I'm suprised that so many people on this website use visual identification as a typing method. it's a very dubious approach in my opinion.
I'm suprised that so many people on this website use visual identification as a typing method. it's a very dubious approach in my opinion.
I would have to agree. I usually just do it for fun. I find VI often differs quite a lot from the actual type.Originally Posted by soundofconfusion
How does he deceive them? He offers advice, people can take it or leave it, it is their choice. He sells books that have value to the men and women who buy them. If someone doesn't like him or what he has to say then they don't buy his books, pretty simple. The same goes with his other capitalistic opportunities, nobody is pressured to do any of it, they go on their own volition.
It looks like you haven't really delved into anything he wrote or says and you are just looking at the surface level of his interviews.
Take him with a grain of salt by all means, but don't throw the baby out of the bathwater because he said a few things you disagreed with.
Fyi, I was exaggerating when I called Belle Delphine a grifter. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a respectable businessperson and 10 is a grifter, I would say she is a 6 and Jordan Peterson is a 4. She is an opportunist that is seeking to make money off of her body.
Basically being a whore without actually having sex. If she wants to do that, it is in her right to do so, but I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Jordan is a capitalist and an opportunist as well just like her, but it is less blatant and overt unlike Belle who uses her body and looks for the maximum amount of profit possible.
Let's not forget the subjective aspect of this, Belle looks more of an opportunist and deceiver to me and Jordan less, while the opposite is true for you because you like Belle more and I like Jordan more. Which is fine, it is a part of human nature to be blinded by bias at times, but let's not pretend that any of us are immune to that.
I don't use VI personally because I know I am not anywhere near good at it, but I think it has some limited use. However, the issue is that it requires a high level of expertise because it requires a lot of practice to get good at it and it is easy use it incorrectly, which a lot of people do. Unfortunately, they are unaware of their incompetence and incorrectly VI a lot of people.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
the problem I see with it is that it's not a researched field. there are obviously patterns that should be analysed more, but there can also be exceptions. V. I. can give you a hint on what a person's type might be, but you should mostly focus on observing the cognitive functions that someone uses.
saying that she V.I.'s as SEI is really not an argument, and as a reader I can't really judge the subjective patterns that the person observed. I can however judge if someone's explanation of functional behaviour makes sense or not.
No matter what you think of Belle Delphine, this is pretty hilarious:
Yes, which is why I don't use VI at all for typing people and rely on other methods. If someone wants to use VI then that's perfectly fine if they are competent at it, which is only really a handful of people in this forum tbh.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
another thing that is imo important to consider is that a subtype seems to also play a huge role in someones appearance. Ekaterina Filatova mentioned this when she was collecting photos of types. with 7,7 billion people on this planet, it's hard to say how many subtypes even exist. Gulenko's DCNH system is the best system we have right now (imo) and it only differentiates 4 subtypes. there a just too many aspects that haven't been researched yet to make V.I. a valid way of typing.
That's true. Personally, I put more stock into the two subtype system more than DCNH, but DCNH is still interesting regardless. Also, I think trying to VI her when she has a ton of makeup on to give her a specific look would probably skew her type a bit. This video might come in handy for that reason:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Sure - but so is determining any phenotypical result. It never actually reveals the source.
Yes, all of these people who have the time on their hands to post in some dark web corner peoplewatching forum, can't be expected to be using dubious approaches in life at any time.
like I said, I haven't really analysed her that much. I remember watching an H3H3 video recently where she send Ethan a jar full of her own spit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQscyzNOBNY
I thought that her behaviour could be linked to Si as vulnerable or surpressed ignoring function, which is linked to sexuality, meaning that types with weak Si (LIE, EIE, SEE and SLE) often display their sexuality openly, or are even prone to perversion, or they have an unhealthy or unorthodox approach to sexuality. I think it applies to belle delphine. from my own observation and various socionics sources it seems that SEE is the type that is most inclined to prostitution, but belle delphine seems to also be a rather strategic and creative person, making me lean more towards EIE (who have Ne as 4 dimensional function). just my 2 cents.
A) You don't know many SEIs if you think they aren't strategic and creative. They also have higher valued Ti than EIEs, which has more to do with strategy than Ne -- and, anyway, EIEs' Ne is unvalued, meaning it's something they avoid using.
B) The matter of whether S is connected to sexuality aside, her sexuality is not 'open' in the way you describe. Her entire sexuality is about an impression as an innocent child. She tailors her clothing -- which is less revealing and form-fitting than a typical sex worker's -- and environment to give this holistic sort of impression rather than making use of blunt sexuality and sensuousness itself. She is clearly not an Se ego.
Also consider her relaxed demeanor. She isn't naturally busy; relaxment and comfort is her natural mode of being, as is common with Si valuers (i.e. the Judicious/Decisive dichotomy). This attitude is strengthened proportionally to Si's valuation. Her entire videos, where she's in her home, she's relaxed, not stressed, and, though active, never truly busy -- sometimes doing light, pleasurable 'work', like cooking, which she probably enjoys a great deal. Compare an SEE's attitude toward getting stuff done.
I mostly agree with what you say here and EIE.
I don't think Si valuing would be into disgusting shit like this. In this video she spits, drinks it again, and spits it back out. That's exactly Si polr. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQscyzNOBNY
Her business capacity and weirdness are possibly Te role and Ne demonstrative. I'm gonna go with EIE, followed by ESI.
I know 3 women who have been prostitutes. 1 EIE, 1 ILE, 1 ESI.
Last edited by sbbds; 08-03-2019 at 12:35 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote