Typology Random Thoughts

[chriscorey]

Pro-life is LSI. Nothing about it.

Ridiculous. I've had an abortion because I was told it meant nothing. I read more these days.... I WAS more of an idiot left than Alive is. Not anymore. With age comes wisdom.

You give the left a bad name. Truly I'm also left... I'm moderate.

PS

Fi is mostly women according to Jung.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I will always be worse than others and always be rejected. He will always love someone more than me and completely. Or just not love me period. Whatever. Same thing over and over again.

Is this a specific he?

[squishycans]

Why is Gulenkoism a thing? It seems like he just created his DCNH system to justify giving people alternative types over what their types actually are. Genuinely, is this actually useful/helpful/insightful/better? How so? At the moment it just adds greater ontological complexity, which is the last thing Socionics probably needs.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Why is Gulenkoism a thing? It seems like he just created his DCNH system to justify giving people alternative types over what their types actually are. Genuinely, is this actually useful/helpful/insightful/better? How so? At the moment it just adds greater ontological complexity, which is the last thing Socionics probably needs.

I have the opposite opinion. Typology needs to become more complex and with that more complicated. It needs to be able to make precise and reliable predictions, otherwise it's really just a more sophisticated horoscope. How does it help anyone when people are just throwing around random assumptions using typology without any kind proof?

[SacredKnowing]

I don't understand why Carl Jung included Nutrition- as a fundamental dimension of human personality. That will not be useful for the development of AI personalities.


^ Sooo hungry world-eater with strong and valued thinking O NOM NOM.

[Muira]

Fe or Fi doesn't entirely dictate morality of an individual, or just ethical functions alone.

As Aushura herself actually was in favor towards individuals and not sociotypes having their own beliefs. (Here) As well as personality type and personality being overlapping if not entirely seperate.


Though in some models of socionics, it can be black & white in terms of justifying one's own morality.

[Expansion]

Fe or Fi doesn't entirely dictate morality of an individual, or just ethical functions alone.

As Aushura herself actually was in favor towards individuals and not sociotypes having their own beliefs. (Here) As well as personality type and personality being overlapping if not entirely seperate.


Though in some models of socionics, it can be black & white in terms of justifying one's own morality.

Good & bad is feeling, it is something we feel, we cannot quantify it, because it is sentiment or holistic processing, gaining a gestalt over quantity.

Ethics is something human, or related to human spheres, or looking at it another way, a term to describe the feeling in calculating relations via emotions.

It is T and F, because it comprises both. We don't just feel, but calculate the event.

T & F are events that happen on a time-line, one precedes the other in time. We think-feel and are both.

The events are reversed in differentiating type.

[Muira]

Good & bad is feeling, it is something we feel, we cannot quantity it, because it is sentiment or holistic processing, gaining a gestalt over quantity.

Ethics is something human, or related to human spheres, or looking at it another way, a term to describe the feeling in calculating relations via emotions.

It is T and F, because it comprises both. We don't just feel, but calculate the event.

T & F are events that happen on a time-line, one preceeds the other in time. We think-feel and are both.

The events are reversed in differentiating type.

Yep, and to suppress one over the other(usually because of denouncing a particular functions because of insecurity) leads to some sort of imbalance, that's when I think the tendencies of each sociotype is amplified.


Thanks for adding this

[squishycans]

I have the opposite opinion. Typology needs to become more complex and with that more complicated. It needs to be able to make precise and reliable predictions, otherwise it's really just a more sophisticated horoscope. How does it help anyone when people are just throwing around random assumptions using typology without any kind proof?

more complex, more complicated
precise and reliable
throwing around random assumptions without proof

Um, well, if people are throwing around random assumptions without proof already, how does extending the theory with more details and complexity help? Cause that sounds to me like asking somebody to do Calculus when they haven't learned Algebra or asking somebody to solve an equation that already has an error in it. More complexity just means 'more flawed' in this case. What are you suggesting?

[squishycans]

I don't understand why Carl Jung included Nutrition- as a fundamental dimension of human personality. That will not be useful for the development of AI personalities.


^ Sooo hungry world-eater with strong and valued thinking O NOM NOM.

That looks like the brain bug from Starship Troopers.

[DEAD]

Church worship music brings out the Fe in everyone. It has an immense sense of unity. Everyone worshipping in unison.

It’s actually a lot more complex to set up the rig for the church band than people think it is.

