Alive vs the ISTjs

[Rusal]

@Alive vs the ISTjs (mostly) Normalizing subtype

It's our own tradition here in 16types: whenever we have a typing video by G. and the person gets typed LSI (a good portion of the typings here) Alive comes to the fore with the conclusion that pretty much everyone here is IEI so probably the person in the video is one as well, while a portion of the forum is generally ok with the typings. So the reasons for his objections include: that the individual in the video is too soft, or room decoration indicates person is too open, and that they found the forum is a certain sign of high-dim. Ni.

His reach of Ni and conception of LSI (and IEI) seem different from Socionics so his typings are rather non-functional if one intends to apply personal compatibility theory in real life life, what supposedly Socionics is intended for. If implementation were a non-issue then yes, have your own take on personality and wear the IEI badge (or whatever you want to name it). But why would you need to disrupt a theory by removing its most useful part?

So, at least 7 years ago Berdutina typed this man/teen LSI

Alive might have an objection… because of his looks. So what traits are we looking for here, why do Berdutina and G. go against your perspective? I'm bringing in my teaching experience: kids around his age or younger that most resemble the traits that are attributed more to LSI-N (precise, disciplined, painfully scrupulous and pedantic, avid intakers of knowledge and information, mindful and respectful towards structures) not that uncommonly look like him or similar or not always the opposite. It appears that the types have room for some variety.

The point being, Alive would you agree that your approach is more disjointed? Which is ok if it's about something new but it might run contrary to ITR? That's one question. Would you argue against LSI-N typing for the guy in the picture if he presents traits more attributable to that sociotype than to others?

[nifl]

>So the reasons for his objections include: that the individual in the video is too soft
a valid objection against LSI - they're quiet, but rarely ''soft'' (Si, Fi)
>room decoration indicates person is too open
not VI, so can be discarded
>that they found the forum is a certain sign of high-dim. Ni.
Beta ST should be the rarest on the forum, having weak and unvalued Ne (immaterial traits of objects = psychology) and Fi (relationships), but is not an argument for typing
>His reach of Ni and conception of LSI (and IEI) seem different from Socionics so his typings are rather non-functional if one intends to apply personal compatibility theory in real life life, what supposedly Socionics is intended for.
his typings are not terrible (in my perception he has more correct or close ones than others I've seen recently here), but sadly he uses DCNH, which is too often applied as speculative rationalizations for bad typings
>because of his looks
it is uncommon for pictures to be enough, VI is about behaviour
>avid intakers of knowledge and information
Te, not usual for Ti types
>Which is ok if it's about something new but it might run contrary to ITR?
your methods seem to be similarly unorthodox, claiming that activity is easier than duality, that the introverted LSI is more accessible in a group than the extraverted SLE, and that IEE (a Fi type) is inclined to theatrics.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Everyone is IEI until proven otherwise.

Everyone is LSI until proven otherwise.

[hellohellohello]

"Alive vs the ISTjs" sounds like a movie I wouldn't mind watching

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I wonder why you didn't chat him up or message him instead of making a separate thread. It's kinda uncomfortable to see specially with that title, I don't know why.

Tbh I don't really care. I feel like this discussion is getting a bit stale and I don't really feel like reading these walls of text.

To me it's simple:

Intuitives are interested in new things (according to gulenko) and therefore high in openess (big five). The probability that many people here are LSI is therefore very low. Don't need to watch countless typing interviews and discuss them in detail to come to that conclusion

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Oh ok then. Well if this thread gets into dark turn or if you want to I think I can delete/move

I insult people too. It's only fair when they can do the same

[Rusal]

>So the reasons for his objections include: that the individual in the video is too soft
a valid objection against LSI - they're quiet, but rarely ''soft'' (Si, Fi)

That's my point: what Alive names ‘too soft’ looks like more or less faithful representation of a good number of the more quiet, tempered LSIs (probably Normalizing) in my experience. Let's face it, there's only so much room left for the raw brainless beast he seems to be expecting after all the anal-retentiveness LSI-N are about. The quiet, pedantic, information geek that's good in class and the most responsible student around is a thing. That he can hold all that in himself and at the same time and crush beer bottles with his biceps tends to be…less of a thing. Let's manage expectations. Alive can type using his own system but he should accept that typers from established schools are more focused on making duality work when they type and they are clearly going to type with a difference concept in mind. And I disagree with what you say about Te types being more prone to info intake: in the case of quasi-identicals SLI vs LSI is easy to see from type descriptions, if memory serves.

