^ My thoughts exactly too after all that.
What a toxic human being you are. For all you say about projection and imagining, why don't you look at how you hold yourself and treat others and be more productive with your life? No one on this earth will read what you say and take any of it seriously at all until you get a grip, stop using your typing as an excuse to be a ratchet abusive idiot (and mods stop allowing behaviour based on this too) and quit talking like a crazed angry meth head.
I'm using the bold letters just to save time from having to parse everything into quotes. I'm not angry at all. Furthermore, the majority of these arguments revolve around pedantic points. Arguing over pedantic points hardly counts as toxicity or ratchet abusiveness.
Myst and Bert don't need your support and are debating/discussing back. I have every right to stay engaged in the debates. It's really none of your business.
Your characterization amounts to a baseless Ad Hominem without any record foundation provided for these claims you make. This references back to your ad hominem thread practice on the Black Panther thread. On the black panther thread, you alleged I was a racist because I misspelled a name of a fictional character from a fictional place called Wakanda and you tried to disparage Chae's typing by passive-aggressively bringing up some breathtaking allegation that her typing reminded you of when she allegedly pretended to be rihanna. You never, ever have anything productive to contribute to these threads.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 05:07 AM.
he had a 4 function model bro, the shadow was the flipside to valued functions because valued functions were all he admitted in his model of the psyche. 8 function models didn't come till later. even if you don't buy that because you think its your hill to die on, it doesn't even matter because you get to choose, all I want to know is what do you mean when you say "shadow projections" and how you conceptualize them as operating, vis-a-vis our prior exchange which you said I was projecting onto you
It's hardly a civil debate if you attach contemptuous language to every point you make, make half your points consist of gaslighting the other person and even criticize their life/career choices. You think you're going to knock down a lawyer-to-be who's trying to make something out of his life without looking like a jealous, moronic piece of scum? How dare you insult these people the way you do and even begin accusing others of making ad hominems.
And in case you didn't realize.... I'm criticizing you not debating you because obviously that's been proven to be pointless. Ad hominem making is reserved for the debate context. Making a characterization "to the man" is literally my point here. And proof is visible to all except someone apparently.
its okay if you contextualize the warning as coming from someone who is consistently mistaken it transforms it into a good omen
All I asked was for you to provide the quote (s) from Jung that would make it Si/Fe:
Is it fair to say that now you wish instead to amend your questions to just the following:are my shadow projections my shadow as Jung concieved of it (which would make them Si/Fe)
"all I want to know is what do you mean when you say "shadow projections" and how you conceptualize them as operating, vis-a-vis our prior exchange which you said I was projecting onto you"
If he is willing to call me a used car salesman, compare me to a sex doll, claim my socionics system is a "kind of scam" and more recently claim that I copy and pasted something I wrote, with no basis at all in reality, I'm going to tell him all about his projections and baseless speculations.
So Bert first initiated the contemptuous language in my debate with him and not long before that, when he referred to socionics new wave as a
"bankrupt dream (ethical intuition)" and told me "it is sad because its like you're being abused and you don't know it" all because I said quadra values typing is nonsense.
I didn't know Bert was in law school. I simply said he wouldn't make a good lawyer because the concept of facts and evidence is lost on him. I said this to him in response to a number of posts he initiated where he engaged in what are baseless speculations and projections onto me specifically. I have every right to respond in kind.
But if Bert wants to dole out his perceived honesty to me, I'm going to dole it out to him. It's fair play. And with Myst, Myst first initiated the contemptuous language when she called my application of Jung "an idiotic reading between the lines".
Furthermore, a debate that doesn't involve some degree of contemptuous language is not realistic....it's going to happen by the nature of disagreement. This isn't leave it to beaver.
And again, it's none of your business. So, go fly a kite.
Your criticisms are inherently one-sided and overly partisan (it's part of your loyalty as a 6w5 to take such one-sided, partisan stances when it comes to these type of situations and you only come in to do it when you can piggy back on others...you're not an independent person). Moreover, your criticisms lack merit. I haven't gas-lit anybody. You are not capable of debate unless you're debating a pushover. That's why you had to resort to an ad hominem on Chae during the black panther thread. you're not capable of sustaining a debate with somebody whose not likely to agree with you. You lashed out on the Black Panther thread and embarrassed yourself accusing me of racism because I spelled a fictional character's name wrong. All you are doing here is continuing your ad hominem thread practice from the Black Panther thread.And in case you didn't realize.... I'm criticizing you not debating you because obviously that's been proven to be pointless. Ad hominem making is reserved for the debate context. Making a characterization "to the man" is literally my point here. And proof is visible to all except someone apparently.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 07:25 AM.
I've been right all throughout this thread with regards to the main debates. As Whodat pointed out, I was right about what I said on Te. I turned out right about HotelAmbush being heretical in his view on socionics when he made that comment about mbti/Jungian blockheads. And I'm right about all the stuff with Myst, too, though, that's more peripheral to the fact that Gulenko's article beared out that I was right about Jung's relationship to Socionics and the distinctions between MBTI and socionics.
The two main topics -- Jung's relationship to Socionics and core differences between Socionics and MBTI -- I have been consistently right about here on this thread.
I was also right about the function of juries and evidence....I was so right about it that you reflexively accused me of copy and pasting. It's no secret that you're into that quadra values technique of typing and that I've been it's main opponent since the inception of Socionics New Wave. I don't know how you can say I'm consistently mistaken when you're the one who uses such an outdated typing technique.
Furthermore, I already provided you with information about shadow projection, examples of your projections on the thread and an explanation for one of those examples. IN return, I asked you to provide the quote (s) from Jung for your insinuation that shadow projections as Jung conceived it would make a person Si/Fe. You have so far avoided doing this. Please advise.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 07:07 AM.
You keep telling people they're baselessly speculating and their observations have no basis in reality. You made a list of things you believe another poster "imagined" above. You even called me a paranoiac a few posts above and a schizophrenic in the Black Panther thread. How is this not gaslighting lmao.
I also think it's funny how you mention I'm a 6w5 loyalist (which is an ad hominem in itself lol) while mentioning a situation where you supported Chae in a thread.
I honestly wish you were doing this on purpose. I'd be impressed .
Oh and I'm not embarrassed and I'll say it again. I do think it's vaguely racist and obtuse to butcher an ethnic name after repeated hints and corrections @Kill4Me .
Baseless speculation is common. Me telling somebody they are engaging in baseless speculation when they churn out a pile of bullshit in no way implies I am gaslighting. You are illogical.
Well, your position here is extremely one-sided and partisan. I mean, you're essentially shifting all the blame onto me. Blame-shifting is a standard defense mechanism of type six. Furthermore, you still paranoiacally assume a connection between racism and the misspelling of a fictional character's name and display a desire for authority by calling out to the moderators.I also think it's funny how you mention I'm a 6w5 loyalist (which is an ad hominem in itself lol) while mentioning a situation where you supported Chae in a thread.
In contrast, by time you posted to Chae on the Black Panther thread, you already earned your subscription to K4M. I wasn't piggybacking into a situation pages after you and Chae had gone at it, and in your shit-stirring post to Chae you referenced me directly.
And I certainly wasn't calling upon the moderators to come deal with you.
There's nothing racist about misspelling a fictional character's name. I am low in perfectionism.Oh and I'm not embarrassed and I'll say it again. I do think it's vaguely racist and obtuse to butcher an ethnic name after repeated hints and corrections @Kill4Me .
I also misspelled a name on the Red Sparrow thread. I do it frequently.
Your hints just made you come across like a spelling Nazi. If you were more assertive, you could have just stated your issue with the spelling directly at the beginning of the Black Panther thread and request that I change it. You couldn't just spit that out. Instead, you wanted to play little ridiculous games with hints. When I didn't take your cryptic hints, you jumped into calling me a racist because I didn't correct the spelling (another version of the same game). I would have never gone back to change the spelling after you reacted like that over the misspelling of a fictional character's name.
I called you a paranoiac because last I interacted with you on the black panther thread you were being, well, a paranoiac and still haven't changed. In the literature on paranoiacs, it's a core feature of the paranoiac to engage in magical thinking, where things like not correcting the spelling of a name take on deeper meanings which inevitably confirms the paranoiac's suspicion of ill-will (in your case, racism).
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 10:12 AM.
so autistic
aka the colonization of Se Polr thread by Se leads~ I type Bert as a SEE aha
(anyway K4me, I think you're right on almost anything so far.. keep it twisting!)
hey now as someone who just scored freakishly high on an online autismo test the other day I take partial offense at that remark
I just want you to demonstrate your reasoning as to what projection is. I guess you're right, you've already told me. to you projection is whatever you call projection and that's the beginning and end of it. I guess I'm just disappointed because I hoped for a meaningful answer but its all just a web of self referential bravado with you
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-19-2018 at 11:07 AM.
lol sorry waspy
ure not autistic to me
(i scored as an aspy on an online test once)
i'll rephrase it.
so aspergery!
thread derail tho it's important
DONT TAKE TESTS FROM mypersonality.com, THEY STEAL UR SOUL
Battle typing on a thread about PoLR Se. Teehee.
“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
I concede that is how model A developed the idea of the shadow, but it was not formed yet at the time of Jung. For Jung he had base and auxiliary ("extroverted sensing type" and "auxiliary introverted thinking") leaving Ni and Fi as the unconscious processes underlying them. In psychological types he frames it in those terms talking about the primitive nature of the related (Ni in the case of Se, etc) functions, creating superstitions and so forth. While latent in that was what would be developed into a full 8 function description of the shadow that came later. in any case its mainly a semantic debate without real consequence to the issue at hand, so whatever
my point has always been whatever the chosen basis for calling something projection is, it still needs to be explained for it to be other than a baseless assertion. I don't really care what framework people use, but if you make a claim it should be capable of rational analysis and not just shouting back and forth about "projections" in the air
I do think maybe all of this is a projection inasmuch as it is an assumption about what others are capable of in terms of perception, i.e.: that someone is at all using Ne in framing their assertions, when its become clear to me the SeTi use of "projection" is precisely this kind of forceful but empty formal gesture without substance. in other words the appearance of making an argument is the argument. which is shallow, but I'm not sure what I was expecting, in retrospect
obviously it was Jung to mention the shadow, and there's no shadow in socionic terms whatsoever, more so in Model A that is not a person so can't invent anything meeheee
why cant i like my own posts admins?!
u're hired
Thanks, it's an honour to be working for you.
Next, I'm going to spam your inbox with pictures I find adorable.
“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
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 04:47 PM.
Already went through this with you Bert from a page ago:
You're a textbook example.
In general, people may use innocuous forms of projection to make deductions about behavior or situations. Some typologers favor the "sticky method" where you project different motivations onto a person's behavior and then determine whether that motivation sticks or not based on forecasts about behavior. In war or war-like situations, it's typical for people to engage in this reasoning. There could be other forms of projection as well that don't revolve around scapegoating/disowning ethically vacuous parts of the self onto "screens" in the environment.
With you, I'm referring to shadow projection as articulated by Jung and considered to be a psychological defense mechanism. You have to remember that there are many different defense mechanisms, including but not limited to, projection, disassociation, splitting, rationalization, repression, and denial. Keep in mind that some typology systems even associate different defense mechanisms with different personality types. There's generally a mixture of two or three people reflexively favor when psychologically unhealthy (Disassociation and projection appear to be your stand-out combination)....For example, "technology" embodies all the ethical emptiness from your shadow side. 1d Fi types is the screen for your mind to project/dump some of your own ethical emptiness onto. Because you are leading with projections from your shadow, you are coming up with tortured reasoning to make your projections fit into the screen you have chosen. At most, your shadow projections provide the reader with insights into you.
oh it just dawned on me, you think I'm debating the notion of the shadow itself or that somehow Jung didn't invent it. no I'm saying that taking his term and applying it entails an underlying nexus of ideas that if they don't meet the application falls flat. in other words, it makes no sense. for something to make sense you have to understand what Jung meant when he said shadow, i.e. what is a shadow and how does it operate in forming projections. model a provides a framework in terms of information metabolism as to how projections are disjunctions between information elements, where one takes the object as if he possessed the properties of the subject, and interprets the meaning of their actions or statements on those grounds.
the reason I ask k4m to detail his theory of projection is because whether you use Jung's model to apply the notion of the shadow or model A, none of what he claimed made any sense.I see now that this is because they don't perceive the inner workings of theory, i.e. the phenomenon they actually describe. rather words are like legos that they frankenstein a thesis of another person's "psyche" (only in the most facile way) out of. in any case at no point does it touch reality, its more like an idiosyncratic language game where things are not valued for their inner truth but only inaswell as they play with the crowd. in this sense any psychological proclamations are more or less fatally shallow because its just a copy of a copy (a copy/paste application of borrowed rules to overlay on a situation they don't really understand, but nevertheless use to paint people with, and cannot update on the level of perception without reference to a crowd--which is sort of anti-psychology,its just ideology in a new guise). this is why they rely on written words as a kind of sensory bank which they draw on for prefabricated ideas that they redistribute like fake money in order to win empty competitions. the point is this total lack of insight or imagination means Ive just been wasting my time trying to imbue any words with the possibility of real meaning because there is none, so my asking has been totally futile and misunderstood
while the question may have been futile in some sense I can't say I haven't learned anything so there was definite value in the exchange so for that I'm totally thankful. I think it takes a lot of courage for SLE to be doing these things so far out of their usual sandbox. its a lot like being in law school for me so I think perhaps we have that sense of stretching in common. and I really do think that kind of stuff is really good for people and Id be a big hypocrite to come down too hard on it
Wanted to reply to some deleted post about Kill4Me being shallow: He has "kill" in his username, metal teeth for his avatar, and talks like a crazed meth head to prove that he's "E8." Most death metal songs are significantly more subtle and nuanced than this. Half of 16t is people trying to be stereotypes, then calling other people shallow for not being stereotypes. LOL. Time to call them out.
