Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 201 to 240 of 348

Thread: Some examples of famous/celebrity LSIs-ISTjs

  1. #201
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 07490 View Post
    I think he reacted in the moment, you claimed that No ego would not be as careless as he is and I think that is extremely false.
    So, is reacting in the moment indicative of Se-ego now? I said he was careless in imposing environmental leverage, and that no Se ego would exhibit such a trait. And I stand by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu
    E.g. my ESTp Mom is just as guilty of these tirades, e.g. "you didn't call the doctor..? BUT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CALL TODAY?! WOW..! YOU REALLY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!! At ALL!! Ugh... NOW I'M GONNA HAVE TO DO IT!!! ...YOU KNOW? I HAD PLANS! NOW I'M GONNA HAVE TO SPEND MY TIME DOING THIS!"

    Do you see how that reaction could be a mix of Ti's desire for organization/control (i.e. things going as SHE expected them to,) and Se's manipulation by force?
    Didn't you previously type your mom as ESFj? That sounds exactly like something my ESFj mom would say, and reeks of EJ temperament (hyper-active control) and Si-valuing (control is imposed on the continuity in the environment; this coupled with Ni polr makes for the overly-anxious quality expressed when something seems "out of rhythm" in the procession of things). I am hard pressed to conceive of an Se-valuing EP getting so worked up over perceiving a lack of self-maintenance and temporal organization in a person.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  2. #202
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Listened to that Bale rant again...the people in the background are behaving pretty stupidly.They keep trying to tell him to cool off, to take a walk or sit down or something; who the fuck wants to hear that when they're pissed off? Saying that they "get it" instead of being professional and just moving on to the next take was a pretty stupid move, too. You can't console someone like that; you either have to overpower them completely or show them directly that you intend to give them what they want. If I was that pissed off, and someone told me to "cool down" or tried to sympathize with me all phony-bullshit like, I would probably go American Psycho on his ass too. The only thing to do is look him in the eye and say, directly and sincerely, without trying to pander, "You're right, I'm sorry; it won't happen again."
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #203
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    I am hard pressed to conceive of an Se-valuing EP getting so worked up over perceiving a lack of self-maintenance and temporal organization in a person.
    It seems like you perceive Se as something entirely more stable, less potentially combustible, and less (potentially)outwardly aggressive than I have come to see it.

    No matter how open-minded either of us is to the other person's typing, one of us would have to change his definitions/conceptions of specific IM elements for us to agree on them.

    With my current understanding of the IM elements--there's no way I could see aggressive Christian Bale, or my controlling, fiery Mom, as Alpha... In temperament, I see them both as closer to Mike Tyson than Albert Einstein. You know? E.g. I don't sense any Ne in Bale--whereas in someone like Nicholas Cage (on whose type we agree,) I sense a ton... I don't see Bale as the same type as Seinfeld, or Steve, or Jeff Goldblum... But I can certainly see him as akin in type to that last dude DeAnte lised on pg. 3.

  4. #204
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  5. #205
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu
    It seems like you perceive Se as something entirely more stable, less potentially combustible, and less (potentially)outwardly aggressive than I have come to see it.
    Have you forgotten my old days? I was the biggest proponent of chaotic, explosive Se'ness. The refinement in my definition stems simply from observing and discussing the function more (mimosa wrote a few excellent posts on it). I don't think it's inclined towards aggression naturally, because it's a static element. It gauges things at rest; the boundaries of disparate objects are clearly outlined, their magnitudes determined, and that is all. It "imposes force" as more of a reaction to the balance of said things being affected in some way, i.e. if someone attempts to undermine them; the resulting action is a re-balancing that is aimed at securing the resting states of the objects once again. That's my take.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  6. #206
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...but don't you think that was Bale's reaction to the balance and priorities on-set being undermined?
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  7. #207
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,397
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mmm, I think both Se and Si have a stablizing quality.

    Si would be obviously a more temporal and progressive stablizing. Being introverted, it would be more situational/contextual too. Like Se ego's can use the same process for each context (Ni/Se see's the process as all the same in the end), whereas Si ego's have specific (special) processes for different contexts (Si/Ne see many alternative processes depending on contextual variations).