Intuitives are interested in new things (according to gulenko) and therefore high in openess (big five).

Maybe we should go further back. The first assertion that we disagreed insistence on your part that the ehhmm nerdy version of LSI man was a thing because “LSIs are silent, manly types” and I'm not going to say that's wrong because yes while , it could be argued that some representatives of the type are, a good number of traits that put an individual closer to LSI description than to others I did not see in super physical people (Filatova even spoke of this in the 90s for LSIs). I do not need to repeat what traits I’m talking about. Needless to say, typers do not seem to mind what you call ‘soft’.

Now let's imagine the most annoying LSI that encapsulates all the long list, very perceptible types of behavior you've seen me write but he also has an interest in Anime and…stuff from Japan which, for some reason, you label high in openness. Does it mean he just doesn't have increased favorable ITR with EIEs over types? I suspect that is not the case and you should acknowledge that the typers that do something different that you would do are not looking at what you do for a deciding factor than you and your system is ok but it runs counter-intuitively to duality. Otherwise, you might want start a discussion on how duality still applies in your system because, frankly, I'm not seeing it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

People here can't even agree to what extent Musk scores highly on Openness to Experience, or to what extent he is innovative, and yet they spend time attacking @Alive's typings.

I do think @Alive over-types people as IEIs, and there are a few glaring inconsistencies, but out of the dozen or so people who have made 100+ typings, his typings don't seem bad to me. More than half of typings are probably wrong even amongst the best typers.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

People here can't even agree to what extent Musk scores highly on Openness to Experience, or to what extent he is innovative, and yet they spend time attacking @Alive's typings.

I do think @Alive over-types people as IEIs, and there are a few glaring inconsistencies, but out of the dozen or so people who have made 100+ typings, his typings don't seem bad to me. More than half of typings are probably wrong even amongst the best typers.

the problem with developing such a huge gallery with a 1000 examples is that you eventually come to a point where it becomes impossible to correct or double-check things simply due to not having that much time. I look back to some of these examples and sometimes I don't know why I even put them there in the first place, because I determined the type like 4 years ago. with time you just develop more and more patterns which sometimes cement the typing or it makes you doubt your judgement. I removed quite a lot of examples even when I felt like they were right but I had doubts and no time to check them again. I typed Elon Musk as ILI years ago but had discussions with Gulenko and his team and they convinced me for a while that he's LSI but the doubts remained. then I met more and more ILI in my life and I noticed that they simply didn't have the passion to create new things like I had, and then I hung around with physicists and climate activists and I noticed "hmm... these people are ethical types, they are way more considerate and friendly than me" and I came to the conclusion that IEI makes the most sense for them. I think Gulenko is a researcher first so I'm not sure if a project like a typing gallery was all that fitting for him. much like one IEI can be a poet and another one a filmmaker and they pursue different things but kinda feel the same way about the world. Looking at Gulenko's gallery now, I don't think I agree with many of his typings. Like he types Charles Darwin as ILI but Darwin actually wrote a book about emotional expressions in humans called "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". Why would a type with Fe as PolR do that?

In the end it's all just subjective. we all build a certain mindset about what types are and then we go from there but there's no objectivity involved here, let's not kid ourselves. No matter how certain people are, most typings will likely be incorrect. but I still think a take away from my gallery could be that ethical types can be inventors, too. they just take feelings more into account, or maybe even use their passions to create something new, while a logical type always has a certain level of indifference to fight with.

[Not A Communist Shill]

the problem with developing such a huge gallery with a 1000 examples is that you eventually come to a point where it becomes impossible to correct or double-check things simply due to not having that much time. I look back to some of these examples and sometimes I don't know why I even put them there in the first place, because I determined the type like 4 years ago. with time you just develop more and more patterns which sometimes cement the typing or it makes you doubt your judgement. I removed quite a lot of examples even when I felt like they were right but I had doubts and no time to check them again. I typed Elon Musk as ILI years ago but had discussions with Gulenko and his team and they convinced me for a while that he's LSI but the doubts remained. then I met more and more ILI in my life and I noticed that they simply didn't have the passion to create new things like I had, and then I hung around with physicists and climate activists and I noticed "hmm... these people are ethical types, they are way more considerate and friendly than me" and I came to the conclusion that IEI makes the most sense for them. I think Gulenko is a researcher first so I'm not sure if a project like a typing gallery was all that fitting for him. much like one IEI can be a poet and another one a filmmaker and they pursue different things but kinda feel the same way about the world. Looking at Gulenko's gallery now, I don't think I agree with many of his typings. Like he types Charles Darwin as ILI but Darwin actually wrote a book about emotional expressions in humans called "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". Why would a type with Fe as PolR do that?

In the end it's all just subjective. we all build a certain mindset about what types are and then we go from there but there's no objectivity involved here, let's not kid ourselves. No matter how certain people are, most typings will likely be incorrect. but I still think a take away from my gallery could be that ethical types can be inventors, too. they just take feelings more into account, or maybe even use their passions to create something new, while a logical type always has a certain level of indifference to fight with.

Most people type Darwin a logical type (including myself), but you make a good point about many scientists being humanists too. Darwin himself very much cared about the suffering of others and social injustice.

One of your typings I find most odd (as I've mentioned) is that you type Newton an ethical type, even though he was very disagreeable towards others. But I don't think most people here can criticise that typing when they type many disagreeable people as -types (like AH and Kanye West).

There is a lot of inconsistency in how "Classical Socionics" is interpreted, which is one thing, but also too much slavish acceptance of "Classical Socionics" dogma rather than sticking to what is observable and what actually works.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Most people type Darwin a logical type (including myself), but you make a good point about many scientists being humanists too. Darwin himself very much cared about the suffering of others and social injustice.

One of your typings I find most odd (as I've mentioned) is that you type Newton an ethical type, even though he was very disagreeable towards others. But I don't think most people here can criticise that typing when they type many disagreeable people as -types (like AH and Kanye West).

There is a lot of inconsistency in how "Classical Socionics" is interpreted, which is one thing, but also too much slavish acceptance of "Classical Socionics" dogma rather than sticking to what is observable and what actually works.

The longer I work on my gallery, the more I become aware how most of them are just based on some subjective ideas of a type. Like somehow everyone types Napoleon as Se-base, but then you read he was a shy bookworm that got bullied a lot when he was younger, or people say I'm stupid for typing Mike Tyson as IEI and not SLE, but then I watch interviews of him an he cries like a little baby. yet somehow a lot of people came to the same conclusion, almost as if they just copy someone else's opinion that's perceived as kinda making sense. The majority of people have not really invested themselves into famous people's lives. they just project their ideas onto over people. I also see quite a lot of problems with the functions like you. People say that someone is Ne base, but I never really get the feeling that they have any idea what Ne actually is. Rusal and Hello say I'm wrong and delusional, but on what basis? what they mean is that I don't accept their own subejctive interpretation of a vague theory as truth, and I am therefore "wrong". Jack clinges to Classical Socionics, but all these Models seem hopelessly outdated nowadays. Even Model G just feels like another version of the same thing. When you type highly innovative people as sensing types you are wrong no matter what Model you use. you disregard common sense when you are convinced that unorthodox people have somehow low openess, or in socionics terms, are entirely focused on reality without imagination.

[Ave]

High openness is similar to intuition and Gulenko does compare the two, but they aeren't identical. There isn't a 1:1 correlation between big 5 traits and Jungian preferences.

Openness can also be increased with initiality: harmonizing and creative subtypes are focused on what interestes them, at the exclusion of things which might be obligations or chores.

In addition to subtype, there is also functional accentuation. If someone is interested in alot of weird things, they might have T accentuation.

In addition to that LSIs are often attracted to romantic and imaginative types (such as their duals), combine that with the above factors and I don't think high openness excludes an LSI typing for someone, far from it, imo.