You have to make sure that the sound levels are good, the frequency levels are in a sensible range, all the wires are working for the speakers and instruments, the lights are good and the mix sounds like it’s listenable.

And you need to know who’s doing what in each song and leading for how long.

It’s interesting, though to see what goes into it. It’s a very Ti-Se-Fe process. And some Si and Te to a degree also. I am pretty sure that over 95% who work a sound desk in church are an ST type of some sort.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

more complex, more complicated
precise and reliable
throwing around random assumptions without proof

Um, well, if people are throwing around random assumptions without proof already, how does extending the theory with more details and complexity help? Cause that sounds to me like asking somebody to do Calculus when they haven't learned Algebra or asking somebody to solve an equation that already has an error in it. More complexity just means 'more flawed' in this case. What are you suggesting?

The theory isn't developed by hundreds of people. Some individuals create ideas and most people start using it (or not). What I'm suggesting is that people should have more ideas. At the moment we are putting 8 billion people into 16 vaguely defined boxes.

[SacredKnowing]

That looks like the brain bug from Starship Troopers.

It's the most vile villain ever created from the greatest role-playing game ever created (Chrono Trigger)​.

[Muira]

Church worship music brings out the Fe in everyone. It has an immense sense of unity. Everyone worshipping in unison.

It’s actually a lot more complex to set up the rig for the church band than people think it is.

You have to make sure that the sound levels are good, the frequency levels are in a sensible range, all the wires are working for the speakers and instruments, the lights are good and the mix sounds like it’s listenable.

And you need to know who’s doing what in each song and leading for how long.

It’s interesting, though to see what goes into it. It’s a very Ti-Se-Fe process. And some Si and Te to a degree also. I am pretty sure that over 95% who work a sound desk in church are an ST type of some sort.

And Ni, lots of symbolism right?

[Adam Strange]

Yes, the sermon today was very symbollic, about the names of the Lord.

In my experience, SEEs are more likely to believe in God than are SLEs. I'm not sure why this would be true, but it seems to be.

Well, except for SLE DJArendee, who thinks that HE is god. Or something along those lines.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb...HAiaSpA2WLJr5Q

[Adam Strange]

The sermon was Fe-Ni-Ti as heck, as always. With a bit of Se thrown in.

Conflaiting belief = fi isn't always correct.

There are a lot of LII and self-typed Ti users here with a belief in socionics, and that it's true.

Merriam-Webster defines "Belief" as:



Certain socionicists put their trust in the system and believe that it's real and objctive enough to type people from it, and charge money. I don't see how that's any different from the church system, especially when it comes to tithing, if you wanna go down that route.

And EJ is stuck in his Ni DS stage? Oh dear. It seems like he has been for the past 7 years...

Yeah, Arendee was a giant of typology and he went around the bend. His loss is a great tragedy.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

In my experience, SEEs are more likely to believe in God than are SLEs. I'm not sure why this would be true, but it seems to be.

you guys really need to stop generalizations based on 2 or 3 people you have met. I guess 400 or so million SLE don't really believe in something because you have met 5 of them. how is such a statement logical?

[Adam Strange]

you guys really need to stop generalizations based on 2 or 3 people you have met. I guess 400 or so million SLE don't really believe in something because you have met 5 of them. how is such a statement logical?

A journey of 400 million SLEs begins with five. You have to start somewhere.

[squishycans]

It's the most vile villain ever created from the greatest role-playing game ever created (Chrono Trigger)​.

That's interesting considering that his mouth is kind of a butthole. Just a thought.

[squishycans]

In my experience, SEEs are more likely to believe in God than are SLEs. I'm not sure why this would be true, but it seems to be.

Well, except for SLE DJArendee, who thinks that HE is god. Or something along those lines.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb...HAiaSpA2WLJr5Q

I know what you mean. I rationalized it as Fi wanting something to feel good about, that there is a point to everything and somebody is paying attention and things matter and how you internalize life matters and whatnot. But I don't know. I think Fi, similar to Fe, are swayed by what feels good.
And Ti is just kind of like well...I can use this to control/influence people by creating a power structure and maybe it does good so it's not a bad thing...or they just question it and are like "this is such bullshit, no you can't have 10% of my income so you can buy a jet for your megachurch so I can 'go to Heaven' when I die because I'm pretty sure I'm seeing you in Hell either way anyway".
Or something.

[SacredKnowing]

That's interesting considering that his mouth is kind of a butthole. Just a thought.

[squishycans]

lol, I once thought about taking mini Stargates and putting them in people's rectums and then sending stuff through lmao. It both horrified and intrigued me.

[loopyclouds]

I don't really believe that it is used to protect one's dual.
No, from my experience, people use their demonstrative selfishly for their own gain all the time.

And sometimes someone would use it to attack their dual.

I cannot stand LSEs, and especially their Se demonstrative.

Simple, they weren’t LSE then, or you arent EII. If you can’t see yourself being with an LSE, go for another type in your quadra, it doesn’t have to be duality or die. Why all this catastrophizing? It’s exhausting, and this is coming from a fellow EII.

[necrosebud]

Ironic of me to say this, since I have observed dual couples before.
But I am really starting to think that socionics duality is asking for the impossible.

Because the fact of the existence of the dual's demonstrative that happens to be the other's pole of least resistance or vulnerable.

I don't really believe that it is used to protect one's dual.
No, from my experience, people use their demonstrative selfishly for their own gain all the time.

And sometimes someone would use it to attack their dual.

I cannot stand LSEs, and especially their Se demonstrative.
And LSEs cannot stand my Ni either.

I feel like we make for such poor matches.

I HATE to be subject to Se.

Se is the most repulsive thing ever on planet earth.

I have discontinued many dual friendships due to someone exerting their Se on me.

It seems LSEs dont respect me due to Se-PoLR, well I dont respect them either due to their Ni-PoLR and Se-demonstrative.

Se seems inherently wrong and unethical to me.
To be with a LSE is to pull the wool over my eyes.
It is to choose by my own will to live a life where I am being decieved and fooled.
It is to let the LSE engage in all sorts of unspeakable things and decieve me.
While I a blind idiot is unaware of anything.

What a life of hell.

It is beyond me to understand how the ESI is possible.
It seems like this personality type is a contradiction.

And how can IEIs desire Se?
Are they out of their minds?

How did an evil function as Se get to exist in the first place?

probably because they can manipulate Se in turn too

Se by itself is not necessarily evil and hardly ever used against an Se PoLR irl IME. Unless the person themselves is unhealthy. LSEs can also resort to Se, especially a type like E8 in order to exert influence or control, bring someone "in line" according to whatever the LSE is wanting and then yeah it is suffocating and squashing.

[one]

Ironic of me to say this, since I have observed dual couples before.
But I am really starting to think that socionics duality is asking for the impossible.

Because the fact of the existence of the dual's demonstrative that happens to be the other's pole of least resistance or vulnerable.

I don't really believe that it is used to protect one's dual.
No, from my experience, people use their demonstrative selfishly for their own gain all the time.

And sometimes someone would use it to attack their dual.

I cannot stand LSEs, and especially their Se demonstrative.
And LSEs cannot stand my Ni either.

I feel like we make for such poor matches.

I HATE to be subject to Se.

Se is the most repulsive thing ever on planet earth.

I have discontinued many dual friendships due to someone exerting their Se on me.

It seems LSEs dont respect me due to Se-PoLR, well I dont respect them either due to their Ni-PoLR and Se-demonstrative.

Se seems inherently wrong and unethical to me.
To be with a LSE is to pull the wool over my eyes.
It is to choose by my own will to live a life where I am being decieved and fooled.
It is to let the LSE engage in all sorts of unspeakable things and decieve me.
While I a blind idiot is unaware of anything.

What a life of hell.

It is beyond me to understand how the ESI is possible.
It seems like this personality type is a contradiction.

And how can IEIs desire Se?
Are they out of their minds?

How did an evil function as Se get to exist in the first place?

It's not like an SLE would hit an IEI (or any other type) in the face no question

[Simplylee]

Simple, they weren’t LSE then, or you arent EII. If you can’t see yourself being with an LSE, go for another type in your quadra, it doesn’t have to be duality or die. Why all this catastrophizing? It’s exhausting, and this is coming from a fellow EII.

You are right.

[necrosebud]

It is arguable to me to define sx as principally about stimulation (everyone wants to engage with things that excite them unless they have absolutely no choice so) especially at the expense of what I think is misinterpreted about “one to one” from Katherine Fauvre. I think she is talking about general energetic patterns, which definitely holds. I think sx primarily is about completion/fusion.

ofc sx energetic vibes are “one to one” even with social instinct influencing it

russ Hudson’s description of sx leaves much wanting

i would even argue social isn’t really about connection in the way that it’s meant many times. The energy is too diffuse and mild for that.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

how can you even compete with an autistic Ni base perfectionist like this one

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ac-pvfZli8Y

who dedicates his whole life looking at random places to find them on a giant map? now imagine this person being interested in law, mathematics, sports, arts, crafts and you begin to realize why IEI's dominate the public sphere and influence fossil-fueled societies. there's just no other type that abandons his/her life to pursue some autistic hobby to perfectionism and become an expert in even extremly niche fields. no other type will look at thousands of photos to find them on a map. that's the perspective I'm set on. Typology is nice and all but pretty much all succesful "celebrities" are Ni base and not much else. sorry not sorry. I think I've solved a big aspect of typology by coincidence and it will take people years to catch up on that especially since the theory doesn't allow it right now.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ksU9Da-wC2c

[qaz00]

how can you even compete with an autistic Ni base perfectionist like this one

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ac-pvfZli8Y

By being an autistic Si base perfectionist (this phrase describes me quite well actually...), so maybe not competing in the same league... or we do? I think he's HC-SLI-Te.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

By being an autistic Si base perfectionist (this phrase describes me quite well actually...), so maybe not competing in the same league... or we do? I think he's HC-SLI-Te.

maybe he is Ni-HTELSD-IEI-Fe-xyz who knows really. to the dream and back... as you say.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

the ITR in socionics are really kind of weird. I'm 32 now and have been living in berlin for 10 years now, and i've lived in Frankfurt for 5 or 6 years I dunno. I've seen a lot of relationships even as an introvert and having 4 siblings helps I guess. I've seen people who broke up very fast and all kinds of messy "accidents" and I have seen people constantly arguing and still being together after 15 years or so. it's dificult to really trust these concepts as they are really just some theoretical assumptions some people have made decades ago and I'm a bit mistrustful when there's no concrete evidence that proves your concept. I have spend time with several people I would say are my duals and besides a wife of an LSI friend I did not like any of them or thought they were particularily interesting to be around. meanwhile I enjoy spending time with intelligent people that care about art and science. so what exactly am I supposed to do here? force myself onto a person I don't care much about just because some old woman said so decades ago? I would say I've met at least 500 IEI's due to the MBTI groups I manage and they were all so different it borders on ridiculousness to think that all ITR play out exactly the same. how does a programmer have the same mind as a philosopher or artist? I have yet to see an explanation for this by so called "socionists". I would not even dare to predict these interactions unless I observed how they played out with my own eyes. this way I can at least prove myelf that the emotional person isn't going to get along with the "realist/pragmatist" regardless of the type they both have. Socionics imo causes a lot of anxiety to many shy people and considering the blatant flaws of the theory I am unsure if it's really a good idea to vomit it unto society in the current state.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

How do people use snapchat or tiktok it makes me want to throw up. How do people not realize that T types don't touch such things? Ugh

[godslave]

There are some words that Aushra associated with certain IE that really don't make sense whatsoever.

For instance she associated the word beauty to Se, it is a nonsense imho. Indeed, that word is not only totally out of the semantic field of Se (what are the commonalities between "force/volution/will/-----object" and "beauty" ??) but it also implies that 4D Se Types are the best at assessing beauty which also implies that 1D Se types basically can't have a well informed perception of "beauty". Also, the word "beauty" is so interpretative that it can't be of the domain of only one IE. Some socionics school would associate Si with Beauty (like SSS) but again I don't think that Beauty can possibly be of the domain of one IE (or function) alone.

Likewise, Aushra associated the word "Fear" with Ti... I mean, that doesn't make any Freaking sense !!! Since when the rapport between objects and how they fit in a given system has to do with "fear" which is an emotion ??!!

Quoting Aushra doesn't add meaning or legetimity when what she said is utterly nonsensical, it adds only confusion imho ! I mean, there is a reason why I often talk about "Holy scriptures" when I quote some famous socionists like Dr.G or Aushra...

[on a peaceful hiatus]

There are some words that Aushra associated with certain IE that really don't make sense whatsoever.

For instance she associated the word beauty to Se, it is a nonsense imho. Indeed, that word is not only totally out of the semantic field of Se (what are the commonalities between "force/volution/will/-----object" and "beauty" ??) but it also implies that 4D Se Types are the best at assessing beauty which also implies that 1D Se types basically can't have a well informed perception of "beauty". Also, the word "beauty" is so interpretative that it can't be of the domain of only one IE. Some socionics school would associate Si with Beauty (like SSS) but again I don't think that Beauty can possibly be of the domain of one IE (or function) alone.

