Page 49 of 56 FirstFirst ... 39454647484950515253 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,960 of 2205

Thread: Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

  1. #1921
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,043
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    Homeless, Dictator, Normie, Cool Kid.

    You can win over people by getting handouts. H for example can up their social game, if they get lucky and find some good types, spread their work around or support them, for some reason these people would just treat them or have a cut from the work. And like I've said Creatives can also just take and adopt them without realizing it, that resources wouldn't matter much anymore and maybe they can work on their own shit. Also H also stands for harmless. You already know Dominants can land on their feet so better to just make them work their life out on their own, but Harmonizers just have that cuteness in them that you kinda wanna help them out. Now this could be an advice to Harmless Harmonizers - if you are too weak, give your love to a strong person and be there for them. Don't ask much for return but you'll get help anyway. Just make sure they aren't the Dbag types. If you can't produce your own shit because you are too tired and weak for this world, be a support instead.

    Homeless and Hungry --> Harmless Helpful Healer --> Hip, High-Profile and Happy af.
    I assume this all means you type as H type.

  2. #1922
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    Harmonizers are the homeless types. They are the weakest of all and they are destined to live in a commune in a very poor community where the only thing that would save them is their receptiveness and amiability. They are basically beggars and survive through handouts. Some of them don't even count their resources very much. Dominant types take their money and resources and achievement from them anyway on the daily, so why count. City life doesn't suit them because it's very brash and it requires them to rise above, compete and be independent when they would rather sit back, relax and focus on their inner wanderings while making sure they don't disrupt their environment because they are very sensitive to change. It's a shit life but then this cute, hip and sexy Creative rebel/snowflake comes along. If a Creative type gets to like them then it would be nice because to some extent these Creatives are cool and with their activity could have generated some resources of their own and these Harmonizers would provide value by not stepping onto their toes and not force them to do anything. It's so little of a value but means big to Creatives because these people are too much of a snowflake to even appreciate "The Society TM" that these Ds and Ns are so fixated on creating. Finally, they can talk shit about these boring normies and annoying dictators and would get a laughing audience from a Harmonizer who, specially if intuitive with poor sensing might not even be aware of their environment at all times but say yes anyway when they get the cue to react. The Harmonizer is just happy to be there and experience that the Creative is existing and interacting with them. Finally Creatives can just do the most random of things that don't even help society, fixate on themselves and act like a full-blown snowflake and for some reason a Harmonizer would say omg that's my type and of course the Creative would feel loved and this just fuels the fire within them. That fire could make them do stuff and maybe that gets more resources. More love more resources more handouts to Harmonizers.

    That's what love is. Resources won't even matter anymore they would just exist! And with this love the Harmonizers get the handouts and yay, some of them actually stop being homeless. Thank you Creatives for making the world a better place for Harmonizers.
    Out of curiosity, have you met your sexy creative yet, or are you speaking from hope?

  3. #1923
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    I'm not looking for a sexy creative, I'm looking for my cute normie shuttle trader! My goal is to be the Dbag dominatrix type.

    But hey if the stars align, a sexy creative is not really bad. I'm too average and yet too crazy for normies. Very inert, says a lot of shit, believes in lots of pseudoscience, failing magician, doesn't even know her type and most importantly, a fucking mod on this obscure and weird forum. A sexy creative would be a blessing for this woman! Imagine the handouts!
    You’ve not failed

    you’ve captured my heart with magical voodoo (and given me a constant erection with your voodoo doll of me)
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  4. #1924
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma View Post
    It really raises your self esteem when you realize that you got labelled as a male version of challenge trophy by the originator.
    Now I know what I need to do

    to claim my title as your dual opposite, the worthless aggressor incel
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  5. #1925
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    2,790
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    N is for Narc (as in someone who reports your rule violations to the authorities, not narcissist)

  6. #1926

    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    631
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Varlawend , could you give a list of celebrity examples of each of the 16 types - preferably ones that are Western and can be found in a lot of videos?

  7. #1927
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    one's DCNH description of harmonizing subtypes is pretty excellent. I like about them that I don't have to argue or explain much, they will just go along with what I want. eases my soul in some way. normalizing subtypes are often pedantic about the details.

  8. #1928
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    I'm not looking for a sexy creative, I'm looking for my cute normie shuttle trader! My goal is to be the Dbag dominatrix type.

    But hey if the stars align, a sexy creative is not really bad. I'm too average and yet too crazy for normies. Very inert, says a lot of shit, believes in lots of pseudoscience, failing magician, doesn't even know her type and most importantly, a fucking mod on this obscure and weird forum. A sexy creative would be a blessing for this woman! Imagine the handouts!
    Oh man. I bet your handouts would be great. But how are you planning to go down the path of the dominatrix? What's preferable about it compared to meeting a hot creative?

  9. #1929
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    Well, honestly I’m quite new to this path so I just bought a whip for a start. Whip whip whip everyone. Want to straighten people up and make them work, whip. Don’t like them, whip. Might work very weirdly on those masochist victims though. I really need to prevent it from turning me into an LSI.


    Get real good so you can whip the hair off my body bby
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  10. #1930
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nephilthoth View Post
    The relativity of identity and personality and relativity in physics is a poor comparison.
    Of course it's not the same thing, but is it a poor comparison in a way that is relevant to the points being made? If not, then your point is weaker, at the very least.

  11. #1931
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    @Varlawend , could you give a list of celebrity examples of each of the 16 types - preferably ones that are Western and can be found in a lot of videos?
    Sure thing, or at least I can for most types. The one's that are rare are especially introverted sensation and introverted ethics type, especially peripheral sensory types and ESI, because by the very nature of these types, their bearers are usually conformal and deliberately try not to stick out or are much more easily embarrassed at attention (in the case of Delta managers, their work is directly on the territory, not centralized management, so they wouldn't tend to rise in central management hierarchies). That doesn't mean there are no famous examples, just that you'd have to scrape for them, since I do know more examples of these types IRL.

    ILE: Steve Wozniak (Creative subtype), Ray Kurzweil (CN or NC subtype)
    SEI: none western, but Evgeny Leonov (likely Creative subtype), Danny DeVito sort of reminds me of him so maybe he is a possible example that is Western
    ESE: none western, but Nikolai Drozdov for males, Masha Efrosinina for females, if I was more familiar with actors and actresses then I'm sure there would be some in Hollywood since ethical extroverts are common in an artistic environment, there are also plenty in all kinds of salesmanship and service industry positions
    LII: Ken Wilbur (probably Harmonizing subtype), Dario Nardi (Harmonizing subtype), Ben Vaserlan (Creative subtype), David Keirsey Jr. (distant subtype)

    EIE: Steve Jobs (DC subtype), Jordan Peterson (Normalizing subtype), Vlodomyr Zelensky (Creative subtype), Johnny Depp (CH subtype), Ava Max (CD subtype), Lorde (Harmonizing subtype), Osho (Harmonizing subtype)
    SLE: Recep Erdogan (Dominant subtype), Hillary Clinton (Dominant subtype), Victoria Nuland (distant subtype)
    LSI: Tulsi Gabbard (Dominant subtype), Vladimir Putin (Dominant subtype), Joe Biden (Creative subtype), Elon Musk (DC subtype), Giulio Tononi (NC subtype), Gordon Ramsay (CD subtype), Tim Cook (ND subtype)
    IEI: Polina Agureeva (Creative subtype), Russian but a really good example, she played in this one film/series "Liquidiation" with her SLE-H dual Mikhail Porechenkov, so it's interesting to see the Beta irrationals there for a change of pace, this data scientist John Sukup was also speculated by multiple top SHS students to be IEI-C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0NQUOrDR_E, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_2Ob_BN2uE

    SEE: Donald Trump (Dominant subtype), Boris Berezovsky (HD subtype), John Madden (contact subtype), Britney Spears (CD subtype), Kim Kardashian (distant subtype)
    LIE: Richard Branson (Dominant subtype), Oleg Tinkov (not sure about subtype)
    ILI: Jeff Bezos (Dominant subtype), Nassim Taleb (Initial subtype), Alfred Hitchcock (Creative subtype), Albert Einstein (Creative subtype), Grigori Perelman (NH subtype), Grigory Reinin (Harmonizing subtype), Stephen Wolfram (Normalizing subtype)
    ESI: maybe the rarest famous type, hardly any, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGZqIiueJI (ESI-C, typed by Gulenko)

