My job is not clearly done, yet.Just checked out life story of one ILE woman mathematician who just laughed at the face of poverty at LSI'd Germany in the beginning of 20th century.
My job is not clearly done, yet.Just checked out life story of one ILE woman mathematician who just laughed at the face of poverty at LSI'd Germany in the beginning of 20th century.
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
Gulenko typed me as LSI ,,with unusually strong intuition,, (so much so that he also considered EIE as a possible type)
Because those types have diametrically opposed priorities (and opposite on introversion/extroversion by extension). https://wholesocionics.blogspot.com/...ence-cube.html
It should be extremely difficult to get them mixed up, I would rarely if ever be between extinguishment types.
How fluent in english are the russian socialists?
How familiar are they with Western contexts of types? This is no longer soviet russia, roles, gender roles, societal roles evolved and the russian socialists need to be accounting for this.
Post conclusion IF typed otherwise just hot air. (why? cus I'm 6w5 and paranoid)
Like so:
Last edited by SGF; 11-26-2020 at 04:41 AM.
And because they have similar configurations they might do similar things for different reasons. Like LSX is the administrative personality and SLX is more adventure driven. So why is it hard if a person gets severly beaten up by life for instance to not give up on life or gets some luck hence expands etc...
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
Duals as far as the eye can see, but only in the Big G Squad. His typings seem to be good, I always thought you were some kind of NF and more likely beta than not. LSI also sits better for me than LSE which I had also considered as a possible type for a while, for a number of reasons.
I wrote Se PoLR after listening to him how he basically handled conflict so I know he’s 1D Se. But I’ve watched the rest and I saw 4D Ti so I narrowed down to LII or ILI. I think ILI is the correct typing for him. He doesn’t seem adverse enough to be Se PoLR after I’ve watched the whole video.
VIs as INFj to me. Move and talks and acts like one. I almost feel like I should be making his dinner for him or something.
Not many IEs are being produced here besides Fi. Since its coupled with a softer, more intuitive type of human being, I'm inclined to go with EII. Lots of compassion and empathy here. You think of this person as the archetypical critic ?
Both EIE and EII fill the same social niche in their groups so its no wonder they look alike.
INTp? No way. Gulenko is loosing his touch. Just goes to show alphas cannot type gammas correctly, case in point, Donald Trump as a creative Fi (SEE). LMFAO.
Last edited by raTG13; 11-26-2020 at 06:28 PM.
VI is not a viable typing tool. Even Filatova didn’t use VI to type people. She catalogued what facial traits the types seemingly had in common.
This guy’s approach is really logical and clear with how he answered the questions. There’s nothing from Socionics structure that would suggest he’s Fi over Ti in terms of strength. He talks about being critical of what information he comes across and said he’s empathetic towards others but specifically stated that he purposely ignores the emotional state people are in and be inattentive when he has conflicts with them if they’re not family. So Fi relational harmony is only utilized in a very limited context, not all encompassing to be lead function.
As for Gulenko’s typing of Trump as SEE, that’s not so far off. Trump does embody Gamma values. The thing with typing famous people indirectly is that it’s indirect. You could get close to the type, but they’re not directly subject to any questions that could reveal themselves. And also Gulenko doesn’t understand American context, especially a New Yorker.
After watching both video clips, still believe his type is ENFJ Hamlet from the Beta quadrant.
Does he have an ESTP father or mother?
Examples of the same personality type
Last edited by khcs; 11-26-2020 at 10:04 PM.
VI is unreliable.
I think it works quiet often. the problem is that you really have to get the typings right to see the similarities, but barely anyone can agree on a person's type. Dave Grohl actually looks very similar to the guy that has been typed by Guulenko. I suspect Dave Grohl to be an IEI like Kurt Cobain though, maybe the other guy is an IEI too. Typing via Interviews is quite difficult, you're missing out on a lot of information that you would get if you met someone in person. I feel like Gulenko gets a lot of typings right, but there are bound to be mistakes in a theory without objective approaches.
Last edited by Still Alive; 11-27-2020 at 07:29 AM.
Kurt Cobain - ENFJ Hamlet
Last edited by khcs; 11-27-2020 at 11:48 AM.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
ET - INFJ Humanist
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
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
did u get typed? @aster
@Uncle Ave have you received your results/ started the process yet?
I work with a lot of SLI and their idea of an adventure is a trip with a bike and a coffee or beer with a friend. many of them spend their time playing train or truck simulator, taking photos of planes etc. the german stereotype of boring efficiency probably comes from the fact that we have so many people with this type in technical positions. when I talk with SLE they usually tell me how they once slept with 19 girls in a month (without me asking them about this information).
Yes, this is Si vs Se. Because the sensing is introverted in Si it is not dependent on outside adventure. But if one could observe the sensing of the Si in the same way as we see the Se engaging in the world, the result would be that both types have experienced as much at the end of the day, but one on the inside and the other on the outside.
Of course everyone needs real adventure, so in that way even SLI (and SEIs) need to learn to expand.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think that's a plenty of adventure compared to LSI document office. They also might like runing in nature. Sounds pretty extreme to me - considerable body load.
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
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Si is internalized sensory information and rooted in the memory of sensing the experience (like the sights, sounds, touch, etc.), not the experience itself (experience itself and present experience is Se). Si doesn’t care about effecting anything (as opposed to Se), because it basically operates via routines. You can’t have memory and automation aka homeostasis if you didn’t have repetition (to establish routines). Now, the issue is how people perceive routine as “boring” and not “adventurous” because Si itself is not adverse to something just because it could be exciting or dangerous or whatever. If an Si person grew up in a family that values doing Indiana Jones type of stuff, they’ve been exposed doing that sort of thing/familiar with “adventure,” then that’s what gives them “homeostasis.” From an outsider POV, someone who goes “adventuring” doesn’t make them Se over Si. And for the record, my LSE uncle and SEI cousins love going “adventuring” out in the wilderness and camp in all sorts of places. They love doing extreme survival shit with no phones and hunt and fish and all that. Whereas for me, Se lead, I can’t fucking stand that shit and find it boring. And it’s not because I haven’t tried it, I’ve done it a handful of times with them growing up and several times as family get together as adults. Me not liking their idea of “adventure” doesn’t turn me into Si nor does it make them Se.
The point of socionics is not to assign actions as indicative of type but to understand why a person’s reasoning lead to them committing the action. You need context.
The “SLE” who slept with 19 chicks in month and brags about it isn’t SLE because he’s promiscuous or brags about it. He could be any type. What’s missing is the context behind the reasoning for such information to come out anyway. Anyone could be promiscuous but their reasoning will differ.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well if that’s an indirect suggestion that I’m going off of MBTi then you’re wrong. I made no mention of such. And you didn’t explain what Si is and how it manifest. If you say I’m wrong, then give me adequate explanation as to why my understanding and analysis of Si is wrong, not just say it’s psychic impressions because really? Wtf does that even mean?