    Similar to Nick's puzzle analogy that I get a hard on about.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  8. #208
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    ...but don't you think that was Bale's reaction to the balance and priorities on-set being undermined?
    No, I don't at all. As I stated, an Se-ego would not react so haphazardly, because in doing so, they would be directly undermining their own attempt to regain control over the boundaries; and having a keen control over said things, pretty much precludes such a flagrant mishap from occurring. Secondly, I don't think his reaction stemmed from a breach of Se object boundaries; his temper was incited because a dumbass made a repeated mistake, and he threw a fit. Ultimately, making some superficial correlation between his aggression and Se is faulty imo.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  9. #209
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
    Similar to Nick's puzzle analogy that I get a hard on about.
    Glad I could be of service.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  10. #210
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    No, I don't at all. As I stated, an Se-ego would not react so haphazardly, because in doing so, they would be directly undermining their own attempt to regain control over the boundaries; and having a keen control over said things, pretty much precludes such a flagrant mishap from occurring. Secondly, I don't think his reaction stemmed from a breach of Se object boundaries; his temper was incited because a dumbass made a repeated mistake, and he threw a fit. Ultimately, making some superficial correlation between his aggression and Se is faulty imo.
    I'm not saying it was Se, I'm just saying it fits your definition. I think it's accurate to say that it's a display of Se (don't tread on my turf, know your place, etc); just not a very well-controlled one, and therefore probably not an Se ego.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  11. #211
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How does it fit my definition? I described how Se egos would go about controlling boundaries, not any literal actions (i.e. "treading on turf").
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  12. #212
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    It "imposes force" as more of a reaction to the balance of said things being affected in some way, i.e. if someone attempts to undermine them; the resulting action is a re-balancing that is aimed at securing the resting states of the objects once again.
    It's clear that this was at least what Bale was attempting to do: put the guy in his place for continually undermining the priorities of on-set behavior. He even wanted the guy to be in a "resting state," not moving around.

    I'm not saying Bale is an Se ego; I'm saying that it's Se-related behavior.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  13. #213
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    It's clear that this was at least what Bale was attempting to do: put the guy in his place for continually undermining the priorities of on-set behavior. He even wanted the guy to be in a "resting state," not moving around.

    I'm not saying Bale is an Se ego; I'm saying that it's Se-related behavior.
    This is a great insight. (I like the way this discussion is going..!) It gets at the heart of Socionics... It's--seriously--great to discuss this stuff w/ people who are knowledgable and open-minded. (Lately I've been instructing beginners...)

    To add onto this... I'm interested... (Nick, just so you know, I absolutely don't want to--and thus won't--get into any kind of fight w/ you about Socionics... Life is too short and I like/respect you too much...)

    My question: (esp. to Nick b/c I know he has the wherewithal to explain his ideas, vs. most of the other posters, but to anyone who believes that Bale's tantrum has nothing to do with Se

    What element, Socionics-wise, (aside from Se,) explains his mindset, leading to his behavior /words in the tantrum? (I.e. in Socionics terms, what IM element caused him to get mad and what IM element(s) was he expressing in that tantrum?)

    I stated my case for Ti + Se above.

  14. #214
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally I would say that it was perceived disrespect for Si that caused Bale to explode, but he reacted in an Se manner: static type using static functions to solve dynamic problems. This is why we need our duals.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  15. #215
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Personally I would say that it was perceived disrespect for Si that caused Bale to explode, but he reacted in an Se manner: static type using static functions to solve dynamic problems. This is why we need our duals.
    I can see what you mean, i.e. the crew member disrupted the Si functionality/homeiness of the set, and this caused Bale to react with Se. That makes sense to me.

    My problem typing Bale ENTp is--I have never known an ENTp to react with such a prolonged, vitriolic tantrum... Not to say ENTps don't get mad/frustrated (I know for a fact that they do.) And also to say that it's not possible. It is.

    In my experience, an ENTp getting upset about Si matters usually results in condescending, (short, to-the-point) barbs, which often criticize the offenders competence, and express a mix of disappointment/'you should be ashamed.' These are almost never at the top of the ENTps lungs--especially in public--and never for such a prolonged period. ENTps are (again I'll say usually, but I mean 99.99999% of the time) 'cooler' than this.

    Knowing ENTps and ISTjs--I think it's much more likely that an ISTj gets upset about such a thing, and reacts in such a way.

  16. #216
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    I agree with Numbers' reasoning.

    the argument that you give against Se ego is just as "superficial" as the reasoning for Se ego that you dismiss.
    Are you deliberately forgetting my following posts for convenience?
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  17. #217
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,151
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    strrrng: No true Scotsman. You need better reasons for why he's an ENTp, not just saying "No true Se ego" would. . .
    You need to find better ways to argue with strrrng, cuz saying he needs better reasons just won't cut it.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  18. #218
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  19. #219
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,151
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    I'm not interested in arguing with strrrng, and don't give a shit what Christian Bale's type is. But, if he wants to be taken seriously, he needs something better than the "no Se ego" crap. If he doesn't care whether his argument is good or not, then whatever.
    I know. I was just kidding.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  20. #220
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  21. #221
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,397
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He's a dick!
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  22. #222
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    no.
    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    just to clarify what i was trying to point out, strrrng dismisses other's arguments on the basis that certain traits and behaviors don't point to anything type-related, though his own arguments are doing the exact same thing.
    Perhaps you overlooked this post:

    Just because other ILEs might not act that way, doesn't mean he's LSI. It's about how one expresses themselves in action, not the actions chosen.
    Statement: It is the manner in which actions are performed that illustrates function usage, not the actions themselves.

    Implication: Bale acting aggressively doesn't = Se, as some people claimed.

    Inference: How he went about acting aggressively completely pointed away from Se.

    That is what I explained in the following posts, which I see no reason to reiterate.
    Last edited by strrrng; 11-21-2009 at 06:23 AM.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  23. #223
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Perhaps you overlooked this post:



    Statement: It is the manner in which actions are performed that illustrates function usage, not the actions themselves.

    Implication: Bale acting aggressively doesn't = Se, as some people claimed.

    Inference: How he went about acting aggressively completely pointed away from Se.

    That is what I explained in the following posts, which I see no reason to reiterate.
    I'm interested in following this line of reasoning... Nick, which IM elements do you think caused that tirade and which were used in its carrying-out? (If not Ti and Se, that is.) Seriously, I'll put everything aside that I believe currently and listen w an open mind.

    P.S. Diana -- you're ISTj?!?!? Sweet!

  24. #224
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,358
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    No, I don't think an EIE could have stopped him; I think the only way someone could have quelled his rage would be to appear threatened or intimidated, in which case he would have simply stopped and moved on, because that's what he was trying to do. Trying to console him would probably just be inflammatory; he was either going to get the result he wanted, or vent everything on the guy.
    While there's no video for the sound, it did sound like the guy was intimated, but everytime he appologized it just seemed to make Bale angrier. There was no verbal fighting match between the two, it was all Bale doing the ranting

    Maybe JuJu is onto something about how to deal with LSI's...
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  25. #225
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,033
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
    Maybe JuJu is onto something about how to deal with LSI's...

    Me, GIlly, and JuJu would have busted his ass.
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  26. #226
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,358
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 07490 View Post
    Me, GIlly, and JuJu would have busted his ass.
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  27. #227
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    just to clarify what i was trying to point out, strrrng dismisses other's arguments on the basis that certain traits and behaviors don't point to anything type-related, though his own arguments are doing the exact same thing.

    i think Numbers' arguments are more reasonable and relevant to socionics, while strrrng is just pulling shit out of his ass and aggrandizing Se, as usual.
    The problem is that he uses an exclusive method of typing; he assumes that all types share certain traits, and if someone does not have certain traits, then they cannot be certain types.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  28. #228
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well if it had been me, I couldn't have backed down in that situation. Maybe if I knew it would really be a career ending move, sure, but if I felt at all secure that I wouldn't ruin my future by stepping to the guy, there's no way I'd let him treat me like that. It would probably turn into a massive shouting match about what a primadonna and an over-sensitive little bitch he is, and all of his little peons would probably have to stop us from physically beating each other.

