For me, as someone Fe-valuing, the 'laughing gas' is turned on like crazy on the inside: almost any joke - really anything funny - makes me laugh. I can't help but wonder if it bothers Fi-valuing types. Anyone else have this or notice this?
Fe-Valuing: Anyone Else Notice This?
For me, as someone Fe-valuing, the 'laughing gas' is turned on like crazy on the inside: almost any joke - really anything funny - makes me laugh. I can't help but wonder if it bothers Fi-valuing types. Anyone else have this or notice this?
I'm a laughing maniac too.
Lol
Sometimes Fe-egos laugh even when my jokes are stupid so I don't feel bad about myself. Thanks, Fe-types.
that seems like much more of an Alpha SF thing. My mother's an ESE and laughs at every joke other people make in conversation, and last year I had an ESE girl in one of my classes who would laugh at almost everything. It's rather annoying to me.Originally Posted by jason_m
As an EIE, most of the time I'll give a small "polite laugh" or smile and exhale out of my nose a bit. Actual laughing is relatively infrequent for me.
I grew up hearing about the benefit of laughter, how wonderful it is for health, how people who don't laugh a million times a day are sorry hallow husks of human shells. I grew the habbit of laughing a lot, making stupid jokes I find useless waste of breath which made me feel dead inside, what a joke. I hate laughing, still better to play along around certain people.
I remember having a one hour class of therapy laughter in primary school. Horrifying.
Laughing out loud is a cultural thing around here, or at least it seems like it to me.
As someone who has been ordered to laugh before, yes.
I don't have to. I'm already a maniac. Or am I?
Yep.maniac
- n.
A psychotic or otherwise mentally ill person who exhibits violent or bizarre behavior. Not used in psychiatric diagnosis.- n.
A person who has an excessive enthusiasm or desire for something.- n.
A person who acts in a wildly irresponsible way.
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
If this is a thing, I guess I haven't noticed enough for it to bother me. It seems like a luxurious thing to get in a twist over?
I rarely laugh but I love the feeling of being inspired to laugh a lot, which happens maybe a couple times a year.
one of IEE I know liked to laugh loud. liked to remember humour situations from the life
Yes, it is not so easy to turn on the laughing gas but when it is turned on, it stays turned on. I am not sure if it is solely about Fe. I know some delta STs who have this similar trait. So I think it is not about Fe valuing, maybe it is about low Fe or Fx.
I think when people genuinely start to laugh, they keep on laughing. I think that's why there are funny video compilations, even if you don't laugh for a while, after watching the video for a while, you start to laugh and then keep on laughing, not because those parts are more funny but because the laughing gas is turned on. I think it is a human trait. However, strong F types may have better control over the button of their laughing gas.
Yet again, ofcourse some types can find their laughing gas turned on more frequently than others and/or some types would be more willingly to turn it on.
Oh, I do laugh at every joke. But that's because I'm lucky enough to find them all funny. Fake laughter? I wish I could sometimes. Just to cover someone up like Bento said..
Perhaps it's not actually type related. I can see how Alphas and Deltas can laugh more often but I'm not sure exactly what exactly might cause that, other than both quadras coming off as "happier" in a vague sense.
I am easily amused - I can find humor in almost anything.
I'm often criticized for having a dead pan face, SEEs especially criticize me for not laughing when they make idiotic jokes "oh! you could smile once in your lifetime!" no, fuck u
Probably something to do with ethics and extraversion, if one HAD to make categorical observations.
Sounds more like what an ESE would do, honestly.
If they really are SEEs, then they would do the same with ESIs (which is a type I consider even more serious than EII).
ok, but no I don't think they are ESEs. I know it's weird, especially considering their duals are ILIs, but that's it. ESI instead are more at ease in social situations and can easily engage in "proper" behaviors
I did that when really young. I’d sometimes just think of a joke and laugh so hard I’d have trouble breathing. When I was 11 or so I obsessively read cracked.com and sites like it, and I thought it was the best thing in the world. I also watched comedians on Youtube a lot. I laughed to almost every sentence I read or heard.
I like to think my sense of humor is more refined now, but I’ve noticed when interacting with my girlfriend that I have a constant compulsion to make jokes and use humor, especially when she’s upset, and this is pretty difficult to consciously control — e.g. if she asks me to be serious, it feels very difficult to prevent myself from making a cheap joke (I’m not defending this behavior, just explaining it). Also, the more comofortable I feel with someone, the more impulse I have to push their buttons, so to speak: that is, I don’t mean to irritate them, but to use absurd humor that subverts expectations, because I want to see them weirded out — the impression and shudder people give when their sense of normalcy and reality is challenged. I get an enormous kick out of it.
I once, without really thinking of it, convinced my girlfriend that jackalopes were a real animal, because it made me endlessly amused to see her rewriting her view of reality to accomodate jackalopes. But it was an asshole thing to do, so I felt bad and apologized a couple days later.
Yeah, there are some people who *want* to have more fucked up darkness in their lives, and can’t appreciate that others want to relish the bits of joy and dopamine that pop up in this often otherwise disturbed, dark world... The laughter ruins their quality of life.
I've read somewhere that SEE does this ''automatic'' prodding, as to search for a dual to coax out of the shell. I think it's just Se.
^precisely
ESEs don't command people to laugh, they have no Se, SEEs just do that to establish a form of hierarchy, and even this prodding is meant to be fun for them... guess it comes natural having ILIs as duals
Actually, ESEs have strong 4D Se, similarly to how their SEE quasi-identicals have 4D Fe. And ESEs utilize Fe to regulate and modulate the mood of the environment; if you're fucking up the ambient vibes with whatever you're feeling, they'd certainly possess the wherewithal to "nudge" you in whichever direction they saw as more favorable/conducive to the overall mood.
tell me smt i dont know
"having no Se" means to not have it in the ego, nor valued. ESEs deal with Si, it forbids them to push people into wtv is the mood of the environment, else they would alienate their duals, who'd join the environment only if really interested in it, and not out of a threat (Se polr). Se push can be delivered in many ways, using it to establish a power hierarchy is not Si valuing.
Something you clearly don't know is that one's diction matters as far as being intelligible and properly understood. For example, when you say "no Se," it sounds as if you're invoking MBTI phraseology, and MBTI as a system comes with different concepts, theories and paradigms. Also, to say that Si "forbids" ESEs to "push people" is also problematic; to "forbid" means to make something/some action impossible and seeing as how theoretically there are 7 other functions that to some degree play a role in the psyche and how ESEs have 4D demonstrative Se (where 'the individual is able to be convincingly commanding, tough, challenging, or confrontational for brief periods of time without taking himself too seriously, as a sort of show or game'), obviously Se does actually play a part and serve some purpose, and so using the word "forbid" goes too far.
Lastly, in a lighthearted social situation where ESE briefly became a bit intense and confrontational, an LII would not be utterly put off because they'd more than likely be able to cognitively discern the "lack of seriousness" involved with an occasional, demonstrative "flair up" of a function that is usually not a recurring, important aspect of their duality. You aren't LII, and so flexing Se around you wouldn't be an issue. As I've mentioned to you once or twice before, in certain scenarios, benefactors can be perceived as douchebags that demonstratively do "too much" from the perspective of their beneficiaries.
So true story. I used to work with an SLE and if I was in a bad mood, he'd expect me to be act congenial and it would irritate me and I'd disengage more. I think from his perspective, I was wallowing in being depressed or something. Socionics works people. Different strokes.
🤨
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
if you knew the difference between valued and unvalued functions you'd know why forbid fits in this context.Something you clearly don't know is that one's diction matters as far as being intelligible and properly understood. For example, when you say "no Se," it sounds as if you're invoking MBTI phraseology, and MBTI as a system comes with different concepts, theories and paradigms. Also, to say that Si "forbids" ESEs to "push people" is also problematic; to "forbid" means to make something/some action impossible and seeing as how theoretically there are 7 other functions that to some degree play a role in the psyche and how ESEs have 4D demonstrative Se (where 'the individual is able to be convincingly commanding, tough, challenging, or confrontational for brief periods of time without taking himself too seriously, as a sort of show or game'), obviously Se does actually play a part and serve some purpose, and so using the word "forbid" goes too far.
Lastly, in a lighthearted social situation where ESE briefly became a bit intense and confrontational, an LII would not be utterly put off because they'd more than likely be able to cognitively discern the "lack of seriousness" involved with an occasional, demonstrative "flair up" of a function that is usually not a recurring, important aspect of their duality. You aren't LII, and so flexing Se around you wouldn't be an issue. As I've mentioned to you once or twice before, in certain scenarios, benefactors can be perceived as douchebags that demonstratively do "too much" from the perspective of their beneficiaries.
and since you wanna be anal about it, no Se doesn't manifest the same way in quasis, or they'd be identical. the role of Si is exactly there to forbid Se take the lead. yes, Se is delivered, but since Si is valued, Se doesn't play the role that it does in SEEs, which is, again, a social manifestation of power, as in " laugh at my dumb jokes goddamn"
1.) lol Ummm, no. I know the difference between valued and subdued functions; but if you knew the difference between "forbid" and more appropriate words like subdue/limit/suppress, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
2.) Nowhere did I say or imply that Se plays the same role in ESEs as it does in SEEs; I've actually gone out of my way to mention ESE's demonstrative Se usage, which usually occurs under niche, specific circumstances befitting its IE. I'm not the one here who doesn't know how to properly convey nuance.
1) they're not called subdued, they're called unvalued. forbid indicates how something can't happen because of a threshold, which is the case here.
2) which is why you agreed on the comment about how a SEE behavior was characteristic of ESEs, makes sense.
lol "standing your ground" while stringing together words that you think sound good together ≠ making a valid, cogent point.
Subdued functions are those that oppose our preferred functions and they are sometimes referred to as non-valued/unvalued functions; and so, again, you are wrong. And your usage of the word "forbid" was still inaccurate; Si limits Se's expression but in so much as ESEs are still capable of utilizing Se (and with 4D strength), then it can't be "forbidden"--clearly then, there is a Si "threshold" that can be surpassed, even if it's not a usual, customary or particularly comfortable occurrence. How do you still not understand that everyone is capable of everything? That's basic, fundamental, rudimentary shit. Again, just because you push back and say whatever nonsense, does not make it so. It's best to just shut up and not make yourself look more foolish than you already do.
oh well same thing then
obviously I meant that if you value Si, you won't use Se to convey the same amount of info of a Se valuer, Si forbids that be the case, along with all the other functions in all their nice places.
and you're saying that after you agreed on a comment about how a specific SEE behavior was instead typical of another type... aha, lol
thx for teaching me of the subdued ( to subdue: to bring under control-limit) functions:
http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...ed_and_SubduedValued and Subdued
See also Quadra valuesValued functions are essentially what make up the foundation of our socionic type (Ego functions 1 and 2), and the processes that complement that foundation (Super-id functions 5 and 6). Every person actively seeks to process information based on these functions, and warmly create a sense of connection to others who value similar functions. The more valued functions in common means the closer the general compatibility between two types. These functions are what make up the quadra values of the types.
Subdued functions are the remaining four functions that oppose our preferences; as a result we try to limit the use of these functions. The mental-subdued (weak) functions are found in the Super-ego block (functions 3 and 4), and the vital-subdued (strong) functions are in the Id block (functions 7 and 8). Since these functions are what we suppress as much as we can, in situations where we must use them they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves. Subdued functions are sometimes called non-valued although some socionists prefer not to use this name.
1.) Yup, it was the same thing and you said it wasn't, which is why you were wrong.
2.) Nah, nothing you say can be counted as "obvious"; you're not allowed the luxury of the benefit of the doubt because a lot of the shit you say does not readily make sense. My second post addressed you explicitly on the matter of diction and speaking more clearly/precisely. Had you initially included (which you did not) that bit about ESEs not using Se to "convey the same amount of info" (which is accurate) as opposed to your assertion that Si "forbids them to push people into wtv is the mood of the environment, else they would alienate their duals," (which is inaccurate), then the conversation would have taken another turn.
You still haven't grasped the notion of a qualifier, huh? Marep said that it sounds "MORE like what a ESE would do," and yes, I agreed with that. "More" ≠ "instead"; it's not a black or white, all or nothing term--it speaks to a gradient. I said nothing false or untrue > I do think that the behavior you mentioned is more typical of ESEs even though both ESEs and SEEs are capable of the behavior (i.e., "everyone is capable of everything"). Save your "ahas" for someone you can actually best.
Subdue ≠ Forbid
I didn’t say anything about trying to change others’ behaviour. I described other people coming along and acting on passive people being happy, which is the opposite of this. If you’re going out of your way to tell me this just because of my sociotype in spite of what I really said, I’ll take the wild guess to say you’re probably just a dick and deserved it.
ahh, my bad, I wasn't implying anything bad about what you said. I just wanted to relay an experience between me and an SLE and I thought it related to what you said. And think it's cool to see these connections, so maybe I was a little too zealous in responding. Really just trying to give an example of how an SLE could view me that way and how it related to my experience...
damn, maybe it's time I take a break from the forum.
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
Protip 1: Come up to people with something negative (that could relate to them) and you’re bound to get a negative response. How old are you?
Protip 2: Tell an SLE bothering you to fuck off, problem solved. We usually don’t want to be around people who don’t want to be around us.
See you later.
Okay, then fuck you.
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
But I love you : (
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
1) none calls them subdued, but wtv, just proving my point:
2) u bring up the subdued functions and don't even know what the term implies; if something is subdued something else is submitting it, basic logic 101.
Mr qualifier that can't get basic linguistic shades, Marep's post was contradicting what I said, reinforced by stating that the people I mentioned couldn't be SEE; you've then further made the same point when saying that ESEs can behave wtv way it fits the environment (wrong, because Si). so you either agreed on something which is false, or you're just making a fuss out of your own ass, as usual.
your ignorance is really of no help, so either you change your attitude, or you can fuck the hell off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote