How to obtain a :Te: valuer

[consentingadult]

I didn't say that you never back up your claims, rather that you have yet to do so in this one particular thread. I'm wholly unconcerned with your history of citing evidence to your claims, seeing as how I'm still only waiting on such evidence for this very thread.

I repeat once more: why should I back up my claims after being insulted? Do you really believe that's the way people should deal with each other? I am saying it again: all over this site there is evidence of me elaborating my statements when people asked me to in a sincere way. Asking me to back up my claims by asking two derogatory rhetorical questions and throwing me an insult is not a respectful and sincere way of dealing with other people. If you insist it is, you are out of your frigging mind.

[Absurd]

I say it is time to split this thread into a drama one where I show up and get hypnotised by another 'decoy.'

[krieger]

You are a snot nose. And a dishonest person because you applying ad hominem tactics. For example: you say that I don't backup my claims. Well, I'm not here to prove anything, especially not when I'm being insulted. I think I have a fair history on this site of backing up my claims with elaborations where most other people never went beyond making unwarranted statements. If you have been following this site, you know what I'm saying now is true. You might not have agreed to my elaborations, but that's another matter. If there have been people on this site that have made an attempt to contribute to the theoretical understanding of Socionics, I am one of them.

i think it's best for all of us if you took a little time off.

[Beautiful sky]

Tell me Maritsa, what exactly is an "initial reaction". This explanation of yours doesn't make any sense, it means nothing. Whatever the reason, it is wrong to call me a moron.

It is wrong; I agree with you completely. But, someone who had no ability to receive and filter information and then to react will call you something mean right off and then may consider your information and it's meaning, only then will see that your response was reasonable. So, this is what he doesn't do, he doesn't listen and only puts up a barrier "if you say this (could be anything) you're a moron because you didn't do this." It's purely subjective and not meant at all to hurt hurt you in any way. It's from him not from you.

[Galen]

I repeat once more: why should I back up my claims after being insulted? Do you really believe that's the way people should deal with each other? I am saying it again: all over this site there is evidence of me elaborating my statements when people asked me to in a sincere way. Asking me to back up my claims by asking two derogatory rhetorical questions and throwing me an insult is not a respectful and sincere way of dealing with other people. If you insist it is, you are out of your frigging mind.

Looks like I'm gonna have to do your arguing for you:

All you have done is spout off banal brain fabrications about how groups of people (don't at all) operate, the meanings and implications of said comments being so outlandishly absurd that respect for their potential veracity isn't even an viable option given how much time I'd have to waste digging through waves of unjustified and poorly supported claims about a topic you seem to have a very poor practical understanding of.

[InvisibleJim]

Yeah, Te ego blocks. So money hungry.

[Absurd]

[InvisibleJim]

Om nom nom.

[Raver]

@consentingadult

Imo, you've fallen into the IEE trap of getting too caught up on a generalization that makes sense to you intuitively, but is difficult to explain rationally. I've done this myself enough times and it's a silly trap to get into. Regardless if its true or not, it's pointless to argue because it's almost impossible to prove since it's based on an imagined theoretical framework. I recommend you let it go for these reasons, but in the end it's up to you.

[consentingadult]

@consentingadult

Imo, you've fallen into the IEE trap of getting too caught up on a generalization that makes sense to you intuitively, but is difficult to explain rationally. I've done this myself enough times and it's a silly trap to get into. Regardless if its true or not, it's pointless to argue because it's almost impossible to prove since it's based on an imagined theoretical framework. I recommend you let it go for these reasons, but in the end it's up to you.

I can see your point, and to some extent it is true, because after all, Socionics is not a positivistic science (if it is a science at all). That being said, I do think about these things, read sources, try to put things together and come up with a construction of my own insights. Sometimes it is difficult to elaborate these insights on a website such as this one for various reasons (such as time constraints), but to me it's not so much a problem to explain it rationally (my blog serves as an example). I respect the fact that people disagree, and don't make much of it if they think my understanding is wrong or stereotyped, that's not the issue. But a line is crossed when people become too personal and start calling each other names.

After all, we are here to discuss Socionics. If there is nothing to 'prove', if there are no cases to be made, what the use of having this site?

Just my two cents.

[consentingadult]

It is wrong; I agree with you completely. But, someone who had no ability to receive and filter information and then to react will call you something mean right off and then may consider your information and it's meaning, only then will see that your response was reasonable. So, this is what he doesn't do, he doesn't listen and only puts up a barrier "if you say this (could be anything) you're a moron because you didn't do this." It's purely subjective and not meant at all to hurt hurt you in any way. It's from him not from you.

How do you know it was not meant personal or and not meant to hurt?

[Raver]

I can see your point, and to some extent it is true, because after all, Socionics is not a positivistic science (if it is a science at all). That being said, I do think about these things, read sources, try to put things together and come up with a construction of my own insights. Sometimes it is difficult to elaborate these insights on a website such as this one for various reasons (such as time constraints), but to me it's not so much a problem to explain it rationally (my blog serves as an example). I respect the fact that people disagree, and don't make much of it if they think my understanding is wrong or stereotyped, that's not the issue. But a line is crossed when people become too personal and start calling each other names.

After all, we are here to discuss Socionics. If there is nothing to 'prove', if there are no cases to be made, what the use of having this site?

Just my two cents.

I see your point, but in forums people tend to have lower inhibitions so one will need a thick skin when making threads or posts and try not to take anything personally. You said it yourself, they are ad hominen attacks and hold no weight over your argument so you should try to not let them affect you. I think why people are upset over your comments is that they're politically incorrect and you didn't provide any evidence. Of course, the evidence is your own personal observations that you have witnessed over time and that can't be demonstrated to anyone on the forum so there's not much that can be done to prove it unfortunately.

[Beautiful sky]

How do you know it was not meant personal or and not meant to hurt?

Because he's like my father and my dad goes through periods of outbursts that seem irrational (hence irrational) and he gets over them.

[consentingadult]

Because he's like my father and my dad goes through periods of outbursts that seem irrational (hence irrational) and he gets over them.

I'm sorry, but I think that's an example of unwarranted transference. But whatever the reason, I do not tolerate such actions against me.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm sorry, but I think that's an example of unwarranted transference. But whatever the reason, I do not tolerate such actions against me.

Yeah, kind of like misguided anger. But there's no use in fighting windmills right?

[Beautiful sky]

Anyway, I want to be wealthy so that I can provide for people I love. And, find the time and energy to find a cause in the world I can support.

[consentingadult]

Yeah, kind of like misguided anger. But there's no use in fighting windmills right?

That's nonsense. He called me a moron. That's a fact, not a windmill.

[Beautiful sky]

That's nonsense. He called me a moron. That's a fact, not a windmill.

He's the windmill

[consentingadult]

He's the windmill

I'd say he's sometjing else, but I'm keeping that to myself.

[jet city woman]

i think it's best for all of us if you took a little time off.

Why? Because being insulted is the proper way to deal with things, and it's his fault for disliking that method?

[Beautiful sky]

Why? Because being insulted is the proper way to deal with things, and it's his fault for disliking that method?

Best POST EVER
@leckysupport

please refer to the above.

[ashlesha]

uh oh lecky.

[Beautiful sky]

uh oh lecky.

Yeah, he thinks he can slide one past me, he can, but eventually it's not gonna be very nice.

[krieger]

Why? Because being insulted is the proper way to deal with things, and it's his fault for disliking that method?

there are better forms than incoherent hysteria in which to respond to being called out on abject insolence.

[Beautiful sky]

there are better forms than incoherent hysteria in which to respond to being called out on one's insolence.

That's not hysteria; I have an ESE sister. She's hysteria.

[Finale]

there are better forms than incoherent hysteria in which to respond to being called out on abject insolence.

Jung, as well as Socionics (.. or MBTI and even Enneagrams) ultimately are forms of theoretical generalization. They theorize that certain personality components lead to a high likeliness of a particular behavior, method or relationship type, etc .etc.

It is not abject insolence if someone simply proposes an alternative theoretical generalization, such as consentingadult has here. It only becomes such when someone takes it personally, which it appears is what happened here.

It's consentingadult's choice to decide not to engage in debate on his theory if he's obviously going against bias from people taking his theory personally. I'd tend to agree that it's a futile effort in such a situation.

Not saying I agree with the alternative theory or generalizations, just that alternative theories seem to get this treatment on this forum because someone ALWAYS gets butthurt, then insults are hurled, and eventually cliques start to form two sides, etc. etc. Such an environment is hostile to discussion, debate or intellectual growth/pursuit of topics.

[jet city woman]

Jung, as well as Socionics (.. or MBTI and even Enneagrams) ultimately are forms of theoretical generalization. They theorize that certain personality components lead to a high likeliness of a particular behavior, method or relationship type, etc .etc.

It is not abject insolence if someone simply proposes an alternative theoretical generalization, such as consentingadult has here. It only becomes such when someone takes it personally, which it appears is what happened here.

It's consentingadult's choice to decide not to engage in debate on his theory if he's obviously going against bias from people taking his theory personally. I'd tend to agree that it's a futile effort in such a situation.

Not saying I agree with the alternative theory or generalizations, just that alternative theories seem to get this treatment on this forum because someone ALWAYS gets butthurt, then insults are hurled, and eventually cliques start to form two sides, etc. etc. Such an environment is hostile to discussion, debate or intellectual growth/pursuit of topics.

BEST POST EVER. I figured INTj would be understanding of the same. (Although I've seen you guys argue like fuck with one another!)

[jet city woman]

love for material possessions is part of Se.

I would say that from what I've experienced or observed, this is true for some (possibly most) Ses (dom or sec, at least), since I really can't think of one offhand that doesn't enjoy having and acquiring material possessions. It's actually linked to some descriptions of ESTPs, and some resources I've read claim all S-types are "big consumers" in general. And how do people become "big consumers"? Generally by obtaining money, in one form or another. I have examples of what I consider large amounts of primarily S-types (probably around 300 or so) focusing primarily on "BUY BUY BUY". "What is the next big thing and I've got to go out and get it to keep up with the Jones'es." Of course, I had to get the hell out of there ASAP lol...... I love shopping and acquiring material possessions, but I don't want to be involved with groups who primarily focus on it, and not a whole lot ELSE. Of course, then again, I'm mostly a free agent who doesn't like or even understand group mentalities. I consider them followers for the most part, if they are distinctly following one another around like they are attached to the hip, and if they trust one another enough to go along with an idea even if they don't really know much about it. I won't even do that with my S.O. Lol, I've got to make a judgment on someone for myself, from a long-term perspective. If he tells me a guy tried to rape a girl, that's one thing, but it has to be pretty damn scary for me to be cautious enough to not even care to check it out for myself. I also can't stand hearsay. I will listen and consider it a possibility, depending on who is saying it, but unless I've seen it happen and know the background of an individual and the case, I'm not going to care. I draw my own judgments, period. Well, now that I've veered off the subject........

[FoxOnStilts]

Which Alphas usually are not...

;;

[InvisibleJim]

@FoxOnStilts have you considered trading in your Ti valuing ego-block for a slim, efficient and more profitable Te valuing ego model? Perhaps Galen's Personality Warehouse can do a special price for you?

[717495]

I read this thread and I laughed so much. That's what you do when something is funny, you laugh. I did that. Many times. You just weren't listening.

[jet city woman]

I read this thread and I laughed so much. That's what you do when something is funny, you laugh. I did that. Many times. You just weren't listening.

I was listening. Schizophrenics can hear you.

[Beautiful sky]

People are supposed to love each other because the opposite person brings out the qualities within them that they find hard to deal with or express; these are complimentary traits, and supplementary traits, not because of the price tag on their head.

When you feel this work within you, you begin to recognize the person's soul and when that happens you come to love that person. You love their soul.

For me it works from within me first; I'm sure others approach it differently, but the gist is that money isn't everything.

[InvisibleJim]

Maritsa Darmandzhyan socionics love police; ensuring everyone is loving the way she specifies or else. Never has a person been more open minded; or more successful in using socionics to find a partner.

[krieger]

Jung, as well as Socionics (.. or MBTI and even Enneagrams) ultimately are forms of theoretical generalization. They theorize that certain personality components lead to a high likeliness of a particular behavior, method or relationship type, etc .etc.

It is not abject insolence if someone simply proposes an alternative theoretical generalization, such as consentingadult has here. It only becomes such when someone takes it personally, which it appears is what happened here.

It's consentingadult's choice to decide not to engage in debate on his theory if he's obviously going against bias from people taking his theory personally. I'd tend to agree that it's a futile effort in such a situation.

Not saying I agree with the alternative theory or generalizations, just that alternative theories seem to get this treatment on this forum because someone ALWAYS gets butthurt, then insults are hurled, and eventually cliques start to form two sides, etc. etc. Such an environment is hostile to discussion, debate or intellectual growth/pursuit of topics.

flat eartherism is just alternative theorization. doesn't make it right.

[consentingadult]

I would say that from what I've experienced or observed, this is true for some (possibly most) Ses (dom or sec, at least), since I really can't think of one offhand that doesn't enjoy having and acquiring material possessions. It's actually linked to some descriptions of ESTPs, and some resources I've read claim all S-types are "big consumers" in general. And how do people become "big consumers"? Generally by obtaining money, in one form or another. I have examples of what I consider large amounts of primarily S-types (probably around 300 or so) focusing primarily on "BUY BUY BUY". "What is the next big thing and I've got to go out and get it to keep up with the Jones'es." Of course, I had to get the hell out of there ASAP lol...... I love shopping and acquiring material possessions, but I don't want to be involved with groups who primarily focus on it, and not a whole lot ELSE. Of course, then again, I'm mostly a free agent who doesn't like or even understand group mentalities. I consider them followers for the most part, if they are distinctly following one another around like they are attached to the hip, and if they trust one another enough to go along with an idea even if they don't really know much about it. I won't even do that with my S.O. Lol, I've got to make a judgment on someone for myself, from a long-term perspective. If he tells me a guy tried to rape a girl, that's one thing, but it has to be pretty damn scary for me to be cautious enough to not even care to check it out for myself. I also can't stand hearsay. I will listen and consider it a possibility, depending on who is saying it, but unless I've seen it happen and know the background of an individual and the case, I'm not going to care. I draw my own judgments, period. Well, now that I've veered off the subject........

Well, in a non-socionics sense every individual has a need for material possessions, and thus, money. The questions is: how much energy are you willing to put into the acquisition of money, and beyond that, material wealth?

Let me take, as an example, my SEI GF, which imho has this attitude of consumerism that you are writing about. Now before I start of, let me state that this single observation is not necessarily evidence for a general pattern amongst SEIs (or Alphas in general), but my gut feeling does tell me we should be looking in that direction.

My GF has this "convenience oriented" attitude, as described by Dutch research company Motivaction. She likes to buy things: shoes, boots, gadgets, stuff for making clothes or paintings etc. Most of these things are comfort-producing (also in the Socionics sense), but that is not so much the point. What is important, is the question: is she willing to make sacrifices in order to get money so she can satisfy this need to buy things and create comfort for herself? I think it is not. She has a decent job which allows her to buy nice things, but if she had a job that paid less, she would not be inclined to work hard in order to make more money, so she can buy more. She will find another way of creating the comfort she needs and staying within budget. She will not, for example, go back to school or college to master new knowledge or skills, defer instant gratification for a while so in the end she can find a better paying job. And I hypothesize this is true for Alphas in general, even LIIs and ILEs. To have fun and a interesting, pleasurable live (whatever it is composed of) is their first priority. Even when working on something as spectacular as a Large Hadron Collider, ILEs and LIIs are not so much into it for the long term rewards, but for the 'excitement' of the process of getting there.

Such attitude is completely opposed to that of the Gamma quadra. If there is a quadra that can sacrifice the need for short term gratification in order to arrive at larger, long term goals, it's the Gamma quadra.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa Darmandzhyan socionics love police; ensuring everyone is loving the way she specifies or else. Never has a person been more open minded; or more successful in using socionics to find a partner.

oh WOW you spelled my name right

No I don't make people love the way I do, this is just conveying my ideal.

[consentingadult]

Jung, as well as Socionics (.. or MBTI and even Enneagrams) ultimately are forms of theoretical generalization. They theorize that certain personality components lead to a high likeliness of a particular behavior, method or relationship type, etc .etc.

It is not abject insolence if someone simply proposes an alternative theoretical generalization, such as consentingadult has here. It only becomes such when someone takes it personally, which it appears is what happened here.

It's consentingadult's choice to decide not to engage in debate on his theory if he's obviously going against bias from people taking his theory personally. I'd tend to agree that it's a futile effort in such a situation.

Not saying I agree with the alternative theory or generalizations, just that alternative theories seem to get this treatment on this forum because someone ALWAYS gets butthurt, then insults are hurled, and eventually cliques start to form two sides, etc. etc. Such an environment is hostile to discussion, debate or intellectual growth/pursuit of topics.

This is the best observation so far of the social dynamics going on between me and Galen, i.e. that his behavior has no other purpose than to make me toe the line of socially accepted conceptions of Socionics and more generally, the function of this forum as a way of socializing instead of intellectual exchange, or else to make me get the fuck out of here.

[consentingadult]

flat eartherism is just alternative theorization. doesn't make it right.

You have a right to that opinion, shallow and self-serving as I may find it. But calling someone a moron is one step beyond having such an opinion. I have opinions as well about other people on this forum that when voiced would be no less than purposeful insults. But because it doesn't get us anywhere, I generally keep these value judgements to myself.

[InvisibleJim]

Galenogram revisited.