Typing

[Sisyphean]

Lol sp-last chaos... Looks like you do have strong Si if you don't actually feel stressed out by any of this bc that means you are able to deal with your bodily sensations without a problem.

I relate to some of this btw but I'm not like this THIS much. Maybe I'm sx/sp over sx/so after all...

lmao You may just be better at being an adult than I am. If that explains it, then awesome, because so many of the strong-Si type descriptions I saw sound all orderly, and then I look at the mess around me like "well shit..."

It's also ofc that you are a guy, so you'll be less tidy than women about some of this stuff lol.

I'm personally not housewife material either but still, a tiny bit more focused on these matters than you.

lol any amount more focused on these things than me is an improvement. I feel like if an SEI wound up married to me she'd probably turn homicidal inside of a month.

But I beat you at chaos at one point, I pack for travel the absolute last minute.

lmao you're a braver woman than I. The only time I stress this kind of thing is when I start trying to remember if I'm forgetting anything I need at a client, or might be leaving in a hotel room, so I end up going over it all like 3-4 times and still end up forgetting something in the hotel 25% of the time.

And I can sleep on the floor just fine too yeah, or in broad daylight etc. I attribute that to good Si in my case because I just know how to adjust my body with the circumstances + the circumstances too ofc if needed.

So that's what strong unconscious Si without primary SP looks like lol. I had been associating it with really having your shit together and making all of your spaces homey and comfy as they can be.

Well that's an option too but I prefer to stick to more realistic scenarios lol

Psh, "realistic." Have fun with that while I'm gonna be killing the other team in Martian resource wars, sucker

The definition of progress is another long and deep topic.

Yeah, fighting, it's animating and whatnot, and I think we deeply agree on that part again lol, but I prefer it to have a truly good point if it's really about giving a lot for something, such as my life, and it should be the best solution as well. If it's just about finding a way to fight, I can see other ways to do that than doing it in war.

I can see that, absolutely, and I don't really disagree lol. I might just have a smaller scope in what I require for "a truly good point." "For my people" has always been enough of a truly good point for me. I wouldn't endorse fighting/war for its own sake, but even the shittiest wars yield some of the most inspiring expressions or demonstrations of φιλία and passion.

America in revolution, that was an interesting image for sure. Is it really that close to being that?

In a Schmitt-ian sense, yes, unfortunately. When people start acting on it, I don't know, because it's been sitting at a low boil for about 8 years, now. 2024 will be an interesting year because that's Trump's term limit hits, and the Left has been getting extremely rabidly racialized and illiberal in their desires. The ability for dissent to subsist is no longer acceptable to them, and they're getting more violent about it.

Yeah I was asking rhetorical questions Your commitment orientation is very Ni HA btw in the way you put it, idk why you didn't relate to the descriptions

Oh cool lol that was an aspect that hadn't occurred to me. I definitely did relate to it, but I also related to the description of suggestive Ni from your link so I was on the fence. I'll chalk that up to being hard to make finer distinctions between things you're bad at. My concept of Ni was focused on explicit consistency and the "time" orientation that keeps coming up in other descriptions

Anyway yes I find commitment impressive too like that. I just do not want it to go over the other extreme with it becoming a brainwashing issue when the goal is not actually all that good or sensible or even worse than that.

So for example for the example of the Brazilians, yeah, you can give a good statement by that kind of commitment, but I can't say I would necessarily prioritize making that statement over other goals if I have them in life, it depends if the other goals I find even better. (And yes they can still be goals for other people too, so it's not simply about being 100% self-centred, not at all.)

Yeah absolutely. A unity of a good cause and total commitment would be the ideal without a doubt.

The last link of yours there, yeah, I was gonna call it a touchy-feely link lol, so anyway sure that's a valid thing too. But do it in a way that it really ends up at the best possible results (i.e. best of all implementable ones) overall.

lol yup I agree again with only a slight alteration, I'm okay with "good enough" results =P. I think our biggest difference is really just on where that line is drawn and maybe a bit of an aesthetic difference. You're much more sensible and pragmatic about this question where I'm very much a romantic about it .

Lol I didn't really think about the type, just that bit seemed like it. I read the texts you posted here, I think all I can say is just that the writer is definitely a Ti/Fe type and yeah could be "EIE seeking tone" or "Fe seeking tone". If it really was about elaborating on fundamental principles, that's either Ti or Ni but it does sound more Ti than anything.

Yeah I only know his writings as a philosopher (nothing personal or candid) so I doubt I could say more than that he's a Beta and maybe ST. I just know that most of his conclusions I came to on my own, independently, in less thorough and clear language. Eventually I read some of his stuff and my reaction was "oh my God. I'm home!" lol

I don't think it'd ever get too "uncomfortable or intolerable" for me lol

Challenge accepted lol

It's actually weird with Socionics

I only find it an acceptable framework for myself if I integrate it with some other contexts of systems but then yeah it seems to really offer things in terms of what its model is about that I have not seen anywhere else and that says a lot because I majored in cognitive psychology so I do have a background somewhat in other psychology theories.

Nice, you probably have some pretty good criticisms as well beyond some of the peripheral speculative stuff. The intertype relation stuff strikes me as the most interesting (go figure, if sx/so), since it's more applicable and experiential than anything in MBTI which is basically just "Okay, you're an INFP. I guess you like to do magic mushrooms, walk around barefoot, and skip shaving your armpits" or "you're an INTJ, so you're a wannabe James Bond villain with short-man syndrome."

Lol again that's so familiar to me, about the wandering part. Uhm, I was never strongly part of any "cliques", but otherwise yeah, nothing really made sense beyond a point. (I also didn't worry about constrictions or burdens but that's beside the point, just being precise here lol.)

Hey be as precise as you like lol it's cool that someone else can relate to a good about of this stuff for once

Yeah, since we are in your type thread, I'll say that that pretty much excludes N types (as for the LIE suggestion you asked about).

Which is hysterical because for basically any MBTI forum "smart" default just means "NT" lmao and of course "deep" means "NF"