Your typing of forum members

[The Reality Denialist]

@Sanguine Miasma
am i allowed to suggest a type

I do not really mind. My reasons are clear because I exists outside of all stereotypes and those who view one side will miss a lot. Applies IRL too.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

I do not really mind. My reasons are clear because I exists outside of all stereotypes and those who view one side will miss a lot. Applies IRL too.

i think u might be a LIE. i dont believe LIEs are unemotional or cold outwardly like the rest of NT types can be perceived. sorelle amore, and the trans LIE i knew are quite animated but i think thats related to their body's hormones being messed up from diet.

[The Reality Denialist]

i think u might be a LIE. i dont believe LIEs are unemotional or cold outwardly like the rest of NT types can be perceived. sorelle amore, and the trans LIE i knew are quite animated but i think thats related to their body's hormones being messed up from diet.

Well, Gulenko's report made me think that LIE would be OK secondary type.


However: There tends to be a hidden collision between me and Fi types. Let's call it suspicion. So it is hard for me to even relax with them as I judge their remarks manipulative or over adjusting (corruption of thought in scientific sense). I do not practice pragmatic business or try to win that way. I don't probably act democratically at all. Means: I do not establish business relations. Instead of that I prefer to strip down needs to bare minimum and make savings while avoid to make any sort of investments (Te of LSE and ILI). My work is tweaking > executing. That is process over result.
So LSE. I have met many. Like all dialectical algorithmic types we love absurd nonesense but their humor can be very predictable and stereotyped. Seem OK people.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

However: There tends to be a hidden collision between me and Fi types. Let's call it suspicion. So it is hard for me to even relax with them as I judge their remarks manipulative or over adjusting (corruption of thought in scientific sense).

IME Fe types are generally the manipulative ones, not Fi. It's difficult to be authentic and simultaneously manipulative.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I wanna larp as an N. Someone tell me how I can act like an intuitive.

Do i just say "theoretically" a lot? What do I do to seem N without actually using N? Theoretically speaking.

[Poptart]

I wanna larp as an N. Someone tell me how I can act like an intuitive.

Do i just say "theoretically" a lot? What do I do to seem N without actually using N? Theoretically speaking.

Speak in generalities. Make broad sweeping claims/ “theories” about whatever you like. Facts are optional. Claim intuitive superiority when you get things right. If you get something wrong, respond with “ah, it looks like I need to update my mental model about ___ phenomenon”.

[InterPrizeWes]

Speak in generalities. Make broad sweeping claims/ “theories” about whatever you like. Facts are optional. Claim intuitive superiority when you get things right. If you get something wrong, respond with “ah, it looks like I need to update my mental model about ___ phenomenon”.

You’re always good at making things look more amassed or an impossible database of over exhaustive reason and hyper exponential giga terrors of the brain boy empire of ego enormities in the dinosaur diagram built on analysis paralysis.

You will yet freeze me to death on the ice of knowledge @Poptart !!

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Speak in generalities. Make broad sweeping claims/ “theories” about whatever you like. Facts are optional. Claim intuitive superiority when you get things right. If you get something wrong, respond with “ah, it looks like I need to update my mental model about ___ phenomenon”.

Lmao, this is great. Thanks.

[Manatroid92]

i think u might be a LIE. i dont believe LIEs are unemotional or cold outwardly like the rest of NT types can be perceived. sorelle amore, and the trans LIE i knew are quite animated but i think thats related to their body's hormones being messed up from diet.

I’ve seen a video of Sanguine on here.
He might have NT inclinations but he’s definitely a Fe-base.

[Manatroid92]

IME Fe types are generally the manipulative ones, not Fi. It's difficult to be authentic and simultaneously manipulative.

This is a fair comment, but really it’s all a matter of information/‘values’ preference.

It’s not so dissimilar to Te thinking Ti bases are obtuse/missing the point and vice-versa. In reality both kinds of Ethical types ‘manipulate’, but I think that Fe/Fi bases can do so without even really meaning to.
For example, an ESE or EIE might troll an emotionally-charged story is just letting their feelings out, but it seeps into the atmosphere and can change how their listeners feel about something. The manipulation, in a way, is actually palpable to
everyone *except* the ExE, because they’re kind of just operating how they’re programmed to and aren’t wholly aware how they come off to others.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

This is a fair comment, but really it’s all a matter of information/‘values’ preference.

It’s not so dissimilar to Te thinking Ti bases are obtuse/missing the point and vice-versa. In reality both kinds of Ethical types ‘manipulate’, but I think that Fe/Fi bases can do so without even really meaning to.
For example, an ESE or EIE might troll an emotionally-charged story is just letting their feelings out, but it seeps into the atmosphere and can change how their listeners feel about something. The manipulation, in a way, is actually palpable to
everyone *except* the ExE, because they’re kind of just operating how they’re programmed to and aren’t wholly aware how they come off to others.

Theres a difference between affecting and manipulating. Manipulating is done maliciously and usually consciously.

[welcometomania]

an unhealthy trait among Fi-Te valuers is probably a bit like closed-mindedness ?

[chriscorey]

the sensor Lucy pointing out the obvious since 3.2 million years ago.

Is anyone else bored yet?

[Manatroid92]

Theres a difference between affecting and manipulating. Manipulating is done maliciously and usually consciously.

You're right, I guess, I don't really disagree.

The point I was trying to make is that neither type of Ethical is really doing it out of malicious intent, it's just what 'comes out' of them respectively.
Fi types aren't trying to manipulate others in communication, and Te types are 'built' to appreciate them. For Fe-valuers, that Fi-style of communication may seem manipulative when it's really not.

In the same way, Fe types aren't really trying to manipulate others in communication either; Ti types are, again, 'built' to appreciate them. Fi-valuers understandably judge their emotionality as manipulative when Fe-egos don't intend to do so, as well.

It's just the nature of information elements to work that way.

the sensor Lucy pointing out the obvious since 3.2 million years ago.

Is anyone else bored yet?

Lucy who?

[chriscorey]

You're right, I guess, I don't really disagree.

The point I was trying to make is that neither type of Ethical is really doing it out of malicious intent, it's just what 'comes out' of them respectively.
Fi types aren't trying to manipulate others in communication, and Te types are 'built' to appreciate them. For Fe-valuers, that Fi-style of communication may seem manipulative when it's really not.

In the same way, Fe types aren't really trying to manipulate others in communication either; Ti types are, again, 'built' to appreciate them. Fi-valuers understandably judge their emotionality as manipulative when Fe-egos don't intend to do so, as well.

It's just the nature of information elements to work that way.



Lucy who?

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story

I was trying to make a joke.

[RBRS]

This is a fair comment, but really it’s all a matter of information/‘values’ preference.

It’s not so dissimilar to Te thinking Ti bases are obtuse/missing the point and vice-versa. In reality both kinds of Ethical types ‘manipulate’, but I think that Fe/Fi bases can do so without even really meaning to.
For example, an ESE or EIE might troll an emotionally-charged story is just letting their feelings out, but it seeps into the atmosphere and can change how their listeners feel about something. The manipulation, in a way, is actually palpable to
everyone *except* the ExE, because they’re kind of just operating how they’re programmed to and aren’t wholly aware how they come off to others.

This comment should be taken into account for type functional descriptions tbh

[godslave]

Theres a difference between affecting and manipulating. Manipulating is done maliciously and usually consciously.

When I listen to music or go to the theater or read a book etc, I want it to work on me emotionally. I want to be affected. I go to the theater to cry, I want to be affected. Affection and Emotional manipulation are closer than it seems, they are almost synonymous imho. Any kind of Art has at its very purpose the expression of the artist and the desire to "touch" the audience emotionally, to induce "something" in the other via emotions. Emotions "control" can be perceived as a manipulation but it's also at the core of every well crafted art. It's the prestige of the artist, the actor, the magician, the musician, the painter, the infographist, the dramatist, the movie director, the dancer, the cook, circus artist etc.. Again, to be in control of the audience's emotions is the prerogative of artists. Emotions are the universal language, it's powerful, communicative and indispensable.

Without art and artists , therefore emotional power virtuosity, there is no civilizational development. All the philosophical questions of society have been, are and will always be expressed through art, "plays" and staging. There is no magic nore transcendence without emotions. The world always changes (hopefully for the good) after "Bravos" and applauses.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the fact that "Manipulating" is not always done maliciously.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

So what you are basically saying is that all artists are IEI

[godslave]

So what you are basically saying is that all artists are IEI

That's a Quantum leap statement Alive ahah ! It takes all sorts to make a world (and/or an artist !) !

[The Reality Denialist]

I reach for an object
A) it is let's say something nutritional and I give it to a starving person
B) it is a loaded gun and point it towards someone and I pull the trigger

In situations a and b the object was manipulated.

[RBRS]

I reach for an object
A) it is let's say something nutritional and I give it to a starving person
B) it is a loaded gun and point it towards someone and I pull the trigger

In situations a and b the object was manipulated.

Colloquially manipulation refers to consciously change someone's thought without this person's notice, you took things out of context.

[The Reality Denialist]

Colloquially manipulation refers to consciously change someone's thought without this person's notice, you took things out of context.

I rather use absolute definitions because otherwise we are inserting personal meanings and going out of objective realm.

[RBRS]

I rather use absolute definitions because otherwise we are inserting personal meanings and going out of objective realm.

If we're talking on concrete cases then taking traits out of concepts will only make it more difficult to reach a conclusion and archieve truth

[The Reality Denialist]

If we're talking on concrete cases then taking traits out of concepts will only make it more difficult to reach a conclusion and archieve truth

There are cases in which shooting a person is ethically noble thing to do but it is not the default assumption. Same goes inversely to feeding someone. So, no if an action is done it is done.

[RBRS]

There are cases in which shooting a person is ethically noble thing to do but it is not the default assumption. Same goes inversely to feeding someone. So, no if an action is done it is done.

Manipulation as a general concept means altering the state of being of an object.

Manipulation in this case means the actions where an individual or group of individuals exercises control over the behavior of a person or a group, using persuasion or mental suggestion techniques, seeking to eliminate the critical or self-critical capacities of the person, that is, their ability to judge or refuse information or mental orders.

Taking traits out of the latter, to the point of using the general concept, is out of context and makes concluding the conversation impossible

[The Reality Denialist]

Manipulation as a general concept means altering the state of being of an object.

Manipulation in this case means the actions where an individual or group of individuals exercises control over the behavior of a person or a group, using persuasion or mental suggestion techniques, seeking to eliminate the critical or self-critical capacities of the person, that is, their ability to judge or refuse information or mental orders.

Taking traits out of the latter, to the point of using the general concept, is out of context and makes concluding the conversation impossible

No, I consider it to be very same. So manipulation is the concept that could inherit ethical properties.

[RBRS]

No, I consider it to be very same. So manipulation is the concept that could inherit ethical properties.

No, it is not the same, because it contains more defining characteristics that come to importance in this sort of discussion

[The Reality Denialist]

No, it is not the same, because it contains more defining characteristics that come to importance in this sort of discussion

Nope. The point is that the manipulator does not register manipulation hence can not attribute his/her actions as such while other people do.

[godslave]

 

"manipulation (n.)by 1730, a method of digging ore, from French manipulation, from manipule "handful" (a pharmacists' measure), from Latin manipulus "handful, sheaf, bundle," from manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand") + root of plere "to fill" (from PIE root *pele- (1) "to fill"). Sense of "skillful handling of objects" is attested by 1826; extended 1828 to "handling or managing of persons," especially to one's own advantage."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/manipulation

There is an up to date Zeitgeist usage of a verb which conveys some of what we can call "emotional and/or mental" (not quite the same imho) manipulation : To Influence. So we now have words like "Influencers" which is another derived term for mass manipulation potential. There is an X-Files character called Robert Patrick Modell AKA "The Pusher", he had a tremendous power of suggestion/manipulation.

[WVBRY]

"Manipulation" in a colloquial sense has a negative connotation.

It doesn't necessarly have to be negative in intent, nor do the consequences of it have to be negative for anyone involved.

It doesn't have to be conscious either, most people manipulate without being aware. I don't think that's necessarily unhealthy.

To be a "manipulator" implies more consistent manipulation. Even then, this doesn't have to mean the person does it consciously.

[RBRS]

"Manipulation" in a colloquial sense has a negative connotation.

It doesn't necessarly have to be negative in intent, nor do the consequences of it have to be negative for anyone involved.

It doesn't have to be conscious either, most people manipulate without being aware. I don't think that's necessarily unhealthy.

To be a "manipulator" implies more consistent manipulation. Even then, this doesn't have to mean the person does it consciously.

There might also exist personality traits or characterological behaviors that are conductive to influence without the need for intent

[EIE H]

To me, “manipulation” in the general sense is neutral. To act/interact with another person is to elicit some sort of reaction/outcome. However, it can definitely have negative, malicious connotations, especially related to psychology/personality concepts.

Fe can be manipulative in how emotionality is used to influence the mood, but it’s often for entertainment value/self-expression. Occasionally, there is malicious intent though (to belittle someone/a group, ruin the mood for everyone else).

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

When I listen to music or go to the theater or read a book etc, I want it to work on me emotionally. I want to be affected. I go to the theater to cry, I want to be affected. Affection and Emotional manipulation are closer than it seems, they are almost synonymous imho. Any kind of Art has at its very purpose the expression of the artist and the desire to "touch" the audience emotionally, to induce "something" in the other via emotions. Emotions "control" can be perceived as a manipulation but it's also at the core of every well crafted art. It's the prestige of the artist, the actor, the magician, the musician, the painter, the infographist, the dramatist, the movie director, the dancer, the cook, circus artist etc.. Again, to be in control of the audience's emotions is the prerogative of artists. Emotions are the universal language, it's powerful, communicative and indispensable.

Without art and artists , therefore emotional power virtuosity, there is no civilizational development. All the philosophical questions of society have been, are and will always be expressed through art, "plays" and staging. There is no magic nore transcendence without emotions. The world always changes (hopefully for the good) after "Bravos" and applauses.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the fact that "Manipulating" is not always done maliciously.

I get where you're coming from, but I am basing it on book definition. "Manipulation is the exercise of harmful influence over others. People who manipulate others attack their mental and emotional sides to get what they want."

If we say the definition of manipulate is "to alter" then it is neutral; but manipulating people, by book definition, is not simply altering.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I get where you're coming from, but I am basing it on book definition. "Manipulation is the exercise of harmful influence over others. People who manipulate others attack their mental and emotional sides to get what they want."

If we say the definition of manipulate is "to alter" then it is neutral; but manipulating people, by book definition, is not simply altering.

I get why ESIs are described as being "bookish" in the Te department, kek.

[nifl]

@Lady Lioness
''bookish'' is not a common association with ESI, especially not in the sense of factual knowledge (a genuine interest in poetry and novellistic literature, where the exploration of the humanitarian region is central, is not so uncommon, but that is also more in the domain of the intuitive ethicals)
if you have a self-perception of being bookish, it may be an atypical trait (of which there are many in people) or you may not be a sensory ethical type - excluding the logical types

[The Reality Denialist]

To me, “manipulation” in the general sense is neutral. To act/interact with another person is to elicit some sort of reaction/outcome. However, it can definitely have negative, malicious connotations, especially related to psychology/personality concepts.

Seems like when done to a specific person by a specific person but even then it is not black and white. It is hardly so generically speaking and socionics dynamics is the obvious case for the generic case as it deals with abstracted elements.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

@Lady Lioness
''bookish'' is not a common association with ESI, especially not in the sense of factual knowledge (a genuine interest in poetry and novellistic literature, where the exploration of the humanitarian region is central, is not so uncommon, but that is also more in the domain of the intuitive ethicals)
if you have a self-perception of being bookish, it may be an atypical trait (of which there are many in people) or you may not be a sensory ethical type - excluding the logical types

Dude, I literally quoted an ESI description when I said that. Lol

[nifl]

Dude, I literally quoted an ESI description when I said that. Lol

those who write descriptions are not necessarily right about their claims about types, especially when their claims go against common sense (ESIs being described as commonly having abilities in a weak function, for example) and the basics of the system
going by what you said, they have perhaps mistyped some not-ESIs into ESI, thus getting the impression that an ethical type often is Te ''bookish'' - ESI is certainly often interested in factual knowledge, correct logical procedure and erudition (acitivities related to the superid functions are often interesting, inspiring and pleasant), but they hardly often excel there - it's like saying that SLI often are quite perceptive and innovative when it comes to new, interesting and novel prospects and ideas; they can be (usually limited to more specific activities where there is particular natural inclination, interest and practice), but it is certainly much less likely and can be considered an atypical trait
introversion is probably also a factor in *general* bookishness, however, so you'd probably find more *generally* bookish ESIs than ESE, SEE

[RBRS]

I wanna get typed by ppl but I'm a nobody here lol

[nifl]

I wanna get typed by ppl but I'm a nobody here lol

try a video, we'll get our top type-detectives (certificate not required) working on it before you can say 'Gulenko'