    LSE: hardly any among famous people, apparently Henry Ford was speculated as LSE-D at one point but this is doubted, but also: Victor Glushkov (would be Normalizing subtype)
    IEE: not western, but Ani Lorak (Creative subtype), Eldar Ryazanov (Harmonizing subtype), as with Enthusiast I'm sure there are some in the artistic environment but not close to as much as central ethical extroverts, I'd have to get more familiar with it to find them as -E (EIE/SEE) is much more interested in drawing in and influencing large audiences
    EII: Carl Rogers (distant subtype), Abraham Maslow (Creative subtype)
    SLI: hardly any among famous people, but I can give this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8EjM3GaYc) which apparently contains an IEE and SLI dual couple, there is also this channel (https://www.youtube.com/c/TheIntrovertedThinker) of a girl typed SLI by Victor, not sure about subtype, in addition to Farrah McKenzie on Ben Vaserlan's channel

    I can get more into celebrity typing in the future, but I tend to find typing regular people more interesting since they are more diverse (but all of it is still somewhat interesting). I have a lot more celebs stored, I just don't have time to pore over them right now. Some of these types I could give a lot more examples for.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 05-30-2022 at 07:39 PM.

  12. #1932
    The Creator and the Destructor The Iconoclast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    The Fucking Moon
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think Bob Dylan's type is? I recently analyzed his behavior in sporadic interviews, as well as his behavior off camera. He is without a doubt a very secretive guy. My two hypotheses are EIE or ILI. He displays all this artistic talent, transformation skills, intrinsic notion of the social problems of his time. He was also known as a spokesman of a generation, someone with a sensitivity to the themes of the collective unconscious, reformer and rebel. Only he exhibits a closed and seemingly introverted behavior. He could be an EIE with an accentuation on some introverted function.

    He could be ILI, since he criticized the social order, pointed out errors and contradictions, presented emerging trends, etc. Perhaps he exercised his social mission (T plus L) through music and poetry. C subtype is the most plausible. He is also enthusiastic, abrupt, experimental, reserved, kind of cold, likes to reinvent himself, is often seen as rude. About Johnny Depp, I believe he looks more like a Harmonizing than a Creative. I would change the order of subtypes to HC. Thank you for the very useful information you have posted here.

  13. #1933
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bob Dylan is the definition of the "Lyric"

    She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
    "I thought you'd never say hello, " she said
    "You look like the silent type"
    Then she opened up a book of poems
    And handed it to me
    Written by an Italian poet
    From the thirteenth century

    And every one of them words rang true
    And glowed like burning coal
    Pouring off of every page
    Like it was written in my soul from me to you
    Tangled up in blue


  14. #1934
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Iconoclast View Post
    What do you think Bob Dylan's type is? I recently analyzed his behavior in sporadic interviews, as well as his behavior off camera. He is without a doubt a very secretive guy. My two hypotheses are EIE or ILI. He displays all this artistic talent, transformation skills, intrinsic notion of the social problems of his time. He was also known as a spokesman of a generation, someone with a sensitivity to the themes of the collective unconscious, reformer and rebel. Only he exhibits a closed and seemingly introverted behavior. He could be an EIE with an accentuation on some introverted function.

    He could be ILI, since he criticized the social order, pointed out errors and contradictions, presented emerging trends, etc. Perhaps he exercised his social mission (T plus L) through music and poetry. C subtype is the most plausible. He is also enthusiastic, abrupt, experimental, reserved, kind of cold, likes to reinvent himself, is often seen as rude. About Johnny Depp, I believe he looks more like a Harmonizing than a Creative. I would change the order of subtypes to HC. Thank you for the very useful information you have posted here.
    Good question! I’m not especially familiar with Bob Dylan, but, from what you describe, he sounds more like a Mentor. Your speculation about intuitive dialectical thinking makes sense given the themes of criticism, rebellion, reform and social orientation (i.e. right spinning), etc. But a Critic is unlikely to tackle the main social problems of a time or be the voice of a generation since their E is inflation block, much more personal, over close psychological distance and not designed for something so sweeping (Mentor social mission). On the other hand, Mentors are also often quite critical of society and point out contradictions, just as Critics do (often Mentors are even louder about such things). To have another layer of sureness, I’d also want to look at his visual signals and emotional manifestations on video, but I’d lean towards Mentor for now.


    Perhaps Bob Dylan does fit the idea or definition of a Lyricist very well in some versions of Socionics, just not SHS. SHS Lyricists are not such a critical and rebellious type who heat up a situation and reform society, but rather contribute to peace, gentle soulfulness, mollifying or getting around conflicts (as we see with someone like “Lore/Aster”).


    As for Depp, it does seem that he has significant Harmonization. Overall, he seemed more creative to me because he has been inclined to rebellious behavior since a child, not easily adapting to or fitting into life, engaging in acting (the “Player” version of EIE) and remarkably beautifully emotional mimicry (seems like he’s the brightest character in much that he’s casted in, playing an “E” role), good sense of charm and humor, getting into drama and attracting attention (not all his fault e.g. Amber Heard but nonetheless he seems a drama magnet), etc. I’d oppose this to someone like Osho, who, though also controversial (HD or HC subtype so he also has at least one significant contact subtype), generally has stiller and more meditative and relaxed mimicry (like a Buddha or wise old man figure), and is more philosophically and spiritually inclined as a kind of guru figure, helping people achieve a kind of wholeness rather than engaging in outlandish or entertaining behaviors like Johnny. Johnny does have some of the EIE-H dark aesthetic though, and comes across as pretty low key, relaxed and shy at times, so I could see some of where a speculation of H might come from, I just haven’t seen as much in terms of obvious H behavior from him (at far psychological distance).

  15. #1935
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Usually, in the land of intelligent and questioning people, arguments are valued more than assertions; that is, it's more important why we believe something, than simply what we believe.
    Are you saying “usually” because you didn’t make it to that land?
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  16. #1936
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    Are you saying “usually” because you didn’t make it to that land?
    I'm simply floored by the force and relevance of the argumentation in this post. I think you are probably at too high of a level for me to really engage with. Can you please lower the intellectual level so that someone like me can understand you?


  17. #1937
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    I'm simply floored by the force and relevance of the argumentation in this post. I think you are probably at too high of a level for me to really engage with. Can you please lower the intellectual level so that someone like me can understand you?
    Understand deez nuts
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  18. #1938
    Aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    ESE wannabe
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    Understand deez nuts

    Bad fat cat!

    Off the couch!
    ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈 ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈
    ♍︎ 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝑔𝑜 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 ♍︎

  19. #1939
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Lore Garfield is cute, but he would scratch up deez nuts that were meant for Varlawend to understand.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  20. #1940
    Aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    ESE wannabe
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    @Lore Garfield is cute, but he would scratch up deez nuts that were meant for Varlawend to understand.
    there are many nuts on this forum that can be hard to understand
    ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈 ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈
    ♍︎ 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝑔𝑜 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 ♍︎

  21. #1941
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lore View Post
    there are many nuts on this forum that can be hard to understand
    Hard? Mine are soft …. Maybe Garfield got to them early.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  22. #1942
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My evil beta brain needs to figure out how to overthrow this cult leader.

    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

  23. #1943

    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Of course it's not the same thing, but is it a poor comparison in a way that is relevant to the points being made? If not, then your point is weaker, at the very least.
    lol I thought it was apparent in my original statement that I'm saying its not relevant. They are entirely different things obviously.

  24. #1944
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nephilthoth View Post
    lol I thought it was apparent in my original statement that I'm saying its not relevant. They are entirely different things obviously.
    I see; I don't want to interpret your statements too harshly, though I don't think that relativity in both contexts actually has NOTHING relevant in common (though the nature of a typology frame, and physics frame, are definitely VERY different and that is a fair thing to highlight). If anything though, I feel that the "frame problem" (a problem of knowledge representation) would be much worse in typology than in something like physics, thus the relativity of typology frames is pertinent in arguably more circumstances than it is in physics (since it physics it comes up more at high speeds and high energies and such). To clarify once more, this isn't to imply that I believe in some kind of relativism or the lack of absolute nature of truth (I believe the opposite), rather I'm concerned with the imperfection, incompleteness and translational frame problem (the problem of translating between two different frames that both incompletely and approximately represent the type/identity of a person) inherent in our knowledge representation and understanding of typology and identity.

  25. #1945
    Aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    ESE wannabe
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    Hard? Mine are soft …. Maybe Garfield got to them early.
    soft nuts are easier to crack

    but now you just sound like roadkill lol

    ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈 ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈
    ♍︎ 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝑔𝑜 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 ♍︎

  26. #1946
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lore View Post
    soft nuts are easier to crack

    but now you just sound like roadkill lol

    Well they don’t crack, they just tear apart and my cum dribbles all over your face.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  27. #1947
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,043
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Varlawend has anyone typed by G with polr accuentation according to your knowledge?

    I mean people who paid for his services, not public figures etc.

  28. #1948

    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    I see; I don't want to interpret your statements too harshly, though I don't think that relativity in both contexts actually has NOTHING relevant in common (though the nature of a typology frame, and physics frame, are definitely VERY different and that is a fair thing to highlight). If anything though, I feel that the "frame problem" (a problem of knowledge representation) would be much worse in typology than in something like physics, thus the relativity of typology frames is pertinent in arguably more circumstances than it is in physics (since it physics it comes up more at high speeds and high energies and such). To clarify once more, this isn't to imply that I believe in some kind of relativism or the lack of absolute nature of truth (I believe the opposite), rather I'm concerned with the imperfection, incompleteness and translational frame problem (the problem of translating between two different frames that both incompletely and approximately represent the type/identity of a person) inherent in our knowledge representation and understanding of typology and identity.

    Yeah, personality is more relativistic than physics, even in the context of general relativity. For example, in physics we are able to verify this theory by observing various effects that gravity has on light such as gravitational lensing. These things are observer independent, I can see it, you can see it, anyone can.

    Is this possible with personality? What is an objectively true personality? If so how does one determine this?

    In General relativity space and time are affected by gravity. What is the cause of relativity in the context of a person?

    There isn't a constant like gravity to use in this context. I have my idea of a person, they have their own idea of who they are, their friends and family have theirs. There is no central authority on who determines this. This is a living social construct that can change throughout time. That is the odd part about all of this, the idea that people are similar to inanimate bodies floating through space. Its deliberately removing the subjectivity of human experience. Instead, personality is better represented in the form of a rhizome with creeping roots growing in all directions with no real center.

    As for imperfection, representation of a personality being perfect or imperfect I think is the actual wrong frame of understanding personality. What one person lacks in representation is a subjective judgement, and what they lack would depend on the observer's opinion.

    Ah well, how are we supposed to type anyone then? Its easy, we continue to use constructs like socionics which are just tools for us to make sense of a person. Just as we use language to make sense of human experiences. I can't ever truly know how you feel but I can get an understanding thanks to the construct of language. But it is important to understand that this is incomplete and will always be incomplete.

  29. #1949
    Aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    ESE wannabe
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    Well they don’t crack, they just tear apart and my cum dribbles all over your face.




    ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈 ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈
    ♍︎ 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝑔𝑜 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 ♍︎

  30. #1950

    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    631
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    I'm simply floored by the force and relevance of the argumentation in this post. I think you are probably at too high of a level for me to really engage with. Can you please lower the intellectual level so that someone like me can understand you?


  31. #1951
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    @Varlawend has anyone typed by G with polr accuentation according to your knowledge?

    I mean people who paid for his services, not public figures etc.
    Good question. I noticed that one ILI-C above, Iconoclast, has such a categorization as ILI-Fe, so perhaps they were typed that way, but I am not sure. Having a subtype involving the POLR function is common (which involves a low level of functional accentuation), but I rarely see such a functional accentuation without a subtype. I have seen functional accentuation more commonly in the Control function (corresponding to Ignoring in Model A), perhaps because it is more stable. The one example I can think of off the top of my head are EIE's with S-accentuation (astheno-neurotic), who use their skills to be good chefs.

  32. #1952
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,043
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Good question. I noticed that one ILI-C above, Iconoclast, has such a categorization as ILI-Fe, so perhaps they were typed that way, but I am not sure. Having a subtype involving the POLR function is common (which involves a low level of functional accentuation), but I rarely see such a functional accentuation without a subtype. I have seen functional accentuation more commonly in the Control function (corresponding to Ignoring in Model A), perhaps because it is more stable. The one example I can think of off the top of my head are EIE's with S-accentuation (astheno-neurotic), who use their skills to be good chefs.
    I am not sure if Iconoclast actually have been typed, that's why I asked. Interesting that G typed someone (EIE-S) with polr accentuation though, I wasnt expecting that.

  33. #1953
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nephilthoth View Post
    Yeah, personality is more relativistic than physics, even in the context of general relativity. For example, in physics we are able to verify this theory by observing various effects that gravity has on light such as gravitational lensing. These things are observer independent, I can see it, you can see it, anyone can.

    Is this possible with personality? What is an objectively true personality? If so how does one determine this?

    In General relativity space and time are affected by gravity. What is the cause of relativity in the context of a person?

    There isn't a constant like gravity to use in this context. I have my idea of a person, they have their own idea of who they are, their friends and family have theirs. There is no central authority on who determines this. This is a living social construct that can change throughout time. That is the odd part about all of this, the idea that people are similar to inanimate bodies floating through space. Its deliberately removing the subjectivity of human experience. Instead, personality is better represented in the form of a rhizome with creeping roots growing in all directions with no real center.

    As for imperfection, representation of a personality being perfect or imperfect I think is the actual wrong frame of understanding personality. What one person lacks in representation is a subjective judgement, and what they lack would depend on the observer's opinion.

    Ah well, how are we supposed to type anyone then? Its easy, we continue to use constructs like socionics which are just tools for us to make sense of a person. Just as we use language to make sense of human experiences. I can't ever truly know how you feel but I can get an understanding thanks to the construct of language. But it is important to understand that this is incomplete and will always be incomplete.
    You make an interesting clarification on the conversation. The idea that personality is even more relativistic than physics was already part of my original point; that is how it came up in conversation with Northstar, who was arguing more for a centralized nonrelativistic measure of personality. So you are disagreeing more with Northstar here than myself, in what I said before (since I sought to point out precisely that personality is even MORE relativistic than physics, and he was arguing more for a form of absolutism and centralized standard even if he acknowledge it was very complex and that we don't know it). Thus, as it relates to the point being made, you argue that my analogy was even understated in response to Northstar (since you are arguing for relativity in personality to a greater extent than I was), and you argue that my point about relativity extends even further than I originally pushed it. That is not what I thought you were trying to say, though I still disagree with a lot here.

    There are plenty of personality theories without observer independent phenomena. Personally, I don’t value such models as much, precisely because they have some of the worst mires in personality theory: inability to agree among objective observers, an inclination to tell people what they want to hear or tell them something to suit their current comfortable subjective view of themselves, and a lack of ability to make meaningful progress. Better than average typologies, like the SHS school, Objective Personality and Vultology, rely on more observer independent phenomena and non-verbal/behavioral signals that can be clearly observed and agreed upon independently of anyone’s subjective measure of themselves, in addition to having a lot of nuance to represent a greater range of human behavior and the complex interrelations between different behaviors.

    No one is arguing for a notion of an objectively true personality, so that is beside the point. Of course the various typology frameworks/frames have arbitrary, conventional and axiomatic aspects, just as measurement does in science, and necessarily so. But using such a static reference point, one can still make objective observations about people, and if these observations are able to be consistently agreed upon, then they are objectively true aspects of people (not their whole personality, but just an ASPECT of it).

    What’s important about such objective aspects of people is that even if we don’t want to include them in a given typology frame, our understanding can’t contradict them while remaining logically sound. We can’t determine an “objectively true personality” since the inherently limited aspect of personality that we focus on will be limited by the frame we choose, but we can determine objective and consistent individual patterns in people and their behavior, cognition, etc. Hence my point of view still includes a notion of absolute truth, while acknowledging a large part of relativity mediating us from directly and easily accessing it. Likewise, while there are observer independent phenomena in relativity in physics, it’s not as though our own frame is ever observer independent, even if it can see the observer independent phenomenon that all else can (at least with the proper instrumentation, since many phenomena in physics and typology are too subtle for untrained perception to notice). This is true in physics and in typology, so in this regard it’s a valid analogy.

    Gravity is only one part of the “cause” of relativity in relativity theory: it has many interconnected causes, including the nature of light, mass, energy, momentum, pressure, tension, viewpoints i.e. limited observer frames, locality, and space and time themselves. Typological relativity has different aspects, but shares the crucial aspect of viewpoints i.e. limited observer frames. Instead of measuring physical qualities, typology measures a variety of consistent aspects of human behavior, across various levels: social, intellectual, physical, psychological, individual, relational, collective, conscious, unconscious, emergent, etc. And this is extremely complex, far more complex than physics even: “If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.” -Von Neumann

    We can only hold so much of this titanic complexity in our heads at a given time, due to reasons of limited observational capacity, limited processing power, our inherent biases, and the dynamic and evolving nature of life. So just because we don’t agree on what someone’s type is, or because we assign different meanings to typological aspects that are superficially similar in some way, doesn’t mean that we can so quickly dismiss another perspective or say that someone else is wrong. We may both see an approximate aspect of truth in both of our given typology frames. To synthesize our understandings properly, we have to take into account at least a few things:
    -the relative effects of various typological units (functions, behaviors, relationships, small groups, etc.) operating at different levels of analysis (social, intellectual, physical, psychological, individual, relational, collective, conscious, unconscious, emergent, etc.)
    -behaviors viewed through the lens of different conventional/ostensive clusters (behaviors can cluster in more than one way just as physics phenomena can look different depending on your vantage point in position, momentum, nearby gravitational effects, etc.)
    -we may completely lack perceptions someone else may have clearly from their frame, due to their gestalt pattern recognition, honed or experienced perception. E.g. just because I can’t tell apart plants in Amazonian rain forest doesn’t mean indigenous people can’t do so quite objectively and accurately, etc. If you had enough “momentum” in identifying plants in the Amazonian rain forest, maybe you could identify them too (yes, momentum is a figurative concept here, but the precise physical similarity between these forms of relativity is irrelevant and beside the point).

