Yes, that is what he is saying. Notice the sarcasm in his whole analysis. I linked the full text.Originally Posted by Megatrop
Yes, that is what he is saying. Notice the sarcasm in his whole analysis. I linked the full text.
“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
I still relate more to intuitive types from this article. That's what I think about sensors: people living the present, with a static view of phenomena, and concerned with material things, conformed with what they have learned from experience, a realistic perception of the world, and people who have fun with small things in life.
If that is what you relate to most then that is what matters. I have merged your threads since this was all about finding your type so a separate thread is not needed for that.
“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
''what i relate to'' is too many times distorted by ''what i want me to be'' so that really isnt what should matter
2 reasons why ISFp are cooler than INFps:
-They have strong Se (which is more practical than ignoring Ne)
-They are process oriented. It means that duality works for them (I guess you know what I'm talking about)
I would be content being ISFp. But If my dual is ENTp, then she will be very disappointed with me, because I can't provide the Si she wants at all (Maybe I will develop it in the future if I'm indeed ISFp).
Uh okay mate i dont know who ur tryna fool here
I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
I gave him some information to work with. I am not invested in his self typing so no need to argue for or against it. I think reading the op in this thread and the "am I SEI" thread (that I merged together) shows the contrast of his self perception when he freely wrote his answers and when he felt he had to defend himself. Making someone defensive will make them shut down. Don't think I can't see the contradictions between the two main posts. Picking a TIM doesn't mean anything without fully understanding the concept that goes with it. It is just an acronym.
There is a language barrier here too that I just can't put energy into.
“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
The only person I would fool would be myself obviously. I don't give a sheep to peoples opinion about me on this forum. I just want to find the correct dual and fight for it
Thanks for all input you've given me. I've dismissed some of it, but still you have provided me good reliable information.I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
I gave him some information to work with. I am not invested in his self typing so no need to argue for or against it. I think reading the op in this thread and the "am I SEI" thread (that I merged together) shows the contrast of his self perception when he freely wrote his answers and when he felt he had to defend himself. Making someone defensive will make them shut down. Don't think I can't see the contradictions between the two main posts. Picking a TIM doesn't mean anything without fully understanding the concept that goes with it. It is just an acronym.
There is a language barrier here too that I just can't put energy into.
Liar
logics is opposite to emotions
hate, anger, antipathy - are common. but they reduce the abbility to feel emotionally good, to get pleasure from the life, to feel happier. for better general emotions it's better to perceive what happens without them. it's often possibly to do, but mb not easy.
love is emotional state opposite to hate. when a human loves someone or something deeply, he feels a pleasure and hence more happy and lesser predisposed to hate
to hate is not obligately to destroy or change something. perfect mind would love anything, or the world as a whole. such people could live as anyone, but without motivation by hate
one of reasons which leads to hate are inner conflicts. they arise inner doubts - despite you do you have opposition to that, you feel antipathy to that
one of things which creates inner conflicts is Jung's type. the lesser expressed type would result in lesser neurotisation
deep love with a dual would help to reduce the type and also being pleasant emotional state - 2 those factors would reduce peoples' hate. people would do lesser of irrational violence having better emotions, - it's significant part of violence or harm to other people
> Why people think it's cool or good to negatively assume things about someone else I'll never understand.
It's common to like or dislike something.
I've mainly pointed that would be better to reduce a hate and that it's often possibly.
I was about general good/evil conception. Those are illusions due to limited perception.
> My response was part of the actual lyrics of the song you posted to me and by full circle I meant back to the first post you made about (not) evil betas.
we joked by words play. I've decided to add associated philosophy to make the talking more interesting
Yep, I got that. Not sure if others were following.I was about general good/evil conception. Those are illusions due to limited perception.
> My response was part of the actual lyrics of the song you posted to me and by full circle I meant back to the first post you made about (not) evil betas.
we joked by words play. I've decided to add associated philosophy to make the talking more interesting
“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
That was sort of a "best guess". Your questionnaire is very short. If you made an English questionnaire video it may give more insight.
Oh man, that's cold. You're breaking my heart here, girl.I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
@andreasdevig
"Oh man, that's cold. You're breaking my heart here, girl."
girl
> EII-INFj / INFP
INFP/IEI is possible. not EII
INFP is certainly possible. I don't think INFp is possible, however.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
“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
there is INFP = IEI. there are no types as "INFp"
INFP is FiNe. INFp is NiFe.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
It's nonsense mistake of MBT texts which controvert to Jung and Socionics.
INFP is Ni-Fe, IEI in reality and according to Jung where as perceiving were named irrational functions. Alike E/I is inherited as dominating human trait from base function - the same is with J/P. If the base function is rational - so the rationality approach is the main in the human.
In Socionics the direct description of rational/irrational dichotomies as traits of behavior is identical to J/P - it's evident in dichotomy tests which are used in Socionics. If you are irrational (P) type by MBTI or by Socionics (alike at Jung) - you have irrational base function. INFP is IEI, is Ni-Fe. INFP can't to have base rational function by Jung and Socionics theory.
If you get INFP by MBTI - you are irrational type by Jung and Socionics texts, by Socionics dichotomy tests and in reality. It's IEI only with Ni-Fe as first functions and it's irrational type, or perceiving type by Jung. There is no sense to use small 'p' and it's nonsense to say that perceiving type (small 'p' means the same word) has base rational function. There are no types as "INFp", it's a misldeading following from the assumption that MBTI uses different types than in Socionics. Types gotten by MBTI test are totally compatible with Jung and Socionics as dichotomies there are correct and represent rationality/irrationality.
The problem is that MBTI texts have a serious mistake. They try to hide this mistake by claiming that Socionics is another typology which only uses similar terms, but not that they mistake and controvert to Jung. This misleading was accepted by some Socionics sites admins and noobs there alike you, which repeat this misleading by using senseless notations alike "INFp".
EII is INFJ, INFP is IEI
and you can't to have 2 types
while "INFj" is nonsense to hide the mistake in MBT texts
@Sol Whether you agree with MBTI or not, a lot of folks (such as myself) are used to seeing capital J/P as MBTI terminology, and small j/p as Socionics terminology. Using large J/P as Socionics terminology just causes confusion, and I really don't see the point, frankly.
"If you are irrational (P) type by MBTI or by Socionics (alike at Jung) - you have irrational base function."
Brother Sol, that doesn't make any sense. For extroverts it's the same, but for introverts the j/p in Socionics is based on the first function, but in MBTI the J/P is based on the first extroverted function.
"If you get INFP by MBTI - you are irrational type by Jung and Socionics texts"
That's not true. Some MBTI tests test dichotomies. Some tests test functions. I persistently get INFP on pretty much all MBTI tests.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
EIE 65% certain
Would love more PICS, from different times (months, years).
(only browsed page 1 so far, pictures might? be elsewhere)
Has anyone threw out the idea of LII yet? Basing my guess on reading through your questionnaire.
I have. I have matured a lot and understood myself a lot better since then. I have dated an ESE, it was good but definitely not a dual. I have met many duals since then, and I'm pretty sure Si doms supplement me mentally, and my current life has just been a proof of that. I am a very pragmatic and thinking oriented version of an IEE. In the end, typing is not very easy for some specific people, especially when you're forced to act a certain way by environment. But I'm glad you took the time to read my answers (which I would answer completely differently nowadays, but anyway).
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
It's not so much what you said but the piecing together of you as a person, although I've never met you, on the way you answered the questions. It's always How (or energy) vs. What (surface) of what is said or displayed.
I wouldn't choose IEE as even the answer you gave was extremely well-thought out and not typical of a type with Ti-Vulnerable.
Just my two cents.
Does Fe-Demonstrative seem right to you?
Well, I don't use model A for my typing. I just focus on my valued functions. I don't think in terms of demonstrative, vulnerable, etc
But I'd say Fe-demo is not unrealistic for me.
I'm usually happy to find people can think I'm a logical type, that's interesting. Even my dual thought I was a logical type (and maybe still thinks), and she's definitely not ESE. Very introverted, realistic, cold, good at hand work, and basically opposite in a lot of known dichotomies.
I definitely can't see myself as Fe inferior though (even though I'm open for an analysis on that)
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
Being in Socionics but not using Model A... how preposterous!
I'm only kidding... but that is the underpinning.
Yeah, Socionics is a theory (Ti) and I'm concerned about the benefits I can get from duality (Te). That's why it's insane Alive types everyone here as IEI, because people come for different reasons.Being in Socionics but not using Model A... how preposterous!
I'm only kidding... but that is the underpinning.
I think types and duality don't really need Socionics to exist. So well..
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
You see..I can't tell their difference lmao just imagine someone being Te ignoring and not knowing what that is...
Btw, I just think model A is unrealiable.
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
You can know what any of them are. An Fi type can know what Fe is. How would Ausra (ILE) know what Ni is? Lol.
The only reason people find Model A unreliable is because they don't understand it correctly. Once you do it's like that one last puzzle piece you didn't notice you dropped on the floor and suddenly found.
Extraverted elements focus on 'objects' or what Ausra coined 'bodies' while Introverted elements focus on the links in between those objects, or what she coined as 'fields.'
Te would focus an object's movement in space; facts, events, actions, 'objective logic' where Ti focuses on the interconnectedness of those facts, events, and objects, 'subjective logic.'
I understand what you're proposing. It's just that I'm already experiencing duality and I'm satisfied with it. There's no way I would find anyone "better" with another type. The matching is just overwhelmingly insane. And of course I know a lot of ESE, and she's just not that type.
Of course, there's a chance I may be another type, and we would make another dyad, but it doesn't matter to me at this point
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
Model A is a pack of hypothetical fantasies. There is: 1) what seems (without objective experimental proof) as correct - reasonable in some parts interpretation of Jung ideas + interesting ideas which is possibly to check in subjective experience as functional complimenting/opposing, 2) mistakes in baseless contradictions to more basic theory of Jung types, 3) doubtful ideas based on nothing good.
It's very naive to think that some pack of hypotheses can be totally correct. In a usage there should and will be mismatches with the experience. Augustinavichiute herself claimed that her texts should to have mistakes, as probably noticed problems already in practice and mb theory.
It's also incompetence to ignore when some of hypotheses contradict to basic ideas of Jung typology. Or to think that Augustinavichiute just have made other typology, hence that IR (the main what Socionics has) is not about Jung types. In her book of 1998 she formally said that develops ideas of Jung (hence adds interpretations), but not creates another typology. That book even has MBTI which is based on Jung's definitions (plus own J/P), - and no "special socionics" test.
Noobs don't read Jung and Augustinavichiute.
> The only reason people find Model A unreliable is because they don't understand it correctly.
You've forgot that when you talk about experience problems there is skills influence too and quality of used data. Even if used theory would be correct, it's not enough to identify correctly types and to interpret correctly the seen facts.
For example, in the case of Hermes Trismegistus who mistakes in own type (IEI -> IEE) he's doubtful to notice IR as should. The same would happen if he'd used correct theory, understood it good and even knew correct types of all other people.
With you is the similar situation, as your type is not IEI. At best it's close EIE.
You're on a Socionics forum but choose not to use its fundamentals. "Where is the road?" "Right in front of you!" "Where is the road?" "You're driving on it!" *gets into car crash*
Now take that, multiply it by 95,000, and you get this website in a nutshell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
