.
Ne-PoLR of ESI/ISFj - Examples?
.
Last edited by hag; 01-18-2020 at 11:03 AM.
this question gets posted continually, "describe x in action for me" its like, you're looking at it from the wrong end. anything could be construed as Ne polr or anything else, if you don't have a solid foundation on what Ne polr means, not based on examples but based on what it really means. you can't reverse engineer it from an example unless the person giving the example has a strong foundation, and they rarely do, and if they did, they could just explain the foundation itself. its the difference between teaching one to fish vs giving them a fish. you're asking for fish, and usually the people who take this question up are assholes who are scamming you, handing you a rock, and you trust them. what ends up happening is people just echo the same baseless stereotypes over and over and no one knows shit. anyone who comes in here and gives an example should be required to justify it, anecdotes are bullshit
you can't compartmentalize socionics, that's the problem, you need to understand the model as a whole to understand any given piece of it, otherwise you're just attaching labels to stuff willy nilly. I get that's what you'd prefer to do, but it only makes you susceptible to misinformation, it doesn't empower you with anything but dunning-kruger. people who offer to "help" you achieve this are not looking out for you, despite the fact you might both think so. this is essentially the basis for a prejudicial tribal and co dependent relationship. if that's what you want its fine, but its not socionics, whose entire aim is to get above those sort of dynamics, because the world is already full of schemes that amount to little more than shared prejudice and stereotyping. im really tired of people besmirching projects by co-opting the name in exactly this fashion. now someone can come in here and you two can be off to the races, but I had to say my piece for any third parties who aren't interested in being shitheads and to put them on notice socionics is not really about that, despite the frequent examples to the contrary
excellent, hopefully you're inoculated now from a lot of snake oil socionics. I recommend getting chrome and just starting with model G, since it was intentionally made to be simple and to work. some will say its too complex, but I think they're simply too attached to whatever prejudice model A has come to validate in their mind and unwilling to let go the advantages that entrenched position has conferred. in other words, they will grasp at any pretense to defend whatever "system" however inaccurate, and however poorly they really understand it, if it protects their own "investment" in whatever stereotypes they think it allows them to perpetuate. the less you get sucked into this world of theirs the better, and I think gulenko does a good job of being fair in that respect. obviously people will personally attack him and his supposed motives at this point, but my point is now you see the game. If you come to understand model A, understand it as a history lesson, and the same goes for Jung. Like anything else understanding the development of a concept is important to deeply understanding whatever is current, since everything is on a trajectory in addition to being in a static position. But as far as "finished" products go, model G is lightyears ahead of the rest (available to the west anyway) and to my knowledge
Uh, good question coz on occasions I've been wondering if the ESIs and SEEs I know weren't actually some type of Ne... but they aren't, just Se and Ne have more in common than one would expect at first. If Ne sees possibilities, Se sees reality in its full potential, so that the 2 approaches can resemble each other.
Some attitudes of the ESIs I know (assuming they're typed correctly, ofc) that gave it away in confirming their preference of Se over Ne:
-no time for speculation. try to approach a strictly philosophical, metaphysical subject with them, they'll start to fume (it's funny to see... the ESIs I know can literally switch from -having a nice good convo, to -eyes rolling all over and them trying to dismiss the topic, in less than one minute).
- if they approach any philosophical subject, it's always with a very practical reason behind it. (my ESI sister is a writer of cultural topics, but she intends culture, and approaches it, in a rather materialistic sense, from my pov. she doesn't delve in the "why's" and "what if?", but she exposes the reality she sees with a very critical/intellectual eye).
-they can get extremely irritated when things don't go as they planned. their focus is on one outcome only, engaging great effort in it, this means that when anything goes random, they can hardly be prepared for it, or get disappointed because they wanted something else.
That's a good summary.Originally Posted by ooo
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think it's often as simple as being stubborn that you are completely 110% right about something, like there are no other alternative explanations or pathways. "this truth has to be so much truer than this truth" etc.
Contrast to ILE Ne-ego, they easily jump all over the map.
thinking you're right all the time and being stubborn is something anyone can do.. Ne polr is more about rationality and sensing being more important in decision making, i.e.: making an unbroken chain of decisions linked by rational and concrete factors in order to carve out one path through time and attempting to minimize the chances of being derailed. if they seem stubborn its because built into their plan is usually exclusion of alternatives not because they're stubborn as some kind of character flaw but because they intentionally made the plan to exclude the alternatives because they like it that way (i.e.: minimize risk that objective will not be achieved). i dont think any mature Ne polr would make it about being "%110 right" so much as they prefer not to go down the road of alternatives in a vain hope ("quixotic" is called that for a reason). they admit possibilities in principle, its just usually seen as being too shaky to count on. if someone introduces a possibility that actually makes more concrete sense and gets them to where they're going better, they, of course, will adopt it--this is the basis for their supervision rings. its actually precisely because they're not that stubborn that supervisor has a measure of power over them, only in reverse supervision does it come to their "stubbornness" being forcibly punished, but reverse supervision is not the default state. not every supervisee resists their supervisor and this holds just as true for Ne polrs as other pairs
Little bit of relativism with multiple viewpoints. Oh yeah.
Lots of them need to swap their eye balls to glass ones when they discuss with me.
You want the truth? Can you handle the truths?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I think that´s the LSI variant of Ne Polr since they´re a positivist-process type.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
This is what it basically boils down to. ESIs do not understand that there are many roads to Rome. To them there is only one route to get there. To them it is not even a matter of having selected the best route out of many, there simple are no others. But also with regards to time, they have a hard time imagining change.
To give an example: about 14 years ago my mother wanted to organize a trip for my grandfathers birthday. So she called me to ask if I knew something of a boat company that could pick up my grandparents (they lived on a canal in Amsterdam). Her idea was that the boat would take them to somewhere else in town, where we would get on another boat to another town. The whole story didn't make sense to me, and after some questioning it turned out she wanted to take the boat she herself took when she was a kid, back in the 1950's. It never entered her mind that this service could have been taken out of service many decades ago.
Now my mom is a bit extreme in this respect, but this is basically what it boils down to. This is why they conflict easily with ILEs and rub the wrong way with IEEs: these two types are the most likely to anticipate things being different then they always have been.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
aha @consentingadult, another example that kind of highlights how the 'Se focus' works... when my sis was around 18 she was in a long lasting relationship with this guy who just took diploma and wanted to study Eastern philosophy at the University, but he was in a lot of financial problems and my sister pushed him to pick a field of studying that would have given him better opportunities, like chemistry... because obviously you can't make money with a degree in philosophy... lol. So the guy picked chemistry, and after they broke up, he went back on his path, graduated in Indian philosophy and now spends half the year in India to do research... he's probably not the wealthiest person around but at least he's happy to do what he does.
This is rather more LSI (as opposed to IEE) but it's not far off.
ESIs have a fundamental need to characterize people in a static, reliable way. Are they a friend or foe? Trustworthy or flaky? (Notice how this is highly value-laden.) Ne conflicts with this because it's fundamentally about change and seeing things from different perspectives — or if you prefer, from a neutral, "unbiased" perspective. The exact opposite of FiSe, which tends to perceive Ne as irrelevant and/or speculation/waffling.
This is absolutely right.
In my experience, Ne types tend to enjoy the consideration of alternatives. They often like to say, "Well, think about this. What about that? What about this other thing over here? I'm not really sure. Maybe this other thing over here. What about that perspective? I don't know."
Se creatives really want to have a single-pointedness of mind. They don't seem to enjoy so much consideration about alternatives. The problem they acquire, though, if they pursue this single-pointedness of mind too severely, is that they might not realize that the option they chose was wrong. The opposite problem happens when they do nothing but consider alternatives and are never able to achieve that one-minded character that enables them to function effectively.
Probably one of the best song lyrics I've ever heard that demonstrates Se is this: "I live my life in one straight line, the future ahead and the past behind."
Both Se and Ne types can seem similar because they end up doing similar things, trying out various experiences, and so on. But Ne types tend to consider various options and get stuck on the consideration. Se types try something and say, yeah that failed, and yeah that failed too. Oh. Now on to this other thing over here. Ne is kinda like the people who never left home because they could never make up their mind. Negative Se shows itself in trying a lot of stuff out but ending up failing at it all because they never paused for a moment to think about the path they were taking before they took it. They just look at life in retrospect and say, "Gee, I made the wrong damn choice, over and over again." Their lives are more like moving trainwrecks in negative contexts.
There's a lot more I could say about this. I might edit this post in the future.
Both Ne and Se try stuff out. Ne doesn't want to settle, though. And Se wants to find a single path too quickly and settle immediately. Lots of wrong choices are made on the path to success, but that's where the haphazard character of Pe comes from. Ne is more likely to ignore a good option, while Se is more likely to doggedly pursue a bad one.
Se types really would prefer to spend their lives living in one straight line, metaphorically speaking. But those mistakes they make in trying to achieve that goal force them to consider Ne and possibly Ni. Se types really need to learn to stop and think for a moment about what they are doing. Ne needs to learn how to give up other potentially good alternatives for one that might just work.
Se types are blind to how their state of mind affects their chosen course of action. That's why they get a reputation for hardcore druggies: they're always looking for the right state of mind that can be found through Ni. Perhaps success for them doesn't lie in considering Ne but learning how to adjust their mental states according to their needs. Big occultist, Aleister Crowley, engaged in rigorous exploration of many altered states of mind using drugs and Indian practices of meditation. He's a good example because he lived quite a colorful life.
A lot of Se is about obtaining pleasure or a sense of fulfillment. Their problem (one of them) is that they can be doing the right thing for them, but not realize it because they aren't in the right state of mind to be able to get the sense of pleasure or fulfillment from their choice. They end up pursuing a lot of other alternatives, each as unfulfilling as the last, not realizing that the problem is just inside their heads. Or they could be doing the wrong thing for them, but an exalted state of mind leads them to believe that they are doing the right thing. Probably the thing Se needs most in layman's terms is equanimity. Reinin calls it "internal harmony," and that might be right, but I like that word. The power of this equanimity is that all mental states exist in equilibrium with each other and cancel out any potential for a misleading state leading to an incorrect internal feeling from acting on impulse.
LIEs and EIEs have extraordinarily dogged and unmatched focus because they can't be distracted by their own mental states. Want proof? Try to interrupt them sometime. They remain focused on what they're doing, completely unimpeded. They have the Ni necessary to ensure the right mental state and the energy needed to complete actions. They typically choose correctly from the beginning and blaze through life. When they do something, their success comes from the fact that they always have the equanimity needed to ensure that a trial succeeds. Their problem comes about when they miss external, peripheral environmental cues that cannot interfere with their extraordinary internal focus. It's the little ancillary things to whatever task they are focused on that fuck with them. That's their Si polr.
Ne advice doesn't work for Se egos because impulsive trial and error is necessary for them -- contrary to what I said above. They have to learn how to enter the right state of mind to ensure that the response they feel from whatever course of action they take is the right one. That's Ni powering Se. Ne is about conscious consideration. With Ni and Se, there is simply "right mental state" and "action". There is no deliberation. Ne wastes energy for Se egos for this reason. They can't determine a correct path through conscious consideration of alternatives. The more time they spend thinking about alternatives, the less time they can actually try them out.
There are therefore two reasons Se egos fail:
1) Wrong mental state
2) Trying to Ne, usually due to advice from Ne types.
"Think before you do" is pure NeSi. Think and deliberate 99 times and let the one action you take be perfect. You can see how contrary that mode is to NiSe.
Last edited by Aramas; 09-09-2018 at 12:48 PM.
Lol. This made me laugh. So true. great post, super constructive. Bravo.
Do not like more than average when you:
say about their negative personal traits, especially not evident ones - about motivations, for example
criticize such traits of people they like
act against their expectations
argue with them about such traits
any problems and hence the need to think/act in weak nonvalued regions make people nervouse
Common criticism of Se types that Si types tend to hand out is that they "didn't think" before they acted. Really, the Si types are looking at the result of an action and noting that they didn't achieve Si, so they believe there must have been a fault in Ne, and they try to get the Se type to consider more Ne. This never helps, of course, and the Se type continues making the same "mistakes" over and over again. The Ne type deems the Se type a hopeless case, and the Se ego devalues himself, thinking that he is incapable and cannot learn. The more the Se ego takes this Ne advice I mentioned in the post above, the more this kind of thing happens. In severe cases, this leads to an unnecessary wasted amount of time, which could end up being years or decades, or the entirety of life. It could also just be a short period of time too, but one mustn't ignore the long-term when thinking about these problems.
Reinin's descriptions of resolute types talks about them wanting to have a party after achieving something in order to rest, for example. I think he was partially right. But Se types are not necessarily always in a state of readiness. They simply have to get into the right mindset for the activity at hand, including the hypothetical party. Se types "pre-game" for that reason. They want to get into the right mindset beforehand so that when they need to actually act, their natural impulses will lead them in the right direction. No Ne required. No conscious deliberation. Nirvana.
lol, yup. Dealt with this exact issue lots when I was living with my old ESE roomate.
Se types are truly the most random of types. They do a lot of stuff that's completely unrelated to their goal just to get into the right state of mind so that when they act, they get the results they want. Si types will prepare the environment's peripheral ancillary things so that they can deliberate, and then they will act once based on all that deliberation. They "get it right" the very first time, so to speak, because the positive feedback loop from Se is unnecessary for them. But when they prepare the environment and deliberate, their behaviors are limited to that context of the things that surround the task.
There's a chicken and egg situation here. You have to Se to Ni and you have to Ni to Se. Needless to say, there's a feedback loop that promotes the betterment of the entire dyad. The same is true for all the other dyads too.
The differences in these perspectives are therefore often subtle but very powerful.
Your dual and conflictor are often doppelgangers that are hard to tell apart. You might hate both of them. But which one do you really like? That's how you tell them apart, and it often takes an acid test to figure that out.
what I really find interesting about these Si heavy cultures is how a person can be wrong for being right but saying something that makes people uncomfortable. im in law school and people will accept principles that are not only irrational but downright cruel when applied in a systemic context, simply because they lack the will to argue and because their only goal is to achieve a mark on a piece of paper. its like when the mark and your immediate comfort control the abstract dynamic that people's fates will hinge on, this is a terrible way to evaluate the truth or justice of a thing. in one sense it doesn't matter because its academia, in another sense the entire profession gets poisoned from the root if this sort of thing is widespread. these sort of norms are like boiling a frog in how they continually readjust the set point of what is proper downward in order to accommodate everyone's base instinct. there's very little aesthetics or clarity or insight, its all people vapidly agreeing with eachother in order not to spoil the mood. that there never really even is a "mood" doesn't occur to them, by this I mean this entire mode of being avoids contrast on principle which means there's no mood to spoil to begin with, its an endless sea of vanilla that fights color in order to preserve its vanillaness. since there is no baseline way of thinking that separates anything from anything else, its more like a soup of meaningless imitation where people say the words and ape the actions but its a paper thin charade of civilization when under it all is little more than simple conditioning that goes away at the first opportunity in a race to get back to nature. these are the same people that, when in charge, don't hesitate to provide conditioning for their environment that ends in the most tyrannical oppression because they can't comprehend that anyone would act out of anything more than a base motive. hence any deviation from the slowly slipping norm is cause for punishment on the sensory level, since the deviation itself is wrong, and there is no up or down to evaluate that deviation with. so there's a kind of leveling that takes place that cuts the group off from anything that could influence it at the expense of its own comfort. the only ideas left are absurdities with no weight, precisely because they have no weight they are allowed to exist (my school has a hilarious problem of all this culminating in only the idiots try out for law review, and only droll or idiotic articles get written, and yet these are considered our "best"--the entire upper range, only those that possess real competitive potential, have been cut off as a consequence of this sort of leveling, and then they turn around and wonder at the situation and the dumbest ideas fill their heads in order to rationalize the situation, something like "more is not even possible so this really is the best"). and this is considered the ideal, a world where there is no judgement and the bar is set so low anyone can achieve it--the goal becomes to literally do as little as possible. its the culture of the exhausted and the droll. rising above is punishable on the same theory as falling below, and the whole thing slides into mediocrity at a snails pace
when it does leverage force it does so precisely at that point where it has tipped into becoming irresponsible to do so. which is to say because force is viewed only as a binary and negative, every application of force that is deemed necessary is already sufficiently cruel that there is no system of shades of grey in order to calibrate it. it is in essence beyond the point of no return and since the "shortest distance between two points" is always the watchword, maximum escalation in order to return to the norm as quickly as possible is seen as the only possible response to threats. thus like a self fulfilling prophecy every act of force is an overreaction by definition because they never think that force could be employed to avoid things, or truly make them better, only as scorched earth. resistance to Se in the name of care then becomes a kind of aggression all out of proportion with the situation when its finally brought to bear, precisely because they cannot truly understand it. this is why non violence in principle is considered a priori the moral choice--because it is for them, but its precisely this "choice" which is really not a choice but a baseline proclivity, that reorients morality around their own area of incompetence and leads to the overreaction that inevitably bubbles up from time to time. if they just accepted a degree of violence in principle they could refine it into something less than barbarism but that would require not having an inherently animal mindset to begin with, which is to say its easier to flare up from time to time on anyone who would aspire to more, than leverage a consistent and principled degree of force over time. sort of like how dogs will occasionally snap at eachother and this maintains a degree of order punctuated by short outbursts of aggression, but its a far cry from a civilized society where power is leveraged smoothy in order to advance into a better future
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-09-2018 at 01:59 PM.
Lol yeah. Everything has to be soft and nice otherwise they get really harsh and mean.
in essence no intuition of time and ability to get in front of things, the idea that one wouldn't have to get harsh and mean if one employed a little less softness and niceness up front never occurs to them, because all they want to do is maximize sensory comfort for blocks of the next 5 seconds stretching into infinity. its like I can see how things like drugs in the mainstream pharmaceutical sense massively appeal to this mindset. if I had this mindset I would want science to cook up the solution to all my problems too. hail soma. its all about naturalness but at the same time every "problem" is a technological one as soon as nature can't provide quick enough. on a long enough timeline, of course, nature fixes everything, even if it means the forest has to burn down. in this way all these problems accumulate and are just fobbed off on future generations one way or the other. paradigm shifts and revolutions come about precisely because of this sort of accumulating tension, when people finally wake up to having fallen assbackwards into cultural squalor. its like one day they wake up and realize they're boiling
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-09-2018 at 02:17 PM.
America's "uh oh" moment is coming. No need to worry. I wait for it with bated breath.
same
Watch the stock market.
Ideally, they perceive it as irrelevant. They can be convinced that they need to do it, though. That's why it's the superego. And that's usually when types become ineffective and go off-balance. They can never really succeed by using superego information elements.
All people have a need to have static perceptions of people. If it were suddenly a new rule tomorrow that your friends and enemies would alternate on a random basis, people would fall apart lol.
Fi seems to be about internal attitudes toward external things not regarded as part of the self. They don't need to have this, they just have it. A need to have an internal attitude would be a superid Fi.
Ne and Fi don't conflict. They aren't in the same domain.
