@Kill4Me If you're going to type a million people, a good chunk of which are inactive then add me to the list, thanks.
@Kill4Me If you're going to type a million people, a good chunk of which are inactive then add me to the list, thanks.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Ditto what Raver said, @Kill4Me, let's do it
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
*sigh*
you prefer types which clearly point on LII more than any other type. I've typed you to LII before you did IR test. the accidental match of those events is the possibility of your type is not LII. it's a small possibility
having Te - you'd got the situation easier. with Ti you try to catch to LII possibility despite the good facts against that
it will be an insight for you when you'll accept your type. you'll type enough IRL people and will see your type by IR effects with them. it's the question of some time
the ones who mistype themselves for years just do not use IR theory seriously. it's impossibly to overcome IR effects. nontypes factors distort to some degree, but the more people you type - the more general types related impressions you understand and such may use IR theory more and more clearly. in the worst case - there will be a mess, but you can't get clear pointing on wrong own type by IR effects. it can happen only with systematic mistake when you'd typed alike the most of Fe people to Fi, what is not possibly even with the low quality typology texts. such mistake would need additional bs theory and seting it above basic theory, - what would mean a different typology on practice, not Socionics. for example if to claim "subtypes" as more important for IR effects, - that would be too evident heresy. Gulenko seems tried to develop in this direction for some time, but in his today public clips I see more accent on normal types theory. as he needs to use Socionics to keep an interest to himself
At the moment, people who are clearly Ti in real life are nothing like me, so we'll see. I have to spend a lot of time with a person who is Ti base and she and her boyfriend both agree that I am a very different person than her, without my influencing them. It's possible we're just different versions of the same functions, but, like you said, after some time, it will reveal itself.
The only reason I'm not typing myself ILI is because of your IR test and VI, at the moment. However, given that you never take into consideration the actual words of individuals in a way that's consistent with the profiles, I'm incredibly skeptical that your means of typing is comprehensive. It's therefore in my best interest to not type myself LII at the moment. I'm not just refraining because I'm trying to nitpick details that don't fit LII or something. I genuinely relate to the ILI profiles more than the LII ones. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Gulenko's model G description of the ILI is the one I've found most accurate to myself over any other personality descriptor. However, I still refrain due to some important evidence being in favour of LII.
Precision and details are very Ni, so it wouldn't be uncommon for ILIs to want everything to make sense. Moreover, Ni is quite prone to overthinking, ruminating, or self-doubt/skepticism, which would be another sign since I'm so hesitant to determine my type. These aren't pieces of evidence in favour of ILI but rather pieces of evidence against the only possibility being LII since those pieces of data don't directly conclude LII.
You act like you know what the future entails when you don't. You don't know me, Sol, and no amount of magic VI or IR "impressions" will change that. I've taken your input into genuine consideration, and we'll see where it takes me. Maybe I'll retake the IR test with greater time on each video so as to yield better results. Or maybe I'll just denounce your methods and call them stupid. I haven't made up my mind yet. Overall, you have PoLR Ni lol, why should I even trust your future judgments!? /sarcasm. But seriously, you've made your case a number of times, and you're not even listening to mine. Never have you thoroughly responded to my arguments in a reasonable manner, and so I have no reason to conclude yours are true. I'll say it again, get your head out of your ass.
Last edited by FarDraft; 03-24-2019 at 10:35 PM.
----- FarDraft, 2020
If you've never read psychological types volume 6 by Jung it could help you clear things up if you're only between the two types. You don't need to read the entire thing, just his General Description chapter.
The main problem I see with typing by IR is the obvious fact that you might not be typing people correctly, and as such could easily draw incorrect conclusions for your own type based on such things.
@Kill4Me I want on the list too.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I'm not sure which is funnier, mu4 as ESE or Niffer as IEE.
And btw, (think I mentioned this before) you do know that Cassandra, SisOfNight, and Olimpia are all the same person right?
I see you've also typed Aylen, Olimpia, Sol, and silke as your conflictor (and Jack Aaron as LSE). It seems like you are typing people who you disagree with on socionics as Delta so that they "conflict" with you.
Seasons pass
And all things change
Except for @Kill4Me's typing list.
I will be IEI-Ni there until the end
Of everything.
Will he realize
I have changed my name
And see through my guise?
This started out as a haiku
But is now a mess.
It still looks better than the usual post formatting though.
So I shall keep it.
Last edited by Chthonic Daydream; 03-23-2019 at 12:43 PM.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
From forum presence, i think @Kiwi is IEE - maybe ILE.
@Freya from your photos you seem like a Delta irrational type to me
@Kill4Me I'd like to know your typing of me. I don't have a video up on the site right now, so you'll have to use my old posts if you decide to agree to my request.
EDIT: I've uploaded a video questionnaire that you can use should you decide to agree to my request.
EDIT 2: Your typing is fucking stupid, lol.
Last edited by FarDraft; 05-05-2019 at 01:40 AM.
----- FarDraft, 2020
https://youtu.be/xj5kKkOCJCo
Putting this up, mainly because i've seen @Kill4Me and @Beautiful sky type categorically, and i would like for them to look at my video.
I'm going to remove it soon again, as i'm shy and thus uncomfortable with these things, but anyone else who wants to comment are very free to chime in - please be overbearing with my soul-crushing accent.
I lean towards SLI at the moment. (with ILI as next possibility)
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
@Number 9 large
Thank you for the input - i'll consider it.
@Tallmo
Thank you. Yes, i'm thinking some kind of Ip type at the moment, ILI more likely than SEI. You typed me LII initially, what made you change your mind?
Yes, I said LII before. But some of your posts here have been very abstract /conceptual. Usually LIIs want to keep things simple and down-to-earth. Also your tendency to observe the mind I associate with Ni.
I think ILI fits well because for some reason I got a vague SEI feeling so that might be the superego.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . … Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition. [“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 678.].I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido. ~Carl Jung; CW 4; par. 679.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You are not SLI.
You 1) consistently emphasized seeking the deeper meaning of life and reflecting on existence and yourself 2) have a hermitic lifestyle and see involvement in the world as a distraction 3) are seen as goofy/eccentric/original.
You had no problem talking at length about the values question. Compare to @Hamouchou (SLI) who described having trouble with abstract questions like that. You did mention some mundane aspects of your life but you clearly aren't passionate about them in the same way as abstractions.
I tend to think IEI because you don't seem focused on practicality at all and are more "head in the clouds".
"Cerebral sensing" is an oxymoron in socionics. It really isn't that complicated, if you're focusing on the contents of your mind as divorced from immediate experience you're using intuition, not sensing.