the same time!" - SEI (notice the juxtaposition of the opposites)
Bit I guess.
Nah."I suppose what I meant by grouping all these people in one thread is that I think although they're not the same type. Juxtaposing clearly different individuals side by side helps me to see the psychology of them. That's probably super obvious to everyone but me, but for some reason last night this was like a lame epiphany since usually when I think of someone's type I think of them alone, like an island, or something." - SEI
Interesting. Didn't think of this before."I'm not raging against socionics, do not see a point in that in the first place. To me, it is the same, people who are against and people who are for, same boat, different opinion but still same boat. If it wasn't some other scenario, those people wouldn't beeven here and just said "meh", and left. So they're a part of the whole to me, a cog, thinking they're going to tinker with it and it is going to sink. Well, true believers just tighten the screws seeing that and balance is achieved. So you all can rage all you want, for and against, for you all are wearing shackles that you put on yourself willingly and enjoy it. For example: Subject A: Socionics is bullshit, Subject B: Socionics is real: A+B = Socionics. Classic push and pull. - LSE
On the face of it, it seems like Se seeking. Valued Se for sure, and likely introversion.
Last edited by Exodus; 10-11-2016 at 10:42 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote