nothing like getting fucked over in real time by a person with a big smile on their face as if it improves the situation
Why this link about Gulenko has different signs?
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
yours and mine are obvz correct
Gulenko may have swapped his signs, someone else may have swapped the signs. static fxns are right in either case. the vocabulary's muddled now. I blame the sign swap. aristo -P/+J, democ -P/-J up until a few minutes ago. I guess the best way forward is with a different vocabulary because -/+ is now soiled.
Gulenko goes Ne-LII ftr. my estimate is that Ne units and Fe connotative integrity were fixed/corrected, by base/diffuse Ti, at the expense of consistency through time and other field functionality -- Ni flow and +Ti stricture/s suffer/ed.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
This is not quadra based model. It works alongside benefit and supervision rings. It tells your IE manifestation instead of quadra values.
According to this benefit and supervision rings have similar manifestation of IE's with different strengths and why it is far easier target to attack them.
Further more your supervision ring has similar cognition style and benefit ring has similar complementary style. Your mirror and his/her supervision ring has conflicting style. If you look close enough you'll notice similarities of IE usage and thinking style between super-ego types even more than business types.
It is pretty clear to me that for example thehotelambush shows shows here R-/Fi- http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1247409
while on the same thread other Ti base takes opposite angle. Context tied vs end result kind of thinking just check cognitive styles.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 01-05-2018 at 03:47 AM.
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
"countering assertion" with another assertion, battle across Fe lines with no underlying understanding with which to determine the relative merit of the claims. no data supporting one side doesn't support the other when the entire question arises out of the data vacuum both sides are subject to to begin with
any type can cheat; there is no data, mainly because there's no data on type itself (objectively measurable), so how can we say how likely LIE is to cheat when what LIE is is in question itself? this whole "wheres the data lul, (therefore my interpretation is more plausible)" is precisely the issue because there is no data, so it cuts both ways. where's your data? oh you know LIEs? really? well I know more LIEs than you!
also your reading of strat is shallow, which leads me to believe you don't really know LIEs, which of course was obvious based on you prosecuting this entire line of thinking but my point is your reading of strat confirms it because you fail to understand how what she's saying conveys that personal loyalty is of the utmost importance to the dyad. not that "lul LIEs cheat, therefore LIEs can womanize as much as anyone else." just another shallow Ti literal reading. its so linear and one dimensional you totally missed the point (its not about if they can, its about relative level of concern and what that implies for action). any type can womanize, what we're talking about here is valuing or not valuing strong bonds that persist through time and embodying those values through action. any type can cheat, it doesn't mean all types view relationships, as a matter of personality, alike. the question was originally about various approaches to relationships, as a matter of personality--that (Adam Strange's) approach is incongruent with LIE (all relationships, not just "lul I want to fuck an ESI"--which, in any case, you'd have to be somewhat idiotic to believe are the statements of a man advanced in years taking relationships seriously, barring literal mental retardation).
not that you followed the overall thrust of the conversation, because if you did you would understand this and not be wasting everyone's time with your page spamming of irrelevant or relevant-in-precisely-a-way-that-proves-the-opposite of what you intended mass content. also next time you think about posting a quote ask yourself if you can summarize it first. if you can't summarize it maybe you don't understand it (the only reason to post the full quote itself is if something about the way in which it was said is relevant. there's nothing relevant about posting 5 paragraphs of undifferentiated nonsense when it could be summed up in a sentence, "strat criticizes LIE for their disloyalty"--quotes are reserved for when the language itself is important). otherwise you're going to end up like Aylen posting entire pages of stuff you don't understand making yourself look stupid in the process. in short, you, like her, make a mockery of "objective data" because you can't leverage it in a meaningful, let alone concise, way (this idea that ESI is obligated to bow down at the first hint of "objective data" because you copypasta something totally skips over the fact that it has to actually be meaningful, and only perpetuates the same sily projections onto the Fi process characteristic of this place. that people like AS play it up like its actually going to work is just insult to injury "haha I waved 5 dollars at her." "haha I enlightened her with my facts [actually baseless assertions]"). Te valuing unlikely, more like Fe noisemaking. its okay though, that's something that happens a lot around here, because people can't distinguish between the appearance and reality of things, such that Fe imitations of Te rationality get a sad amount of purchase; in any real Te environment these kind of tactics would get laughed out of the room, which is the only thing Fe seems to understand
what does it mean for cheating to be incongruent with the aims as defined by valued functions of a personality? it means all else being equal LIE is less likely to cheat or womanize. if that is not that case Fi valuing loses all meaning. which it sort of has on these forums, because people have replaced it with Ti rule based behavioral mimicry (and turned everything into a reductive Ti can/cannot binary, and of course anyone can do anything so anyone can be anything without regard for paterns or meaning and with no real understanding of Fi). well that is the entire point of all my posting, you're just on the wrong side of the divide of people who "get it" and those who don't
Last edited by Bertrand; 01-05-2018 at 05:24 AM.
Once you have met highly outgoing LIE, you'll have no doubts why certain things might happen.
Types are very suggestive to their suggestive. In case of LIE it is realm of relations and having very bad control over it. Also note that they are also highly suggestible to different ideas surrounding it.
Or suggestive might easily overindulge in different things. Or be very neurotic towards something.
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
actually you don't know LIE at all and they're probably the most likely to create that impression and then not act on it, but you'd never get close enough to realize that
is it possible? yeah anything is possible. thanks for clearing that up
According to Strat there are Delta NFs with low morals, when you consider this then how can you really ascribe such behaviors to an Fi valuing type.
Consider a Ti-Fe duality. If you think the Ti type couldn't get tired of endless histrionics and drama then you'd be wrong.
The problem with socionics is, it ascribes even simpler behaviors than MBTI whilst still somehow thinking it's more articulate.
You'd be better learning about it IRL than reading stuff over forums, then you might realise what I did,, it doesn't describe much. You can have LIEs selling dodgy 2nd hand cars with no respect for boundaries, SLIs who aren't willing to entertain certain types of immature Ne dominants etc.
its the essence of -Fi to notice (subjective) ethical shortcomings first. you're just projecting a Ti understanding of her descriptions onto what is essentially a Fi endeavor and drawing all the wrong conclusions on the basis thereof
The key in your quote is 'reading on matters of personal or professional activity' which is different from just reading things with no practical application. For instance, my SLI friend who never reads, is an expert on horology, because watches are a personal interest to him. Reading for the sake of reading, enneagram might describe it as type 5, but I know of IEIs who read loads, but it's not for any practical purpose, so what I said does not disagree with your Te quote, but is supported by it.
obviously suggestive is something that is highly erratic and not refined. That is the key. It can swing from one end to another. In a way where one party states the rules:
ESI example:
I think PoLR for instance is quite stable in their insistence. It won't move unless something remarkable happens. Notice if PoLR has thing such as as unstable psychological distance ( PoLR ) then that thing remains fairly stable.
In case of Adam it is rather clear that he seeks clear rules regarding . Just check his comments in shout box.
In case of SLE scratch a surace and you'll see that they want peace of mind but have very little clues how to achieve it.
And Sol made a comment how woman should fulfill something by stating what women are good for.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 01-05-2018 at 07:04 AM.
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
"stable in their insistence" (to ignore something) and "erratic" (in their granularity of perception) are just category errors if you compare the two directly [1]. its simply put ignoring v receptive with equally low res dimensionality (experience only), but that would mess with your silly narrative too much so whatever. all this gloss on trying to turn Fi into something its not just proves my point. simply put Adam quite obviously responds to Fe more than Fi and however much you want to provide for the abstract possibility of that, it is nevertheless meaningless viewed in the broader context through time
its also painfuly obvious the way Adam insists on a SLE/IEI dynamic and blooms when he receives even a whiff of Fe, that its slightly mindblowing people can't see it in his behavior, but rather insist on their tortured retelling of socionics in order to make room for it all. he goes so far as to try to impose it on ESI and then wonders at his lack of success. its like damn son, you're no Te/Ni ego. obviously the solution is duals hate their duals (insert triumphant 16 types meme, what a marvelous piece of homegrown wisdom originating here) (also another misreading of strat, but apparently you'd have to be Fi to understand). and then acts out such an obtuse notion. he's so lost its absurd and then all you idiots come in and try to prop it up like you're doing him a favor. something about that seems deeply cynical in how you all treat him, as if you admit hes too stupid to help and simply offer a head pat, but I assume that must be a projection of mine onto this sort of activity, because I find that to be the response of people who have stopped regarding a person as deserving the truth, which only happens when someone is completely dehumanized
[1] in other words they're either both stable in their insistence/granularity (because they are set). or they are both erratic, inasmuch as low granularity entails a degree of hard to predict error/variability. you can play word games by mixing the categories but its just a slight of hand to arrive at a disingenuous outcome
Last edited by Bertrand; 01-05-2018 at 07:03 AM.
If you had an EIE politician, then going by the theory every SLI would hate that politician. Every Ti type would not be emotionally moved by a Spielberg film because he's IEE (Fi).
there's a difference between a meaningful pattern and a determinism. its the difference between sufficient/necessary. there are certain necessary conditions that to be LIE must be met otherwise all of typology is meaningless. meeting those conditions are not in of itself sufficient to constitute a determinism (they're simply the conditions of not being Ni polr so to speak--to not explode the system, i.e. meaning). it is precisely in this middle ground that personality exists. if you don't comprehend this then you will never understand personality theory (a meaningful pattern in time). that you don't comprehend this as of now is self evident because its obvious you don't understand personality theory except on the most shallow verbal level. if you could actually penetrate to that depth of understanding you'd have something, but all you have is an empty scheme of categorizations without any meaning or real application. you assume this is all there is, and defend Adam on the ground he's not a "threat" to any meaning, because you don't perceive any to begin with. but you two are bound up in fate to be on the wrong side of those who do, at least until you can make the unconscious conscious
What's the point for plus and minus functions for you? When I read the descriptions, it makes much more sense to see it as functional blocks, ie Si with Te will manifest differently than Si with Fe due to a focus on production vs emotions. It makes more sense to me just to talk about types.
+/- is about time
movement away vs toward things is a pattern of behavior in space that plays out, as a characteristic, in time. its how gulenko represents the idea to people who have a hard time with time by keeping it implicit (unconscious)
I didn't realize you wanted to not use the defining articles by socionics experts and expect everyone on this forum to follow your new definitions blindly.
And pointing out you don't have data is my point. Your unsupported statement is that LIE are less likely to cheat than other types. I highlighted that isn't supported by the literature on the theory or my personal experience AND you don't have any support. Then you tell me I'm saying LIE cheat a certain amount? Um, no. I didn't. I merely said there's no reason to believe they cheat less JUST BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT LOYALTY. They also care about stimulation and wealth, including wealth of relationship.
You're suggesting I didn't understand the source material because I included full quotes for you. I didn't condescend to paraphrase something and ask you to believe it. I brought you the original source because I respected you might think I was talking about of my ass.
Is anyone else on this thread making ad hominem attacks like you are while pretending they're using cogent rhetoric?
Last edited by nanashi; 01-05-2018 at 08:01 AM.
lol as if its a simple binary: the words say x! therefore they can only mean one possible thing! clearly the sign of a Ni ego.
you got a long way to go, bucko
LIE has the greatest psychological space (this is a reference to an authority, fyi) and you're not exhibiting a lot right now, which is also why its precondition to understanding ESI, which is strat, who you don't. Also you cherry picked the exception to the rule in all of typology (ESI, Strat) from which to base your Ti projections upon and draw your conclusions, which is not surprising since how else you could you justify such a confused thesis: namely, that heightened concern for loyalty does not manifest, in the aggregate, in less cheating, in the aggregate. that is precisely the definition for "concern for loyalty" that any type can cheat is just an illusory path to "therefore all types cheat just as much." you're falling down somewhere in regard to multi-factor analysis and the time component
if heightened concern for loyalty has any meaning it must translate into a meaningful pattern, and loyalty is not a purely internal phenomenon--it is acted out. even when someone say, for example, prostitutes themselves for their beloved (requiem for a dream type scenario) we can discern between doing it for reasons that essentially amount to a "concern for loyalty." and we would say it is not cheating. so the phyisical act is subsumed into the loyalty. heightened concern for loyalty must necessarily result in less cheating even in the presence of what appears to be disloyalty. which is precisely where SLE and LIE part ways. ever notice how SLE can't stand his girl looking at other men? LIE rather enjoys the knowledge that despite whatever act she puts on the underlying reality belongs to him. this is loyalty. this is not cheating. you might say this is precisely where troll lost the plot earlier when he drew the surface conclusion based on LIE's social behavior that they must get caught up in cheating. what it fails to realize its a Te Ni Fi version of reality, which is distinct from all these projected notions around here. the bottom line is LIE cheats less as a pattern distinct to LIE in the same way LII is more attentive to group mood (notice Ronin's antics [sorry I'm upsetting people Ronin], trying to lighten things up) and ESE is more attentive to rules. if you collapse all those distinctions it renders personality moot. it never guarantees people do or do not do any specific thing. this doesn't make adam LIE because he might just be acting out the exception. at some point you act out the exception so consistently its it own pattern: that is what personality is. we're all "the exception to personality x" we call that "personality y"
loyalty inasmuch as every type subscribes to notions of loyalty is universal and it can be said that no type on the basis of "valuing loyalty" will or will not exhibit a pattern of observable consequence. but the point is the way strat uses loyalty and the way LIE thinks of loyalty (it is an ontological property we call "Fi suggestive") is more than a word with multiple meanings specific only to the mouth of whoever uses it (SLE is certainly concerned with "loyalty") the point is what LIE "loyalty" looks like and it looks like less cheating from the point of view of Fi, which means something and is observable, but only if you know what you're looking for. LIE notions of loyalty do guard against cheating, not in the sense of looking at another womans tits which is the SLE version, but in personal bonds that meaningfully traverse time. people really fail to understand this, because what it looks like is not literally "rule based" and completely linear, nor does it inhere in some kind of spatial omni present. when LIE is "sensitive" to feedback on this function its not what people project onto Fi which is baseless subjective moralizing, its sincere commitment to fundamental ethical values that transcend appearance or group consensus. its almost impossible to convey for someone who doesn't experience it firsthand. sorry. you'd recognize it if you were one.
Last edited by Bertrand; 01-05-2018 at 08:40 AM.
Just take supervision/benefit ring approach. I think +/- convention here was mistake. Gulenko uses left and right but translates it into +/- in shorthand notation. Ti-l and Ti-r would help here to not to confuse things.
LSI's and ILE's ather refer to logical for instance. LII's and SLE's go on analysis of breaking things down.
I think Ti+ is the way my mind works far more than in Ti- mode. That is how my mind works. It sees/seeks logical connectives far more than breakdown of things. I have harder time to distinguish Ne+/- but I suppose I'm more Ne+.
That is seeing the looking for optimal possibility than wanting to go full on alternatives. Ne+/Ni- approach. It could be even useful to look at IE's in pairs like Fe-/Fi+ and Fe+/Fi-.
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
my shits super dense and full of wisdom so its long because someone like "nanashi" could write a 1000 pages on the topic without saying as much as I do in a paragraph
in short, being concise has little to do with absolute length. its a quality not a quantity, specifically its the quality of efficiency in regard to quantity
Talanov's lists do not have any loyalty-related questions in the top 30 scores with the highest standard deviation for LIEs. On the other hand the 41st is:
"For him, it is extremely important that he is loved - because it is easy to buy for any good feelings, and often he is shoved insincere."
with a 2.98 higher likelihood of a positive answer compared to the average population. So when you say that me or Adam Strange are looking for signs of positive emotions - well, there's some empirical research saying that this can be a trait of LIEs with a higher likelihood than the average person.
On the other hand Talanov's lists regarding ESIs have this characteristic as 18th most likely indicator for ESI:
"Rigidity of the system of moral values, discipline and insidiousness in upholding the norms of social behavior."
with a 3.41 likelihood of a positive answer compared to the average population. Being loyal to your spouse or partner is a standard norm of social behavior, as far as I know.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
alright well thanks for missing the point. I already said every type "values loyalty", but "valuing loyalty" is distinct as a Ti verbal construction from what "Fi suggestive" actually means. Further it is ambiguous as to what "upholding the norms of social behavior" refers to. it could just as easily refer to maintaining standards of Fe role in their dual, in the same way LIE would (obliquely) "uphold the norms of introverted reasoning" with regard to their dual (if you think ESI always dislikes being corrected in regard to logic you would be wrong, its how you do it--hint Adam inasmuch as he does it at all does it wrong). in any case its all recourse to surveys that which if surveys were the answer we wouldn't be here to begin with. you are starting to chase your own tail
she's weird. it's not ESI. you know nothing, Troll Snow
> In case of Adam it is rather clear that he seeks clear rules regarding
In case of Adam it needs to check his type, beforehand. He sometimes says like F type would do. For example the recent about is it appropriate to tell people own opinion about their type. I'd never said like him, while I'm having base Te like he thinks to have. For me it would just to give them useful opinion from the side, nothing bad - while he seems significantly thinks about their feelings, not just about objective truth and good from it.
In order to balance your equation it should be: Sol's system of socionics:
Socionics - Reinin's traits = Jung + Augustinavichiute - Reinin's traits
Now they cancel each other on both side.
resulting (as in Sol's system of socionics):
Socionics = Jung + Augustinavichiute
Or is it:
Sol system of socionics = Socionics - Reinin's traits = Jung + Augustinavichiute - Reinin's traits
Everything in socionics is pure hypothesis.
Anyways. It is beyond stupidity to claim that everything is set in stone from first formulation since there has been no confirmation that it works. Show me the data. Show me the objective typing process. Until that happens you can only make hypothesis. You have your own right to believe, though.
Furthermore show me that your subjective typing method is consistent with your subjective interpretation. Sounds like impossible task.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 01-05-2018 at 10:26 AM.
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
Yeah. We really need Sol's video. I need to set up software sensors to track his every eye movement and body twist. So we can get true LSE benchmark.
FOR THE SCIENCE!
@Sol society needs you!
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