You realize also that I was making points while insulting you, because of your shitty attitude?
Of course there’s some emotion in all insults but if you think that was emotionally vulnerable then idk lol, it doesn’t make sense to see yourself as Fi leading is all that I can say.
I don't need any excuse except that you insulted me and didn't make valid points in the first place.
Also, I'm not an IEI. You disgust me in every possible way, I think you are a filthy woman, so you are not my dual anyway. In my language, we have a word for you, but I have a feeling that the translation of that word will get me banned from this forum.
You're confusing Te suggestive with Te PoLR.
You responded before my edit, but I'm not an IEI. You disgust me in every possible way, I think you are a filthy woman, so you are not my dual anyway. In my language, we have a word for you, but I have a feeling that the translation of that word will get me banned from this forum.
"I’m about to make one more" - and it will fall on deaf ears, because I'm not responsive to your Se or Ti, which I would be, if I was an IEI.
Your ass is still getting supervised.
Do you really think an ESI, or SEI for that matter with fucking 4D Si would bitch about something like this?
As for “Te seeking” at the end, we seek strong forms of our weaker unvalued IEs to a degree too. Desiring pragmatism alone is not evidence for Te seeking. Just like desiring love and intimacy would not be evidence for Fi seeking over Fi polr.
If they had the vision problems I've had since birth, yes.
Your second point contradicts the basic socionics tenet of dual seeking. So, this is (not surprisingly) another invalid point from your invalid, worthless Ti.
Anyway, since you are disgusting and filthy, this will be my last post to you. I'm not interested in catching the diseases that women like you carry around.
But can you prove it?
I didn’t expect the typical Te polr to be able to.
Edit: You will find in time that my understanding is the canonical one on here. It may not be stated explicitly in articles, but it’s directly implied with dynamics like supervision and dimensionality theory. Any amount of basic experience with correctly typed individuals will let you see that as well.
My point with this still stands too, because a 4D Si type would be more likely to ensure they have those problems dealt with in order to have them not become a daily nuisance, especially for normal activities like reading regular text on screen. It’s one more data point of evidence against 4D Si.
In any case, you have yet to give any evidence that you have more than 2D Si.
Not my dual.
You grossly misunderstood me LOL. I agree that typing based on IEs is the best way to do it.
I was suggesting that I don't see how you would type as ESI if you were typing by IEs, as you don't seem to fit ESI on anything more than a superficial level. I mean, SEI perhaps, but not ESI.
And for that matter, I'd rather be an Se lead if I could be any type, lol.
lol You barely know your own type and yet somehow you think you're qualified enough to type ME? FOH. Whatever you are, it's boring af and I don't like it. Could barely get through your mundane, pedestrian ass questionnaire without my eyes glossing over. Immediate impression was that you were some kind of autistic SLI, but upon closer inspection, don't know if logic is your strong suit. Maybe you're a particularly basic and uninteresting SEI.
I mean not exactly, you haven't really provided any convincing arguments of ESI. Instead what you've done is directed insults at everybody elses type and sexuality to passive aggressively change the subject because you can't handle the spotlight being on you. Doesn't really say Se ego to me lol.