Do i look ESI enough? x

[mfckrz]

Man...if you actually believe this is an average truth of any type, you are incredibly disconnected from reality. Spend some time asking people about what's important to them in a relationship and put down the typology articles, you'll learn how untrue that is real quick.

Aren't you transgender or something? Wouldn't expect you to understand.

[cinnamoroll]

I am deceased.

[cinnamoroll]

I think you look ESI enough to me with my limited knowledge of VI. You remind me of Lana del Rey, who is supposedly ESI as well. I guess it throws people off because you seem vain to some but that's their insecurity peeping through so I wouldn't even worry about it

[serenaeva]

I think you look ESI enough to me with my limited knowledge of VI. You remind me of Lana del Rey, who is supposedly ESI as well. I guess it throws people off because you seem vain to some but that's their insecurity peeping through so I wouldn't even worry about it

Thanks (:

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

You say you are not really able to type me because you self-admittedly do not know much about types or typology as a whole, yet confidently dismiss VI and say that it being taken seriously is sad?
Amazing juxtaposition, especially given the fact that you also happen to have a Jung quote in your signature and Jung himself has described physical correlations between usage of one's fxns and different qualities of gaze.

Another thing is that most of my disagreements in here come from people assigning motive to my behavior and presenting it as if it were a categorical fact.
.. essentially "i know for a fact she's Fe because she's for sure doing this because of x, y and z" (albeit all of this being purely speculative on their part).

It had little to nothing at all whatsoever to do with VI (or typology as a whole, really) and if you genuinely read even a small part of this thread and unironically came to that conclusion - your comprehensive reading abilities and capacity to assimilate information of any kind are both unnervingly low.

What's "pathetic" is the fact that you genuinely thought that any of the aforementioned unfortunate incoherence was worth sharing.
It might be healthy for you to stop priding yourself in being dense (whether accidental or not) and leave some of the wide-eyed projections on your part aside.

This is a weak argument that's fluffed up to sound intellectual while only being pretentious in reality.

1) It's not a juxtaposition. What one considers to be “knowing enough” is relative/subjective. I know enough to disregard VI's, as does essentially anyone with any common sense. I mean, it really doesn't require any kind of studying to know it shouldn't be taken seriously. Or maybe it did for you, I don't know, but most of us figured that out without needing to learn much about it.

2) Just because I have a Jung quote in my signature, and have read some materials from Jung (what little I could stomach of his ramblings), doesn't mean I have to subscribe to every word like it's the typology Bible. That is especially so when considering Aušra Augustinavičiūtė combined Jung's works with Antoni Kępiński's Information Metabolism theory, thus making Socionics no longer a pure derivative of Jung. It'd be sort of weird to be involved in Socionics and yet a stickler for everything Jungian, as there are quite a few deviations from his original works within the Socionics framework itself.

3) Yes, there were parts where it was clear you were offended, and your denial doesn't alter that. That “you're stupid if you think so” crap doesn't work on me. Someone even ended up apologizing to you for offending you by typing you as something else, as she could tell you weren't open to such disagreements.

To be blunt: I'm not interested in conflict/drama with you, nor anyone else. I'm also not interested in a pretentious pseudo-intellectual competition; I feel no need to “puff up,” as I'm comfortable in my own skin and confident regardless of others' views of me, including yours. Even if I wasn't intelligent (which I am), I'd still be confident enough to be unaffected by what you're doing here…but knocking me down a peg isn't your motive, is it? It's really more about you. The fact that you feel the need to constantly puff yourself up that way says a lot about you. Go ahead, but that won't make you feel better about yourself deep down. As for myself… I came, I made the point I wanted to make in my initial reply, and now I'm done/moving on. I have more productive ways to spend my time.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Aren't you transgender or something? Wouldn't expect you to understand.

No, I'm not trans. I'm a female by birth physically, am still physically female, will always remain female, etc. I use male avatars sometimes as eye candy or because I like the artwork or something sometimes. I do support the LGBT community, however. Even if I was trans, though, it'd make no difference in my capacity for understanding what others look for in a relationship. Neither does anything make any difference in your understanding. The difference is that despite both being equally capable, in your case, you reject that which would benefit you. In other words, you choose to remain ignorant and attack the messenger via ad hominem because it feels better than admitting to yourself that you're disconnected from reality and then taking action against that. I guess you don't have the strength to handle that, apparently.

[mfckrz]

No, I'm not trans. I'm a female by birth physically, am still physically female, will always remain female, etc. I use male avatars sometimes as eye candy or because I like the artwork or something sometimes. I do support the LGBT community, however. Even if I was trans, though, it'd make no difference in my capacity for understanding what others look for in a relationship. Neither does anything make any difference in your understanding. The difference is that despite both being equally capable, in your case, you reject that which would benefit you. In other words, you choose to remain ignorant and attack the messenger via ad hominem because it feels better than admitting to yourself that you're disconnected from reality and then taking action against that. I guess you don't have the strength to handle that, apparently.

Defensive weirdo overly justifying themselves to a simple question when 'No' would've sufficed.

[serenaeva]

This is a weak argument that's fluffed up to sound intellectual while only being pretentious in reality.

1) It's not a juxtaposition. What one considers to be “knowing enough” is relative/subjective. I know enough to disregard VI's, as does essentially anyone with any common sense. I mean, it really doesn't require any kind of studying to know it shouldn't be taken seriously. Or maybe it did for you, I don't know, but most of us figured that out without needing to learn much about it.

2) Just because I have a Jung quote in my signature, and have read some materials from Jung (what little I could stomach of his ramblings), doesn't mean I have to subscribe to every word like it's the typology Bible. That is especially so when considering Aušra Augustinavičiūtė combined Jung's works with Antoni Kępiński's Information Metabolism theory, thus making Socionics no longer a pure derivative of Jung. It'd be sort of weird to be involved in Socionics and yet a stickler for everything Jungian, as there are quite a few deviations from his original works within the Socionics framework itself.

3) Yes, there were parts where it was clear you were offended, and your denial doesn't alter that. That “you're stupid if you think so” crap doesn't work on me. Someone even ended up apologizing to you for offending you by typing you as something else, as she could tell you weren't open to such disagreements.

To be blunt: I'm not interested in conflict/drama with you, nor anyone else. I'm also not interested in a pretentious pseudo-intellectual competition; I feel no need to “puff up,” as I'm comfortable in my own skin and confident regardless of others' views of me, including yours. Even if I wasn't intelligent (which I am), I'd still be confident enough to be unaffected by what you're doing here…but knocking me down a peg isn't your motive, is it? It's really more about you. The fact that you feel the need to constantly puff yourself up that way says a lot about you. Go ahead, but that won't make you feel better about yourself deep down. As for myself… I came, I made the point I wanted to make in my initial reply, and now I'm done/moving on. I have more productive ways to spend my time.

That's a whole lot of words to essentially say nothing.
Simply a banal further continuation of "yes, i indeed don't know enough about typology and i'm self-aware about it but i also happen to be the self-appointed judiciary of this forum re: which theories shall be taken seriously or not." ... give me a break.

It's specified that this is a VI thread in the thread title itself. If you disagree with the notion of VI usage so much to a point where it manifests in deranged incoherence coming from you (or maybe that's your natural mode of operating, dunno), then simply don't participate in it.
Because from where i am standing, any effort to add something valuable to the thread on your part has proven itself to be ignominiously fruitless. You've done nothing but derailed it.

As i already said once - staying away from the wide-eyed projections would be a good idea.
If you think what i said has been fluffed up to sound intellectual (and especially given the contents or lack thereof of your posts), it's likely that it's what you end up habitually resorting to. And that's really not my problem.
I'm not a figurative reflector for your own shortcomings, it'd be appreciated if you stopped treating me as one.

If you're so obsessed with me to a point where you feel compelled to continue trashing the mere existence of this thread and anyone taking it seriously for seemingly no reason (since we've already established that you self-admittedly have no interest in actually discussing VI or VI-related typings and therefore have no business being here).. then sure, keep replying.
But i suggest that you stop morbidly embarrassing yourself by pretending to be some kind of harbinger of common sense. You're too easy to see through.

[SlytherinPower]

Not type related, but just wanted to say that you look pretty

[serenaeva]

Not type related, but just wanted to say that you look pretty

Thanks

[youfloweryourfeast]

You VI a bit more like an LSI to me (not EIE though) but yea!