Back to your shadow projections. All this above stuff are just you dumping off more of your shadow junk onto the environment.he reason I ask k4m to detail his theory of projection is because whether you use Jung's model to apply the notion of the shadow or model A, none of what he claimed made any sense.I see now that this is because they don't perceive the inner workings of theory, i.e. the phenomenon they actually describe. rather words are like legos that they frankenstein a thesis of another person's "psyche" (only in the most facile way) out of. in any case at no point does it touch reality, its more like an idiosyncratic language game where things are not valued for their inner truth but only inaswell as they play with the crowd. in this sense any psychological proclamations are more or less fatally shallow because its just a copy of a copy (a copy/paste application of borrowed rules to overlay on a situation they don't really understand, but nevertheless use to paint people with, and cannot update on the level of perception without reference to a crowd--which is sort of anti-psychology,its just ideology in a new guise). this is why they rely on written words as a kind of sensory bank which they draw on for prefabricated ideas that they redistribute like fake money in order to win empty competitions. the point is this total lack of insight or imagination means Ive just been wasting my time trying to imbue any words with the possibility of real meaning because there is none, so my asking has been totally futile and misunderstood
You also erased the post where you called me shallow.
What I posted was concise and to the point. I'm not going to write out giant walls-of-text about it from one post to the next....not a good enough bullshit artist to do that. I provided you with definitions, examples from your posts and application of the definitions to the examples I cited. Rather than directly respond to what I put there, you simply repeated that I explain what I meant by projection, as if willfully oblivious to what was posted and used it as an opportunity to spray out more of your shadow.
You best learn concision if you want to get ahead in the real world. I mean, you're still in school. What do you know about the difference between shallow and concise. Let's see if you are so self-righteously idealistic after you get your big lawyer job. Because, uh, I got news for you. The legal profession is shallow. You won't change it. If you want to be an attorney, then you'd better get ready to do and say many shallow things. Your art is sophistry. And if you want to actually persuade people in the real world, you'd best learn to be more concise....if you write motions that aren't concise as you do with many of your posts here, and just load it up with projections-posing-as-insight (i.e. bullshit), you will surely put Judges to sleep.
If anything, it's shallow for you to tell me that shadow projections as Jung conceived it are Si/Fe, and when I asked you for a quote (s) to source what you were saying, you came up empty.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 06:09 PM.
Bert tried telling me shadow projections as Jung conceived it are Si/Fe.
You just need a cuddle from a fuzzy anteater
alright I thought that with this:you meant that Jung had no idea of a shadow; anyway he actually "invented" the notion of shadow.I concede that is how model A developed the idea of the shadow, but it was not formed yet at the time of Jung. For Jung he had base and auxiliary ("extroverted sensing type" and "auxiliary introverted thinking") leaving Ni and Fi as the unconscious processes underlying them. In psychological types he frames it in those terms talking about the primitive nature of the related (Ni in the case of Se, etc) functions, creating superstitions and so forth. While latent in that was what would be developed into a full 8 function description of the shadow that came later.
It's pretty obvious that Jung didnt' put the shadow into any model A since he didn't invent any model A of the psyche. The shadow itself has not strict definitions, it might be the entire unconscious or just the side of us that we despise the most, diving it in this way from the Anim@, that is in the unconscious too and that creates ambiguous reactions too.
Therefore it's really rather nitpicky to decide how exactly a simple term relates to a system that has never been in the mind of its theoretical inventors. We'll never know it, and Model A really doesn't use the Junghian definitions of the psyche, but the Freudian ones.
I think the Shadow is the ID, most logically, our inverted selves.
But all of this gets lost if I'm fat and say to someone who's eating the 3rd pastry in a row "u're such a fatso!" and someone points out that I'm projecting, because it's pretty obvious that I am even if you don't dig in my ID.