Likewise, Aushra associated the word "Fear" with Ti... I mean, that doesn't make any Freaking sense !!! Since when the rapport between objects and how they fit in a given system has to do with "fear" which is an emotion ??!!

Quoting Aushra doesn't add meaning or legetimity when what she said is utterly nonsensical, it adds only confusion imho ! I mean, there is a reason why I often talk about "Holy scriptures" when I quote some famous socionists like Dr.G or Aushra...

hey man nice to see you're back. there's definitely not a lot of criticism to the concepts that Aushra and others have proposed. I wasn't even aware of many things she has proposed because I was focusing a lot on Gulenko but many things really don't make any sense. you could say "well Se perceives objective reality and beauty" but beauty is a very subjective attribute anyway and I doubt two people would even agree on the same thing if you ask them. if it's Se then why do artist often reflect upon beauty and create a whole existence around it? I think there's not enough questions asked in regards to what the functions actually are and it feels to me that people just throw them around without even knowing what they are about or they really just believe these definitions that Aushra totally didn't make up on a whim with her imagination. I would much rather discuss why philosophers tend to have a specific appearance (long beard, thin stature, relaxed and calm figure) and if someone could explain to me if this is type related and if it would affect ITR because I sure believe such people are different than most. the answer would be that nobody can't answer it because how? there's just so much stuff in typology that just feels like blatant guessing on the researcher's part.

[Expansion]

What kind of works come thru direct object vs indirect object perception Se Si? It's beauty in different forms. Hemingway wrote SLE literature, it is very concrete and he once said he has no use for symbolism in his writing. He likes the raw cut.

She might mean it is a direct perception of an object, and "beauty" can only start there for the 16 types.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

What kind of works come thru direct object vs indirect object perception Se Si? It's beauty in different forms. Hemingway wrote SLE literature, it is very concrete and he once said he has no use for symbolism in his writing. He likes the raw cut.

She might mean it is a direct perception of an object, and "beauty" can only start there for the 16 types.

why would a type that is focused on reality invent a story in his head about an old man fishing? like why, and how? the character Santiago in old man and the sea even serves as a metaphor for the creative artist that needs to prove himself every day and the open sea symbolizes life in which a person must sail. one of my friends says it's his favorite short story because Hemingway writes as if you are really there with the man on his boat struggling with him. whoever came up with SLE doesn't know what he's thinking, but I guess Hemingway shot weapon ooga booga Se

You ought to dream. All our biggest businessmen have been dreamers. - Hemingway, but I forget, business equals Te of course

[godslave]

hey man nice to see you're back. there's definitely not a lot of criticism to the concepts that Aushra and others have proposed. I wasn't even aware of many things she has proposed because I was focusing a lot on Gulenko but many things really don't make any sense. you could say "well Se perceives objective reality and beauty" but beauty is a very subjective attribute anyway and I doubt two people would even agree on the same thing if you ask them. if it's Se then why do artist often reflect upon beauty and create a whole existence around it? I think there's not enough questions asked in regards to what the functions actually are and it feels to me that people just throw them around without even knowing what they are about or they really just believe these definitions that Aushra totally didn't make up on a whim with her imagination. I would much rather discuss why philosophers tend to have a specific appearance (long beard, thin stature, relaxed and calm figure) and if someone could explain to me if this is type related and if it would affect ITR because I sure believe such people are different than most. the answer would be that nobody can't answer it because how? there's just so much stuff in typology that just feels like blatant guessing on the researcher's part.

Hi Alive ! Thank you for your kind words, It's nice to be able to talk to you and other fellow forumites again !

I agree with what you said, some Aushra's writing esp her early works on socionics were still at the very beginning of the the development of socionics. She was aware of it and even mentioned it in her books. So it is obvious that some refinement had to be done and indeed socionics has been in constant development since its beginning. There are so many socionics schools and schisms now and that is a testimony of that socionics perpetual evolution.

The problem I see is some kind of trendy conservatism in the community that takes early socionics as the "true and pure" version of socionics and call it "Classic" regardless of the evolutions and corrections that have been made even by people of the very first socionics circle (as a reminder Aushra didn't invent socionics alone out of the blue, I would argue that socionics is more the product of a think tank than a pure invention of Aushra even if she had the first insight about it). There is no gospel truth in socionics, all I ask is consistency and proper usage of socionics Model (whatever it is) in typings.

Personally when I read about socionic stuff, I keep what makes sense and refute what doesn't regardless of who wrote that stuff. I like V. Ermak School of System Socionics (SSS) because it has an actual non-behavioral typing methodology that makes sense for the most part (it actually uses the Model A efficiently). SSS is like Classical Socionic 2.0, in other words it's better (imho !).

[godslave]

What kind of works come thru direct object vs indirect object perception Se Si? It's beauty in different forms. Hemingway wrote SLE literature, it is very concrete and he once said he has no use for symbolism in his writing. He likes the raw cut.

She might mean it is a direct perception of an object, and "beauty" can only start there for the 16 types.

Yes, the problem with the word beauty is that it as they say, is "in the eye of the beholder". As a reminder, one doesn't need to look at a concrete object to "see" beauty. Indeed, we can perceive stuff with our inner eyes through imagination or recalled memories and find what we see beautiful. We can hear with our inner ear some beautiful music noone has ever heard. We can see poetry and translate these images into beautiful poetic words and sentences even hearing how their music sounds with our inner ear. We can see beauty from within, looking at the object of our inner world. You see, it is difficult to admit after what I've just said that Se (or Si) is the first and only mean by which beauty can be perceived, beauty can start from within.

I like the word "design" because it implies "form". An object (concrete) can have a very beautiful design, like a beautiful car, a beautiful sword. That beauty can be perceived because of its ergonomic aspect (that would be more of an Si-ish sense of beauty) or because of its strength (like weapons). Some might see beauty in symmetrical proportions of objects and even in mathematical equations. Some might see beauty in explosions and natural phenomena like lightning or supernovae. You see, "beauty" can be interpreted from the lens of any Information element, therefore it can't be exclusive to Se (or Si).

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Hi Alive ! Thank you for your kind words, It's nice to be able to talk to you and other fellow forumites again !

I agree with what you said, some Aushra's writing esp her early works on socionics were still at the very beginning of the the development of socionics. She was aware of it and even mentioned it in her books. So it is obvious that some refinement had to be done and indeed socionics has been in constant development since its beginning. There are so many socionics schools and schisms now and that is a testimony of that socionics perpetual evolution.

The problem I see is some kind of trendy conservatism in the community that takes early socionics as the "true and pure" version of socionics and call it "Classic" regardless of the evolutions and corrections that have been made even by people of the very first socionics circle (as a reminder Aushra didn't invent socionics alone out of the blue, I would argue that socionics is more the product of a think tank than a pure invention of Aushra even if she had the first insight about it). There is no gospel truth in socionics, all I ask is consistency and proper usage of socionics Model (whatever it is) in typings.

Personally when I read about socionic stuff, I keep what makes sense and refute what doesn't regardless of who wrote that stuff. I like V. Ermak School of System Socionics (SSS) because it has an actual non-behavioral typing methodology that makes sense for the most part (it actually uses the Model A efficiently). SSS is like Classical Socionic 2.0, in other words it's better (imho !).

I think the conservatism just comes from people wanting to go back to the basics where there aren't "contradictions" from other users so to speak and it seems mostly to be people who are more on the conservative side anyway. they probably get annoyed at my IEI typings hehe. I'm personally really tired of all these models because everyone describes the same thing in a slightly different way and if it originally had a lot of flaws I don't think that you are going to improve it much by putting another coat of paint on it. there's a general lack of access to socionics theory I guess and the only western person that really comes to mind is Jack who also just happens to be a conservative. oh well

[Expansion]

^^ Forum is glitching per usual and will not quote, but aesthetics is in its own right a branch of philosophy, and yes, certainly, the idea of beauty is interesting in its conceptual forms, and people generally have an idea in a consensus of good symmetry of features; like say if you move the eyes just a bit wider it breaks the rule, and it loses its attractive impression, so it is more or less universal, to a point. Homely people still know a better looking lot/image if given pictures, and there is an average with it.

A hip shot guess is, it is a smooth flow state image vs. scattered, choppy, in pieces and fragmented. Abrupt changes and transitions of forms and features might dictate "ugly."

Whichever way the pie is cut, it's ugly or pretty because it is, with no reason, other than a reactive reaction in our slave-hood of to will, or not to will, that is the question of choices.

Apparently we choose a direction, but we become conscious that we have decided, not that we have consciously decided it.

If you look beyond this, it is invention to make it look like we have free will, in us being our ultimate decider.