I get stressed out because I know it's time for me to start acting.Originally Posted by Lady Lioness
I get stressed out because I know it's time for me to start acting.
Ignoring and PoLR functions can get confusing, funnily enough. It’s often that the Ignoring function is perceived as weak/undeveloped by others, yet the big difference between them is that the Ignoring can still inform/make judgements of others to some capacity.
In Model G, the Ignoring function is called the Control function; it’s good at advising others how it should be used when necessary, yet it’s actually incredibly difficult to actually use it yourself (partially why it’s also called a ‘hypocritical’ function).
In both Model A and G, both Ignoring and PoLR can cause stress, but the Ignoring will be a severe source of boredom or frustration with someone else asking too much of it from you, while the PoLR is mostly always stressful to deal with, and is prone to both underuse and excess.
@ContractedCriminalboy
>I don't have any such problems.
your ''joking'' was based on the assumption that:
1. I would necessarily type myself Fe because I used a smiley once, according to what you think is my reasoning - this is a problem with evaluating data, a problem with seeing that there is a significant difference in our degree of emotional expressiveness, and that this can be quantitatively observed post-for-post
2. you apparently think that my reasoning boils down to absolute statements of people's types based on single posts, a manifest untruth since I consider typing based on almost everything but long-time IRL interaction a question of likelihoods and often explicitly state that it is a question of likelihoods (such as it being highly unlikely that you are SLI, that it is somewhat more likely that you are an irrational etc.) - here is evidence for the issue with evaluating and processing the logical arguments of others
>There is no data that suggests logical types do not do so.
there is no objective Socionics data, since it has not been scientifically proven. all data is based on consensus or the opinions of an individual, and thus consensus or individuals can only argue from common sense, not absolute proof. besides, the claim was that it is more common for ethicals, not that logicals never do it - again you show problems with processing logical nuance, which is an issue more common for ethicals
>Most descriptions, which you admit you disregard due to them being at conflict with your own bias misconceptions
most descriptions are questionable due to being based on the personal experiences of the writer, who can either easily have mistyped and thus misunderstand the type, or have too little experience with a type to conclude and describe what is general to it
the best descriptions infer mostly or only from the functions, dichotomies, quadras, strong/weak/valued/nonvalued etc., such that they give only what is general or common to the types, which eliminates personal mistakes as far as is possible
>describe SLIs as types to use humor and joke around.
they, as introverts and logicals, do this less, and less openly than other types.
>ILEs and SLEs are both also notorious for doing so
most descriptions are of questionable value, as said. nonetheless, they are extraverts and Fe valuers, so their use of humour will both be more open and more direct/exuberant than other logicals - but their actual emotional level are about as other logicals, in principle (this also depends on what is considered the weakest function, which is a point of contention; for my part I see no principal difference in strength between the first and the second , and the third and the fourth respectively, only how they are expressed; in other words, irrational logicals are not more emotional than rational logicals, in my view)
>I haven't seen much data in regards to ILI doing so
there should be no difference in the emotional expression of ILI vs. SLI, as they have ethics in the same ''place''
>You're once again demonstrating your lack of understanding for the behavior of SLIs
and you are once again demonstrating an inability to process arguments, or you just do not read carefully enough - to behave consistently in an emotional and jovial manner is highly unlikely for SLIs, or do you take issue with the elementary definitions of introversion and logic, perhaps even considering them ''bias misconceptions''?
>Fe polr does not equate to autistic behavior, a lack of emotion, or even a lack of expression.
nowhere did I claim this, so spending your energy attacking strawmen is really a waste
what Fe in superego does equate to, however, is relatively and on average less emotion (as logical types) and less outward, excited emotional expressivenes (as introverts and Te types) - being introverts XLI are more covert when they do express emotions than LXE, and the emotions they prefer to express are Fi-ish emotions, which are softer, more concerned with emotional and interpersonal comfort and the care for personal relationships, and less exuberant expressiveness and elation which the Ti types can like to indulge in when relaxed
also, all functions are used everyday, even the superego ones, but their difference in strength and importance when compared to the ego functions is absolutely obvious
Fe polr types can be said to be the least outwardly emotional expressive, in general
>surprised you were not aware
the topic at hand is the question of your type, including whether you are rational/irrational, since it is evident that SLI is highly unlikely to be your type - someone should not just assume that you are irrational just because you type yourself as such
>You actually haven't given a single good reason supported whatsoever by any degree of Socionic theory.
I'm surprised that you consider the basic dichotomy of logic/ethics to be unrelated to ''any degree of Socionic theory'', but it would explain a lot
>You argue with Ti yet denied being a Ti type based on intertype relations.
I primarily argue by examples, pointing to behaviour which is likely/unlikely for the type a given person assigns to themselves - this is just as much Te (perceiving and understanding the ''data'' of behaviour, as far as common sense can perceive) as it is Ti (concluding something logically based on raw data/facts)
also, I give advice on how to proceed with understanding your type, which is a question of efficiency, which is Te
any person who tries to convince someone of something being the case, based on interpretation of data, uses Te and Ti - difference is what kind of logical activites are preferred overall; for example, erudition and expansive factual knowledge is more unlikely to be something which Ti types strive for, just like theoretical fields where models, worldviews, mathematical/syllogistic procedures and formulas are dominant aren't as appealing to Te types
you can check my examples of IEEs in the delta thread, if you're interested in positing another type for me - they should be mostly EIEs, if I really was LSI
>which you now disregard
this follows from that you are likely mistyped
>battle typing
such as strange concept - arguing with someone about their type with the intention to correct it - in the relevant thread, even - is seen as an attack... seems like another assumption of emotional motivation
this conversation is fruitless, and I am repeating myself, so I see no point in continuing. if you're interested in being typed (which doesn't seem the case), then a video would be enlightening - as I said, i suspect an ethical irrational type.
I have thought about it if that applies to me, but for me the situation is a little bit different. It's not the emotional environment itself, for me it's more about the choice if I want to be part of that environment or not.
If somebody tries to push me to be part of that said environment I likely refuse, but if it's my own choice to be part of such an environment then it's not a problem for me.
I'm not gonna bother reading this autistic wall of text from one who is himself mistyped. I have told you the facts as is and a basic review of socionics resources will point to my typing. I have also already made two typing threads which unanimously supported my typing. Any and all descriptions support my typing, intertype relations support my typing, dichotomies support my typing, and most of all, functions support my typing. Apparently the only thing against my typing is that I have a sense of basic humor and strongly disagree with this autists lack of reasoning ability.@ContractedCriminalboy
>I don't have any such problems.
your ''joking'' was based on the assumption that:
1. I would necessarily type myself Fe because I used a smiley once, according to what you think is my reasoning - this is a problem with evaluating data, a problem with seeing that there is a significant difference in our degree of emotional expressiveness, and that this can be quantitatively observed post-for-post
2. you apparently think that my reasoning boils down to absolute statements of people's types based on single posts, a manifest untruth since I consider typing based on almost everything but long-time IRL interaction a question of likelihoods and often explicitly state that it is a question of likelihoods (such as it being highly unlikely that you are SLI, that it is somewhat more likely that you are an irrational etc.) - here is evidence for the issue with evaluating and processing the logical arguments of others
>There is no data that suggests logical types do not do so.
there is no objective Socionics data, since it has not been scientifically proven. all data is based on consensus or the opinions of an individual, and thus consensus or individuals can only argue from common sense, not absolute proof. besides, the claim was that it is more common for ethicals, not that logicals never do it - again you show problems with processing logical nuance, which is an issue more common for ethicals
>Most descriptions, which you admit you disregard due to them being at conflict with your own bias misconceptions
most descriptions are questionable due to being based on the personal experiences of the writer, who can either easily have mistyped and thus misunderstand the type, or have too little experience with a type to conclude and describe what is general to it
the best descriptions infer mostly or only from the functions, dichotomies, quadras, strong/weak/valued/nonvalued etc., such that they give only what is general or common to the types, which eliminates personal mistakes as far as is possible
>describe SLIs as types to use humor and joke around.
they, as introverts and logicals, do this less, and less openly than other types.
>ILEs and SLEs are both also notorious for doing so
most descriptions are of questionable value, as said. nonetheless, they are extraverts and Fe valuers, so their use of humour will both be more open and more direct/exuberant than other logicals - but their actual emotional level are about as other logicals, in principle (this also depends on what is considered the weakest function, which is a point of contention; for my part I see no principal difference in strength between the first and the second , and the third and the fourth respectively, only how they are expressed; in other words, irrational logicals are not more emotional than rational logicals, in my view)
>I haven't seen much data in regards to ILI doing so
there should be no difference in the emotional expression of ILI vs. SLI, as they have ethics in the same ''place''
>You're once again demonstrating your lack of understanding for the behavior of SLIs
and you are once again demonstrating an inability to process arguments, or you just do not read carefully enough - to behave consistently in an emotional and jovial manner is highly unlikely for SLIs, or do you take issue with the elementary definitions of introversion and logic, perhaps even considering them ''bias misconceptions''?
>Fe polr does not equate to autistic behavior, a lack of emotion, or even a lack of expression.
nowhere did I claim this, so spending your energy attacking strawmen is really a waste
what Fe in superego does equate to, however, is relatively and on average less emotion (as logical types) and less outward, excited emotional expressivenes (as introverts and Te types) - being introverts XLI are more covert when they do express emotions than LXE, and the emotions they prefer to express are Fi-ish emotions, which are softer, more concerned with emotional and interpersonal comfort and the care for personal relationships, and less exuberant expressiveness and elation which the Ti types can like to indulge in when relaxed
also, all functions are used everyday, even the superego ones, but their difference in strength and importance when compared to the ego functions is absolutely obvious
Fe polr types can be said to be the least outwardly emotional expressive, in general
>surprised you were not aware
the topic at hand is the question of your type, including whether you are rational/irrational, since it is evident that SLI is highly unlikely to be your type - someone should not just assume that you are irrational just because you type yourself as such
>You actually haven't given a single good reason supported whatsoever by any degree of Socionic theory.
I'm surprised that you consider the basic dichotomy of logic/ethics to be unrelated to ''any degree of Socionic theory'', but it would explain a lot
>You argue with Ti yet denied being a Ti type based on intertype relations.
I primarily argue by examples, pointing to behaviour which is likely/unlikely for the type a given person assigns to themselves - this is just as much Te (perceiving and understanding the ''data'' of behaviour, as far as common sense can perceive) as it is Ti (concluding something logically based on raw data/facts)
also, I give advice on how to proceed with understanding your type, which is a question of efficiency, which is Te
any person who tries to convince someone of something being the case, based on interpretation of data, uses Te and Ti - difference is what kind of logical activites are preferred overall; for example, erudition and expansive factual knowledge is more unlikely to be something which Ti types strive for, just like theoretical fields where models, worldviews, mathematical/syllogistic procedures and formulas are dominant aren't as appealing to Te types
you can check my examples of IEEs in the delta thread, if you're interested in positing another type for me - they should be mostly EIEs, if I really was LSI
>which you now disregard
this follows from that you are likely mistyped
>battle typing
such as strange concept - arguing with someone about their type with the intention to correct it - in the relevant thread, even - is seen as an attack... seems like another assumption of emotional motivation
this conversation is fruitless, and I am repeating myself, so I see no point in continuing. if you're interested in being typed (which doesn't seem the case), then a video would be enlightening - as I said, i suspect an ethical irrational type.
Reminder to the forum: if you don't have a likewise severe autistic/schizoid personality as said user and have actually have a healthy sense of humor and ability to emote to basic human levels, you're not a logical type and most certainly aren't SLI. We have no further means for interaction, which at no point was particular desired on my part so fuck off Mr. LSI.
Last edited by ContractedCriminalboy; 09-30-2022 at 04:56 PM.
No offense to Kara of course with the autism remarks but they have to be made as they are generally relevant considering this long running campaign of his started over a single sentence, three word, bad fucking reference joke of mine, saying "who hurt you?". That points strongly to an inability on his end to process such things, which he then projects into believing that all SLIs and logical types must likewise have an inability to process.
Last edited by ContractedCriminalboy; 09-30-2022 at 12:14 AM.
@blaecaedre good post. Don't be demotivated by Criminalboy (I don't think he is even aware that his name already suggests Se). I think your level of understanding is so much better it feels like you are debating a child. I agree that he's an ethical irrational. Values Fe too
Exactly what I just mentioned. Thanks for remembering.
@Alive
his name points somewhat to valued Se, yes, mostly the irrationals - the most iron-fisted upholders of order are stereotypically the beta rationals
also, his interests which were previously mentioned seem to include martial arts and heavy lifting, which are interests with an assumed considerable majority of Se valuers. but self-reported interests are, of course, unreliable, as we don't know him personally or know to what degree he pursues them
>he values Fe too
it's possible. Fi types are usually more polite, even when they're in a bad mood (they more often say ''don't talk to me!/go away!/leave me alone!/shut up!'' than to directly insult and ridicule the interlocutor)
My username is a play on FreelancePoliceman (speaking of which, does his username make him Beta ST?). I made my account an alter version of his with his profile pic reversed orientation and color. But no longer able to change it. My longest running username was LemurianLo and BillyLo. Guess I'm Ni lead because I had an interest in Lemuria?
You two make great butt buddies though. Nice of you to give him the reach around while you type 90% of the forum IEI.
Last edited by ContractedCriminalboy; 09-30-2022 at 12:51 AM.
@Sanguine Miasma
am i allowed to suggest a type
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.
I do not really mind. My reasons are clear because I exists outside of all stereotypes and those who view one side will miss a lot. Applies IRL too.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
i think u might be a LIE. i dont believe LIEs are unemotional or cold outwardly like the rest of NT types can be perceived. sorelle amore, and the trans LIE i knew are quite animated but i think thats related to their body's hormones being messed up from diet.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.
Well, Gulenko's report made me think that LIE would be OK secondary type.
However: There tends to be a hidden collision between me and Fi types. Let's call it suspicion. So it is hard for me to even relax with them as I judge their remarks manipulative or over adjusting (corruption of thought in scientific sense). I do not practice pragmatic business or try to win that way. I don't probably act democratically at all. Means: I do not establish business relations. Instead of that I prefer to strip down needs to bare minimum and make savings while avoid to make any sort of investments (Te of LSE and ILI). My work is tweaking > executing. That is process over result.
So LSE. I have met many. Like all dialectical algorithmic types we love absurd nonesense but their humor can be very predictable and stereotyped. Seem OK people.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
IME Fe types are generally the manipulative ones, not Fi. It's difficult to be authentic and simultaneously manipulative.
根性
ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ
ʏᴏᴜ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛᴀᴋᴇ
I wanna larp as an N. Someone tell me how I can act like an intuitive.
Do i just say "theoretically" a lot? What do I do to seem N without actually using N? Theoretically speaking.
根性
ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ
ʏᴏᴜ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛᴀᴋᴇ
Speak in generalities. Make broad sweeping claims/ “theories” about whatever you like. Facts are optional. Claim intuitive superiority when you get things right. If you get something wrong, respond with “ah, it looks like I need to update my mental model about ___ phenomenon”.
You’re always good at making things look more amassed or an impossible database of over exhaustive reason and hyper exponential giga terrors of the brain boy empire of ego enormities in the dinosaur diagram built on analysis paralysis.
You will yet freeze me to death on the ice of knowledge @Poptart !!
https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/9systemswishes
Riley + Shingo = Pirlo, grades of polymerization ocean spinning wonders of fluff and jumping paces of sneaky clutter and polished ranges of feeling and passion stealing potions and ebony cords of lush and superb elsewhere rungs of pleasant and blooming ferries of lottery exponential sheer cold blueprints to heaven and ever aspiring futures of playground imperial shadows of beauty and terror igniting present changing resolution films of glee and symphony rounding promise and Halloween!!*
arid landscape strange crystal-like tower = Realgam Tower from Pokemon Colosseum + Star Wars KOTOR Star Forge
Lmao, this is great. Thanks.
根性
ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ
ʏᴏᴜ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛᴀᴋᴇ
I’ve seen a video of Sanguine on here.
He might have NT inclinations but he’s definitely a Fe-base.
Last edited by Manatroid92; 10-02-2022 at 03:05 AM.
This is a fair comment, but really it’s all a matter of information/‘values’ preference.
It’s not so dissimilar to Te thinking Ti bases are obtuse/missing the point and vice-versa. In reality both kinds of Ethical types ‘manipulate’, but I think that Fe/Fi bases can do so without even really meaning to.
For example, an ESE or EIE might troll an emotionally-charged story is just letting their feelings out, but it seeps into the atmosphere and can change how their listeners feel about something. The manipulation, in a way, is actually palpable to
everyone *except* the ExE, because they’re kind of just operating how they’re programmed to and aren’t wholly aware how they come off to others.
Theres a difference between affecting and manipulating. Manipulating is done maliciously and usually consciously.
根性
ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ
ʏᴏᴜ ɢᴇᴛ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛᴀᴋᴇ
an unhealthy trait among Fi-Te valuers is probably a bit like closed-mindedness ?
the sensor Lucy pointing out the obvious since 3.2 million years ago.
Is anyone else bored yet?
You're right, I guess, I don't really disagree.
The point I was trying to make is that neither type of Ethical is really doing it out of malicious intent, it's just what 'comes out' of them respectively.
Fi types aren't trying to manipulate others in communication, and Te types are 'built' to appreciate them. For Fe-valuers, that Fi-style of communication may seem manipulative when it's really not.
In the same way, Fe types aren't really trying to manipulate others in communication either; Ti types are, again, 'built' to appreciate them. Fi-valuers understandably judge their emotionality as manipulative when Fe-egos don't intend to do so, as well.
It's just the nature of information elements to work that way.
Lucy who?
https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story
I was trying to make a joke.
Last edited by chriscorey; 10-02-2022 at 09:27 AM.
This comment should be taken into account for type functional descriptions tbh
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
When I listen to music or go to the theater or read a book etc, I want it to work on me emotionally. I want to be affected. I go to the theater to cry, I want to be affected. Affection and Emotional manipulation are closer than it seems, they are almost synonymous imho. Any kind of Art has at its very purpose the expression of the artist and the desire to "touch" the audience emotionally, to induce "something" in the other via emotions. Emotions "control" can be perceived as a manipulation but it's also at the core of every well crafted art. It's the prestige of the artist, the actor, the magician, the musician, the painter, the infographist, the dramatist, the movie director, the dancer, the cook, circus artist etc.. Again, to be in control of the audience's emotions is the prerogative of artists. Emotions are the universal language, it's powerful, communicative and indispensable.
Without art and artists , therefore emotional power virtuosity, there is no civilizational development. All the philosophical questions of society have been, are and will always be expressed through art, "plays" and staging. There is no magic nore transcendence without emotions. The world always changes (hopefully for the good) after "Bravos" and applauses.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the fact that "Manipulating" is not always done maliciously.
That's a Quantum leap statement Alive ahah ! It takes all sorts to make a world (and/or an artist !) !So what you are basically saying is that all artists are IEI
I reach for an object
A) it is let's say something nutritional and I give it to a starving person
B) it is a loaded gun and point it towards someone and I pull the trigger
In situations a and b the object was manipulated.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Colloquially manipulation refers to consciously change someone's thought without this person's notice, you took things out of context.
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
I rather use absolute definitions because otherwise we are inserting personal meanings and going out of objective realm.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
If we're talking on concrete cases then taking traits out of concepts will only make it more difficult to reach a conclusion and archieve truth
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
There are cases in which shooting a person is ethically noble thing to do but it is not the default assumption. Same goes inversely to feeding someone. So, no if an action is done it is done.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Manipulation as a general concept means altering the state of being of an object.
Manipulation in this case means the actions where an individual or group of individuals exercises control over the behavior of a person or a group, using persuasion or mental suggestion techniques, seeking to eliminate the critical or self-critical capacities of the person, that is, their ability to judge or refuse information or mental orders.
Taking traits out of the latter, to the point of using the general concept, is out of context and makes concluding the conversation impossible
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
No, I consider it to be very same. So manipulation is the concept that could inherit ethical properties.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
No, it is not the same, because it contains more defining characteristics that come to importance in this sort of discussion
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
Nope. The point is that the manipulator does not register manipulation hence can not attribute his/her actions as such while other people do.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
