Your typing of forum members

[Metamorph]

as far as it seems to me, Fe for IEI doesn't necessarily have to be about visible external emotions. here's a video of a person that identifies as IEI from an MBTI perspective and she is pretty much the opposite of expressive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUkd0EAI6g

What about the fact that many of us who don't self-type as IEI are, curiously, not posting videos of ourselves at all for you to judge, despite the fact this completely aligns with what you yourself say about, for example, delta types not posting videos of themselves, or extraverts being better at managing their public images?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Knock it off, nobody wants to hear it anymore and you won't gain any disciples here.

how would you know that nobody wants to hear it? why are you speaking for an imaginary group when you are supposed to value Fi?

Yes, typology s mostly bullshit

that's ultimatively the problem we both have. you don't give a shit about it, and I enjoy spending a lot of time researching it. it's the reason why I have you on ignore in chat. our own opinions of this stuff are just oppositie to each other and our interactions will never be productive in any way.

[Poptart]

Secondly, the Cognitive Styles of the two are partly oriented towards wanting to reach a certain end-point; (this is also why ILIs crop up in Gulenko's typings so often, too; both EIE and ILI are Dialectic Algorithmic).

People never talk about LSE and SEI as dialectical algorithmic types

[Northstar]

how would you know that nobody wants to hear it? why are you speaking for an imaginary group when you are supposed to value Fi?



that's ultimatively the problem we both have. you don't give a shit about it, and I enjoy spending a lot of time researching it. it's the reason why I have you on ignore in chat. our own opinions of this stuff are just oppositie to each other and our interactions will never be productive in any way.

Here you are again turning every single comment into some half-assed socionics typing. Has anyone here said that your opinions are insightful? Valuing Fe or Fi has nothing to do with stating an obvious fact that your comments are derailing a lot of people into arguing with you instead of something more interesting or useful. You being wrong and arrogant about it is what is the problem (mostly the second part, you can be wrong if you keep a low profile), and no there's no point in ignoring someone if you still are going to see a mess of zillion replies responding and reacting to your nonsense.

[DEAD]

People never talk about LSE and SEI as dialectical algorithmic types

Because they'd never be interested in a such a theory, remember? (I say with sarcasm).

[on a peaceful hiatus]

has anyone here even seen an LSE on this site ever? outside of sol? Gulenko hasn't typed one, and I have never seen a self-typed LSE here. same with ESE. the only person who identifies as that type was a joke account in chat talking about cookies. there's literally no ESE on this site. but whatever, everyone is interested in this theory. no patterns to see here

[Squirrel]

has anyone here even seen an LSE on this site ever? outside of sol? Gulenko hasn't typed one, and I have never seen a self-typed LSE here. same with ESE. the only person who identifies as that type was a joke account in chat talking about cookies. there's literally no ESE on this site. but whatever, everyone is interested in this theory. no patterns to see here

DirectorAbbie if you know him is LSE

As for ESE I'm sure I've seen some in Russian typology forums though I'm not sure how many ESE exist there

[Poptart]

has anyone here even seen an LSE on this site ever? outside of sol? Gulenko hasn't typed one, and I have never seen a self-typed LSE here. same with ESE. the only person who identifies as that type was a joke account in chat talking about cookies. there's literally no ESE on this site. but whatever, everyone is interested in this theory. no patterns to see here

Why on earth would an ESE or LSE feel welcome on this site?

[Metamorph]

Why on earth would an ESE or LSE feel welcome on this site?

@DirectorAbbie self-typed as one and no one disagreed. @blaecaedre typed me as possibly an LSE based on Model G socionics but still thinks EIE is more likely due to the fact I said I took tests ages ago and EIE was my top result (my other results on the standard classical questionnaire were ILE, LII, ESE, and LSE though. The test didn't even think I could be IEI or another Ip type and it considered my results to be acceptable/not all over the place. My results on Olga Tangemann's were virtually identical, so I think there's a good correlation between classical socionics, associative socionics, and model G.) @Grendel self-typed as possibly but not definitely ESE at one point. I think they would feel welcome here. I would personally get along with both ESEs and LSEs more than I get along with LIE, SEE, and generally-gamma neoliberal types and there's no requirement someone here has to like everyone else here. I certainly don't.

[Metamorph]

Are you living under a rock?

Alive is very much the metaphorical president of the Geological Homeowners' Association.

[Poptart]

@DirectorAbbie self-typed as one and no one disagreed. @blaecaedre typed me as possibly an LSE based on Model G socionics but still thinks EIE is more likely due to the fact I said I took tests ages ago and EIE was my top result (my other results on the standard classical questionnaire were ILE, LII, ESE, and LSE though. The test didn't even think I could be IEI or another Ip type and it considered my results to be acceptable/not all over the place. My results on Olga Tangemann's were virtually identical, so I think there's a good correlation between classical socionics, associative socionics, and model G.) @Grendel self-typed as possibly but not definitely ESE at one point. I think they would feel welcome here. I would personally get along with both ESEs and LSEs more than I get along with LIE, SEE, and generally-gamma neoliberal types and there's no requirement someone here has to like everyone else here. I certainly don't.

Search “LSE” or “ESE” on this site. Those types are rarely discussed. When they are talked about, it’s usually in relation to another type, with questions like “what do IEIs think about LSEs?”. Or it’s just something negative. Gulenko flat out pretends that LSEs don’t exist anywhere except for the farm. I’m sure that xSEs do exist on this site. Most of them have probably convinced themselves that they’re LSI or EIE.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I think Gulenko has figured something out that most people here who just casually read about the theory and are kinda not all that interested are completely unaware of.

[Metamorph]

Search “LSE” or “ESE” on this site. Those types are rarely discussed. When they are talked about, it’s usually in relation to another type, with questions like “what do IEIs think about LSEs?”. Or it’s just something negative. Gulenko flat out pretends that LSEs don’t exist anywhere except for the farm. I’m sure that xSEs do exist on this site. Most of them have probably convinced themselves that they’re LSI or EIE.

People have discussed them, but most of the people who understand the theory aren't interested in using it as small talk, they're interested in going to the politics subforum and the lifestyle subforum and discussing other topics. If people understand the theory and use it as small-talk that's probably type-related and ESEs would do it but probably not EIEs, LSIs, and to be fair, LSEs. So if people understand the theory but don't like gossiping about how their coworker is such an IEE, I think EIE and LSI would still be on the table (but so would LSE and ESE. Other data would be the deciding factor in my opinion. I think ESE would be the most likely to do it out of all those types since they could get some socionics data from their duals that way, but even ESE would probably be more likely to talk about things like personal projects, just not necessarily literally the farm.)

[Metamorph]

People never talk about LSE and SEI as dialectical algorithmic types

@blaecaedre typed me "EIE or LSE, leaning EIE" based on the fact LSE is a dialectical-algorithmic type even though EIE and LSE have essentially no functions in common and no values in common beside aristocratic quadra, rationality, and many of the dichotomies. Which, well, that's exactly how socionics works and exactly what makes it extremely different from something like MBTI or HEXACO and OCEAN.

[Metamorph]

Here you are again turning every single comment into some half-assed socionics typing. Has anyone here said that your opinions are insightful? Valuing Fe or Fi has nothing to do with stating an obvious fact that your comments are derailing a lot of people into arguing with you instead of something more interesting or useful. You being wrong and arrogant about it is what is the problem (mostly the second part, you can be wrong if you keep a low profile), and no there's no point in ignoring someone if you still are going to see a mess of zillion replies responding and reacting to your nonsense.

This. No one's speaking for an imaginary group: literally everyone is ticked off at you, @Alive. Even people who self-type as IEI are ticked off because you make IEI sound so bad with your descriptions of them. It's not an imaginary group with the torches and pitchforks here, and if you think it is, you might be the delusional one here. No one is interested in what you have to say. Tell me one person who's like "yes, I really respect and admire Alive's typings and I think Mike Tyson and Noam Chomsky are both IEI like he does." No one wants to hear what you have to say, Alive. And no, it's not because you're some brave pioneer. No one thinks Mike Tyson and Noam Chomsky are the same type. Mike Tyson and Noam Chomsky being different types is essentially the kind of thing that the idea people are different types is based on. Additionally, most people think Mike Tyson is SLE (rarely SEE) and most people think Noam Chomsky is essentially a prototypical LII. Your entire theory typing everyone as IEI is cynically assuming people only become famous because they worship celebrity and not because they do something other people notice. I've been afraid of accidentally becoming famous (even though luckily I'm not.) I don't want to be famous. Yet you type me IEI and assume I want to be famous. Hooey.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

your ramblings are pretty incomprehensable and you are delusional and obsessed

>there's no chance only one type is interested in socionics
>all heavyweight champions are Se base

Blue can't comprehend that subtypes exist and that a person who is >6'0 is going to have different interests than someone who is a short introverted researcher (I suspect he is at most 5'7 and has never been involved in Se activities his whole life). A normalizing subtype that has no concept about the physical and athletical aspect of reality. It is something that he will never get in his life

If people understand the theory and use it as small-talk that's probably type-related and ESEs would do it but probably not EIEs, LSIs, and to be fair, LSEs.

he just throws a bunch of garbage around like Messy who claims the arab community consists of such and such types. it's all just a bunch of subjective opinions by people who barely comprehend the theory

[Squirrel]

Alive is such a child

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Alive is such a child

the majority of criticism comes from people like you and Blue, people who aren't even able to figure out their own type let alone apply the theory in a sophisticated way, oh and northstar who actually doesn't give a shit about the theory, and timber who thinks Ne is about predictions, and lavos who uses obscure systems that don't make any sense, or Poptart that is just here for whatever reason but it is certainly not socionics, but every type is interested in this theory according to her. you all literally have no idea what you are doing, so the criticism is meaningless to me. just a bunch of beginners thinking they know it all.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Lol yay, it's not only me speaking up.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

people that actually made a serious effort in understanding things are @blaecaedre, @Subteigh and @Varlawend. if they would say you don't know what you are doing it would affect me more but the incromprehensible things that people write here that are at complete odds with the theory yet they are absolutely convinced they are right, it's typical beta behaviour.

[Squirrel]

it's all just a bunch of subjective opinions by people who barely comprehend the theory

Nothing prevents us from expressing our opinions , as I told you earlier this is a forum for general discussion and not your house so you control who has the right to speak and who has not.

What I said about the types of people in the Arab typology community is not my own typing for them , it's their typing
Some of them know the theory and have been studying it for more than ten years

At this point, you're not just a kid, you're a pathetic person with a huge inferiority complex , you're trying to hide it by belittling others and considering yourself the only "expert" here while others are just people who got to know the theory this morning and have no right to speak

[Aster]

The thing is, typing @Lady Lioness as Beta NF by saying that's what Gulenko would say when Gulenko hasn't even typed her before means you're not using Gulenko's school of thought; you're using your own interpretation as a substitute.

LL's 'passion', as you call it, really just seems to be her Se, and she's very much Fi-centric in pretty much all of her posts. As others have said, she's also very confident in calling out people she deems distasteful (Gamma Fi), and to some here it may seem she's even too eager to jump the gun on some other posters.

Moreover, even if EIEs are prone to 'stirring the pot', I don't think that's ever what LL is trying to do. ESIs aren't always going to abide by the rules of 'keeping it friendly', because Fi- is, like, completely against that.

I found this post of yours extremely confusing. Alive has obviously deviated and he’s been clear of the fact on this site. And I, personally was trying to see it through the eyes of G, sure. But I’m limited through what I know of the theory and even his students have disagreements. Lilith already answered for herself. So how is everyone else typing on this thread? What they know from several theories, possibly those that favor their own opinion of themselves from different ones?

Secondly, no one ever said stirring the pot is EIE. That’s what Lilith and I said we were doing, and neither of us type EIE
I feel like a lot of people are standing behind Lady Lioness because of some kind of friendship, and it’s not based on logic.

And ESI are IJ temperament. That also doesn’t make sense to me at all how they would jump the gun. One would think they would have more restraint than ‘jumping the gun’.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Nothing prevents us from expressing our opinions , as I told you earlier this is a forum for general discussion and not your house so you control who has the right to speak and who has not.

What I said about the types of people in the Arab typology community is not my own typing for them , it's their typing
Some of them know the theory and have been studying it for more than ten years

At this point, you're not just a kid, you're a pathetic person with a huge inferiority complex , you're trying to hide it by belittling others and considering yourself the only "expert" here while others are just people who got to know the theory this morning and have no right to speak

are you kidding? I put you on ignore with Blue a long time ago and you are just keep messaging me over and over and over again. if anything you people have massive inferiority complexes because you actively keep engaging with a person that wants to have nothing to do with you. geez

[Squirrel]

the majority of criticism comes from people like you and Blue, people who aren't even able to figure out their own type let alone apply the theory in a sophisticated way, oh and northstar who actually doesn't give a shit about the theory, and timber who thinks Ne is about predictions, and lavos who uses obscure systems that don't make any sense, or Poptart that is just here for whatever reason but it is certainly not socionics, but every type is interested in this theory according to her. you all literally have no idea what you are doing, so the criticism is meaningless to me. just a bunch of beginners thinking they know it all.

I think I told you that I used to change my type a lot because no ethical type really suited me except ESI and I excluded it later for some reasons

Using my type's changing as a defense is silly because it is not caused by a lack of understanding of theory, but from a lack of self-awareness of my behaviors.

[Metamorph]

I think I told you that I used to change my type a lot because no ethical type really suited me except ESI and I excluded it later for some reasons

Using my type's changing as a defense is silly because it is not caused by a lack of understanding of theory, but from a lack of self-awareness of my behaviors.

Also... my type is EIE. I've never changed this. I've only had doubts about the foundation of the theory itself. Alive is silly if he thinks I'm wavering on types. I'm EIE or socionics is bunkum. Classical socionics, associative socionics, and model G align quite well and rather conclusively think I'm EIE. It's only people who aren't practicing socionics at all such as @Subteigh who type me as something else. I don't put it in my profile for the same reason I've never made a video and I don't even have an avatar any more, as well as the reason I only use my signature to try to inform people about socionics theory and common topics to the forum: I don't want to associate labels or images with myself in a "Look at me! This is me!" kind of way. I am not a type, or an image, or even a picture or video including my face. I am a person and I am beyond all that. I want my points to be addressed and not to be a "brand" with a logo or similar. Additionally I don't want to dox myself, even though I'm fine with talking about other aspects of my life to people I know personally. I'm not someone who really wants a lot of attention for silly things. I like being invisible like my lack of an avatar just fine.

However, people changing their type doesn't make them IEI, as if only IEIs ever changed their type. "If you change your type, you can only have one type which is IEI" is not even vaguely implied by the theory. In fact, I would think sensing types would be more likely to do it, as would results > process types, so I think an ESI would be more likely to change types than an IEI. IEIs have 3D Ne and Fe, so they are not likely to change types unless someone else suggests to them that they're a different type with logical reasoning (Se and Ti) in my opinion.

[Aster]

II feel bad for @Aster in all of this because you were coming from a sincere and neutral place, you were obviously a bit hesitant to voice your opinion, and I don't like...well, in Socionics terms, I dont like how much "force" is being applied in disagreeing with your opinion just because it's alongside the opinions of some more forceful people than you. Just wanted to say I appreciate your honesty and you speaking up about what you think, even if I don't agree with what you think. Idk. I just don't want to see you regret ever sharing when you did nothing wrong. If there is one thing I hate, it is silencing someone's voice when they do not deserve to be silenced like that because they've done nothing wrong. I don't want you to feel stupid, or anything like that, either. I would have responded differently (more gently etc) to you than them, but unfortunately, you got mixed up in everything because of this not being 1 on 1.

Thank you

im not intimidated tho, it’s not the first time on here. lol

[on a peaceful hiatus]

However, people changing their type doesn't make them IEI, as if only IEIs ever changed their type.

just another bunch of bullshit you made up about things I write. when did I write that? I only mention that it indicates irrationality, because your mood influences how you see things. it is literally socioncis theory.

[Squirrel]

are you kidding? I put you on ignore with Blue a long time ago and you are just keep messaging me over and over and over again. if anything you people have massive inferiority complexes because you actively keep engaging with a person that wants to have nothing to do with you. geez

I don't like seeing other people type others based on stupid reasons and then call themselves experts , that's why I'm arguing with you

I'm not chasing you btw , I'm just correcting you

[Metamorph]

just another bunch of bullshit you made up about things I write. when did I write that? I only mention that it indicates irrationality, because your mood influences how you see things. it is literally socioncis theory.

Yes, and I have never changed my type, which indicates rationality.

However, would a sensing, ethical rational type have a firm enough understanding of the theory to never change theirs? I don't think someone changing their type is definitive proof they're not ESI, which is an ethical, sensing rational type rather than say, an intuitive, logical rational type. Heck, even an intuitive, logical rational type might think they're extraverted because they went to a party the other day, or think they're ethical because they cried to themselves recently. This is why we should type using the questionnaires and tests that are available rather than typing solely based on gut feelings. If you think I am any type other than EIE you are opposing literally all information on socionics we have. It's OK to think the theory is bunk, because sometimes I think the theory is bunk, but that doesn't mean somehow I'm a slob and a daydreamer and a hermit and have a different set of personal characteristics than I do.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I'm EIE or socionics is bunkum.

Lol, I say this same thing about me being ESI. I'd literally have to discard the entire Socionics system because nothing else fits.

[adage]

I feel like a lot of people are standing behind Lady Lioness because of some kind of friendship, and it’s not based on logic.

Sometimes, I think they do because of fear of being chewed out.
I have her on ignore because her attitude gave me nightmares in the past.

[nifl]

@Coeruleum Blue
you're misremembering - i consider LSE impossible, and EIE the most likely. you have too much of an abstract and emotional character, I perceive you as too humanistic, dramatic, philosophical for me to even consider the pleasant, but boring LSE (for me)
that you're an extravert is likely, however, as you freely debate and interact with people, there is no avoidant tendency, you are adamant, do not tire of people and interaction so easily, you say what you mean directly and without hesitation

@adage
she seems to frequently engage in conflict
i'm seriously in doubt of her being ESI, one of the most diplomatic and conflict-avoidant types
either a Fe type or a Fi extravert, but IEE is also very unlikely - they're not quite so bull-headed, either. SEE, which is very close to ESI, may be her type.

[Aster]

Sometimes, I think they do because of fear of being chewed out.
I have her on ignore because her attitude gave me nightmares in the past.

lol I can understand that

my Hubs is SLE so I’m used to it. Some kid just flipped him off the other day riding through the country and he backed up and asked him if he had a problem and threatened to kick his teeth in. And the kid was all like, ‘No Sir’. I happened to be in passenger seat. … Plus my teenagers who fight constantly. One of them is SEE. So this stuff seems pretty minor to me, I guess. Everyone is constantly fighting or yelling around here it seems.
And they all cuss like sailors. It’s not a peaceful environment.

Just another day.

[Poptart]

@Lady Lioness seems ESI to me, because her comments are full of Fi and Se. I don’t agree with her out of friendship or fear of confrontation. I’ve butted heads with her before and it’s fine. In this case her self-typing seems accurate to me.

[Aster]

I bet Sol would know the correct answer

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I bet Sol would know the correct answer

Sol would write the same as blaecaedre

[Aster]

Sol would write the same as blaecaedre

I was just thinking the exact same thing!

[adage]

lol I can understand that

my Hubs is SLE so I’m used to it. Some kid just flipped him off the other day riding through the country and he backed up and asked him if he had a problem and threatened to kick his teeth in. And the kid was all like, ‘No Sir’. I happened to be in passenger seat. … Plus my teenagers who fight constantly. One of them is SEE. So this stuff seems pretty minor to me, I guess. Everyone is constantly fighting or yelling around here it seems.
And they all cuss like sailors. It’s not a peaceful environment.

Just another day.

Haha, your family sure is lively.
What you're describing is close to the environment I grew up in, guess I'm growing into an old conflict-averse shmuck.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Sol, the latin word for sun, is quite a poetic name for an LSE, who was also interested in tarot reading. Northstar is also a rather poetic name for delta ST

[Metamorph]

I was just thinking the exact same thing!

I don't think Alive would agree with Sol though. Sol types people things beside IEI, and additionally, Sol doesn't say "I'm a genius who can type people all by myself by gut feelings!" Sol uses tests and questionnaires and bounces his opinions off of other people unlike an individualistic Westerner.