    What’s crucial here is the shared notion of relativity: observer frames with a different perception of the same reality, combined with the fact that two people with different observer frames might both view similar people/events in different typological ways yet have potentially similar parity in truth. This is something which needs to be reckoned with in disagreements between typology perspectives, as opposed to dogmatically assuming only our observer frame is absolutely correct or more correct than that of another.

    To attribute to human personality a complete subjective relativism or social constructionism is where I especially disagree with you. Of course there are social constructions and arbitrary conventions in typology, but it doesn’t follow that we all have equally valid, insightful or penetrating ideas about ourselves and other peoples or that whether we do is a matter of purely subjective opinion. The best “social constructions” have a foundation in things which are objectively observable. What we lack in understanding ourselves or another is not just a matter of subjective opinion; I may not notice that I am much less sociable than most people, for example, and if I think myself a relatively gregarious person in spite of this, then I am objectively failing to notice how I compare to most others, and I am vitally in error. I may not notice that I tap my foot or talk to myself out loud, but this doesn't change whether or not it is happening or what it might mean about me that I may (objectively) not be aware of.

    No one is making the binary comparison of perfect vs imperfect typologies, so such a correction is unnecessary. But what we lack in our perspective is not merely a matter of subjective opinion or observer; if it was, we’d be committed to supporting a strange form of dualism where the objective world of physics and behavior is completely torn asunder from the human and mental world which is totally a matter of subjective opinion by contrast. The world of physics and the world of humans contain phenomena which can be objectively agreed upon and to deny this is simply to hide from reality in a nihilistic relativism which denies the ugly and dangerous consequences of ignoring consistent evidence, whether in the world of physics or the world of humans. However incomplete our perspectives, we can (with effort) distinguish between typology understandings that are consistent with some objective facts about people and reality and those that are internally inconsistent or inconsistent with key objective facts and thus to be discarded, refuted, improved upon, etc.

    I largely agree with the notion of tool-like linguistic pragmatism that you advance with regard to typology frameworks. However, to reduce the matter of typology entirely to such pragmatism (I'm not sure if that's your intention so it's not an accusation) doesn’t give any incentive to acknowledge the relatively different valid approximate understandings we might have and accordingly widen and improve our sensemaking and purposes via a higher meta point of view about our (necessarily) limiting axioms. We also have to question our pragmatic purposes to have any sense of the range of pragmatic purposes we could usefully have first place (via greater detachment and wider ability to compare experiences and perceptions). This is certainly perpetually incomplete.

  34. #1954
    mbti INFJ lookin4waifu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    TIM
    school shooter one
    Posts
    991
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Varlawend

    You should stealthily insert a “deeznuts” or “8==D” emoji into one of these super long posts of yours. Congratulate anyone who can actually find it.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  35. #1955
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lore View Post



    Is this you supervising ESE?
    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

  36. #1956
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nephilthoth View Post
    Yeah, personality is more relativistic than physics, even in the context of general relativity. For example, in physics we are able to verify this theory by observing various effects that gravity has on light such as gravitational lensing. These things are observer independent, I can see it, you can see it, anyone can.

    Is this possible with personality? What is an objectively true personality? If so how does one determine this?

    In General relativity space and time are affected by gravity. What is the cause of relativity in the context of a person?

    There isn't a constant like gravity to use in this context. I have my idea of a person, they have their own idea of who they are, their friends and family have theirs. There is no central authority on who determines this. This is a living social construct that can change throughout time. That is the odd part about all of this, the idea that people are similar to inanimate bodies floating through space. Its deliberately removing the subjectivity of human experience. Instead, personality is better represented in the form of a rhizome with creeping roots growing in all directions with no real center.

    As for imperfection, representation of a personality being perfect or imperfect I think is the actual wrong frame of understanding personality. What one person lacks in representation is a subjective judgement, and what they lack would depend on the observer's opinion.

    Ah well, how are we supposed to type anyone then? Its easy, we continue to use constructs like socionics which are just tools for us to make sense of a person. Just as we use language to make sense of human experiences. I can't ever truly know how you feel but I can get an understanding thanks to the construct of language. But it is important to understand that this is incomplete and will always be incomplete.
    i think it's a mistake to look at personality as a rhizome
    [11:42 AM]
    personality isn't necessarily a tree either (edited)
    [11:43 AM]
    human beings are a closed system, it's a organism that is closed
    [11:43 AM]
    and the brain itself has many organs with specific functions
    [11:44 AM]
    like there are parts of the brain that are "rhizomatic" like the cortex/neocortex and such but even these are high regular unlike a rhizome
    [11:44 AM]
    rhizomatic personality are more akin to the schizophrenic
    [11:44 AM]
    in deluezes philosophy
    [11:46 AM]
    the brain/nervous system is more a organization of system that uses various mediums to communicate between these systems, and these systems work with and against each other extensively before anything hits consciousness

    Also fundamentally a big part of personality/characteristics of an individual is genetic, and this comes directly from a single cell. From separated identical twin studies we know that personalities are quite congruent between twins depending on the metric.

    Also life exists within a fairly safe and orderly space, where relativistic forces of physics are minimal.

    Although we live in complexity, we should not mistake the perspective of our incomprehension as disorder.

  37. #1957
    Lo'taur ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,333
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post

    Also fundamentally a big part of personality/characteristics of an individual is genetic, and this comes directly from a single cell. From separated identical twin studies we know that personalities are quite congruent between twins depending on the metric.
    I would say a big part of our personality is an adaptation to our genetic heritage. For instance, if a person is genetically determined to be blind, that person will develop his/her other senses to compensate the visual deficit. One could say that this phenomenon is in itself a part of which can be fully attributed to genetic determinism. However, I think that lot of our genetic potential ( like the development certain diseases) can be activated directly or indirectly by environmental factors like stress etc.. I think that it's also the case for our personality. For instance If a child in his early development is put in sensorial isolation, he or she will develop "auto-centered" behaviors similar to autistic child. I read that this happened to children during the yugoslavian war.

    It is my understanding that a human baby is borned "uncomplete" in development meaning vulnerable and unfit to survive on its own unlike a lot of other mammals. We know that the human baby's brain development is at its highest rate of synaptization from birth to age four. It will double in volume during the first year and triple by the fourth. Once the baby learns to crawl, stimuli comes almost essentially from the exploration of the environment, all the baby learning processes are influenced by this dynamic.
    If the environment can shape our brain and the configuration of our synapsization (our "brain fingerprint") wouldn't it be reasonable to think that it also has a major part in the development of our personality ? I think so. I also remind myself that we walk on our two feet because of the environment influence which has helped us develop our brain and this has been inherited somewhere in our DNA.

    Note that I don't know what I'm talking about
    Last edited by godslave; 06-03-2022 at 07:30 PM. Reason: add a semblance of clarity to the mess..

  38. #1958
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    @Varlawend

    You should stealthily insert a “deeznuts” or “8==D” emoji into one of these super long posts of yours. Congratulate anyone who can actually find it.
    Oh, I’m under little illusion that most people will want to go through all of my longer posts; it’s for people who want a specific kind of thorough thought process engagement that I personally enjoy and get something from. After all: https://www.wyzowl.com/human-attention-span/amp/ (though this shrinking of attention span may only be partly true or task dependent)

    But your suggestion would honestly be pretty funny. I will really consider it

  39. #1959
    The Creator and the Destructor The Iconoclast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    The Fucking Moon
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko typed me as ILI with accentuation in Fe. I am still a bit skeptical about the result. It is hard to see myself as an ILI since I have always been more inclined towards the arts and other forms of expression (I have ambitions as a poet and will study theater). My self-image is essentially unstable, so I alternate my representation often and it is quite difficult to track what I have always "been". I have several objective reasons to believe that I am EIE and not ILI, but lately I have stopped giving it so much consideration. In the report he said something about inappropriate reactions. I believe that the fact that I am attracted to drama also adds some weight to the doctor's verdict.

    (@myresearch I forgot to tag you.)
    Last edited by The Iconoclast; 06-04-2022 at 03:47 AM.

  40. #1960
    The Creator and the Destructor The Iconoclast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    The Fucking Moon
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma View Post
    My evil beta brain needs to figure out how to overthrow this cult leader.

    They might have a plan.

    Last edited by The Iconoclast; 06-04-2022 at 04:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •