Ok, then I'm the next one who don't perceive Chae as rude, I see her as funny and entertaining in this forum.
Ok, then I'm the next one who don't perceive Chae as rude, I see her as funny and entertaining in this forum.
Y'all don't understand. If a person like me is rude then you gotta ask yourself why and check a mirror asap. This is tit-for-tat land nowadays since I have personal issues, I own and deal the receipts when I get the reason to have them with less threshold. Yes I am rude with deliberation, no need to defend my salty ass. I'm aiming for it. And either way... why do you pick this out & criticize me for that, I am way shadier in other aspectsOriginally Posted by WinnieW
Have yet to see a reasonable call-out or typing that made me say, yes! This was on point, you get a medal. Try harder, preferably in my typing thread, when you're so hellbent. Move it, I wanna see some proper results instead, I don't take your harem requests currently. I'm here sipping my herbal tea nice and hot. The entertainment and hype you get for free, take it or leave it
I can switch it off real quick and you see what happens. You know I fucking run it.
Is this you talking or one of your 'gangsta (gangstar?)' celebrities? I never can tell.Y'all don't understand. If a person like me is rude then you gotta ask yourself why and check a mirror asap. This is tit-for-tat land nowadays since I have personal issues, I own and deal the receipts when I get the reason to have them with less threshold. Yes I am rude with deliberation, no need to defend my salty ass. I'm aiming for it. And either way... why do you pick this out & criticize me for that, I am way shadier in other aspects
I suppose all that stuff would probably be called 'Se beta valuing' in terms of socionics. (Not joking, but it sounds like Nicky Minaj when she's in 'Romaine' mode.)
Sorry, then my tolerance level for rudeness must be quite high. I'd not use the word rude to decribe your behaviour, but that's probably my perception. I'd use words like cheeky or original to describe you, but not rude.
I guess there are people in this forum they would see me rude occasionally, but that's not my intention to act this way, it's just the way that I am.
You are just emotionally annoying like Fe types are for Te ones. Having no Fi types gentleness and politeness, like 2 girls I've mentioned above. Ti types perceive you differently - you are ok for them. Vitya and Winny like your talking style.
WinnieW is ILI, near quadra and supervision F are not as bad as opposing quadra.
It's not about being polite, or not. Many types can be polite. Even T types can be polite, when they see the value in setting ground rules for behavior for mutually beneficial interaction (ie being professional.)
With Chae it is more about creating an emotional reaction, rather than attempts to understand the person as an individual - their sentiments, motivations, creating feelings of closeness and acceptance.
Her GIFs are also similar. Lots of quick facial expressions, groups together, applauding.
For such things, focusing on external behavior, fixing things by affecting the emotional energetics (smile, and it will be OK, be thrilled, be aghast, a plethora of such attempts of influence), such things can be perceived as rude for Fi valuing types.
right its like how smiles theoretically evolved from baring teeth which is a sign of aggression. fe is often used to intimidate or at least influence. chae's posts often have that current underriding them, so its pedantically all very benign but veils what others perceive as threatening because it acts as a way to signal the underlying ethical evaluations and there is a kind of action in pushing on that front. its sort of like when the cops are kicking your ass but calling you sir the whole time--polite?--a matter of interpretation
Could be. Adaptation happens. Actions have multiple uses. Which was first is not the real issue here. It is like saying that sitting is sign of agression because it involves pressure.
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
uh no your sitting example is just a linguistic equivocation that hinges on ambiguity inherent to the word "pressure." a better way to put it is sitting on someone can be perceived as Se (or sitting in someone else's "spot"), even though it has a regular benign connotation of getting comfortable i.e.: Si. in the smiling case it has benign connotations of benevolence, but within certain contexts it simply becomes a threat because in the same way you can leverage force via sitting on someone, you can leverage Fe to "torque"someone. that such a thing is at all possible goes back to evolutionary roots of brain development where bared teeth had a straightforward application that is now leveraged somewhat surreptitiously. if this were not the case Fe would have no power, it has to relate back to some meaning. meaning is implication for action. when people use Fe they are consciously or subconsciously implicating value judgments (looks of disgust and so on), these in turn have implications for action, both yours and theirs. this is where the "threat"or "bullying" comes in. in other words, in the same way baring teeth signaled to other animals to back off, Fe often has the same quality, albeit calibrated to be more palatable in modern society. whether or not you find these signals welcome and unobtrusive and therefore non threatening is a question of psychological value. here victor doesn't mind, whereas others don't like it
you could in fact say that bared teeth is just a form of Fe and not any different categorically than a smile or other look meant to communicate, the difference is only in the tolerance level of the recipient to the Fe. people with unvalued Fe don't really appreciate being blasted with it, especially not in conjunciton with Se leverage
yes the demonstrative function can produce the same effect. the difference is in conscious awareness. the reason chae seems more EIE than IEE to me (note: im not saying she is EIE I'm saying she comes across more EIE than IEE) is because of her intentional use of such means. implicit in blasting people non stop is the idea that its ok. any IEE who was doing it unintentionally by now would have stopped if they felt it was inappropriate on the level of psychological values. they would have stopped at like age 5. that they don't is an indication of values and not in the Fi sense. if Fi had adopted Fe as a way of life its indistinguishable from being Fe dominant. "Fe as a way of life" is just another way to say "Fe dominant"
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-09-2018 at 08:01 PM.
Where did you learn to write in so long-winded ways? Those words per essay things are weird.
Anyways, just think 1) how much violence your fart causes to delicate ecosystem of yours inside of your colon. 2). When you step you usually step on life. Objectively speaking. Their own microcosms is having huge attack while you do it.
I think any action can be perceived as aggression when energy is used. You might not value it but that does not count. Even the process that generatessentiments is going to need some transaction.
Well, I don't know but possibly you can find examples in nature where baring teeth means also getting dentistry offered by ecosystem. If we assume that carnivores are aggressive and herbivores non-aggressive using their teeth (which doesn't hold truth) we can say that teeth baring is an ambiguous act since humans are omnivores.
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
it's like you've never heard about the demonstrative functions...
I mean, even Fi can come off as judgemental, see SEEs or ESIs, or EII (oh no sorry, EIIs don't even talk), they all use (introverted) ethical logic to define their surroundings...
In a Fe type this logic is extroverted, so that the ethical side is directed outside and being it so, the most obvious consequence is the creation of bonds and feel good vibes~, not really a Fi thing, which is instead internal.
Idk if Chae is IEE/EIE/ILI or the super MBTI user, I think she's IEE for how cool and random she can be, EIEs are far more grumpy and opinionated in my experience, but on internet you can only just have a pale idea of how a person really is..
and theres the reverse, typing shaebette as conflictor out of desire to support (clearly not much of a conflict)
but he does not see it because the Ne Fi aspects that relate them are invisible, instead there is a creative Ti contortion to make it possible. k4m does something similar in devising his system
Let's not bicker about who typed who what. What type not what make who what if who bicker.
until shit did not flew it's dispute, but not a bicker
I just don't see emojis, or an avatar, as a good way to type someone. Same for IR, using it to type someone means bias, you're not considering the person for what they are but for what you think and see of them... etc etc
ps, etiquette is as objective as everything else is then, so it's like there's just no objectivity in this world, I actually agree.
This is a huge derail already, but the reason I typed Chae as Fe leading (and Fi ignoring) is not because she's "rude", it's because she has almost zero sense of personal boundaries, she makes everything her business whether it is or not
She also has a very "diva" type of personality that is totally not IEE, wanting to be in the spotlight and admiring various plasticized celebrities.
Slytherdor in a nutshell honeyThis is a huge derail already, but the reason I typed Chae as Fe leading (and Fi ignoring) is not because she's "rude", it's because she has almost zero sense of personal boundaries, she makes everything her business whether it is or not
She also has a very "diva" type of personality that is totally not IEE, wanting to be in the spotlight and admiring various plasticized celebrities.
I agree with your typing reason, but, is it really a huge de-rail? It's a) socionics forum and b) a thread about us typing other members, I don't think it's too unexpected for conversations around that to happen?This is a huge derail already, but the reason I typed Chae as Fe leading (and Fi ignoring) is not because she's "rude", it's because she has almost zero sense of personal boundaries, she makes everything her business whether it is or not
She also has a very "diva" type of personality that is totally not IEE, wanting to be in the spotlight and admiring various plasticized celebrities.
It's not a thread about Chae (as if there weren't enough already).
J types and their rulesOops.
yes the rude thing is sort of a collateral issue about how "rudeness" is in the eye of the beholder. EIE is not inherently rude since offense and discomfort and politeness are psychologically relative phenomenon. the best we can say about objective rudeness would be norms of Fe "be quiet at a funeral" type stuff; obviously chae does not come across as rude in any way in that sense. in fact she would probably be more well behaved than half the people myself included that chimed in about finding Fe or Se rude. so the rude thing should not be thought of as an attack on her but rather just an interesting example of how even a very decent human can rub others the wrong way and no one is necessarily at fault. such phenomenon are at the heart of personality theory and exposing them seems to me its most valuable aspect
Lady Gaga: This thread
Leonardo DiCaprio: me
tfw you want to be added because you're curious about how others see you but you don't want to be so presumptuous as to add yourself because you're so new and people probably don't know anything about you so you just anxiously check the spreadsheet every now and then to see if anyone added you
Your row has been added. Make a column too if you like.
(You couldn't have added your own row anyway since I safeguarded column A.)
Just add yourself.
the whole idea behind placing people in strict yet generalized categories strikes me as more Ti-Fe valuing than Fi-Te valuing, so if I catch someone relying on that as their sole means of making "personal" assessments of people, especially if it leaks into their own relationships whereby they judge the quality of those relationship not with their own naturally-formed attitude toward the individuals with whom they share a relationship, but pre-selected categories which bare only mild resemblances to the "real" state of the relationship, which is not the same as utilizing typology casually nor within the context of a thread where such typing methods are required, then I find myself mentally leaning toward Ti-Fe since there seems to be this implicit notion that in order to understand and/or even deal with people, you must first simplify their existence into a handful of identifiers, which soon becomes the foundation from which you base your treatment of them, instead of getting to know them on a 1-on-1 basis over a certain length of time and recognizing that there's so much more to them than a handful of pathological behaviors, which you may have not even assigned correctly, because of human error and all that.
that's not to say or even imply that anyone who relies on typology is immediately Ti-Fe valuing because typology forums are diverse enough to safely ascertain the opposite, but I think if you pay attention to their method of typing and how much weight they assign to those typings, whether or not they realize that it's merely one of the many ways you can describe individuals since the most useful aspect of typology is probably the (inter)personal vocabulary it provides you with, divorced from any typological contexts, then you might start to notice a divide between those who strictly adhere to typology, similar to how scientists may religiously employ the scientific method except in the interpersonal sphere, and those who simply view it as a means to an end, the tip of the iceberg, like "I understand you probably fit there, if I think about it enough, but I'm usually not thinking about it enough."
but I think it gets more complicated when you consider that intuitives are prone to making generalizations of this nature, especially Ne-egos, in my experience, but those generalizations usually exist before and after becoming aware of typology systems, and I think after a certain point, it's pushed to the background in favor of whichever patterns they've recognized themselves, or whichever patterns they've picked up from various external sources which usually extend well beyond typology systems, so it's not as cut-and-dried as stated above. then again, the creation of typology systems is almost intrinsically "alpha" territory, if we assume that typology = any categorization system for people, and, for humor's sake, if we take quadra progression into consideration, then the act of adhering to these typological frameworks by way of implementing and enforcing them would probably be "beta" territory.
it's kind of anti-"gamma" in that sense which is probably why we have yet to pass the baton from "beta" to "gamma" hence the current stalemate in socionics where we've been caught in the same groove for years while we lackadaisically discuss the theoretical underpinnings of a frozen theory which most likely won't go any further since the theory itself was developed by a group whose values directly contradict the values of the concurrent group in the quadra progression lineup, which may or may not explain why the "gamma" subforum is practically barren, and now "delta" is just waltzing in and out at random intervals, which they've been doing since the dawn of the forum, while they scrupulously try to place themselves within a category of their own, while being more-or-less unconcerned where anyone else places themselves, which soon enough becomes a life-long quest of introspection and lability before they eventually settle on "unsettled" because they are too aware of their own intricacies and those of others to tie anyone down to a specific type.
Last edited by wasp; 03-10-2018 at 05:10 AM.
well first I'd say that categorizing people is more a function of rationality than Ti. but lets operate off the assumption that Ti is bad and Fi is good. Here's what Fi does: has an affective response to a happening, and that is its category. It doesn't have structural language in the same way Ti does, so its tempting to think of it as something less than a category, but the feeling is just as harsh a mistress and as undeniable and rigid as logic. you can't say you didn't feel a way about a thing. although you can react in the opposite manner (reaction formation) it is still fundamentally driven by your categorical starting point. so it really goes back to the idea that "you can't not judge people", you can only pretend you don't. also gulenko would put us firmly in alpha, and the baton is about as far from gamma as it can be, having not yet been handed off to beta yet. in that sense it is not strange that delta would be attracted to the theory, if for no other reason than its very Ne. in the end what you seem to be against is prejudice, but it would be unfair to lay that at the feet of Ti... humorously, often Ti looks at Fi as the more prejudicial function, since it arrives more based on affective response than cool analysis
ultimately what you said about using categories to assess people comes down to something like: "If I perceive people as using Ti (defined by "strict and general categories") to categorize people, I think they're Ti valuing." the contradiction is in that "strict and general categories" is not really Ti, rather judgement in general, but you did a good job of making it seem like Fi is a more "naturally formed attitude" toward someone. "natural" is not equal to Fi, unless you want to exclude Ti types as natural. Rather it is simply your preferred way of going about things (ostensibly)... at the end of the day you're making a claim of something like "I use Fi to make judgements--if I think people don't use Fi to make judgements I think they use Ti" which sort of cuts out a lot of alternatives such as what about dominant perceivers and what about Te and Fe?... ultimately you also seem to lose sight of the idea that inasmuch as socionics is inherently a Ti theory its sort of bizarre to cast Ti as second rate in forming judgements anyway. there is something extremely natural about the rationality of ESE v SEE for example (unrestrained emotion v. politicking), or LII v LSI (openly approaching the universe and trying to describe it in terms of logic v forcing everyone into a bureaucracy, i.e.: prescribing the controlling logic for all)
anyone who feels bad for chae is just buying into a ridiculous illusion anyway. chae's entire game is to net a response, and good for her, I hope it does cause people to look in the mirror. but this idea that people are out of line is misplaced since this entire thing was as manufactured as any Ti based typing. people get lost in the twists and turns or maybe they just want to use it as occasion to push their own agenda (I know I do), and good for them. but this entire controversy is total maya and I feel bad for anyone who can't see it because you're being played.. what I see is a mixed group of logic and ethicals each with a variety of concerns and weak spots and a few extroverts trying to exert control over the dynamic but each having their own blind spots that if any were to blindly follow it would be bad for someone and not deservedly. in other words what needs to happen is people need to realize that certain petty narratives have long out lived their usefulness and competing between those options is a lost cause. chae has her own meme blasting form of advocacy for outdated anti psychological idealogical dogma. wasp's above quote is no less obtuse in its own way. Reyne's assertion that people abuse chae is no less absurd and smacks of role-playing ethics. the main thing is to not be puppets, either to your own habitual and lazy forms of thinking or the facile slogans of others
heres an interesting read on natural v artificial ... its important to see how he defines them since natural is connected to deriving information in a way that draws on forces "outside" society, i.e.: the natural world, like the jungle or the forest, the primordial forces that preceded civilization. whereas unnatural is artificial, constructed, works to exclude and constrain nature or to manipulate or impersonate it for human goals. artificiality are things that could be otherwise, natural are descriptions of things that we given without trying to modify them. its more about acknowledging them and preserving them in tact, whereas artificiality tries to modify the formula so to speak.
ti is therefore not necessarily unnatural and fi is not necessarily natural, rather they are both about relationships, one the logic the other ethics, but each can additionally be either natural or unnatural. in other words there's a quaternary in play not a simple 1:1 correlation
what it does correlate to is the left/right dichotomy which has to do with involution v evolution. involution brings in natural information that exists outside our artificial borders; from the chaos beyond the safety of the known, i.e.: civilization. evolution tries to develop that which is already known, to add complexity without changing the underlying picture; to specify. in law you have people that want to nail down everything with specific rules and then you have people that want to craft general rules that keep things simple but capture the essence of things. creating a huge book of rules for everything is evolutionary artificial work (over time this creates a maze of rules that are hard to follow), whereas reform that wants to simplify and make things easier to understand is involution, it breaks down the existing built up structures when they get too cumbersome. in that sense nature cries out for a return to roots. the ethics of Fi in terms of natural v unnatural is ESI v EII. EII in terms of Christianity is a code for how to treat others, where ESI simply fights evil wherever it sees it. Christianity establishes constraints on how that should look, so it shoves things in no less an "unnatural" box as Ti. When beta gets ahold of that they put another spin on it, and it can become a tower of babel if people lose sight of the underlying truth and focus on the artificial aspects. the difference is Ti turns Fi artificial ethics into artificial logical relationships and that's where you have people getting executed over typos, but the process begins long before it ever comes to that
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-11-2018 at 05:35 AM.
Socionics forum be like:
You can add me as IEI.
i'm self-typing as SLI-Si to throw a dent in people's typings so that there is more diversity in my column
lol smh
Add me as an IEI, before I change my mind again.
The next step after this chart is to start having video calls with different combinations of forum members to get good data on IR. We need more reality in this forum more live data.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
This forum has a long history of doing chats. It can be very helpful to confirm typings (in the sense of dynamic interactions not static "IR").
WOW... I had no idea that so many people here see me as ESIIt's very surprising, the thought of being an ESI has never even crossed my mind. Interesting...
I personally think it's really unlikely.WOW... I had no idea that so many people here see me as ESI
From your pictures and your interaction style, you come across as an IP type.
But you could be ILI-Ni rather than IEI.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
