We teach socionics quickly and efficiently, qualitatively. If you want to learn the basics of socionics, or learn how to teach - I invite you to me. Details - write me a personal message!
We teach socionics quickly and efficiently, qualitatively. If you want to learn the basics of socionics, or learn how to teach - I invite you to me. Details - write me a personal message!
DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
(You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!
Teach me how to pick up women using Socionics.
Yaaroslav the Wise brings us his Socionics Justice
*fireworks*
give us more of typing interviews
It's easy. Find any pretty girl. Tell her about Socionics and say you are her dual. Then offer to communicate so she could to try to feel how duality works. In case the date will go not good, say alike "sorry, honey, we are not duals anymore".
Report the results on the forum for statistics and the method's improvement.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Yes, I do this. All the time.
But be forewarned. I have done this with your SLI duals several times, and they are most resistant to listening to the idea that someone might be able to predict their behavior. The ones I've talked to, like many people, think that they are special snowflakes rather than reliably predictable in most areas.
Haha, maybe that's why I had this gut instinct to shut up and smile. I'm gonna try it once just to see. (Adam, Sometimes I think I am doomed! I went on an online dating site the other night as I can't get out. It was cool knowing socionics I immediately picked out the sli's, h types are harder to come by, and all the sli e 6 h's with a good dose of sx ie. what I'm drawn to are all the ones that only want to hook up and care more about their muscles and, yes, set in their ways it seems. Plus that combo is just good at getting women/listening/helping out so they easily attract women and I'm not sure saying hanging out with me will restore your mental energy and lower your neuroticism would go down very well.)
Yea I do this. I got this technique from @Adam Strange. He gets ESI pussy all the time
~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire ~ Aries ~ Beta ~ Gryffindor ~ Summer ~ SLUEN ~
Last edited by Guillaine; 07-19-2018 at 10:38 AM.
To tell a girl about types during the meeting?
With Ne valued people may to work.
Ni valued may do not like this. They do not like the idea you think about hiden in them by some theories. You may get alike: "So you do not like me. But want a date just because you think me by some type. Everyone is unique... bla-bla-bla". I'd prefer to do not discuss types with them at 1st meetings.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
@Sol, on the first meeting, we talk about the kind and frequency of sex we like, what kind of house we should buy, and where our children will go to school. We save the important typing questions for the second date.
Seriously, some people are willing to consider the idea that they may be in a box, and some are not. I'm not entirely sure that it is type-related, and while I have noticed trends, the correlations seem weak.
Yeah that was the reaction or at least thought process I predicted, and actually I would myself at least partially consider if someone spoke to me about it out of the blue. I suppose it would probably be fine if they really wanted to talk to you (about anything) but it would not actually generate interest out of virtually nothing, as some more human conversation might do.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Lol, @Sol. I don't feel much shame.
I introduce myself as a person who could be wrong in order to overcome my natural tendency to be an asshole. I do it to disarm my audience and empower them, because otherwise, Te tends to steamroller people, and being steamrollered means your audience isn't listening anymore.
You have the most among all types to look other for your dualsJust be nice.
Your difficulties to find the woman for good and long relations would reduce significantly.
You said one of them have recommended you to be more romantic and you understand the lack of your emotionality as call it as brick alike. You may improve the emotional part in relations instead of not so successful strategy to find better woman by a million criterions.
Allow yourself to love deeply some good woman which you think as your dual and you'll get what you want - good long relations, as the love is what such relations need the most. Without your strong feelings you do not get them in return and a woman has lesser interest to last such relations further, without stronger feelings to you a woman behave worse to you than could, you both get lesser pleasure from the relations. All positive factors only make easier to love. Jung's type helps a lot to have this feeling to any normal woman.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I don't see what the big deal is, wanting to date someone cause you think they're type X is no different than wanting to date them because you like their eyes, think they're funny, are desperate, your mom set you up, you pity them, you were drunk, tinder, etc. a date is just a trial run. they're free to say no for equally stupid reasons but you don't know whether you like the person or not at that point, so this idea that you don't really like them, as if you could really like them if only you came up with the proper pretense seems asinine to me. truth is no one really likes anyone until they get to know them, at best they're just guessing based on assumptions, and typology is just giving that assumption a label. I guess the problem is they like to do it in the dark when it comes to assumptions
I think he is saying that going up to someone and presenting them with your interest because of socionics reason is not a worse reason than if your presented them with other reasons such as they have nice eyes. I don't think he is saying they are both equal as reason for choosing someone but that they are equally bad/good reasons to give someone for approaching them.
I don't think this thread is about the correctness of hiding, or that it is a shameful hobby, we are just discussing it in the context of starting conversations with the opposite sex. I have not come to a hard and fast conclusion but in relating to people there are a lot of considerations to make in the moment and you are reading a little about how to proceed. It's just that I think some people wouldn't be responsive to that kind of initial approach, not because socionics is inherently truth or not truth, they also wouldn't be responsive to listening about another scientific theory or other things. It's just about people and reading people. Plus I am the first to admit explaining things can end me in a tangle and it might come out in some ridiculous and nonsensical form that could only do socionics "reputation" as well as the potential connection with someone, damage. We all make assumptions when we meet people, based what we know and have experienced etc. so we have to go by them to some degree to relate them best way we can. I personally don't believe socionics is about Christ, but even if I did, I still think you have to read the situation and the person before "evangelising" even in the most innocent way. I think telling anyone you know better than them is a little arrogant, as none of us are all knowing/god nor have we walked in that persons shoes from birth until the present. And yes, that would be hypocritical in a way to truly believe you know better than them and not say it (though I still think there is some case for this being thoughtful and tactful), but I do not actually believe I know better than a person on any subject until I have listened to them fully on their ideas on it so I always come to a topic from a position of there being a possibility that I am wrong. You may call this lack of faith but I actually think it is having faith in the unknown and in the interconnectedness of all human beings, life and the universe. So that when I hold back from mentioning socionics (we are only talking about a first conversation) it is not, I believe, an act of deception, more an act of feeling my way into such discussions when both parties would be amenable and the discussion would be productive, which I admit may be right from the start but I would hesitate to make use of it very often.
Edit: Another reason why I might hold back is that it seems evident that people naturally become dual-seeking when they are ready, when they are more accepting and realist about who they are and who they are not, and when they are not looking for someone who they want to be more like but someone who will actually work and appreciate what they really bring. It doesn't matter about age, some might be ready young, some might never be at that stage of self-acceptance. I have met duals who are not seeking their dual and would not appreciate it and duals who are when I have not been etc. It is a natural process that even if socionics did not exist to explain it, would happen. So in that sense remaining silent about socionics allows this to take place, that is just being your ordinary, boring self will be extraordinary to the right dual who is ready for that, and no words are needed to convince etc, words would just get in the way. There is a kind of faith involved in letting this happen, letting it be a mutual/natural seeking of each other, without sharing the analysis of it, as if they need convincing/are not seeking you, they are probably not at that stage.
Last edited by Guillaine; 07-20-2018 at 11:43 PM.
well that's entirely consistent with being ignorant of socionics, jung, western culture, and psychology in general, so it makes sense in a stupid way. you lay no claim to knowledge, frame it as a form of humility (it is a special kind of arrogant to put no real effort into researching or understanding an idea and simply blanketing the entire field with an "its all equal" form of leveling--which is to say nothing more than "I cannot discern between truth and lies"--and pass that off as somehow being a superior judgement on the matter), but in the end are making broad far ranging claims and that, in diluting what's substantive, only serve to empower those people who are nothing but manipulators and users. this is precisely how con men prey on people who can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground and get by on all cliches about how there's truth in everything. in the end if you believe all that it follows just as much to simply always say what you mean. for example you seem to have no qualms about talking frankly here, and yet not there? to what end and why? I imagine quite a few men have enjoyed your blatant naivete, but in the end, its your sacrifice to make, but its a waste of time when the entire thing could be settled up front with a little honesty. self development involves throwing off false trappings, i.e.: learning something meaningful not rubber stamping your ignorance with a label ("socionics") you plucked out of nowhere. so you can invoke socionics in whatever form you want, but its something quite different than what it was intended to do. all you've done is muddy the water. after all you don't need a psychological theory to be just another person lacking awareness, who buys into yet another scheme that involves separating you from your valuables and in return offering nothing but flattery for your lack of discernment as if it were a virtue. I don't think you have a lack of faith, I think you have absolute faith in a bankrupt mode of approaching the truth which dresses itself up as being concerned with "listening" when it does nothing of the sort, the entire thing is fatally shallow. you "listen" to people but only in the most hollow way, it hardly deserves the self accolades it accords itself for being so open minded. its not so much open minded as a mind not capable of being either open or closed at all. the only way in which religion factors into this is that religion has succumbed to exactly this cultural mode of being and so people mistake God as just another empty concept no different from any other concept, but it is only so because people make it so by being ridiculously empty headed and materialistic.. they then turn around and try to convince themselves otherwise with recourse to even zanier theories than the Christian God as if such a thing wouldn't be necessary if they didn't empty out potential meaning at the onset by their most basic attitudes. its only in an overly materialistic culture we even need people to express how open minded they are, when all the virtues available to mankind already inhere in a classical notion of God. only when we've corrupted that image do we even need to think about replacing it. except now you act as if the replacement is going to be found at the 99c store and frame that as a triumph when in reality you're eating out of a garbage can
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-21-2018 at 01:28 AM.
the knowledge I lay claim to comes from growing up in that kind of toxic christian culture where people are shamed, ridiculed and punished for making a mistake, "sinning", or just being vulnerable and expressing themselves, which is a painful reminder to those who don't allow themselves to do so. I have been on that side of the fence, until my early twenties. It is only thanks to the patience of people willing to love me, who were non believers, that I can see differently, I realize it feels near on impossible to do so. So my choice to be vulnerable is hard won not simple naivety as you would dismiss it. I had to be willing to lose my entire community to gain it. I am still coming to terms with what and who god is but I am certain that there is something indestructible in each of us, a spirit you might call it, and that it is of divine origin, that it is life, and that is this is why for me it is human dignity all the way above any doctrine or theory.
s h a l l o w
everyone knows mainstream christianity is christianity in name only, you only perpetuate the problem you claim to hate by affording it such dignity. the losers in such an exchange is everyone who never reaches what christianity is really about. principled atheism is just christianity as it was meant to be, but uprooted and deluded about from where it came and where its going. they got lost in the word play and the naming convention and forgot what its all really about. socionics is part of the jungian project to reclaim that, so you don't get at it by perpetuating the aims of the wrong side. essentially you can't understand socionics and at the same time claim christianity is part of the problem. it just proves you understand nothing and are throwing labels and slogans out there but are little more than an idealogical pawn of forces you can't comprehend. if that is socionics socionics is %100 meaningless as a psychological inquiry into the state of relationships between individuals, since it affords no way to escape being a pawn of those forces, i.e.: the collective unconscious and its symbols
It is impossible to talk to you because even if I want to understand everything you say is peppered with disrespect, defensiveness and personal attacks.
the idea that the truth should be pleasant is ridiculous if you think about it for half a second. that would only ever be the case if you were already flawless. this idea that you refuse to absorb an idea because it doesn't conform to your standards of politeness is just infantile screening of what you refuse to concede for other reasons. its just another manifestation of preference for lies
I'm starting to think you might be LSI
This thread unstuck me on the inspiration level.
Whatever works I guess.
its sort of humorous talking about frequency of sex, what kind of house, and where kids go to school, but not socionics. that just crosses the line. gotta save the socionics talk until you know there's something there, meanwhile talk about your future children. as if that isn't almost the definition of cart before horse. oh well I guess what school you send your kid to is really important to some people. as for me, it was for my parents as well, which is why they moved me from school to school as a youngster whenever my grades would drop. which by the way if you want your kids to flourish or trust you this is a bad idea
My mum (LSI) complained of this about her childhood too. Your logic is personal, intricate and impractical, even the structure of your sentences and lack of capitalisation points to Ti not Te. When you are disturbed or upset you pounce with Se. you do not value Fi, in fact you disdain, particularly when it comes from Delta Nfs. You like the rules and order. This relation between us is a conflict relation, I am familiar with it. To me you are a clear LSI.
I wouldn't bother waste a single date on someone who has an opposite answer to "do you want children" or " do you want to get married" from mine.
I find distressing not to know what a person wants from me, from the relationship. Sure, people change their mind and can lie. I don't care which one happens, it would mean "bye" to me.
Then again, I wouldn't go out on a date with a stranger...
Then again, I'm not sure I even want a relationship...
Then again, books are great.
Yeah, for me is the opposite. If ppl evaluate me as compatible or not by such things, I feel like they are seeking for those things, not me. Which is clear since you say you won't waste time in them. So they are not seeking to love me or someone but somebody to fulfill their personal agenda. Thats my pov ofc. I know that all the time couples break up because because they fail at matching their expectations. To me relation means adaptation and commitement to someone you like and love above personal agenda.
As adam said, those are differences between types.
@Avebury, I'm very clear in status of relations, so clear that I even get upset if someone, like friend or peer seek to make some kind of "movement" without me giving my consent. But assuming or someone projecting things in the other, I'm against. As I said to me its more like wanting someone to fulfill expectations (that could be unrealistic for example), than finding someone to actually love. For me there are moral things that I want others to have, and I def wont consider someone without it, like for example same religious beliefs. But thats something present more than future oriented.
Last edited by Kiba; 07-21-2018 at 02:59 PM.
Same.
I'm not really sure I understand the difference between "commitment to someone you like and love" and "personal agenda". I don't understand it in practice, at least, because it seems that without having shared goals it can't work out. I had an LSI friend, I mean this was non-romantic, but he was constantly on the lookout for people "using" him and others. After we had a falling out he accused me of having profited from him. It's true I see my relationships as something I wanna get something out of, like if we hang out I wanna use that time to maybe do something I wouldn't do alone, visit a museum maybe. I don't see why that's using someone, but in his view relationships were about dedication to the other person, even if you don't share goals. In fact, I think he feels safest when people don't want to get together to accomplish goals. It makes him feel used towards an end. From my pov, however, the main reason our friendship fell apart was because of a lack of shared goals.
I truly do not understand this, but I also think it's type related. Different qaudras will see relationships differently, and I understand that. I felt like clarifying this because what I wrote above about being clear about the status of relationship isn't the same thing.
Last edited by Wavebury; 07-21-2018 at 02:28 PM.
@Aki, there are 16 types and 8 dual pairs, all different.
For the record, the second paragraph begins with the word “Seriously”, indicating that I was joking, and for most of the dual pairs, this kind of conversation on the first date would be ludicrous.
However, I should mention that, while my first date conversations with Betas and Deltas kept things light, my most recent first date conversations with ESI’s very quickly got down to the details of what we both wanted. I didn’t plan this, it just happened. It actually surprised me when I realized what we were discussing. All I can say is, there might be reasons for why Gamma is known as a business-oriented Quadra, run by contracts and negotiations.
*EDIT*
Thanks, @NorthernRose, for the corroborating information.![]()