@Bertrand is causing me to smile/laugh in this thread...what he writes is mostly true and I admire some of these things being attended to.
I however have been through something a little similar with @Beautiful sky (Maritsa) where neither of us thought the other belonged at that stage in Delta....we were both correct...we were both mistyped I think and it took a few years before things began to correct themselves somewhat.
I hope you accomplish in a shorter time frame some of what you have set out to do Bertrand.
1. This is all just a clique formed under the unified feeling of animosity against Adam.
2. This is expected behavior within a social group of people.
Try to get someone who is not biased against Adam to type him.
^I am not biased against @Adam Strange...in fact I quite enjoy reading his posts and have no idea really what has occurred for some to be upset with him.
Ah so your nonchalant attitude towards Gamma only proves that you're not a real Gamma! Burn witch!
And so the true order has been restored, and it only proves that Adam is not a real Gamma...
And so the witch hunt continues...
Your emotions haven't "evolved" during a day, you're so delusional and pretentious. They are volatile and your stances so changeable because you're Irrational. It's precisely the fact that you believe in all of them though they so quickly change and even contradict each other that exposes you as not Rational, and certainly not Logical. And no, I'm not attacking you using typism, it's just an assessment of a Socionics category, Rationals are not superior by definition.
Loyalty to you means not voicing my opinions when it contradicts yours, not addressing a commented targeted at a group that includes me, not denouncing your problematic nature because we're "friends" a.k.a kissing your ass? That's obedience and fear in my book, two beliefs I reject and don't have in my life. I'm not gonna treat people differently when it comes to fuck ups because of my "relationship" with them.
Also, this is an internet forum, they are all volatile and shouldn't be taken so seriously. And we don't know each other at all, we just discussed sexual preferences for a bit, so chill. I owe you nothing, and you "crossed the line" first.
Get over yourself and join the real world. What's this, primary school? "You ain't my friend anymore!"
A very famous reaction gif:
Taylor Swift melodrama When is the album coming? Will I be called a snake and get my own "Bad Blood"?
Did you have to do this?
I was thinking that you could be trusted
Did you have to ruin what was shiny?
Now it's all rusted
Did you think we'd be fine?
Still got scars in my back from your knives
So don't think it's in the past
These kind of wounds they last and they last
Now, did you think it all through?
All these things will catch up to you
And time can heal, but this won't
So if you come in my way
Just don't
As for Bertrand's last posts, there's a lot of truth and sense in them. See, that's objectivity, it has nothing to do with how you feel about a person. Nobody is all the time, but it's possible if we don't get butthurt about everything.
Bertrand isn't a rationalist, he's a postmodernist, he uses a kind of postmodernist thinking which could be called Socionicism, which alludes that our understanding of each others and certain phenomena are ultimately limited to our own subjective perspectives, which are allegedly rooted in our types and functions. He says that our thoughts and feelings are ultimately a matter of different perspectives.
I will further call this thinking Bertrandism, which will make things easier and simpler to understand from now on, because I find this kind of thinking to be unproductive, meaningless and ultimately non-natural and unrealistic. It's the opposite of realism.
Last edited by Singu; 11-15-2017 at 10:13 AM.
There are so called watered down LIEs out there on toop of some loud ones. Tarantino-like lively LIEs much less.
On top of my head I can recall very bland but when you scratch the surfae he is actually The Grinch, has money and has secluded himself from others.
It can be very bland experience that you hardly remember later on.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
For example look at the Temple Grandin thread. In that video, it's really fascinating imo, she talks about how her mind works, how she looks at a problem and what process she goes about it solve it. We don't all have brain scans to show each other like hers, but that's a conversation that can take place, how people differ in how they think. How they look at problems, the way they process and solve them. You think about what the elements mean and how people use them and what this looks like in real life.
And yeah it's not as easy as - he walks like an SLE, you have to really listen to people and what they say, but it's a lot more interesting isn't it?
I don't see this cost/benefit thing, so if you're ever in the mood for details, I'm curious.
fwiw, I typed a lot, including some responses to Bertrand and adam, and deleted it all in favor of making this less about adam's type and more about what Te looks like in general, because ultimately my attitude toward his type ties back to how it doesn't fit into my own understanding and not about "ousting" him - as useful as it might be to have him as a reference point, I'm trying not to be a dick ok! i think some important jump-off points for conversation and possible insights were lost but oh well.
Postmodernism, like socionics, is self-refuting anyways. Bertrand's perspective is just as biased as the rest of us. Why would anyone listen to anyone else if a person's perspective of type is first filtered through their own cognitive functions to begin with.
This makes me think that socionics should have its own Epic Rap Battle about who is the true, infallible, Golden Typist.
yeah its interesting when they use a person as a bulwark how its like its exactly the most useful data point but at the same time it puts you in a double bind because it comes across as obsessing over them or, worse, bullying
I think its fair to say the tr3w gammaz see that for what it is
when all is said and done though, like you said, its a cost/benefit analysis going forward
the shame is what gets left on the cutting room floor because people make it that way, but c'est la vie
To the extent that I care about image I try to reign it in lol..
Well taking Filatova's description here:
She's talking about Te in LIEs in terms of optimization, being most efficient, and economical in both materials and actions. So in other words, not wasting their time/energy/resources on unproductive things and putting effort towards what will give them the most gains. They have to then decide which is the most important of these things, and that's where a value ranking comes in. Is this more important than that, is this worth that? Or is the result worth what I put into it? That whole process can be simplified into cost/benefit. Am I getting the best value for my money/time/effort whatever the measurement criteria is.Originally Posted by Filatova
The thing is, each LIE will have their own set of value judgements as to what matters most, what matters least to them and everything in between. So like the love languages thing, one might say value quality time with their family - their cost/benefit analysis would go something like, "How can I make work most efficient and still earn enough so that I can have more time off with my family?" A different LIE with different values might care most about wealth and status and their cost/benefit would go, "What can I do that will get me the most profit the quickest/easiest?" Someone might even use socionics to come up with something like, "How can I quickly type people/cut through as much effort as possible to get the best relationship?" It's logic of actions, so it's the how and can be applied to things from streamlining a production process to eliminate extra time/steps/material to something small and silly like finding the shortest route to the coffee maker. But it's concrete actions that can be taken.
Everyone puts values on different things and has importance rankings even if not consciously put in those kinds of terms, but not everyone sees things primarily through the lens of logic of actions/economy of actions/what is this worth to me/what will this cost. There are other ways to look at things and structure them, for example instead of logic of actions, Ti is logic of connections - so it's more a question of does this fit here? Fi with ethics of connections might look at things as in - is this what I want? Ni might be something along the lines of where will this lead? I have to give more thought to these, but you can look at things in all of those different ways regardless of type. It's just for Te leads the main way they will look at things is through Te. And it can be simplified to a cost/benefit sort of thinking - trying to get the most out for the least in.
My gut response is that it's probably experience-related as in what they've found to work for them or not but intelligence (and use of Ni or Si depending on which Te-lead it is) might allow them to mentally test the consequences without having to actually test them. My brain is running on 3 hours of sleep and I keep spacing out, so I might be missing something important.
Hmm? I don't think the OP started this thread on the bases you mention here. Besides, there's question around many other forum members' types, including my own, even though not everyone has made themselves into the LIE poster child Adam seems adamant on being lol. Tbh it's a bit weird to me like if there were as much question around my type as there is around Adam's i would at least consider I could have been wrong like look into other types which I've never seen Adam consider.
like an orientation toward the use of 'objective' information (objective in this sense meaning substantiatable, verifiable).
my understanding is mostly based on the stuff i read on wikisocion when i first joined, which wasn't written by Official Russian Socionists, and to some degree, jung, which i know isn't strictly socionics. so if this is bad information, whatever, i can adjust and maybe change my self-typing.
from the wiki"Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behavior, algorithms, movement, and actions.
The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.
Since Te perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a Te type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A Te type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So Te types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.
Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives these types confidence on being well-informed on the same matters, which enables them to enter arguments related to them with confidence on their knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. Another manifestation is an evaluation of external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. It leads to an inclination to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, as well as a sense of self-worth connected on being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that the individual knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible. "
from jung"Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education. The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not. So far as the practical thinking of the merchant, the engineer, or the natural science pioneer is concerned, the objective direction is at once manifest. But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. In such a case, before deciding, we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter event, such ideas must also belong to the category of objective data, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted. "
...also, from the wikisocion esi profile Te section:
"The ESI is attracted to people seen as knowledgeable, as well as truthful and willing to share that knowledge, in matters seen as interesting and useful to the ESI towards achieving productivity and efficiency. Reliable information rather than the finished analysis is what attracts the ESI: facts and explanations, not answers limited to the conclusions, which they tend to see as mere opinions. For the same reason, the ESI avoids people who are inclined to give out unreliable, or simply untruthful, information."
She's @lump, she's lump, she's lump
She's so relaxed.
She's lump, she's lump, she's lump
She likes her facts.
If I am delusional and pretentious, then you are most certainly uptight and reactive.
Well, I can assure you that I'll never ask you to kiss my ass. I imagine that it may not be very hygienic.
What irks me is that you have chosen to pick a fight with me in public, instead of just sending me a PM. Thus you've encouraged the witch hunt that Bertrand is conducting and that shows a serious lack of insight. Look at the wider context of what's going on before you lash out at someone like this again.
If I recall correctly, you were the one who got triggered by a post I made, to somebody else, and which was not even about you.
Stop projecting. You are responsible for your own emotions and definitely need to chill out.
The real world is just another playground to build castles in.
If you want to feature on my debut album, you will have to give me something that I want in return.
Unfortunately for you, I don't tend to find counterphobic 6s sexually attractive, so your options are limited.
The words "Bertrand" and "objectivity" do not belong in the same sentence; they are mutually exclusive
Well socionics tests are in many ways the only objective information we have to determine the type of a stranger whose life has never truly intersected ours in terms of daily behavior / attitutudes / decisions.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well it's like you know, who doesn't care about things like "objective facts", any sane and rational person is going to care about things like that. But then it's also human nature to disregard facts that don't fit in with things that don't agree with what we already believe it to be true, which is called confirmation bias.
So it just goes to show that this whole thing called "Socionics" is just basically a whole bunch of nonsense, anyway.
I kinda feel like those who type themselves LIE's are usually LIE's.
Yes and? If it's a fact, therefore objective, then it doesn't bother me to hear it.
That's picking up a fight to you? Geez, I can't imagine how you'd react if I actually had done that.
I didn't get "triggered". I for once prefer to address people and what they say that bothers me, whether it directly concerns me or not, directly and out in the open. That's a Beta thing, why would I do it behind "closed doors" if it isn't personal?
That's the point you missed completely: What irritates me is not a possible indirect jab at me, but your whole holier than thou attitude to everyone in this thread. Is uncalled for and completely ridiculous being that you most definitely fit the exact description of people that make you sad with their behavior.
It was your contradiction and hypocrisy that set me off, nothing else. And what's this whole talk about "emotions"? And wanting to direct them at it? Chill with the Doctor Phil, at least until you seriously identify with an Ethical type.
Castles? You really are Taylor Swift in disguise. Hey TayTay, I love your new album!
Cute to see you attempt to be witty using sexual innuendos when clearly, that's not your forte. Nice touch with the blatant sexism, women fucking their way to the top, classy. Not that I'm surprised, it's in line with your beliefs about how women should behave, "work to keep a man and all that".
And since you missed yet another point: I never implied I'd like to feature on your album, I said I wanted to see what kind of lyrics you'd write about me. Because you know, that's what Bad Blood is: a song and a video made about her "enemies". That clear enough or would you like me to draw it?
And yes, let's hear it for the old favorite of people who can't come up with a good argument: saying the other person is a counterphobic 6!
It's the typology world's "your mom" insult, thank you for reinforcing your kindergartener mental age.
Bertrand fooled enough people into thinking he was LIE for much longer than you, and could potentially continue to type as a Rational for longer if he had cared to go on with it. You had your LIE typing challenged immediately. That says a lot about who's more capable of objectivity between you two.
He basically made a gratuitous post whining about how "people" on the thread were behaving in a way that made him sad, only that his description was a word by word recounting of his own attitude all over the forum. I called him out, he responded with a TSwift worthy "you stabbed me in the back, I thought we were friends!!!" post with the weakest jabs ever and now we're here.
Also, he doesn't know what Bad Blood is and hasn't googled it before making that whole casting couch joke. Which is, you know, embarassing.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
In the grim darkness of the far future there are only forums and flood.
The sad final of the humanity.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung