So far 93% of people (14/15) type me as LII/LII-Ti. I think I did a good self-typing job then.
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
So far 0% of people have typed me my self typing of LIE. I am not amused by your silly games
also I need clarification on what makes people see Fe vs Fi
“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
That's still not saying anything on what you see the difference is. Yeah, you claim your impressions are intuitive and abstract, but you could also describe those impressions with abstract concepts for example, if someone feels "flowy" vs "harsh".
And all impressions one gets from people comes from a tangible motivation in those people
It's examples. They say everything. Just needs to think a little to generalize the impressions from nonverbal and to link them with types' descriptions and models. Sometimes it's possibly to analyse what bloggers do and say, - for example, with clips where they tell about themselves.
> Yeah, you claim your impressions are intuitive and abstract
They are intuitive by the source - I watch and get the feelings of traits. If the impressions have good balance to one side of traits than to opposite one - I trust to such opinion. Those traits are not abstract. In my consciousness they look in terms which you may find in types/functions/dichotomies/IR/etc descriptions. I use common classical theory.
> but you could also describe those impressions with abstract concepts for example, if someone feels "flowy" vs "harsh"
This follows from classical texts. For example, EIE compared to EII will be in the perception of LSE as more harsh. F types talk generally more "flowy" than T types. I use nothing special.
"TBA soon"
was so shy to say types for almost anyone, but not his nickname
I'm intrigued
that was funny
. . . . . Strangeling . | Viktor
Viktor: viktor gulenko? | <---- yes
I noticed that several people are typing me LII or IEI.
It's not surprising considering my style of writing in this forum. And the things I write about.
I think it's a combination of "pseudo-adaption" of weak intuition together with some common sense, experience, impressions and knowledge from what I've read before. Together they give the impression of "intuitive type". Plus being in an environment like this forum that has no use for my natural self (except for the chat box, where it's more easy to breath)
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)
Try talking about fluffy pillows, cooking and your bodily sensations more.
The Jungian definition of Si could be your best fit, probably not the socionics version (as many interpret it). I don't know anything about you really so this is just a guess that Jungian Si is best fit.
“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
Jungs Si and Socionics Si is the same thing. It's just that Jung digs into the core of the experience but Socionics looks more at it from the outside.
Jungs Si and "past events" has been horribly misunderstood. Jung is using that kind of language to describe the quality of the experience itself. It is definitely not a personal thing at all. It has nothing to do with my own past or memories or anything like that.
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)
I personally find Si an uncomfortable way to process anything and do not like to be instructed on it. Socionics descriptions of it do make it seem almost as useless as they make Ni seem when it comes to getting things done in the real world because of the potential of being overly concerned with ones internal sensations? I am not sure how it isn't personal or related to memory though. Life itself is personal and relies on memory one way or another. I will have to take your word for it.
Edit: I remember being new here and not one person was able to describe Si to me. I ended up sorting it myself and figuring out just how and when I used it.
“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
@suedehead , do I seem like a Ne ego to you?
It would be enough to read any text about functions.
Socionics is Jung's typology and uses same core functions descriptions. The difference of expanded descriptions does not mean it's other functions or special Jung's one. Those expanded descriptions are just secondary interpretations. Jung could to mistake like anyone (what he did even about own type) or to say something in a way that could be understood wrongly with his muddy leading Ni.
Si are sensations related to subject/human. Like taste, the feeling of comfort, aestetic pleasure, beauty - it's all subjective feelings/sensations. Same you may read anywhere. And same is at Jung - subjective sensations.
What type Tallmo has we'd could to understand only with good typing material like video. He may have not SEI, as mistakes are not rare.
While SEI isn't totally out of the question -- you haven't done a typing thread, so I don't know too much about you -- this is a poor excuse.
Typical Alpha SF forum behavior (exemplified by, IMO, bg and other past members) is more focused (for example) on being entertaining or creating a light mood. It's not like anyone is forcing you to talk about technical topics, indeed most people spend most of their time here socializing -- an environment which has plenty of "use" for an SEI, although they are typically more interested in real-life activities. @Suz also has no problem expressing Si on the forum.
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
Well, it's based on some dated questionnaire, but still:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...naire-(Tallmo)
Yeah, I'm trusting that he (Tallmo) is really pushing his analysis.
I can tell that I can not just flow like irrational dynamic person would. I'd really have to push for it. Releasing some sort of actually seems to be quite OK-ish for me (as I'm ethical in Sol's book). I know EII who would tell what just went on (like enneagram 9 description). Not that natural but brings some comfort, I guess.
It is a thing.
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
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 04-04-2018 at 07:08 PM.
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
Non verbal =intuition but imma sensor but still read you better than you do - sol 2k18
At the moment I am on a phone and have no access to a computer. Would someone mind adding me?
I'm finally being placed in alpha~
Oh yes. I wasnt complaining at all. Im totally ok with the forum and me being here. Just giving my feedback why i think some people dont see SEI. Im totally aware of that i dont seem SEI
I never made a typing thread because my type was always clear to me. But ive filled out a questionare
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)
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)
I don't like Ni either.
You provided this quote:I am not sure how it isn't personal or related to memory though. Life itself is personal and relies on memory one way or another. I will have to take your word for it.
As Carl Jung said, “We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.”
Jung is here talking about the character of the impression. He is in a way using poetic language to describe something very hard to describe. It's not about my personal memory, or past/future, but a way to characterize the experience.
Jung uses the word "patina". That's a brilliant way to say Si with one word.
The writer goes on:
According to neuroscientist Dario Nardi, introverted sensing types show increased brain activity in regions that plan for the future. They enjoy seeing how something can be used in the future, or how an experience can be created. They may enjoy creating traditions that have sentimental value,
This is were he totally misunderstands Jung, just like MBTI does. That's why I say that it's not personal. It has nothing to do with my past/future or my memory.
Si is in fact useful, but usually only when paired with Te. Delta STs are the craftsmen, painters and carpenters of society. Si gives the person a "feeling" for materials. That's the unconscious component to sensing that Jung talks about and that is the secret of fine craftsmanship.Socionics descriptions of it do make it seem almost as useless as they make Ni seem when it comes to getting things done in the real world because of the potential of being overly concerned with ones internal sensations?
SEIs have more difficulties to put Si to use, it requires more adaption and development of thinking, but of course it's also possible.
What one usually sees in SEIs is poorly developed base function. Maybe that's why Si is seen as responsible for laziness. It is responsible for laziness though, but not to the extent that is believed imo.
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)
Do not underestimate alpha F types.
To cook good it does not need good Te. Today medicine with a lot of specializations they do ok too. Other social and arts stuff.
> Delta STs are the craftsmen, painters and carpenters of society.
all S types do this ok. including F ones, where it does not need higher economy, comlicated organisation (like mass production) or creating new technology methods
> What one usually sees in SEIs is poorly developed base function
heresy
normal typing is what you need to check your type. you strangely miss the social role of "own" type
Could someone update "Penny dreadful" to Feathers please? I wouldn't like missing out on all the spreadsheet fun.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Type 8