    The guy kept trying to make excuses for himself; he gave Bale something to react to. Trying to "own" him in any way, or put him in his place, would only provoke him. The only way to get no output, is to give no input. If everyone had gotten to their stations and acted like they were just going to keep on going, and not given credence to his ranting by trying to pander to him and giving him attention, his professional side would have taken over and he would have moved on to the next take (and, after a charge up like that, it would probalby be a great take ).
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  29. #229
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    The problem is that he uses an exclusive method of typing; he assumes that all types share certain traits, and if someone does not have certain traits, then they cannot be certain types.
    Did you completely miss my last post? I explicitly stated that I did not think it was specific traits that displayed a certain type, but rather that types had specific manners of expressing traits in general.


    And if you're going to address something about my socionics views, don't passive-aggressively pander to someone else as a means to do so.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  30. #230
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not passive-aggressive; I've overtly told you in the past that I think your "exclusive" method of typing by the idea that all people of a certain type share certain mannerisms, characteristics, methods of expression, whatever you want to call it, is crap. Socionics evaluates people by their mental processes, and there are no 100% 1-to-1 correlations between mental processes and external manifestations. I don't think it's ALWAYS invalid; obviously you type many people correctly. I just think that your method is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to go too far, to reach beyond what the theory actually dictates, and that this sometimes leads to mistypings.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  31. #231
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    It's not passive-aggressive; I've overtly told you in the past that I think your "exclusive" method of typing by the idea that all people of a certain type share certain mannerisms, characteristics, methods of expression, whatever you want to call it, is crap.
    The fact that you've told me as much in the past, doesn't negate the passive-aggressiveness of your comment in this thread.

    And consider that you may be exaggerating the nature of my ideas just a bit. I do concede that I have a very embedded set of associations based around types, which I believe in the validity of, due to the consistently observed patterns that led me to create them; but, you should know that there is more to my perspective than that, and that even if I do prioritize my "impressions" over other peoples' at times, I still acknowledge basic theoretical tenants of socionics.

    Socionics evaluates people by their mental processes, and there are no 100% 1-to-1 correlations between mental processes and external manifestations.
    Interesting you make this point, given that I've repeatedly made it explicitly clear that I am most interested in the mental processes underpinning functions. Also, if you're going to accuse me of making 1-1 correlations between behaviors and functions here, the mirror reflects right back at you and all the other people who went on claiming how his aggression = Se. And THAT was the stereotypical correlation I was adamantly against from my first post (hence the derision).

    I don't think it's ALWAYS invalid; obviously you type many people correctly. I just think that your method is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to go too far, to reach beyond what the theory actually dictates, and that this sometimes leads to mistypings.
    I think the real reason you think my methodology is flawed, is because I employ it with a certainty that flirts with dogma. Every person on this forum has impressions that transcend basic theoretical definitions, which they use in real life to hone their subjective understanding of socionics. The only difference between me and them, is that I promote my impressions with more definitiveness (due simply to my confidence in their bases) that sometimes encroaches on the integrity of other peoples' positions.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  32. #232
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    The fact that you've told me as much in the past, doesn't negate the passive-aggressiveness of your comment in this thread.
    I think your typing methods are flawed. Happy?

    I don't think passive-aggressive is the word you're looking for; I think you mean something more along the lines of subversive, which was not my intent either. You know me; if I wanted to be subversive or insidious, I would go to much greater lengths to conceal my intentions :wink:

    And consider that you may be exaggerating the nature of my ideas just a bit. I do concede that I have a very embedded set of associations based around types, which I believe in the validity of, due to the consistently observed patterns that led me to create them; but, you should know that there is more to my perspective than that, and that even if I do prioritize my "impressions" over other peoples' at times, I still acknowledge basic theoretical tenants of socionics.
    I never said or indicated otherwise. I just think that claiming that "Se types will behave/seem/indicate this ALWAYS" is a logically fallacious idea given the basis of the theory, and you are probably missing things if you are really going around with one thing as an exclusive criteria for a person being a type.


    Interesting you make this point, given that I've repeatedly made it explicitly clear that I am most interested in the mental processes underpinning functions. Also, if you're going to accuse me of making 1-1 correlations between behaviors and functions here, the mirror reflects right back at you and all the other people who went on claiming how his aggression = Se. And THAT was the stereotypical correlation I was adamantly against from my first post (hence the derision).
    When did I ever claim that aggression was Se? Don't straw man me. I said that using aggression to establish boundaries and put people in their place is a use of Se.