I have one Ne teacher and the thing I don't like about her is when she paints a Ne picture so large its disorienting, but only for as long as it takes for her to make her point and move on. often I will stop and think about it later and after working through it see it as a bullshit smokescreen over some nonsense, but the problem is its too complex to work through in real time. its like throwing a flashbang down in a debate, but its ultimately really unproductive because the point is to contribute to the body of knowledge, not undermine it, especially when that body of knowledge is going to govern the lives of an entire nation and so forth. its like ridiculously selfish to just fuck around with perspective but bring no real solutions to the discussion and in fact explode existing solutions leaving little or nothing in its place when so much is at stake. honestly, from that perspective, I can see how "enemies of the state" are a thing. its sort of an interesting endgame to those sorts of shenanigans, it results in less not more tolerance toward perspectives when perspective is seen as being manipulated willy nilly for the selfish aims of whoever. its been a good thing for me though because its demonstrated to me the absolute value of rationality in a way Im not sure I could have otherwise appreciated. in that sense I wonder if she knows what shes doing. I don't think she does, I think its an instinctual mode of operation for her, but the information I'm gleaning is from her behavior not necessarily her conscious intent, but its good information across a certain level nevertheless
To varying degrees. That's why we all have Fi, but types like ILE and LII don't really see the world in these terms by default.
I'm not sure how "internal attitudes toward external things not regarded as part of the self" is much different from what I said. And I didn't say that they "need" to have a certain attitude, but they are motivated to decide what attitude is appropriate.
I used to think the same way. But if you use signed elements it makes perfect sense to say that -Fi conflicts with +Ne. This is essentially what I was alluding to.Ne and Fi don't conflict. They aren't in the same domain.
This is interesting, because my EIE friend drinks sometimes to get into the right state to express his thoughts. He is a performer and before he gets on stage he urgently seeks out smoke or drink to get on stage and say the hard truths he wants to say, which sound sort of like Ti. I never understood why he needed it and chalked it up to just nervousness, but this seems more like it, trying to get into the right state of mind.
Yes. Si valuers, if they do drugs, are more likely to do them as things in themselves. The Se type, when they do them, are often trying to achieve Ni. Read Diary of a Drug Fiend to understand the journey to Ni as it took place in Crowley's life. (The book is veiled nonfiction.)
Remember that every journey is different, so don't take the book too seriously or try to build your own life around it. It's just an example.
It's easy to understand the logic. When the environment is dis-equilibrated, attention is drawn to the environment and the mind becomes quiescent and unitary. When the environment becomes equilibrated (Si), the signal from it becomes quiescent and that awakens the mind and in turn disequilibrates and splits it in multiple forms. (Ne)
Unity of one is the panoply of the other.
Parallel sensation (Se) produces serialized intuition (Ni). Serialized sensation (Si) produces parallel intuition (Ne).
Last edited by Aramas; 09-12-2018 at 02:35 AM.
its so nice to see people that get it, Ne can be such a drain sometimes. the problem with IEE especially is they essentially assume something on the level of "what if we're brains in a vat" but instead of LII which will be up front about their assumptions, you don't realize that's what world they're in until you've already wasted a shitload of time talking to them. they rarely seem to even know they themselves are operating in that fashion, so they likewise assume its everyone else that's wrong. its like interacting with them can be so incredibly counter productive if they're not committed to a predetermined common result, because they will simply shift the ground under foot to achieve whatever result they have in mind. this is why they're "charismatic" because they know how to tell people what they want to hear, but its irrational its not actually grounded. its not leadership so much as a kind of sycophancy directed at a series of individuals that over time amounts to a network but the whole thing is a house of cards. the nexus of their aim is self centered, its very anti christ. they drag all these people along but its all a sham. they're not really interested in sacrifice which is the main condition to be a genuine leader, they're just survivalists who don the guise of an ethical teacher. the reason they get along with SLI is because SLI basically assumes everyone is an asshole who is like this up front (doesn't believe in kings, least of all the king of kings) and just controls the dog food so IEE can say or act however they want, but unless they want to starve, their survivalism is used against them by SLI who controls the life support and isn't afraid to physically condition their thrall into obedience. the fact that this is uncivilized seems lost on them. their verbal channel is more like "sounds" they don't really process it as signifying anything but animal motor output like the braying of a gazelle or something. ive noticed when under pressure theyll go into a mode where they start to wildly modulate their voice as a kind of kaleideyscopey up and down but without harshness, its more like a child singing a song to itself. i think its their sort of irrational signal of like "hey Im a cute animal dont fight me"--Im thinking to deal with them you just have to treat them like a SLI which is basically discount them as human beings almost entirely but also take on an extreme animal rights stance. which is to say would you try to reason with a rabbit? no you'd just treat it humanely and that's about it. just point out trivial details in the environment to oo and aa over and mutually enjoy the pleasantry of pet ownership
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-12-2018 at 03:16 AM.
So true about the guise part. Their duals are exactly the same. They will espouse spirituality, religion, and politics publicly in order to get concrete support from others. I've never seen anyone else make a habit of it like they do except televangelists, faith healers, and other such hucksters.
When they start toeing the party line in public, I'm always wondering what they want others to give them. IEEs rely on this mode almost exclusively to survive, but SLIs do the same thing.
It's crazy really. They start repeating whatever that line is and people just give them shit.
yeah they give religion a bad name because at least half the "hypocrisy" we all know and love is just their version of religion, which is basically some kind of tribal get together where they make some sounds and do some shit... and not a difference was made.. oh except I guess they made some social connections that might come in useful
It's less a tribal thing and more like they treat it as if it's actual currency. That's my experience.
The reason they try to brainwash people is so their currency becomes valid fiat.
They're not really adhering themselves to the ideas they talk about like an Ni type adheres to a vision as a thing in itself. They are just trading them for other stuff lol. Because they don't adhere their identities to them, they see it as ok to play around and bullshit with that stuff. It's just cash to them.
ah yes, they're trying to seed their alternative values, interestingly enough right in the heart of a place centered on collective value. it makes sense as soon as it reached critical mass the collective would abandon it wholesale as having become a farce. I think its also because no one saw fit to wipe out the corruption, or simply could not manage it, so they simply let them have it, which is a shame. but I believe there is something valid under that rot, its just the story of the anti christ having his heyday, but there will be a return of the king so to speak. of course we might have to suffer an apocalypse, whatever that looks like, first
its like they don't realize worshiping mammon in that way is totally pointless and amounts to bugaboo whatever spin they put on it. its like you're not smarter for getting one over on people that way, its just a special kind of stupid
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-12-2018 at 03:39 AM.
I truly would like this operating in the way you think it does, me and my IEE would be rich right now, but no, I don't have any Fe to manipulate ppl emotions and IEEs value more Fi than Fe, so we can't use anything as currency beyond mere work and effort, since we cant manipulate others to make them giving us something for free, so sad.
For the rest, is crazy the notion that religion right now gets societal support lol
Last edited by Hope; 09-12-2018 at 04:33 AM.
there's a reason LIE is beneficiary and its that they're actually effective at getting stuff lol. the point is not that IEE succeeds, in fact the point is they're stupid in a special way.. precisely because its ultimately an ineffective strategy. this doesn't make it any less loathsome, it just makes them doubly bad
lmao, didn't you type as IEE not long ago? haha
i've typed literally everything in the socion.. if you understood socionics you'd understand that in the state its in thats a statement of integrity. the community itself is confused, one should be more suspicious of anyone who isn't all over the place. cheap shots of that kind just enforce a false order because people think if they learn something knew they can't admit it or forever be discredited. thank for doing your part in being part of the problem though. maybe if you actually had a handle on things you could do more, but I understand if such a task is beyond you. sometimes one's lot in life is to be a proud member of the peanut gallery and I respect all manifestations of self determination
haha nice to see you gravitating towards your true place as EIE with a Te role buddy guy
It was just funny watching such a scathing assessment of IEE when you were convinced not long ago to be one. That is humorous, sorry for touching a nerve by pointing it out ...
I'm all for evolving understanding so cool your horses chief.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
