Your typing of forum members

[Expansion]

Well, to be frank, Fe creative was always a little odd for me and I had typed as such on the basis of valued Ni and Ti along with 1D Se. I very rarely actually take emotions into account in decision making, I'm not people oriented in the slightest and I'd much rather spend my time accumulating knowledge in a detached way that is more systematic/technical as opposed to any kind of humanitarian interest one would see from NFs. I don't tend towards emotional displays either, I'm often a lot more expressionless. I'm also not particularly aligned with Beta values lmao - I don't particularly fit aristocracy in at all.
Take the fact that I currently am stuck studying Sociology for example, perhaps a subject almost tailor-made for beta NFs yet I absolutely hate it lol. Again, far too people-focused and group/society focused (I should clarify that I'm not saying this on it's own would rule out IEI, moreso using it as an example to illustrate a larger point)
A type with 4D Ni and Ti (along with 1D Fe and Se) would make more sense than any type that values both of those functions but has one being 2D.

Nothing is a perfect fit, i've known other INFJs who express Fe suppression because it takes work, would rather Ti, and after all it is driving the type forward in thought.

The type is prob. upside down ^. YouTube has an INFJ who doesn't relate to the stereotype of being helpful, and is a jumper type in that system. Jumper is double introverted Ni Ti skipping Fe.

Food for thoughts. If you feel final on ILI so be it. You can add it to my collection thread on Your Types.

[Sapphire]

Nothing is a perfect fit, i've known other INFJs who express Fe suppression because it takes work, would rather Ti, and after all it is driving the type forward in thought.

The type is prob. upside down ^. YouTube has an INFJ who doesn't relate to the stereotype of being helpful, and is a jumper type in that system. Jumper is double introverted Ni Ti skipping Fe.

Food for thoughts. If you feel final on ILI so be it. You can add it to my collection thread on Your Types.

Jumper types are certainly something I've seen many variations of, Objective Personality being one of them though I find their framework to be incredibly logically inconsistent. For example, they refer to a type like NiTi as an "NT" type and then label it INFJ - under the jumper framework it would seemingly make more sense to label NiTi as an NT type (INTJ, if they insist on sticking with MBTI's tradition of labelling Ni and Si leads as "judgers").
I think though, MBTI frameworks like this only exist to explain away flawed typings (I also think subtype systems inadvertently have this affect to a lesser degree). This can be seen in Objective Personality's additional things like "animals" and "coins" - convenient ways to make a bad typing fit. Theoretically, someone who is suppressing a strong function situationally (in the case of an "INFJ" suppressing Fe) should still be strong in that function most of the time. I also think it's worth considering that Objective Personality is a business model, they are first and foremost selling a service and as such make claims such as "most people type themselves upside down" in order to draw in people that lack confidence in their own viewpoints to provide them with an authority figure to rest on in exchange for money. It's rather akin to a cult, especially if you look at the way the people in the Facebook group talk should you have the misfortune of stumbling upon it.

But yes, I'm pretty final on me having 4D Ni and Ti at the very least and between the two types that fit that criteria ILI is the most likely option.

[Muira]

I think he'd also need to not be a pedo to have more respect on his name, but yeah he's that along with being completely closed off to any sort of alternate possibilities. It appears the possibility of being wrong is unfathomable to him

Even more, what gives him the right to simply continue to pry on other people's nativity, showcasing pornography to a minor? Especially me, and countlessly harassing/mentioning me after I put him on ignore. He never moves on, busting into conversations that don't involve him, and he always tries to change the subject. Do I agree with him on some stuff? Maybe, but other people will always have their reasons for their own justifications, and those justifications can be just. Too bad, he never seems to be able to read well enough to understand what the other person is saying.

Even if people rejected him, that's not other people's issue and that's up for him to fix, and he doesn't seem to get that he made himself this way.

[The Reality Denialist]

I agree, Dr.G ' SHS is in perpetual evolution and he keeps updating and modifying it. That said, I find the typing process in SHS much easier even if, as one socionist pointed it out recently, Dr. G doesn't use his model in the typing process.

I don't know if this is really true in the strictest sense. You know, lots of his constructs can be dug with hindsight. Main note about these that these constructs is that they are more like a cherry on the cake rather than something too clear ("Lifelong rather subconscious patterns that tend to work out in a rather long timespan") and therefore I sometimes suppose he works out them backwards starting from the cherry if there's no real conflict with the big picture.

[godslave]

I don't know if this is really true in the strictest sense. You know, lots of his constructs can be dug with hindsight. Main note about these that these constructs is that they are more like a cherry on the cake rather than something too clear ("Lifelong rather subconscious patterns that tend to work out in a rather long timespan") and therefore I sometimes suppose he works out them backwards starting from the cherry if there's no real conflict with the big picture.

I agree. I have an entire file dedicated to SHS and typing methodologies. When you read his typings reports you can see his process. It's very simple, just basic Jungian dichotomies (I would call those "dominant tendency" rather than clear cut dichotomies since he uses the comparative terms "more than" e.g "Intuition is more than sensing") that he groups into two categories :

a) Installation (activity orientation) - which assess the Logic/Ethic and Sensing/Intuition

b) Temperament - which assess the Introversion/ Extraversion and Rationality/Irrationality

That gives him the "core" type. You don"t need more than that when you think about it, everything finds its place in the model afterwards.

Then of course, he does his DCNH stuff.

The thing is that he doesn't burden himself with useless dichotomies in the typing process and that's why I find his typing method much easier (without going into steril debates about Model G vs Model A ect..).

[Sapphire]

Even more, what gives him the right to simply continue to pry on other people's nativity, showcasing pornography to a minor? Especially me, and countlessly harassing/mentioning me after I put him on ignore. He never moves on, busting into conversations that don't involve him, and he always tries to change the subject. Do I agree with him on some stuff? Maybe, but other people will always have their reasons for their own justifications, and those justifications can be just. Too bad, he never seems to be able to read well enough to understand what the other person is saying.

Even if people rejected him, that's not other people's issue and that's up for him to fix, and he doesn't seem to get that he made himself this way.

He always was pretty much entirely driven by emotion, despite his claims to the contrary. It's rather interesting he had upwards of 15,000 posts yet never really considered any alternate opinions, 15,000 posts of him spouting what was to him the only truth. He is unfortunately not introspective enough to ever see the consequences of his own choices.

[Muira]

He always was pretty much entirely driven by emotion, despite his claims to the contrary. It's rather interesting he had upwards of 15,000 posts yet never really considered any alternate opinions, 15,000 posts of him spouting what was to him the only truth. He is unfortunately not introspective enough to ever see the consequences of his own choices.

Unhealthy Fi base.

He should have just calmed down, especially since he was acting like this site was his entire life, when people we've never met have no real impact on our lives. I think he was now consumed by the internet that he started larping so hard online. Does he even have a life of his own?

[youfloweryourfeast]

Who? Or what r they like

[youfloweryourfeast]

My woodworking teacher was EIE but he was obsessed. It was bc I was at a waldorf school (this weird kinda school like half outdoors) but only for 2 months. Another teacher I had was for physics and human philosophy. The philosophy class was mainly beta nfs I never even did the readings tho, I just looked up answers online. One of the book called "plato republic" they were all obsessed with it.

[nifl]

He always was pretty much entirely driven by emotion

it's advisable to re-read the basic theory, in order to better understand the distinguishment between T and F behaviour

[Sapphire]

it's advisable to re-read the basic theory, in order to better understand the distinguishment between T and F behaviour

I was commenting on his behavior, irrespective of what type he is or isn't.

It's advisable to stop being a lap-dog for a pedo

[nifl]

I was commenting on his behavior, irrespective of what type he is or isn't.

Your comment on his behaviour is related to traits described in type theory. Not well understood traits by you, as his behaviour was predicated on what he thought was correct, not what was emotionally pleasant. His emotions should, then, not be the motivator of his behaviour.

While certain particularly competent individuals not only ascribe his stubborn and adamant insisting on his view of the truth at the cost of pleasant interaction to leading F, but even introversion! It's no wonder they were annoyed by him, taking their pathological problems with understanding even the basic tenets of the theory.

It's advisable to stop being a lap-dog for a pedo

Attraction to pubescent minors is not paedophilia.

TIM: ILI

Logical types are less wont to brainlessly trust hysterical and - emotionally motivated - claims. Sol made a faux pas by sending a somewhat racy image - without pornographic content, mind you - to a 17 year old. Being annoying to many people here who do not deal with Socionics reasonably and who would rather play their type game in peace, he was not exactly popular, so there was motivation to remove him anyways.

[Sapphire]

Your comment on his behaviour is related to traits described in type theory. Not well understood traits by you, as his behaviour was predicated on what he thought was correct, not what was emotionally pleasant. His emotions should, then, not be the motivator of his behaviour.

While certain particularly competent individuals not only ascribe his stubborn and adamant insisting on his view of the truth at the cost of pleasant interaction to leading F, but even introversion! It's no wonder they were annoyed by him, taking their pathological problems with understanding even the basic tenets of the theory.

Right, except that by referring to him being emotionally driven I was merely pointing out that his incel-esque behaviour was entirely based around his personal feelings. I'd assume that he was acting in accordance with what he thought was correct, that's what the vast majority think they're doing.

Though perhaps this is something you should address with the one who is convinced of ESI specifically.

Attraction to pubescent minors is not paedophilia.

Lmao

Logical types are less wont to brainlessly trust hysterical and - emotionally motivated - claims. Sol made a faux pas by sending a somewhat racy image - without pornographic content, mind you - to a 17 year old. Being annoying to many people here who do not deal with Socionics reasonably and who would rather play their type game in peace, he was not exactly popular, so there was motivation to remove him anyways.

Quite the assumption to be made about how I formed my opinion, it's got nothing to do with claims others have made and more to do with the fact that he himself described 12 year olds as appropriate to have sexual interest in.

Implying that him "being annoying" was the motivator for the ban is rather foolish of you when others such as Kill4Me or Lolita and other Gulenko cultists have played the battle-typing game much more aggressively and are not banned. Sol himself was at it for over a decade before getting banned, so no he was not banned for "being annoying"

[Northstar]

Right, except that by referring to him being emotionally driven I was merely pointing out that his incel-esque behaviour was entirely based around his personal feelings. I'd assume that he was acting in accordance with what he thought was correct, that's what the vast majority think they're doing.

Though perhaps this is something you should address with the one who is convinced of ESI specifically.



Lmao



Quite the assumption to be made about how I formed my opinion, it's got nothing to do with claims others have made and more to do with the fact that he himself described 12 year olds as appropriate to have sexual interest in.

Implying that him "being annoying" was the motivator for the ban is rather foolish of you when others such as Kill4Me or Lolita and other Gulenko cultists have played the battle-typing game much more aggressively and are not banned. Sol himself was at it for over a decade before getting banned, so no he was not banned for "being annoying"

You are talking to Sol himself. If it isn't obvious from nifl's latest message, I can't help you guys. Note the usage of "hysterical" ..

[Sapphire]

You are talking to Sol himself. If it isn't obvious from nifl's latest message, I can't help you guys. Note the usage of "hysterical" ..

It was something I considered but there are noticeable differences in the way they post (use of exclamations, nifl being somewhat more coherent with English)

I also didn't find it particularly relevant to my response, my opinion would remain the same whether nifl is Sol or not.

[Aster]

do u guys seriously think Sol was a pedo. I mean seriously. and yes I read everything that happened.

it’s just a big accusation to be throwing around so lightly.

[Sapphire]

do u guys seriously think Sol was a pedo. I mean seriously. and yes I read everything that happened.

it’s just a big accusation to be throwing around so lightly.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that someone who describes sexual interest in 12 year olds as appropriate would be a pedo, yes

[Aster]

I think it's reasonable to conclude that someone who describes sexual interest in 12 year olds as appropriate would be a pedo, yes

historically and culturally some girls are or were married off at 12. I thought he was just stating that. Not that he had an interest in 12 year olds personally.

[Sapphire]

historically and culturally some girls are or were married off at 12. I thought he was just stating that. Not that he had an interest in 12 year olds personally.

Perhaps, though to me the word "appropriate" in the present tense denotes him taking the stance that he thinks that type of thing is acceptable, as opposed to him saying "it was once viewed as appropriate" or "some view it as appropriate". The phrasing he uses makes it seem more like a personal stance than a statement of historical facts.

[Squirrel]

Perhaps, though to me the word "appropriate" in the present tense denotes him taking the stance that he thinks that type of thing is acceptable, as opposed to him saying "it was once viewed as appropriate" or "some view it as appropriate". The phrasing he uses makes it seem more like a personal stance than a statement of historical facts.

He's not a native English speaker and his English is somehow basic , without using a good translator, he won't be able to produce a 100% understandable sentence as if he were speaking in his mother tongue

[Northstar]

It was something I considered but there are noticeable differences in the way they post (use of exclamations, nifl being somewhat more coherent with English)

I also didn't find it particularly relevant to my response, my opinion would remain the same whether nifl is Sol or not.

nifl is clearly using a translator, maybe even chatGPT or similar. His language is too "flowery" to be someone that's naturally fluent speaker, such as a young danish dude. The word order is often similar to Sol's, coming from russian.

[nifl]

Right, except that by referring to him being emotionally driven I was merely pointing out that his incel-esque behaviour was entirely based around his personal feelings.

I'm not sure what you mean by ''incel-esque''. If you mean his general behaviour, then that was to a large extent based on his reason, not his feelings.

I'd assume that he was acting in accordance with what he thought was correct, that's what the vast majority think they're doing.

Yes, but what they think is correct differs by how much it is about feelings or thoughts. Sol, having T as his leading function, had much of his behaviour based on reason.

Quite the assumption to be made about how I formed my opinion, it's got nothing to do with claims others have made

Yet you do not understand what paedophilia means.

the fact that he himself described 12 year olds as appropriate to have sexual interest in.

12 years olds, insofar as they are pubescent (which is not rare), are appropriate to have a sexual interest in, as they show sexual characteristics and can create offspring. From a biological perspective, which was his perspective. Social perspectives may wary much, as Aster said.

the ban is rather foolish of you when others such as Kill4Me or Lolita and other Gulenko cultists have played the battle-typing game much more aggressively and are not banned.

Sol was clearly the ''big-bad'' on the forum. No one had comparable and such lengthy aggression with regards to their opinions. If you check places like socioforum, you'll see that the prevailing opinion of him is the same as here, barring the nonsensicals accusations of paedophilia.

so no he was not banned for "being annoying"

That was not the formal reason (if there even was any), but clearly a main one. He was a pain in the ass for many (especially ethical, Fe types) here. And he's been banned on socioforum multiple types for the mentioned aggression.


From your carelessness about the accusation you're placing and the use of the term ''battle-typing'' (which ignores the objective - Te - usefulness of different opinions and discussion about types), there's reason to rethink ILI as your type. If you are Te, the data you'll get from a typing thread will be of interest to you. I don't believe I've seen a video or similar. You can link to a thread if you've made one before I joined.

[godslave]

12 years olds, insofar as they are pubescent (which is not rare), are appropriate to have a sexual interest in, as they show sexual characteristics and can create offspring. From a biological perspective, which was his perspective. Social perspectives may wary much, as Aster said.

" Appropriate " - Définitions :

Cambridge Dictionary :

appropriate
adjective

UK /əˈprəʊ.pri.ət/ US /əˈproʊ.pri.ət/

suitable or right for a particular situation or occasion:
appropriate footwear for the country
appropriate for Is this film appropriate for small children?
I didn't think his comments were very appropriate at the time.
Is this an appropriate occasion to discuss finance?
Please complete the appropriate parts of this form (= the parts that are right or necessary for your particular situation) and return it as soon as possible.


Merriam-Webster :

appropriate
adjective

ap·​pro·​pri·​ate ə-ˈprō-prē-ət

Synonyms of appropriate : especially suitable or compatible : FITTING an appropriate response remarks appropriate to the occasion

---

 

---

Perhaps, though to me the word "appropriate" in the present tense denotes him taking the stance that he thinks that type of thing is acceptable, as opposed to him saying "it was once viewed as appropriate" or "some view it as appropriate". The phrasing he uses makes it seem more like a personal stance than a statement of historical facts.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that someone who describes sexual interest in 12 year olds as appropriate would be a pedo, yes

I'm not a mental health pro but I think that's not enough to establish a diagnosis of pedophilia. It's not reasonable to conclude such thing on the basis of so little data. One must measure the implications of this particular accusation.

Did Sol (edit : or @nifl ) really described "HIS" sexual interest in little girls ? Did he talked about the existence of such sexual interest in him ? If he did then he might indeed have a serious problem. If not then It's just a "description" of the pathology. I think one has to get the facts right in matter of accusations of such gravity. I personally haven't read such things, so I don't know.

That said, what If I say " I think it's appropriate to kill pedophiles" that statement doesn't make me a killer. If I say "Objectively, a pedophile is less dangerous to society than a serial killer" that statement doesn't makes me a pedo ? If I say that "I'm against circumcision ! It's an abomination, a unnecessary mutilation and a child abuse" does it make me an anti-Semitic or Muslimophobic ?

Or, if I say "I believe in God, he knows best what is appropriate from what is not" ; does that make me a pedo ?

2.6 billion Christians. 2 billion Muslims.

If one answer yes to those questions it means that one is following a certain logic according to which it would be reasonable to think that at least 57.5 % of the world population could be accused of pedophilia just because they believe in the story of Joseph and Mary. Their belief teaches that God almighty impregnated a 13 to 14 years old immaculate conception little girl and they that it was a blessing for all humanity. Believers find what happened to Mary very acceptable and what came after as a result namely the birth of Jesus Christ reasonable. Again, according to the logic mentioned above, they are therefore all a bunch of pedophiles.


Now, I've noticed that from the point of view of the "faithfuls", Religions (in this case Abrahamic religions) and their teaching, contains in their scriptures the ultimate truth in terms of Ethics and general behaviors. Indeed, for instance most people who really live in strict accordance to their faith consider the Law of God above the Law of Men (women don't make law in that paradigm of course !).

People underestimate the power beliefs have on the psyche and the degree to which they can bypass common sense. Like I said, religions comes with a certain sets of laws and Ethics established by "the creator of all things" himself, licit and illicit ways of behaving. This, imho, is fundamentally what makes people like Sol believe what he said to be okay. It obeys a certain logic the believer is ought to follow and it sets an Ethical framework as a moral basis to rely on. This framework comes from another age and is supposed to last for ever and ever. Within that framework, an old man can marry a girl that barely reached genital maturity.

People of faith nowadays find themselves in situation where they have to justify either the words of God or find ways of reinterpreting the scriptures so they correspond or seem more acceptable from the point of view of modern western society Ethics. Indeed, denying the ethical superiority of the sacred scriptures in all aspects (including the practice mentioned above) would be a disaster for clerical institutions esp the Catholic Church in terms of world view because it would ultimately imply the denying of God's existence. Furthermore, for radical religious the literal understanding of the scripture render impossible the adaptation or reinterpretation of the sacred scripture and that's even worse ; the idea that God allows those practices and not accepting what God allows is a sin.

So you often see evangelists like the dude above or progressive Imams trying to elaborate convoluted stories about the age of Mary and Joseph that would better fit the modern standards of Ethics.


That said, we live in a word where even stating historical and/or anthropological truths can be problematic.

Edit : I'll probably delete this post as it makes me very uncomfortable ; it literally makes me want to

[tenebrae]

ewwwww

[Muira]

Yet you do not understand what paedophilia means.


12 years olds, insofar as they are pubescent (which is not rare), are appropriate to have a sexual interest in, as they show sexual characteristics and can create offspring. From a biological perspective, which was his perspective. Social perspectives may wary much, as Aster said..

Age of consent is still considered a social construct. The collective and the Law decide who is a legal adult or not, and sets the standards. And while a 12-year-old may show signs of sexual development, that still doesn't mean they are fully sexually developed, but rather at a later age(16-22) when fertility peaks and the pelvic bone structure is actually widened, and the breast are fully developed at that age range. Russia's age of consent is 16 years old, so once an individual is 16, they are considered sexually mature enough to consent and be responsible for themselves. By American standards, depending on state, he would be considered a legal pedophile, while in his area he wouldn't be considered one. However justifying attraction towards any age below the minimum age would put one at a suspicion of being a pedophile. Being a fully sexually mature adult also means being fully mentally sound, to have the ability to make rational decisions.


However regardless, Russia puts a large effort on banning pornography, being a more culturally conservative, and even harsher laws on punishing legal pedophiles,etc. Either way, sending sexually explicit content towards anyone is still sexual harassment.

[Muira]

historically and culturally some girls are or were married off at 12. I thought he was just stating that. Not that he had an interest in 12 year olds personally.

Still, age of consent has changed throughout human history, it's a standard decided by the collective based on sexual development and mental capacity.

12 years old is still a baseline, however a 12-year-old getting pregnant would have far more health complications than for example a 17-year-old getting pregnant, especially because of the development of the pelvic bone structure, breast, etc.

However you still didn't pay attention to the reason why 12-year-olds were usually sold off for marriage, those times in history, women usually died from childbirth, child mortality was high, etc. It was only until when women started to gain more legal rights, child, and mother mortality decreased, society becoming more stable, etc.

Heck, even in the edo period of Japan, infants were promised off, prepubescent children were sold to brothels, etc. There was a lot of sexual abuse during that time period, and today however it's just more looked down on.

So really, a society could even justify sexuality towards children whom never even went through puberty. So really, what is the baseline you want to start at? Do you think a 12-year-old is mentally sound enough to consent to sex with anyone or get married off?

[Muira]

You are talking to Sol himself. If it isn't obvious from nifl's latest message, I can't help you guys. Note the usage of "hysterical" ..

They talk the same way, maybe use the same translator, but dam they are the same person? What the hell is he doing talking to himself then?

[Northstar]

They talk the same way, maybe use the same translator, but dam they are the same person? What the hell is he doing talking to himself then?

Well you know what kind of people tend to talk to themselves.

[Muira]

Well you know what kind of people tend to talk to themselves.

Talking to oneself is thinking out loud, but doing it in posts online like some rp shit is low-key schizoid level insanity.

[godslave]

Still, age of consent has changed throughout human history, it's a standard decided by the collective based on sexual development and mental capacity.

If I may, we must keep in mind that when we are talking about age of consent it's not about the consentment of the person as an individual (for instance a 14 years old little girl or little boy) we're talking about, it's about the consentment of the group, the society. We are talking about implicits acceptable behaviors that correspond to a given canon. Furthermore, the consent is more often than not about "marriage" and the decisionary of that consentment are or to be more precise, until the second half of the 19th century western societies, were the parents or legal tutors .

When we are talking about the age of consent at the individual level we are generally talking about sexual consent which is a relatively recent notion at least in terms of legislation.

[chriscorey]

Well you know what kind of people tend to talk to themselves.

I work in the customer service industry and I've seen many "schizos" walking around talking to themselves. They are on the whole benevolent. They're just crazy.

What Sol is doing is vindictive.

[chriscorey]

Talking to oneself is thinking out loud, but doing it in posts online like some rp shit is low-key schizoid level insanity.

The voices often come from outside your head. Just so you know. Demons.

[kuno]

I believe nifl and Sol are different people. I say this largely because nifl is open to me being either IEI or EII, as well as other NF types (to a lesser degree). He’s never seemed all that adamant about me being IEI. On the other hand, Sol was very adamant about me being IEI and wouldn’t let any opportunity to tell me I’m IEI slip by. Not even Alive / Asleep was that adamant about me being IEI.

I fully believe Sol disliked me on a visceral level because when I mentioned the possibility of me being EII, he immediately replied firmly saying I was IEI. It’s like he didn’t want me to be in the same Quadra as him, let alone be “compatible” with him. It seemed like the thought of us being “duals” was implausible and reproachable to him. I really disliked this about him. I didn’t particularly enjoy his presence on this site. I’m usually fine with nifl, however.

[kuno]

Also, Sol’s diatribes about homosexuality being a mental illness sounded like crazed ravings after a while. A few of his gay jokes were funny, but he was generally a negative presence on this site, imo. I always tried to be easygoing with him, especially at the beginning, but as time passed, it became harder to tolerate him. Not even because of his homophobia… He just had this sort of attitude that was toxic but I can’t quite explain why. I would’ve rather had Alive grill me with angry insults than have even a light, polite interaction with Sol. He was the only person on this site that rubbed me the wrong way

[godslave]

[youfloweryourfeast]

I don't understand why he would be delta imo, he clearly wanted to be known all the time and started things

[anotherperson]

to hazard it, id say hes ESI

seems SF club, all the talk of whos doing this and that and elsewhat

and his assessments of power (Se) always served Fi

[Expansion]

Funny, the LIE's around here recognize him as their S counterpart.

I typed him LSE.

[DEAD]

If we look at it more closely we will find out that "socionics" it is not that static. Information flow in the psyche (in both Mental and Vital rings). TIMs are not to be considered as a "standalones" but as constituents part of a global system of TIMs called the socion. Information flow through TIMs like electrons in a circuit. There is an optimum order of information flow between TIMs which theoretically leads to social progress. We can already see a certain dynamism.

As for the "development of functions", to put it simply, it happens by means of metabolization (with the help of other TIMs ) of informations pertaining to the weak functions. The process brings to consciousness previously unconscious (or distorted) information and thus contribute to the development of TIMs.

Yeah, definitely.

In a way, bringing the distorted information to light is a way of detoxing the system within your functional usage, and strengthening it. Some people use socionics as an excuse rather than a solution. They goa aginst the grain of it, to try and rationalize how they are superior and don't need to change, which is bullshit.

There are more than one way to type. For instance, I prefer when there is only written material to work with, to first assess whether a person is a static or dynamic type. And secondly try to find out the ring from which information stems (Mental/Vital). What I just describe can hardly be faked or controlled by ruse etc... It's not the content we're assessing, it's the process.

Yeah. It's about the process as well. Not some dumb stereotypes in a badly translated description from an Eastern European view of a hypothetical person.

Definition of "function" in the Jungian sense are available in PT and are incontestably the reference in all Jungian based typology. That said, I've noticed that a lot of people confuse Information elements (Treated by the psyche) and information aspects (available in the objective reality). However, and I said it several times before, socionics and Jungian Psychology are not fully compatible, so we have to be careful and treat socionics as it is, namely a system inspired by Jung's typology. Socionics has a sociological aspect as it deals with all the types at the same time, Jung on the other hand is focused only on the Psyche and the individual although the idea of collective unconscious (which is still contained within each individual) might induce some confusions.

Yes, that is the core foundation. Yeah, Aushra did base her definitions on Jung (inspiration wise), but she made them her own, and her own system. Yeah, it is a system of types and one can argue, 'interactions' of these 'types'. And Jung is a collective conscious. Socionics is a system that uses TIM, but Jung is internalised i.e. the psyche. Both have different hierarchies and foundations. With different definitions, but both are personality theories.

I agree, Dr.G ' SHS is in perpetual evolution and he keeps updating and modifying it. That said, I find the typing process in SHS much easier even if, as one socionist pointed it out recently, Dr. G doesn't use his model in the typing process.

Yeah, I don't find it worth the money to hear his opinion now. And he should just call it 'SHS typing' then, and drop the 'Model G' aspect if he doesn't use it in the typing process. 'SHS typed by Dr Gulenko'.

I would say that the first thing we have to accept as true is Jungian Psychology since socionics is inspired by Jungian Typology. As a reminder Jung's Idea a considered by many modern Psychologists as obsolete just like Freudian Psychoanalysis, they are often considered as philosophical and paradigmatic "tools" of personal development. That said, I'm afraid that agreement on the definitions within the theory will not suffice to make socionics a scientific theory. However, temperaments do exist and opposites attract, the rest is litterature...

Yeah, no one is ever gonna agree, but they don't need to make fifty systems to voice their disagreement. That's the trouble with LII, it seems. It's the Ne. If your definition is close to the original definition, and makes sense, it doesn't need redefined and its own 'model'. Same with the other seven functions. Why not redefine what we already know? And yeah, this theory will never be scientifically proven. Temperaments have been around forever, and have credibility, I agree.

Your thoughts about Fi in your spoilered post (courtesy me ) were my thoughts on Fi via Socion def., at onetime: don't relate to it per definition.

When i'm within a relation i maintain it because the other side is unreliability, and relations are built on trust. Never let anyone down is not a motto, it is a must. To trust, in us we trust or we bust. A motto now.

If it is any typology consolation, have a look at some SEE's here in the forum's past. Like woofwofl, Grendel, etc. You resemble them to a degree in thought, stylistically.

I thought i was SEE for a spell, but looking at the aforementioned members posting patterns, showed a linearity and a singular focus, "sensing" in the site's common parlance, and comparing it to IEE members i found that tack correction.

Think of Fi creative as a tool that is picked up and used. We are not the tool. It is a side of us that manifests on call.

Fi is in part empathy, feelings of it, and here in this context it is also creating relations in a scatter shot not discriminating. Later, you find who you like and dislike, unlike Fi base where the process is reversed. Fi base has a built in notion of who to reel in the catch, first.

My brief patterned thoughts.

What's the point in definitions if you aren't going to use 'em to some extent? (Like, Model A at least). It's not so much relating to it as it is picking out inconsistencies with how the function is, and how it isn't, and how I see these functions manifesting within my psyche and the dimensions (i.e. 4D, 3D, 2D, 1D) etc. If I notice that something is logically inconsistent with how I function, of course I am going to point that out. That's just how I function. Other people may not function that way, and that's fine.

And as for comparing myself to other people, okay there might be some similarities superficially between me and people like woofwoofl, grendel etc, and that's fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we are all SEE. How do we know for sure, that they are typed correctly, and also, some of it could be cultural (i.e. we are Westerners, we are Millenials etc). I think a lot of people (even on forums) resemble each other similarly because we're not going in depth to give enough information to compare, contrast and analyze? Just adding that cause a lotta people don't think about those factors either.

I don't see the point in that. In trusting everyone, and in forming relations with people when you can just do it alone. Networking is difficult, and a waste of time in my eyes, for me. You have to actually maintain good relations with those people in order to succeed, instead of focusing on your actual work, and standing on that. If you have work and a foundation, no one can take that from you. You own it all. It will always be there. It's a legacy that will never be taken.

On Fi, I do struggle a lot with the maintaining and making of relations. It's not something that comes to me naturally, nor is it something that I do consciously. I tend to avoid most people, and do my own thing and am a loner. I'm not empathetic either. And as for Fi being a tool, it is to some people but not everyone. It depends on the preference, obviously. To other people, it is a hinderance. It's all based on the systematic preference of the hypothetical functions within the psyche.

I don't think that I am, in general overly attuned to the empathetic side of things, or the relational. I don't really create relations. I am there to accomplish my goals and do things. But yeah, I can see Fi creative working like that. Like you said, it's not like Fi base where it is the program function and more fine tuned. Same with Ti base and creative. Well, any creative function really. You can copy and paste, and move the positions around, but the essence is still the same.

Assuming you are LIE and as such Ti ignoring, there is the chance you were typed as such due to the fact people from my observations tend to have the tendency to type visible Se + not obvious Ti as SEE, regardless of whether they can actually pinpoint strong, valued Fi or not. This is my issue with the SEE typing for you - I don't see where the strong, valued Fi would be in the way it is in other Fi creatives.

Yeah, I agree. You need to actually have a valid case, and pinpoint the creative Fi within someone to type them xEE. If you don't have a case and the functional usage isn't obvious, then they probably aren't that type. Another reason is that people adhere to the stereotypes of each type description too much, and the issue with those are that they were written with a heavy Slavic/Eastern European cultural bent that doesn't directly apply to all cultures/cultural systems. Trying to cram people's online posts into that doesn't work effectively.

People need to understand functional usage, and take those descriptions with a pinch of salt as an example of how those functions within a person could manifest. They're very hypothetical (Ne, Ti) and not very much set in the real world or trialed, which leaves a margin for error.

The problem online is that it's hard to point out functions exactly, because there are so many definitions of what the functions entail, due to people making up systems and their own versions of Socionics. I want to go by the foundational model because it is the closest and most accurate interpretation of what Socionics is meant to be.

[youfloweryourfeast]

I think NF type is clear. I have actually aligned NF types to be more predisposed to executive functioning like struggling with organization, getting things like a ID, ect..My ILE friend got her drivers licence 3 years ago ., it took me 4 tries to past the test this year.(I only have a learners permit but it's expired because my finger got fractured from some guy), and she has a car and got into a really good school, and is likely going to college after she graduates. My LIE friend is likely getting a scholarship and going to a good college. I tried to talk to her about how I may not graduate but I don't really think she understands the extent of the problem. I agree you can only be IEI or IEE...I think that 1d te makes the most sense for you. However, I feel like IEI fits more than you being ti polr. And you have really strong fi for it to be ignored because you can become extremely emotional nothing that I have seen reallly from an EIE.