    It's OBVIOUS to me that your primary interest is in the mental processes, but I think you are trying to make things "easy" by excluding the possibility of new information; ie, a person of a type that lacks the quality you usually look for to determine a type.

    I think the real reason you think my methodology is flawed, is because I employ it with a certainty that flirts with dogma. Every person on this forum has impressions that transcend basic theoretical definitions, which they use in real life to hone their subjective understanding of socionics. The only difference between me and them, is that I promote my impressions with more definitiveness (due simply to my confidence in their bases) that sometimes encroaches on the integrity of other peoples' positions.
    No. You know that I am most confident in my own impressions, even to a "dogmatic" degree, and there are people whose types I will not budge in for reasons regarding personal archetype or similarity to another person.

    My problem is, as I have said, your use of an "exclusive" method of typing, whereas I use a "best fit" method.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  33. #233
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    I think your typing methods are flawed. Happy?
    Eh.

    I don't think passive-aggressive is the word you're looking for; I think you mean something more along the lines of subversive, which was not my intent either. You know me; if I wanted to be subversive or insidious, I would go to much greater lengths to conceal my intentions :wink:
    No, subversive is wrong. If you wanted to be subversive, you wouldn't even bother with an appearance of formality – at least not so late into a thread. You'd put up some red herring to lead the other person down a path to some predetermined destruction.

    I never said or indicated otherwise. I just think that claiming that "Se types will behave/seem/indicate this ALWAYS" is a logically fallacious idea given the basis of the theory, and you are probably missing things if you are really going around with one thing as an exclusive criteria for a person being a type.
    The criteria I expressed was in regard to a single incident involving one person. It was about how no Se ego would be so clumsy in imposing aggression to reestablish boundaries. Anyone with a basic understanding of the functions and model A, should be able to see where such a claim would arise from.

    And I'm not saying that my dogma is somehow excused because of that.

    When did I ever claim that aggression was Se? Don't straw man me. I said that using aggression to establish boundaries and put people in their place is a use of Se.
    That was the tenor of JuJu's initial posts. You seemed to waver in ambiguity until an outlet to respond was presented (i.e. responding to my definition by explaining how you thought his behavior fit it, instead of promoting your own definition first, etc.)

    It's OBVIOUS to me that your primary interest is in the mental processes, but I think you are trying to make things "easy" by excluding the possibility of new information; ie, a person of a type that lacks the quality you usually look for to determine a type.
    I don't deny that I sometimes go off of quick impressions that seem "dumbed down." But you have to consider the fact that I've been honing those very impressions for a while, so it's not like I need to always go through some lengthy process to ascertain someone's type.

    No. You know that I am most confident in my own impressions, even to a "dogmatic" degree, and there are people whose types I will not budge in for reasons regarding personal archetype or similarity to another person.
    Or similarity to yourself.

    My problem is, as I have said, your use of an "exclusive" method of typing, whereas I use a "best fit" method.
    My issue with your "best fit" method, is that it can easily become nebulous and inconsequential. There has to be exclusivity, otherwise you can just mix and match different ideas to justify whatever ad-hoc hypothesis you come up with about someone's type.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  34. #234
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    No, subversive is wrong. If you wanted to be subversive, you wouldn't even bother with an appearance of formality – at least not so late into a thread. You'd put up some red herring to lead the other person down a path to some predetermined destruction.
    Life as chess...sigh

    The criteria I expressed was in regard to a single incident involving one person. It was about how no Se ego would be so clumsy in imposing aggression to reestablish boundaries. Anyone with a basic understanding of the functions and model A, should be able to see where such a claim would arise from.
    I think an Se type could easily do such a thing in a fit of rage. I don't think Bale is an Se ego, but this temper tantrum has just about nothing to do with that. Race car drivers get road rage, too.

    And I'm not saying that my dogma is somehow excused because of that.
    Are you saying your dogma is inexcusable? Or is this just a prop to reinforce the perception of certainty? :wink:

    And no, I don't expect a straightforward answer

    That was the tenor of JuJu's initial posts. You seemed to waver in ambiguity until an outlet to respond was presented (i.e. responding to my definition by explaining how you thought his behavior fit it, instead of promoting your own definition first, etc.)
    And you deduce from that that I am implying that aggression = Se? Please.

    I don't deny that I sometimes go off of quick impressions that seem "dumbed down." But you have to consider the fact that I've been honing those very impressions for a while, so it's not like I need to always go through some lengthy process to ascertain someone's type.
    You don't need to explain yourself to me;like I told you, I'm exactly the same way.

    Or similarity to yourself.
    And how on earth would that ever cause me to be confident about someone else's type?

    My issue with your "best fit" method, is that it can easily become nebulous and inconsequential. There has to be exclusivity, otherwise you can just mix and match different ideas to justify whatever ad-hoc hypothesis you come up with about someone's type.
    No, there doesn't. If you're all looking at and observing the same thing, the explanations that are "nebulous" and "inconsequential" can be easily seen and weeded out. IMO you are just relying too much on a standard and don't have enough confidence in your ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  35. #235
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    I think an Se type could easily do such a thing in a fit of rage. I don't think Bale is an Se ego, but this temper tantrum has just about nothing to do with that. Race car drivers get road rage, too.
    Ok? Didn't I say that correlating the temper tantrum to Se was faulty, like, three pages back? What's your point.

    Are you saying your dogma is inexcusable? Or is this just a prop to reinforce the perception of certainty? :wink:

    And no, I don't expect a straightforward answer
    I'm saying that explaining reasoning doesn't excuse a dogmatic delivery.

    And you deduce from that that I am implying that aggression = Se? Please.
    I realize that's not all you were saying. My point was that, you shouldn't deduce that I'm limiting Se to some dumbed down criteria because I said aggression ≠ Se.

    And how on earth would that ever cause me to be confident about someone else's type?
    Because it would solidify your own self-typing.

    No, there doesn't. If you're all looking at and observing the same thing, the explanations that are "nebulous" and "inconsequential" can be easily seen and weeded out.
    My point is: if you're looking at the same thing, constantly referencing some explicit set of criteria is redundant; and things like "vibes" can be communicated with ready understanding, because of the mutually-understood context.

    IMO you are just relying too much on a standard and don't have enough confidence in your ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.
    Uh, ok? This seems redundant, as my confidence in this ability to winnow socionics was long ago solidified. I guess presumptions are always nice for making impressions seem substantive.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  36. #236
    Creepy-female

    Default

    at Gilly bolstering his point by reusing "resting state" as an actual quality Bale wanted in the situation. Anyway I've been trying to put into words a functional viewpoint of the situation that involves Bale valuing Ne/Si instead. I just think that all this talk of "boundaries" is a bit misleading, like Se/Ni people are the only ones with "boundaries" lol.

    I think that the way Se works is regulating external static boundaries so the dynamic nature of Ni can fester internally, unchecked..and that in turn, Ni's process validates Se's right to be static, giving it subjective value.

    In turn, I think Si works a bit differently because the external unfolding of the field (which contrasts with Ni's internal unfolding) surrounds the internality of Ne, and ties back to it in support, the internal static subjectivity validating the directions that Si mutates or whatever.

    I've wondered before if Si seems more "laid back" as opposed to Se because Si, having the field nature, is mutable, changeable, and seemingly accommodating, and you can more or less discern this more easily due to it having an external nature. While with Se (also external) all you see is objects in sharp disparity.

    But actually I've been wondering about which functions can be termed as describing "boundaries" and why....perhaps you have the ones Se imposes statically as objects, and Si itself is also a boundary? However the notion I've been entertaining (and that makes sense according to my observation of people interacting with alternate thought processes) is that field functions tend to "eat" their corresponding object brother...and what I mean by that is,

    You can have an Se valuing person who isn't that great (ie, uncontrolled, spontaneous, shakey, not ego function) at imposing Se boundaries natively, but still loves it (ie, a Beta NF)...and you can have an Si ego person who wields Si inherantly...and that what happens in their interaction, is that whenever the Beta NF strikes out on a mission or has a whim for Se (temperaments will play a role in how the energy to do so is exerted), the Si ego's Si will "eat" their (the Beta NF's) effort so to speak...because because you can contain objects within a field...and the interaction won't fit together for either person, but the Beta NF will feel frustrated because their effort to impose Se (which would lead to regulating the chaotic Ni) will simply be relativized into the Si-er's corresponding chaotic externality. It would be frustrating for the Beta NF because their static boundaries become nothing more than objects that fit into Si's constantly changing field connections.

    I've heard Ne being referred to as "random", but in my mind it isn't random...given the accuracy, speed, and depth with which an Ne ego navigates through a ton of internal objects, ideas, and picks anchors to govern the unfolding of Si..you could refer back to the thread in which Sappho asks for opinions on her type...I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin
    My opinion from watching your videos is that Ne is evident in the way you speak. An largely internal process that involves considering and eliminating potential map, sea, universe of nodes in a matter of milliseconds. Rapid fire. Boom boom boom.
    and then also what Riddy has mentioned about Ne:

    Quote Originally Posted by Riddy
    I can certainly see how Se/Ni types would see Ne as being more "methodical," and there certainly is an element of that in the way we think. However, it doesn't feel methodical at all to me. From the Ni perspective, Ne has to go down the nodes of a possibility tree, but from the perspective of an Ne individual, this happens so fast that it seldoms seems obligatory or burdensome. I really "feel out" the significance of different nodes more than judge them. It feels like I consider all these different things at once and can mix and mash them at will.
    So, you can kind of contrast the way an Se-er goes about navigating the external boundaries optimally, Ne-ers do this also, but internally. (Ne-ers are such internal baddasses ) So perhaps the reason people get the impression that Se-ers are more visibly "forceful" is because of the nature of internality vs externality...the Ne process is just not going to be as apparent...and I can see how Si sort of is a "boundary", due to it's external nature, (just a more connected one than Se)...but somehow to me the nature of Ne signals that it is in itself a sort of boundary...like an anchor, or the root of a tree...and I think that Ni in it's chaotic festering unintentionally violates Ne's solidariness by "eating" it, too...the Ne anchor becomes nothing more than a relative internal point, quality, or object, in a sea of Ni...and you can see how this would play out in an interaction...what comes to mind is an Si Ej trying forcefully to impose some Ne in their internal state which in turn regulates the Si externality very methodically...and might end up regulating others...and the Ni Ip goes "psh" and floats away...and you can see the point of view for each person, right? The Ni Ip is operating from a different thought organization system, and might not appreciate being regulated continually...but in the Ej's point of view they may be a leech, someone who floats along passively, someone who gets out of responsibility for their actions due to a very relative, chaotic internal vision...and even such a passive person may intrude on others by having the Ip nature bleed with little boundaries (inconsistant employment of Se)...and anyway, you get the point, but it's like, those aren't really because there are so many points of view and situations and contexts to navigate with these base definitions that I feel unconfident esposing specific "real life" examples, which makes it hard to respond to that when people request it, but I tried, so please don't hate

    So I think both Se/Ni and Si/Ne can feel violated by trespassing of their respective boundaries..and that a seemingly otherwise laid back Si valuing person can go batshit when someone treads on that...in addition, Bale, being an Ti valuer as well, would seemingly have a rather rigid (consistant) outlay for how these principles apply and when and where..it reminds me of Gilly's way of justifying Bale in this thread...he seems to me to be referencing the fundemental connections of the principles of why Bale would do such a thing..."priorities of on set behavior"...to me that referenced, Bale's inner static, rather rigid perception of what the principles of onset behavior should be...(Ne + Ti)...having someone tell him to "calm down", relativizes the behavior into a wider context, making it fluid...I've seen Beta NFs react to a Si-ers imposition of some static Ne principle by seemingly tying it together with their Ni...added to that is the fact that a Beta NF will also have their Fe, assessing the dynamics and kind of filling the internal situation subjectively as they see fit...so the Si-er reacting to the inner Ne breach will be relativized into this chaotic, overarching Ni state, and perhaps flouted or manipulated as "unreasonable" or "throwing a tantrum" or told a "calm down" to undermine the Ne-er, making their case for the breached Ne boundary meaningless...and also, not trying to stereotype, but I've also see Si-ers tell some Se valuing person to "relax" about their imposition of Se...and it's not just that behavior you see, but rather how the field function effectively "eats" the object function...I haven't examined the judging functions for validity with this concept so right now I'm limiting it to Ne/Si and Se/Ni pending further investigation...

    But basically I'll try to condense my point into, Bale's "tantrum" can be seen as maybe a repeated offense that seemed little but built up...due to his perception of external Si process...it has a way of building on itself so to speak, due to the field dynamic nature...but that doesn't mean he necessarily expressed his perception, instead perhaps giving a person leeway to see if they changed the offensive behavior..but eventually it could build up and really tamper with the Ne anchor of perception, leading to him reasserting his (not always explicit) boundaries seemingly violently, which may have to do with his internal state, so it's not reasonable imo, taking the internal state of a person into account, to simply say "He was a little bitch and this is unacceptable"...because a person's reactions are largely determined by their inner and outer perceptions and reactions to an environment OVER TIME...so I can see why he'd be seen as a lunatic by some, but I can also see how his reaction is justified...I've seen Ne/Si valuing people get very paranoid and rigid around Ni/Se'ers...because the Ni/Se, being themselves, will make the Ne/Se'er's internal anchors arbitrary...it won't lead to the corresponding Si process which protects and regulates the Ne principle...I mean how would you feel if the things that needed to be very static and clear for you were constantly put in flux by someone else...it's a very messy feeling and can lead to neurotic policing of your internal and external environment...of course there is an alternate viewpoint by the Ni/Se person so this isn't a criticism of them, etc. But yeah, it seems to me that Se leading people would be more consistant about the external boundaries being regulated...leading to NOT a "tantrum" or "aggression", but rather someone that appears less overtly aggressive because the outward display of disparity is already established, given the nature of Se as an external function. A display of Ne may seem very arbitrary given it's internal nature especially if the corresponding Si process isn't there to support it. so Bale's reaction, in my opinion, is due to his sporadic application of Si (which may be a charisteristic of ENxps in general) that is, he likes it but is not able to apply it in the natively consistant way of an Si ego Ip....and also, I think that his aggressive reaction may actually be protecting the Si process that he goes towards.

    I hope this makes sense, cause I'm going crosseyed rereading it..

  37. #237
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,134
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin
    So I think both Se/Ni and Si/Ne can feel violated by trespassing of their respective boundaries..and that a seemingly otherwise laid back Si valuing person can go batshit when someone treads on that...
    Yes this is true. An angry outburst is often the result of constriction on the main function.
    I never realized how many idiots there were until I logged on to the Internet. -- Edsger Dijkstra, Dutch Computer Scientist and pioneer in network communication (possibly apocryphal)

  38. #238
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,871
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin View Post
    at Gilly bolstering his point by reusing "resting state" as an actual quality Bale wanted in the situation.
    Yes, this was the issue. It's one thing to come up with your own definition and interpret the situation through it; it's another to make an ad-hoc hypothesis off of another person's definition, without fully examining its meaning, in order to avoid directly propounding an argument.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  39. #239
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Ok? Didn't I say that correlating the temper tantrum to Se was faulty, like, three pages back? What's your point.
    You're missing the point. I'm saying that an Se type could easily get just as out of control as Bale; most likely not for the same reasons, but saying that Se types never through immature temper tantrums is kind of laughable.

    I'm saying that explaining reasoning doesn't excuse a dogmatic delivery.
    So you don't know whether or not you're being dogmatic?

    I realize that's not all you were saying. My point was that, you shouldn't deduce that I'm limiting Se to some dumbed down criteria because I said aggression ≠ Se.
    Straw man again? That's not at all the reason I provided.


    Because it would solidify your own self-typing.
    How could it solidify anything when I don't even HAVE a self-typing any more? All it would do is make me equally confused about the OTHER person's type.

    My point is: if you're looking at the same thing, constantly referencing some explicit set of criteria is redundant; and things like "vibes" can be communicated with ready understanding, because of the mutually-understood context.
    That's basically what I said.

    Uh, ok? This seems redundant, as my confidence in this ability to winnow socionics was long ago solidified. I guess presumptions are always nice for making impressions seem substantive.
    I'm just saying, pull up your anchor. You don't need it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  40. #240
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,755
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Yes, this was the issue. It's one thing to come up with your own definition and interpret the situation through it; it's another to make an ad-hoc hypothesis off of another person's definition, without fully examining its meaning, in order to avoid directly propounding an argument.
    I proffered an argument of my own; I just used that as an ironic ad-on.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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