Yo, everyone! ILE-Ne here. Have been frequenting this forum for ages as a lurker and finally decided to make an account to view media and share my thoughts from time to time and the like. Love that this forum almost always has many answers to questions I've pondered about but could not find much 'official' - so to say - literature on myself (sometimes due to the Russian language barrier). Looking forward to many interesting and engaging discussions with everyone here! Have a good one
Your name is LiteralGenius
What exactly is a “literal genius” to you? You some kinda bitch nerd?
I don't play, I slay.
Geniuses don’t come onto peasant forums. Shouldn’t you be bragging at Mensa or some shit.
Alpha NT apologist
I'm starting a game with myself - I bet that LiteralGenius is not ILE
Start with your typing theme, with a videointerview. You'll get opinions about your type. During this talking you'll understand what is this forum better and in what state Socionics is now.
Originally Posted by LiteralGenius
Most people here did not read normal sourses about the types as Jung and Augustinavichiute. They read a little of mess of different authors related to types, sometimes google-translated. Some places of that mess are baseless hypotheses which are not Socionics, but they trust it same as to normal theory. Also most people did not typed in a quantity that even would allow to check own type by IR effects, what also predisposes them to keep mistakes about own types and to doubt in core theory which does not work as should due to those mistakes to blame it or to search for muddy explanations by random fantasies of non-Socionics hypotheses as subtypes.
Some part of the theory is Socionics formally but is doubtful too - as baseless Reinin's traits. To use such hypotheses which are far from Jung's ideas and have nothing good in their basis is irresonsibility. But as most people here have no seriouse relation to types - they use Reinin's traits and may don't even understand the difference in trust between different parts of the theory - as never read normal sources about the typology.
Most people here are just for fun flooding. As part of their fun is to say their "important" thoughts about types and the typology. They don't have a knowledge to understand the degree of nonsense they say. As they studed about types by short look in a mess.
In English there are not many sources which are useful to read. Jung, Augustinavichiute's (seems google-translations), Filatova's book. Other texts have a mess problem where are mixed Socionics and random ideas, and higher chance to read something incorrect as were written by those who studed by earlier mess in English.
I don't play, I slay.
Sure, anyone can be good at something and not be a genius but your point is moot. The OP brags about being a “literal genius” which is a direct implication that they have high IQ. They mentioned nothing about socionics, only here to troll with ILE stereotypical “genius” bit.
Originally Posted by Sol
I’m happy that you’re trying to use your PoLR Ne and I commend you for your attempts at throwing in pointless arguments. Must be hard for you as an LSI but hey, maybe you’re not too old to learn new tricks.