Page 34 of 199 FirstFirst ... 243031323334353637384484134 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,360 of 7953

Thread: Your typing of forum members

  1. #1321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    it's generally not a good idea to give so many details about your private life over a forum
    I say what find as useful info about types traits, their relations, psychology. Or at least can be interesting to generally support the communication on the forum.
    And do this in the degree my fantasy is not enough to imagine how that info may to create significant problems with reasonable probability.
    Thanks for the cute care. I begin to suspect F type in your, buddy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gjjbftufufufjj View Post
    I initially had SEE vibes from N9 after I joined the forum, fwiw. This means nothing, and I can't VI worth a shit, but just my two cents.
    Intuition means more than nothing. SEE was my main version for him among F types. He's not SLE, for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by wasp View Post
    I sent the same video to Sol out of curiosity, he typed me "not Fi"
    If on that video you'd talked more to the side of the camera than to down when it's impossibly to see your face - mb I'd said more.
    It's not so hard to record another video with random [but lesser official] talking about yourself on 10 min. Like how you've spent your best holiday, - about something pleasant for you.
    Last edited by Sol; 04-19-2018 at 04:54 PM.

  2. #1322
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sol's story is completely normal and relatable if any of you had souls. its the story of a guy who met a girl and they thought there might be some potential there, but small arguments turned into a bigger divide and it was over a socionics backdrop. its basically the plot to most romcoms. if anyone uses that against him its like "haha look at this guy, he's human--fuck him right" it says more about anyone who would even try to seriously undermine him on the basis of that disclosure. that and like very few people actually care, and there's practically nothing there to weaponize anyway. in short if that you're concerned for him that says to me Fi: zone of fears, because the threat is largely projected

  3. #1323
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    The Snail Spiral
    Posts
    1,245
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've yet to watch a romcom where the protagonist gets into a romantic conflict because of his interest in a russian pseudoscience. Would be fun to watch, though. Still convinced nothing beats "Ruby Sparks" or "500 Days of Summer" for me
    “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

  4. #1324
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    3,978
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like 40 year old virgin

    but my favorite romantic movie is blue is the warmest color

  5. #1325
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not much of a consensus, two people who didn't give any kind of argument.

  6. #1326
    Starvish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    When a huge part of your pseudoscience directly concerns how people of different types interact and form relationships with one another, I'd imagine that would easily leak into your daily life. Suddenly the knowledge is right there in front of you, and you can overanalyze all the people you're close to in order to figure out why your interaction with a girl went wrong or whatever. "She's so cute! But what if she's secretly my conflictor... but maybe I'm actually this other type, which would make her my activity partner" et cetera.

    And if you make that pseudoscience a larger interest, it clearly takes over how you perceive your interactions to a greater extent.

  7. #1327
    Chthonic Daydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    The Snail Spiral
    Posts
    1,245
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manjac View Post
    i like 40 year old virgin

    but my favorite romantic movie is blue is the warmest color
    The explicit lesbian sex scenes were interesting, but not much else to be said about the movie.

    Ohhh and how could I forget, the movie that my friend (who, by the way totally hates romantic movies) watched over 7 times: Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind.
    “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

  8. #1328
    Spiritual Advisor Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Celestial Sli
    Posts
    3,448
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mio Q View Post
    I dunno how you got the previous one to work like that, but it's still cute all the same.
    IDK, some work and some doesnt. I think it has something to do with the size. Anyway its cute, I got tamagotchi in my cellphone recently, and it resulted to be this dino, is very cute lol

    About DCNH there is an article with descriptions that can be useful for determining your subtype.

  9. #1329
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    3,978
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feathers View Post
    The explicit lesbian sex scenes were interesting, but not much else to be said about the movie.

    Ohhh and how could I forget, the movie that my friend (who, by the way totally hates romantic movies) watched over 7 times: Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind.
    i dont really care for the sex scenes, i think the acting is really really good and authentic in the movie, esp from adele. i really felt her pain.

    isnt this in the wrong thread? lol
    Last edited by maniac; 04-19-2018 at 06:34 PM.

  10. #1330
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,578
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Not much of a consensus, two people who didn't give any kind of argument.
    aster and jailbait (without warning) also agreed with the typing at the time, just not on that thread, but the initial point was that it contradicts what I've been typed elsewhere, quite noticeably so, even if I've provided the same material (video) + it extends to typings I've received based on forum presence, aka there's very little, if any, agreement anywhere, which would've been evident had you not disregarded the post prior to the isolated link you quoted.

    but I feel like you have this thing of responding to my posts with corrections that are more-or-less pointless, in my eyes, most of the time they're proved to be unnecessary (x) so I'll just take this opportunity to say that I don't really need it. no hard feelings, it's just annoying since it's rarely necessary.

    otherwise yeah there wasn't much of a discussion about it, except cosmic teapot did DM me and we had a brief discussion, and no I'm not reposting it.
    Last edited by wasp; 04-19-2018 at 06:04 PM.

  11. #1331
    Starvish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    About DCNH there is an article with descriptions that can be useful for determining your subtype.
    Thanks. I don't know what my type itself is yet (or rather I'm still uncertain), but I can definitely say that the creative subtype stands out to me the most; I can for sure relate to that.

    And best of luck in your gif-avatar-searching-dinosaur adventures.

  12. #1332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manjac View Post
    anyway i find it sad how sol keeps retelling the same stories about how women rejected him
    That story should to help you understand that INFP is not your type. Also to better understand some types, including Enneagram ones and their relations. The sad is that you was unable to use it in the useful way.

    Formally one rejected still. Mainly because she had other relations already, about what I did not knew beforehand. And the communication was offline, what makes harder to overcome problems and limits positive effects of good IR and other to charm her. Money... yep, it's better to have them more to have a family, especially when you deal with Se girls. Other reasons were lesser meaningful.

    > and him blaming it on socionics... almost seems psychotic

    psychotic is the delusion that in the text above I blamed socionics for the negative result. our IR are good to do this and they were the factor of her sympathy to me and of mine to her.
    though some things I described as disliked in her behavior were related to the weakness [or my differing preferences] of her ESI type. to reject that weak functions of types may not lead to wrong behavior and hence disliking of it would be your another delusion
    From psyche theories, the more important communication problems related to our Enneagram types 1 vs 9.

    while in case of IEI - sure, negative IR had bad influence. psychoticly would be baselessly claim that IR have no significant influence on the relations, the good and bad in them. but I never said those relations as impossible or there were no other bad factors, I said those relations only as hard.

    Your irrational negativism to IR importance I suppose is the consequence of that you are trying the relations with the dude assumed as SLI by me. Recently you tried to convince me that your type is IEE without the success, as it's evident that you are redundantly and senselessly rude for IEE and most probably have Fe type, that your art taste fits to Se value, and also the types your prefered in my examples pointed to EIE [more than to IEE, SEE or IEI].

    > me being an extrovert is.. impossible

    not more than to be N-I type for you. you are too assertive for them
    or being I type to have more attraction to quiet people with I types, like you reported
    though as there are no absolute arguments you can be any type

    > everyone and i mean everyone who has ever met me would describe me as quiet and shy

    what mb also due to nontypes reasons related to your psyche
    EIE is the leading version for you. I'm not highly sure in it, but the other types fit you worse. This I said in the past and got nothing new to change the main version.

    I'll break our communication for some time as you are not enough reasonable. Also to discuss same arguments is boring. To lie on me also was not good your decision, though it's partly could be to you F type mind ignoring the reality.
    To see you now rejecting IR theory was funny.

  13. #1333
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I buy some version of -Fe

  14. #1334
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    333 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wasp View Post
    but I feel like you have this thing of responding to my posts with corrections that are more-or-less pointless, in my eyes, most of the time they're proved to be unnecessary (x) so I'll just take this opportunity to say that I don't really need it. no hard feelings, it's just annoying since it's rarely necessary.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, my point wasn't to "correct" that post but to add to the overall picture (which I agreed with). In fact I was a bit surprised that you responded like you did, as if I was making some kind of point that needed to be refuted.

    As for this topic I think it is overwhelmingly obvious that groupthink is the operative factor (that is, I agree with your original point), though I wouldn't say going against the grain is necessarily right either unless it's backed up by solid evidence. It's two sides of the same coin. (If that is already obvious to you then feel free to ignore it I find these kinds of things tend to repeat themselves in the community.)

  15. #1335
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    3,978
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Sol i think youre too moody for t type. or maybe you just get that way with me.

    moving on: it doesnt state in jungs type that introverts cant be assertive. also there are people even more assertive than me on here that you type infp. example: ooo
    i simply go on dichotomies which is the most reasonable (i have seen you agree with this but youre pretty inconsistent) and the most worth my time from my perspective
    i also dont get why one cannot be attracted to an introvert if youre an introvert (extro if your extro), and typing on this is also strange
    nonetheless i find it a bit flattering that you have such trouble with typing me + that you put so much time into it

    yet another thing: youre always complaining fe valued types are rude, yet you almost always throw in insults in your posts. hmm
    Last edited by maniac; 04-19-2018 at 06:37 PM.

  16. #1336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mio Q View Post
    Suddenly the knowledge is right there in front of you, and you can overanalyze all the people you're close to in order to figure out why your interaction with a girl went wrong or whatever.
    Generally IR are given as one of factors affecting the relations. To think it does not exist objectively or is not important is baselessly. If you'll type people correctly, and begin with your own type, you'll notice how IR work clearly.

    Also the ones who are experienced in typing mostly get assured opinion about types before the relations become significantly good or bad in something, but not after. Sometimes this happens in the first minutes of IRL communicating - you understand the type and never change the opinion, despite will go those relations good or bad. There are significant nontypes factors, what understand the ones who types for years and watches people of known types. It's mostly novices who understand types' and IR descriptions literally, but not as a tendency from types factor.

    If to take into account that average typing match is <20% and hence there are many mistypings (>50%), as more common should be the opposite situation. People type wrongly and see that reality does not fit good to the theory, and then they rationalize why this happens. While the reason is in wrong types or incorrect expectations from the theory.

    > And if you make that pseudoscience a larger interest, it clearly takes over how you perceive your interactions to a greater extent.

    Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly. It's hypothesis. Which many people find as correct and useful in own experience.
    Pseudoscience is to say as wrong the hypothesis without reasonable basis.

  17. #1337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    but small arguments turned into a bigger divide
    Big divide happened when I was deeply insulted by the situation and started to press her and her relations.
    If I'd behave friendly after getting feelings to her, I could to develop our communication to pleasant one for both. If we'd established friendly communication, like she wanted before and I'm sure was possible still. If did not made painful criticism what could not only avert her from me but also to rise the chances to keep not good relations she had. Then she'd probably broke those relations and met with me IRL, and then we'd got strong feelings and then a marriage.

    She seems flirted then with SEE, which said her he's LSE [previously he had in the profile SEE and other T-S types] and seems braged by more than average money. They being Fi types have established without problems pleasant surface offline communication and discussed sexual themes on open forum. In IRL close relations mirror generally should be lesser interesting, even boring and inspire lesser deep feelings than semiduality. But in offline talking she does not notice this problems, without experience of relations or feelings to dual/semidual does not understand the difference. Being ESI she typed previously herself as IEE for several years, - it's hard for her to perceive the reality objectively. So she believes that unstable SEE is LSE, herself as EII - like they are duals, lol. While thinks me as LSI - her superego, because it's more comfortable for E-9 as our talking went not good before. And ignores that it's not IRL for which IR theory is made, that she did not even saw my video, the external reasons affected our communication strongly.
    While the dude which was with her in autumn is most probably F type too as she described him, mb F-N - they communicated some time in one deal, had some similar interests, probably she liked him from material side [including because he lives in capital where incomes are higher in 2-3 times than in average] - there was nothing deep between them. After years they have no clear marriage plans, and seems have other issues - there is no deep love between them. It's another surface relations to which she's attached by some surface feelings and material side.
    With me she could to get much more in emotional part. I think it's her current tendency to marry in such emotionally surface relations with one of those two or 3rd guy, during 3 years. This may give her better material side and career possibilities, but by the cost of loosing deep love in the marriage.

  18. #1338

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly.
    You do realize that this is logically impossible, right? Your logic is too bad, maybe you're not a T type. Try F type.

  19. #1339
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is fake Russian news

  20. #1340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Socionics is fake Russian news
    for other Socionics needs the correct types, at least

    USA have MBT with introverted types functional model which is in the same degree not fake like their cold war propaganda

  21. #1341
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    for other Socionics needs the correct types, at least

    USA have MBT with introverted types functional model which is in the same degree not fake like their cold war propaganda
    All three are fake and at war with reality.

  22. #1342

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was very busy, I'll still be busy (and I don't do plain Socionics much anymore anyway since I built my understanding further to more nuanced understandings than what Socionics could ever offer; provided by other frameworks beyond Socionics) but checked this thread a bit at least.


    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    @Myst if you read my site you would know 1) I see sociotype as literally a motivational structure for the psyche (which is cognitive too obviously) and 2) how I define Se. It's all there.
    1: Okay we'll just disagree then. I approach it from the cognitive side.

    2: We had a disagreement before about defining Se, so again, same. But let me just note, Se isn't simply action or simply opportunism. Action and opportunism are part of extraversion in general.

    3: You didn't comment on Ni for @Chae. Why is that?

    4: You didn't respond when I asked you if you read the Van der Hoop quote with its very important distinctions. Why is that? This: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1263907

    5: Let me add one more thing. You said Base Fe is self-expression. I'm going with Van der Hoop and Golihov instead:


    Van der Hoop's Fe / Fe dominant:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160305...H-van-der-Hoop

    Extraverted Feeling

    The extravert of feeling-type lives entirely for contacts of feeling with other people. His feeling attitudes assume a form which is generally approved in the community. As a rule, the life of the individual of feeling-type is not dominated by violent emotion or overwhelming moods: at the same time, in this particular type it is the influence of less differentiated kinds of feeling which tends to find expression. All the actions, thoughts, and observations of people of this type are, however, governed by the effort to establish relationships of feeling with other people. In this, feeling constantly seeks expression, and tries accordingly to arouse corresponding feelings in others, sometimes by means of almost imperceptible manifestations on their own part. The fine shading of their own emotional life enables them, moreover, to read the feelings of others from the smallest indications. In this case, their insight is not always consciously employed, but is more likely to be revealed in an adjustment of their own reactions to such feelings on the part of other people. As a result of this swift understanding of the attitudes of others, and of the immediate adjustment of their own reaction, extraverted feeling is extraordinarily valuable in social intercourse.

    Human relationships form in the element in which the individual of feeling-type is most at home. He knows exactly how things ought to be among the people among whom he has grown up. As an extravert, he derives his sense of security from the forms of current in the external world. In his experience, feeling attitudes are things of objective value, and he finds support for this conception in the fact that others also possess these feelings, and that the life of the community is itself based on them. In such people there is a vital need to find corresponding feelings in others. They are exceedingly unhappy when out of touch with their environment, and must always seek to re-establish contact. If they meet with no sympathy, they will prefer strife to indifference, and since in this case also they know how to get at the feelings of others, they may be extremely unpleasant and harsh to those whom, as opponents and disturbers of their harmony, they would like to get rid of. They are first-class members of a community, seeking for themselves modes of life which others will approve. People and things to which their feelings are attached are particularly esteemed by them, such objects being singled out from the rest of the world. In their judgment of others this may easily lead to exaggeration, their tendency to idealization making them ready to overlook faults. For a woman of this type her husband is an exceptional being, and her children are regarded in the same way. This characteristic is likely to be found to some extent in everyone, where feeling is in question, but nowhere is it so marked as in people of feeling-type, because with them all relationships are conceived in somewhat ideal form. This means that anything which fits in with their feeling-life is strongly emphasized, and anything which does not do so is ignored. As a result, repression has much greater influence in these people than in representatives of any other type. Everything is repudiated, both in the loved one and in themselves, which might disturb the harmony which is necessary in to them. If, as a result, they manage to conceal from themselves certain marked characteristics, it may happen that even so these are to some extent apparent, and this gives an impression of something artificial in their harmony, and something a bit unreal in their idealism.

    In children of this type, it is often possible to observe these traits at quite an early age. They are more taken up with their parents, or with others who attract them, than are other children. They idealize their parents, for instance, to a marked degree, and refuse to hear anything against them. They also try to live up to an ideal themselves. They like to be praised, and show a certain over-sensitivity if others do not meet them in this. They have a great need for love, and wan constant demonstrations from older people of their affection for them. At the same time, they very soon find out the soft spots in the feelings of the persons in their environment. While extraverted intuitive children want, as a general rule, to make an impression, with young people of this feeling-type this is more a means to establishing emotional contacts with others. Probably most children long to be their mother's or father's favourite, but nowhere is this felt to be such a vital question as with children of this type. They are apt, in their enthusiasm, to see in their ideal a combination of all that they value, and to fall into profound despair when they are unsuccessful in establishing the relationship that they desire. At a later age, also, the happiness of these people usually depends on some feeling-relationship with another person, or with several others. This type is particularly found among women, and family life certainly offers a woman opportunities of developing the happiest side of feeling. In the daily life of a woman of this type, the striking thing is not so much an intense expression of feeling as the remarkably appropriate and fine shading of this expression. Such a woman will never do or say anything to disturb the harmony of her environment, but, on the contrary, will create and reinforce it in all kinds of small ways. But, as a rule, she is also well able to wound if she feels so inclined. If harmony is not attained, she feels it much more than would others, and her life may appear to be quite broken up as a result. Where idealization is remote from reality, exaggerated expectations are often followed by great disappointment, and the individual of feeling-type will take this terribly to heart, so that it fills his whole horizon. "Himmelhoch jauchzend, zum Tode betrubt" ("Rejoicing to heaven, grieved unto death") is a particularly appropriate description of the state of mind of this type of person.

    When anything happens which touches on feeling, an individual of this kind finds it impossible to be a simple onlooker: he helps to create the atmosphere by the way in which he gives himself up to every impression. Extraverts of this type often possess a peculiar gift, amounting to genius, for giving expression to what everyone is feeling at the time, for they are able to express the most varied shades of any feeling in such a plastic way that they readily arouse response in others. Hence there are found among the representatives of this type many famous preachers and priests, great orators, and gifted actors and actresses. Even in their outward appearance expresses the attitude of feeling which is most prevalent with them. This is true not only of the well-bred woman or girl, or of the clergy, but just as much of the demi-mondaine or of the gentleman come down in the world who may belong to the type.
    ...
    An individual of this type really only sees himself and his own life as reflected in his relationships with other people and in their opinions of himself. Hence he is very susceptible to praise and criticism. Encouragement will very quickly intensify and extend a reaction of feeling, while a comment or an objection which cannot be refuted may exert an exceedingly depressing influence on his spirits. Especially where some uncertainty might exist in regard to agreement between his own views and those generally current does he feel it absolutely necessary to prove to the world that his own feelings are right. While under the influence of powerful feelings, such people are able to exert great influence in their environment, particularly if they find support for their feelings in followers and onlookers. With most people of this type, however, feelings are expressed less in impressive actions than in the creation of a harmonious atmosphere. In their relationship with those around them they do their best to insist on friendliness and fair play, and they are usually conscientious and orderly even in small matters. Since they make similar demands on others, they frequently come into conflict with others, who do not always see the same necessity. Their punctiliousness may degenerate into pettiness, and occasionally such people may become very tiresome and persnickety about details. They will "go on" endlessly about something they feel to be wrong, and since they attach universal validity to the judgments of their feeling, they cannot stop trying to convince others. As a result, they may be tiring to those around them, in spite of their kindness and friendliness. In their persistence we see again the significance of will for this type. They may give themselves up with extraordinary self sacrifice and devotion to those whom they love, and to the purpose to which they have set themselves.
    ...
    There is no independence in the rational judgment of persons of feeling-type. It is not always easy to recognize this, because they often make good use of their reason: and, moreover, they are quite unaware themselves that in thinking they pick and choose entirely according to what fits in with their sentiments. It is usually not easy to make them see that the objectivity and criticism of thought is something quite different from moral judgment. In practical matters they can generally make good use of reason to work out and defend what they consider to be right, but they admit only those arguments which accord with their feeling-attitude. This is probably the case with most people in questions of feeling; but nowhere is this effect of feeling so strong, and so many-sided, as in extraverts of feeling-type. For example, even in scientific problems they will take sides in a violently personal way.


    Golihov's Fe base:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

    Fe as leading function in EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and ESE (ESFj; Hugo) - the person lives through manifested relationships between people, their emotions and feelings, can make a favorable impression, create a positive atmosphere. Conservative in his estimates of how people relate to one another as well as to himself, as long as their attitude does not change - this may cause irritation for him. Categorically rejects those who treat others badly or act from base motives - for him such people are like a red rag to a bull. Attached to those in whose sympathies he is confident. Knows how to make people feel valued. Relations are perceived as something permanent and if a person has changed, he won't believe it - it's an area of conservation for him. The "good" should be "good" and "bad" - "bad". If they start behaving in a contrary manner, this irritates him. Therefore, he doesn't want to believe that relations are changing until he can no longer deny the facts, and even then he can try to blame someone else. Never deliberately exacerbates relations. Multiple stable relationships and personal connections form the foundation of his personality. Cannot spend time alone, if there is nobody to relate to, if nobody needs him, then he doesn't exist. The world around him should be good, kind, loving and caring. Sometimes he can search for a place among the religious sects that preach the principle "love each other". If they cannot achiever favorable disposition of others, this provokes anger and inferiority complex. Can be a zealot about such things as behavioral norms, that people in certain situations must demonstrate appropriate sense of the situation deviations from which can be annoying to him. Needs a public. Any situation is primarily a combination of relations.


    As you can see, these descriptions take into account the Rationality of Feeling. Your definition of "self expression" does not.

    With your definition, quite a few people who are not even Rational types or even Fe valuing can get typed Fe base. That's just wrong in my opinion. Wrong conceptually and in practice too.

    How do you get around that yourself?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    I am not debating type because k4m uses his own um, "efficient", system but isn't Te generally seen as more "black and white" than Ti?
    That's too generic, I don't know what you mean by "black and white" in this context.


    "Extraverted Thinking (Te)
    TJ types use Extraverted Thinking (Te) as their dominant or auxiliary function. Te involves the outward expression of rational judgments and opinions; TJs literally think (i.e., make judgments, conclusions, and decisions) aloud. Te is more fact-oriented than Ti is. STJs, in particular, see the world as composed of discrete, black-and-white parts. This allows them to institute clear definitions, objective standards, and measurable goals. While Ti is forever backtracking to question and clarify underlying ideas and assumptions, Te is more positivistic and forward-moving, working to improve definitions, plans, policies, classifications, procedures, etc. It carefully spells out how to get from here to there, using as many maps, labels, and instructions as necessary. The modern world, characterized by a snowballing of laws and bureaucracy, might be viewed as stemming from an unchecked Te."


    "Introverted Thinking (Ti)
    TP types use Introverted Thinking (Ti) as their dominant or auxiliary function. Since Ti is introverted, TPs are reluctant to express their rational judgments outwardly. Ti is used to bring structure and order to TPs’ inner world. This inner structuring grants them a strong sense of inner control. Inwardly, TPs are highly self-disciplined, working to independently manage their thoughts in a way that allows them to better cope with life. TPs (especially NTPs) are less interested in working with facts than with ideas. Jung writes of the ITP: “His ideas have their origin not in objective data but in his subjective foundation.” ITPs are constantly digging into the background of their own thoughts in order to better understand their origins and to ensure their thinking is founded on clear and logical ideas. They see it pointless to try to build a system of thought on a dubious conceptual platform, making them slower than Te types to rush into experiments in order to discover more “facts.” This is especially true of NTPs, who find it easier to identify inconsistencies or logical shortcomings—to assert what is not true—than to identify and confidently assert what is true. While their skepticism is often broad and liberal, their positivism is minimal and conservative."
    "TJs literally think (i.e., make judgments, conclusions, and decisions) aloud" this part is just weird. Whoever wrote all this, didn't ever observe real people or they never made sure it was consistent observations.

    This is MBTI but it does show the distinction well between introverted and extraverted Thinking... "ensure their thinking is founded on clear and logical ideas. They see it pointless to try to build a system of thought on a dubious conceptual platform, making them slower than Te types to rush into experiments in order to discover more “facts.”" That's the real point. Everything else... ambiguous wording or anyone can have it under some circumstances etc

    One more thing... I know it's MBTI but where it says "STJs, in particular, see the world as composed of discrete, black-and-white parts", it forgets that this isn't in conflict with having a Ti foundation on those logical ideas. The foundation is just gonna be dealing with the discrete parts rather than the very abstract stuff that Ti with Ne will have. Though maybe one more thing is important to point out here, when I say "dealing with discrete parts", I don't mean a direct focus on the discrete parts... it's simply the analysis of these discrete parts that's the Ti. Not the parts themselves, the Ti thinking is more removed and sees them through only its own (introverted) filter. I saw some people noting how they focus on the parts directly and I suppose that's the Te version.

    And, "This allows them to institute clear definitions, objective standards, and measurable goals." And "improve definitions, plans, policies, classifications, procedures, etc. It carefully spells out how to get from here to there, using as many maps, labels, and instructions as necessary." Actually I think even LIIs do all this fine, they are able to stick to their judgments and express them pretty concretely when they don't go too far in the vague Ne speculation... This is just T leading.
    Last edited by Myst; 04-22-2018 at 12:14 PM.

  23. #1343

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You do realize that this is logically impossible, right? Your logic is too bad, maybe you're not a T type. Try F type.
    Hahaha Sol as F type. That was funny. I agree though that he really got that one wrong, I'm actually surprised too.

  24. #1344
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I want to comment on Te leading to a more "sprawling" legal system, because I think I get what he's saying but its misleading for people who aren't up on the context. In the Anglo countries (UK, USA, Canada) we have a "common law" system, where the we have a few statutory and constitutitonal laws, and then the specifics are worked out in the context of individual cases. The principles derived from these cases make up "judge-made" law, called "common law" which is then given deference going forward. The entire system is developed on the premise that you can't codify a system that accounts for every situation ahead of time, except in general terms. So when a specific factual scenario arises you look at it based on the "case" and can work out a method of handling it that works best, and then in the future if there are similar "cases" you can use similar reasoning without having to re-invent the wheel.

    In a "civil law" system judge's decision, what would be "common law" reasoning, does not extend beyond the case at hand. Every judge is free to ignore prior case law, and decide every case anew on the basis of what is in the "code", i.e.: the body of statutory law written by the legislature. This way of doing thing tries harder to develop the law up front and then concerns itself less with addressing things on the back end by developing it via cases.

    Ok, so it sounds on its face like common law would be more sprawling, and it is. There are huge libraries full of judge made law and reasoning. But the flipside to that is the statutory law (in common law) is itself is comparatively compact and not sprawling, at least not relative to code systems. So while it is true Te inasmuch as it is analogous to ad hoc factual inquiries it does create this ever expanding body of expertise and techniques in a field (think Gaben "master" SLI), I would not call it bureaucratic. It is actually the code law system that is more rules-based and bureaucratic in that sense, precisely because they don't focus on the facts and developing a way to tackle them post hoc, but rather up front. This is a very Ti approach, they work on building an "understanding" of any possible issue, going in, and then interpreting the facts in light of that understanding, without recourse to adjusting the understanding, but rather positively determining a result on the basis of the pre-existing Ti structure. In this sense you get "formalism" which is like "we can't possibly grant plaintiff relief because they failed to meet element x" (this could be for a reason as dumb as a typo or other technicality). This is the essence of bureaucracy in the sense that you must conform your behavior to specific modes and forms in order to get anywhere, and the modes and forms are enforced by a strict civil servant class who's life mission is to ensure compliance (Dostoevsky's underground man).

    This aspect of the code system inevitably creates injustices and inefficiencies too big to ignore, so what happens is they write solutions into the code itself. Now this is where the bureaucracy begins to spread. Eventually the code is so big only experts can even interpret the law, because the language has been molded to capture such a wide variety of situations in such a way as to leave no doubt as to what the outcome must be it ends up being a robotic 200 step process of running facts through rules that exist primarily in the form of pure jargon. So rather than general principles with a body of interpretations they try to build the interpretation into a giant body of code. This is the way of LSI "inspector." Its a more ideological approach in virtue of building interpretation in and trying to avoid having to re interpret things on the basis of facts, but rather trying to capture everything in one singular body/ideological stance (which is the realm of Hamlet to develop--Marx's EIE to Stalin's LSI).

    Anyway my main point is that Te develops a sprawling body of case law, but it doesn't have the same ideological force as Ti/Ni bodies of law, so its something of a projection to characterize it as bureaucratic relative to code systems, because it assumes that everyone treats that body of judge made law as a series of steps one must go through, i.e.: a bureaucratic nightmare, when that is not really what it exists to do. Essentially what you do in common law systems is look at the statutes, then look at any cases that deal with substantially similar facts. You can cut out all the rest, and you do the second part because it actually helps you do less work as to the first, since someone has already been down that road. In that sense, its not the bureaucratic mess it seems like, even though the library is super full.

    In a code law system it sounds like you are allowed more deference because one is not bound to case law, but the ability to work around the code via interpretations is cut off at the onset. So you're not bound to the case law, but essentially all that does is preclude the possibility of alternative interpretations taking root and gaining momentum in an officially sanctioned way arising out of something other than the legislature. Since the body of law is more narrowly applied attention to formal aspects is very important, since technical accuracy can decide cases for all time, this is more bureaucratic in the traditional sense of the word, which is to say navigating a maze of somewhat absurd, but authoritative constructions of law that control outcomes without respect for intervention from outside reasoning. In other words, civil law is more like a brick wall, a lot like if you don't have 6 forms of photo idea for the DMV, no 5 won't do and it doesn't matter if you can't even get a sixth officially sanctioned form, if that in effect means you can't get a license even if its in the best interest of everyone involved--too bad, its more important we maintain the integrity of the system than let you drive. The idea is ultimately the legislature can change the law, so in code law systems this happens a lot, there's a lot of exceptions written in in order to not be oppressive. But this is precisely where it becomes a sprawl too. Eventually the exceptions swallow the rule and you have people going down essentially a check list. In the meanwhile "bureaucracy" is more like that DMV experience and its very much LSI at the helm

    in the long run Te is concerned with efficiency so as soon laws start to work against themselves they tend to be ignored and there's a blanket "reasonableness" requirement for state action in the USA. This is essentially a proxy for Te, such that if any state actor fucks someone in a kafkaesque manner you can subject it to a Te analysis in court and are likely to get it overturned. A lot of times what ends up happening is people realize there's good reasons why the state did what it did that were simply imperceptible to the plaintiff. This cuts both ways, and code law systems have good reasons, generally speaking, for doing what they do. In the final analysis, its all logic, its simply preference, and in short I would describe Te ignoring (blocked with Se) as the "bureaucratic function"

  25. #1345
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    3: You didn't comment on Ni for @Chae. Why is that?


    Coincidence? I think not!

  26. #1346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I agree though that he really got that one wrong, I'm actually surprised too.
    And I'm suprised by your agreement with common Singu's idiocy.

    "Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly."

    For example, this can be objectively checked by the quantity of divorces among duals compared to conflictors. In case there is no difference - that would be the objective proof IR have no singificant influence.
    It can be checked by physical markers of good emotional state in the communication of people of the said types.
    etc

    You need a little more imagination. While Singu a little more reason to his strange mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I built my understanding further to more nuanced understandings than what Socionics could ever offer
    Hence at now you think IR and types traits are not important in your life. They do not affect you and people near you. The impressive illusion. Your irrational negativism to Fi-Ne theory is explainable taking into account your weak and nonvalued these functions. Wish you luck with the ignoring this important part of the reality about peoples relations and peoples traits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    All three are fake and at war with reality.
    sure, in case of wrong types, as I've said
    to assume other is against my personal experience and there is nothing objective to say Socionics as wrong still

  27. #1347
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    So basically people here thinks they are correct in their own ways

  28. #1348
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    And understanding...

  29. #1349

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    "Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly."

    For example, this can be objectively checked by the quantity of divorces among duals compared to conflictors. In case there is no difference - that would be the objective proof IR have no singificant influence.
    It can be checked by physical markers of good emotional state in the communication of people of the said types.
    etc
    And I'm sure you can just keep saying that it's due to NTR, other factors, typed wrong, etc.
    Last edited by Singu; 04-23-2018 at 02:03 PM.

  30. #1350

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    And I'm suprised by your agreement with common Singu's idiocy.

    "Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly."

    For example, this can be objectively checked by the quantity of divorces among duals compared to conflictors. In case there is no difference - that would be the objective proof IR have no singificant influence.
    It can be checked by physical markers of good emotional state in the communication of people of the said types.
    etc

    You need a little more imagination. While Singu a little more reason to his strange mind.
    Go back to objective logic and stop the insults.

    After that, tell me how we identify duals and conflictors objectively for this test.


    Hence at now you think IR and types traits are not important in your life. They do not affect you and people near you. The impressive illusion. Your irrational negativism to Fi-Ne theory is explainable taking into account your weak and nonvalued these functions. Wish you luck with the ignoring this important part of the reality about peoples relations and peoples traits.
    Lol what, I never said anything like this. You are imagining things.

    And using the Socionics model in the worst possible way just to justify speculations.

  31. #1351
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    3,978
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    yea ive said it before but its really funny how sol say that fe types are rude when he resorts to insults on the regular.

  32. #1352
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe strikes Fi as rude in a different way than Fe understands rudeness, hence your point while true, pretty much is to be expected. this idea that one cannot know rudeness unless one displays an understanding of Fe is itself an Fe position that rudeness is objective, thus your point about his hypocrisy with its subtext that it invalidates his claim on other's rudeness is nested within certain Fe presuppositions about what a person who is entitled to make those claims is first required to abide by. in other words, rudeness from the point of view of Fi/Te isn't even an insult, its just a claim about how that person comports themselves in the eyes of others, and they are free to do so. Fe supplies the ethical import to rudeness. Fi means something different when saying rude, rude is not inherently bad, it just is. form the point of view of Fe rude is inherently a negative. it is similar to the Te concept of efficiency. from the point of view of Ti "inefficient" is de-loaded, not considered inherently inferior. rube goldberg machines are considered things of value. when fi calls fe valuers rude it does not mean the same thing it would in the mouth of a Fe valuer. in other words, to extend it to to Te, it would be like saying Ti can't judge efficiency because its often on the wrong side of it. its not so much that it can't--it doesn't take the imperative as baseline--thus failure to abide by it doesn't necessarily mean lack of understanding, it means a difference in values. thus to imply Sol doesn't understand rudeness is a Fe projection imposed upon him

    to reiterate the expectation that he would act differently (Fe) if he understood (Ti) "rudeness"properly i.e. objectively, is a Fe expectation. there's nothing about what Sol says that strikes me as out of place, mainly because I'm not trying to impose a uniform standard (just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it rude in my mind). humor is precisely where people via this mechanism signal their shared standard without being able to go into all the complexity. if the situation is funny its because you share a common interpretation of things first of all

    in the final analysis Sol should just cabin his comments as "I subjectively find your comments to be rude, and similarly minded people would agree with me"but no one talks like that. in the end he relies on common understanding so as to not have to do that. a common understanding that is certainly not shared by you, who mocks his understanding. its this kind of thing that works on SLE but not LSE

    from my point of view, you manjac, are super mouthy and rude, but cordial in some pernicious superficial sense that acts a shield to buffer any comments on your weak understanding. it essentially means anyone who wants to object to your silly comments has to overcome the barrier that to do so would come off as "mean" (and, besides, be a lot of work) this makes it not worth it from the point of view of most Te valuers. the downside to this is you will probably stay ignorant for a really long time and continue to be a thorn in the side of people like sol. if he was smart he would just stop talking to you, but LSE tends to try and work at things, so I expect your goofy relationship to continue

    "rude" is one of the least useful words in existence, and a hallmark of Fe. it exists as role for LSE which is probably what kicked this whole thing off. this idea that ESI cares about rudeness needs to be understood in terms of Fe ignoring first of all. what ESI considers rude is somewhat incomprehensible to Fe, which is why its a shame all types use the word but mean distinctly different things by it

    Fe inoculates itself from Te criticism by making Te out to be assholes, and besides throwing up clear barriers to understanding that make it palpably "not worth it". thus the cost benefit analysis just says don't freaking bother. in this way Fe egos live in a bubble of ignorance only someone like LSI can penetrate. Hamlet is the worst at this because not only are they immune, they will strike back with a lynch mob if you rub them the wrong way. The best thing to do is just tell these types whatever they want to hear and move on, unless you can devise a truly comprehensive solution that amounts to a water tight Ti case. one reason for maybe doing this is because it will reach more than the person in question and thus not be such a waste (in essence it might make the world a better place). at some point people create armed camps, which is, I think what people "declaratively" don't like about "quadra" but then they go on to create them anyway, simply by being themselves. that's what they don't get--what you call something doesn't change the reality of it's effects. I get the sense from some people that if we just stopped talking about quadra and did away with the concept they really believe that whatever phenomenon the quadra idea describes would also go away, as if its just an artificial ideology dreamed up by Hamlet and imposed on the world rather than being descriptive of it

    you might say "wow betrand this post is kind of long, it can't be that complex can it--why do you care so much, blowhard?" then you realize this is nothing less than the Fe/Ti Te/Fi divide that has separated mankind for basically ever, and almost ended in nuclear annihilation. although its only one small instance of it, its precisely from these roots all global conflicts spring (this is in some ways a Fi position as well, that ethics are derived from the ground up, and cannot be fundamentally changed from the top down--problems of sufficient magnitude cannot be glossed over and "politeness" is not the answer)
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-23-2018 at 09:49 PM.

  33. #1353
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Go back to objective logic and stop the insults.
    Not me did the wrong assertion about the impossibility to check objectively the non-existence of IR importance. Have supported it. Said unreasonable rejection of the Socionics importance. And then without reasonable arguments have asserted on that said, while I gave the arguments to you.
    To see the logic in me you need to follow the objective logic yourself.

    > After that, tell me how we identify duals and conflictors objectively for this test.

    It's a separate task and theme.

    Some chance the typing method and IR hypothesis will get the proof in the same time. In case the prognosis of relations or emotional state in a communication will show good match with the theory. As such result is possible only when types were correct and IR hypothesis too.
    Then experiments for concrete practical tasks mb done to measure the practical efficiency. Like to identify types of people before the marriages and then to look where they'll go; or to type people which are or were in marriages already; or to make communication pairs based on types and to see what happens with biological markers in them to notice how this fits to the IR theory.

    What I said initially. To claim something as pseudoscience until there is no objective proof it's wrong - is incorrectly.
    Use your mighty logic to get this, at least.

    I also recommend you to find objective proof for your new "knowledge" after which Socionics, as you think, gives nothing useful for you. As you risk to apply any speculative hypotheses, especially when you are new in them to use them how they were supposed. About Socionics I know from my experience of watching people for years to understand the degree it's correct and that my typing skills allow this to notice, at least.

    Logic or else in you, but it's another time you claim and insist on evident bs. Previously was the case when you argumented to your education degree to protect your strange assertion instead of logical arguments about the concrete question. I hope not that new "knowledge" had such bad impact on your consciousness.

    P.S.
    special for maniacs
    Fi types are not rude in general, compared to Fe types - is what I said
    when you see inadequate rudeness like one of local maniacs have shown not a single time, - it's good argument against Fi type, especially delta Fi
    T types mb not polite easily, as lesser care about emotions. the least rude are the holly base Fi types
    Last edited by Sol; 04-23-2018 at 06:11 PM.

  34. #1354

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Not me did the wrong assertion about the impossibility to check objectively the non-existence of IR importance. Have supported it. Said unreasonable rejection of the Socionics importance. And then without reasonable arguments have asserted on that said, while I gave the arguments to you.
    To see the logic in me you need to follow the objective logic yourself.
    You really misread me. Your original statement was wrong as written: "Until there is no objective proof that IR have no significant influence on the relations, to say it as "pseudoscience" is incorrectly." This, as stated, could be stated for astrology too, or anything else. That is, "without refuting the theory, you can't call it pseudoscience". This statement is just wrong. You can still call it pseudoscience without experiments if the theory has the issues that a pseudoscience has, e.g. lack of refutability.

    After your previous reply, I did assume this is not what you meant, but more like, "when you show there is no objective proof that IR has any significant influence, then the theory is proven to be wrong", because then you explained that you'd want to use an experiment to test the theory, that was fine, however there was obviously an issue with implementation, hence I asked (rhetorical though ) as to how you'd conduct this experiment.


    > After that, tell me how we identify duals and conflictors objectively for this test.

    It's a separate task and theme.
    It's not just a separate task or theme, it's crucial that the theory be operationalized properly. If that's not possible - pseudoscience.


    Some chance the typing method and IR hypothesis will get the proof in the same time. In case the prognosis of relations or emotional state in a communication will show good match with the theory. As such result is possible only when types were correct and IR hypothesis too.
    The bolded is the problem. We need proper operationalization where one can't go "but maybe the typing wasn't correct".


    Then experiments for concrete practical tasks mb done to measure the practical efficiency. Like to identify types of people before the marriages and then to look where they'll go; or to type people which are or were in marriages already; or to make communication pairs based on types and to see what happens with biological markers in them to notice how this fits to the IR theory.
    All this is cool, just first we need to get past the above hurdle. Of course, I do try to operationalize for myself, but it's not the same as a controlled scientific experiment, even though I'm as thorough as possible. If I was paid for this, I'd be fine with doing the operationalization for an actual experiment too heh. I have had some ideas on how do it fully objectively. But it requires scientific equipment and so money.


    What I said initially. To claim something as pseudoscience until there is no objective proof it's wrong - is incorrectly.
    Use your mighty logic to get this, at least.
    OK wait... if you really did mean that and it wasn't a language issue, that's just wrong. See above.


    I also recommend you to find objective proof for your new "knowledge" after which Socionics, as you think, gives nothing useful for you.
    Woah, are you really this fanatic about Socionics, that you have to put the word "knowledge" in quot. marks - just because it's not Socionics? And yes, there is objective proof for much of the stuff I've been studying. And it does give me useful information and understanding, while I keep checking what logical ideas from Socionics can be kept and how they can be kept inside this understanding. For this, I basically compare other theories (yes, incl. proofs for them) to some of the Socionics system and see what systematization is the best overall.

    So yeah, don't let your imagination run wild before verifying what I really meant.


    As you risk to apply any speculative hypotheses, especially when you are new in them to use them how they were supposed. About Socionics I know from my experience of watching people for years to understand the degree it's correct and that my typing skills allow this to notice, at least.
    There is no proof you can show for being a better typer than others. Years of practice isn't proof on its own. Btw many people have been doing Socionics for years on here.


    Logic or else in you, but it's another time you claim and insist on evident bs. Previously was the case when you argumented to your education degree to protect your strange assertion instead of logical arguments about the concrete question. I hope not that new "knowledge" had such bad impact on your consciousness.
    Woah... I don't know if I should bother with continuing to correct all this crap.

    But let me just say, I never referred to my degree to avoid the use of logical arguments, good luck pointing it out where I did such a thing.

  35. #1355
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Cuivienen reminds IEI by photo

    @Myst
    To say you were wrong you don't need so much words. It's boring to discuss the evident and where is nothing new.

  36. #1356

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    @Myst
    To say you were wrong you don't need so much words. It's boring to discuss the evident and where is nothing new.
    So you are doing what you accused me of - quitting the argument with an excuse.

  37. #1357
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Fi types are not rude in general, compared to Fe types - is what I said
    when you see inadequate rudeness like one of local maniacs have shown not a single time, - it's good argument against Fi type, especially delta Fi
    T types mb not polite easily, as lesser care about emotions. the least rude are the holly base Fi types
    Imo, I think Si + ethics tends to lead to the most polite folks. If you're more focused on present comfort and peaceable relations you'll be more likely to speak kindly and try to smooth things over. Ni folks are more likely to want to clear the air, to deal with things so they don't fester later, which could mean current unpleasantness and rudeness. So, most polite to least among the ethical types would be imo SEI, ESE, EII, IEI (si role/fi demo), IEE, ESI, SEE, EIE Maybe the order is changed around somewhere, but SEI as the most polite and EIE as least polite ethical type is most true-to-life ime.

  38. #1358
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    politeness is what? conforming to the space bound ethical climate? as soon as you deviate from that definition one person's politeness is another persons rudeness. sometimes the most polite thing is to tell someone they've got something on their face, despite the embarassment. you take this stuff to its ultimate conclusion and the emperor has no clothes, which is precisely how I often feel in a heavy Fe environment. basically each quadra finds their own most polite.

  39. #1359
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Imo, I think Si + ethics tends to lead to the most polite folks. If you're more focused on present comfort and peaceable relations you'll be more likely to speak kindly and try to smooth things over. Ni folks are more likely to want to clear the air, to deal with things so they don't fester later, which could mean current unpleasantness and rudeness. So, most polite to least among the ethical types would be imo SEI, ESE, EII, IEI (si role/fi demo), IEE, ESI, SEE, EIE Maybe the order is changed around somewhere, but SEI as the most polite and EIE as least polite ethical type is most true-to-life ime.
    My ESE sister is one of the most polite people I know but she often says I am rude to her. I think she is only half kidding. I just say something and her response will be "rude!" even when I was not meaning to be. My EII sister can be rude in her own way. I guess we can all see each other rude in different situations. I believe we all have vaguely different ideas of what is and isn't acceptable behavior but many fundamental overlaps since we were raised by the same people (sx last parents). My EII sister and I were partially raised by an ESI aunt so there is that too.

    “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
     
    YWIMW

  40. #1360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Imo, I think Si + ethics tends to lead to the most polite folks.
    Fi relates to be pleasant, to inspire the sympathy. So this relates to be polite the most.
    Fe relates in case of not be personally pleasant but to follow a tradition, ritual, subordinancy, to follow a respectful "high" style.

    Why I said about delta Fi: 1) they better understand people (Ne) to do not insult them accidentally, or more than expected, better understand nuances to do not look as rude and behave more appropriately, 2) they are harder to be insulted to react by anger and rudeness in return by the similar reason.

    > Maybe the order is changed around somewhere, but SEI as the most polite

    mb our IR affect the perception too

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •