No, I said he is either ILI or... LIE.Originally Posted by Absurd
I have already given my reasons which you have not disputed... as I have already stated.
aka. This is the last time I will respond to your mental masturbation.
No, I said he is either ILI or... LIE.
I have already given my reasons which you have not disputed... as I have already stated.
aka. This is the last time I will respond to your mental masturbation.
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 07-30-2011 at 05:49 PM.
Alright, the fact that you consider Breivik your identical is enough for me.
This is your "reason", I guess. All in all, he's yours.I have already given my reasons which you have not disputed... as I have already stated.
I'm going to deposit that it is entirely appropriate to type this individual; he isn't insane, infact clinically calculating based upon observations in his surrounding environment. On that basis he certainly has Te in his ego block.
Holy Mary,aka. This is the last time I will respond to your mental masturbation.
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.
You're way too logical for me. Gamma be with you
ISTj is my opinion.
Their beliefs are an immense pride. Extreme action is like they're admiring themselves for being true to their beliefs. "Hey look at what I did in the name of such and such."
Well then, Jim the Invisible bastard must be one of a LSI bastards or EIE. That is, Ti/Fe twat. Hey Ashton, train you soldiers better.
VIs EXTp.
Here's an interesting thread:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showth...orway-massacre
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
His arguments here sound pretty consistent with a Te dominants rejection of TiNo, that's just him being typically ESTj and preaching for things to be done 'by the book', instead of actually thinking. This is why LSEs live religiously by standard operating procedure manuals, and are basically responsible for 98% of bureaucratic largesse and senseless red tape that makes the rest of humanity miserable.I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
IMO this whole disagree between you vs moredhel and my own views on this is very much an example of Te and Ti valuing.
ESTjs and ENTjs perceive reality through their knowledge of how the world works - or that the world even works. For them, their environment, their world - both in a real and a figurative way - must be known in its own terms, so as it really is. Te is wary of believing in ideologies or systems even if they already seem to make perfect sense and are consistent: Te is suspicious of this, it feels like self-delusion. The world and the environment must work logically, they must make sense, they must work efficiently, but not through rigid structures: efficiency is measured on results and achieved by knowledge, not primarily by structural logic. Result is what counts.
vs
Ti types perceive reality as if it were an instruction manual, or a country's constitution - that they are not merely reading, but actively writing, completing, and improving upon. The point is to have a consistent, hopefully fool-proof manual, or constitution.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7305
While we seem to be going by the more recognizable and trusted sources of application you view this as equally untrustworthy by seeing the flaws in the base information, relying more on your own sense of internal consistency or accuracy, as you call it
That's not to say that all Ti/Fe will automatically see things as you do, as I think a lot of them see the consistency in base Socionics as is, but I often notice than when the Ti/Fe types here do create their own version of Socionics it often comes across to me as being so unrecognizable from Model A that it makes me wonder why anyone would spend so much time mentally constructing something that they can't measure for actual application...than again I don't value Ti so there's my bias
And maybe we are all wrong about Socionics but how is this relevant here? Since Socionics is already a systematized theory (having it's own definitions and means of application) it's entirely up to the individual to agree or disagree with it.Besides, there's nothing "practical" about being consistent for the sake of consistency—as opposed to being accurate. You could be consistently wrong; where would be the practicality in that?
If you find inaccuracies in it, do as moredhel said and create your own theory and put it out there where it can be judged separately instead of hijacking another persons theory. In your case I think you've somewhat done this with "Socionix" but what I don't understand is why you continue to bring your theory into contention with classical Socionics here?
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
How is consistency over correctness (by correctness I mean "adherence with reality") an example ofvalues? Or, for the matter, an example of any kind of set of values?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
This has nothing to do with model A, so your claim that Ashton is Ti is worthless. Why don't you look in your own area of associates, ie. niffweed or you, and acknowledge that you misrepresent classical Socionics by changing it to your own bias, and clarify to everyone that it's because it's incomplete. It takes two honest people to have an argument. What we've been doing with you up to this point is basically debunking the BS you're trying to put up to the table, and there's actually a legitimate reason barely anyone is going along with what you're saying; it's not their lack of understanding.
The best thing you can do at this point, like I said already, is try to get over yourself and open your ears, or if you're confused, ask questions.
Thanks Marie for the support it is appreciated
I believe the argument was in practical use of a system consistency > accuracy. Where you got results from I have no idea but the only results I see is a bunch of people using opposing definitions as if they are talking about the same thing.
If we separated practical discussions from theoretical discussions and used consistent definitions in the former, then you would see results.
We don't need everyone to be consistent in order to separate right from wrong, and no ones communication is consistent with one another, that's the truth. I say tomatoes, you say tomawtoes, we might as well be talking about the same thing. If you can't use your logic to separate right from wrong, then it doesn't mean you don't value, it just means you're not really thinking realistically.
What? People on here have been using socionics for YEARS. Of course we have had much results so far.Thanks Marie for the support it is appreciated
I believe the argument was in practical use of a system consistency > accuracy. Where you got results from I have no idea but the only results I see is a bunch of people using opposing definitions as if they are talking about the same thing.
If we separated practical discussions from theoretical discussions and used consistent definitions in the former, then you would see results.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
What kind of realism are you talking about ? All I hear is realism, realism and realism on a god damned socionics forum. Don't make me laugh. Is it philosophical realism ? Hell, maybe positivism even ?
This has nothing to do with model A, so your claim that Ashton is Ti is worthless. Why don't you look in your own area of associates, ie. niffweed or you, and acknowledge that you misrepresent classical Socionics by changing it to your own bias, and clarify to everyone that it's because it's incomplete. It takes two honest people to have an argument. What we've been doing with you up to this point is basically debunking the BS you're trying to put up to the table, and there's actually a legitimate reason barely anyone is going along with what you're saying; it's not their lack of understanding.
The best thing you can do at this point, like I said already, is try to get over yourself and open your ears, or if you're confused, ask questions.
i can't quite tell but i think this is a personal criticism, so i'll go ahead and say fuck you, with the concession that if you were referring to marie84 and not myself, i echo the sentiment anyway and still feel the same goddam way about your self-delusional bullshit.
You'll have to be more specific.
Lol. It's Beta art aesthetic.What kind of realism are you talking about ? All I hear is realism, realism and realism on a god damned socionics forum. Don't make me laugh. Is it philosophical realism ? Hell, maybe positivism even ?
Swooping is bad...
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yup, beta Se art artistic aesthetic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-6269490.html
Anders Breivik 'insane during massacre'
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread through, but the impression I've gotten from media is a obvious
I am skeptical of the fact that he was (completely) self-motivated.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
world of warcraft drives man insane, mows down 100+ children with automatic weapons. blizzard has done it again
Explicate please.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Breivik is EIE. A very obvious rational capable of single mindedly working for a long term goal. He uses a lot of intuition to create his world view. He was never able to fit into society so he created an alternative reality with himself as the center piece, much like ******. All this crap about being a Knight Templar on a Holy Mission to save society.
Filatova:
– program function:
In connection with this the EIE places an important role on morality, taken aback by society he himself strives into those spheres, where, in his opinion, this criteria is best matched. Being a very emotional man he easily may be made victim of strange misfortunes. Towards others he is capable of exemplifying warmth and sincere sympathy, he is very courteous and inclined to prove to be of service, at least when prolonged participation is not required. Wonderfully knows how to manipulate others by their feelings. At the same time feels greatly wounded himself, sometimes seeming like “a man without skin”. He strongly depends on the opinion of those that surround him, they, without fail, take the role of student or spectator.
[Breivik certainly made sure the rest of us became spectators with him as the central player]
In reacting to something he always feels himself to be an actor, located on set. Because of this his behaviour frequently contains a noticable theatricality about it, an increasing excitability, enthusiasm, exaggerated gestures, poses.
[See the pics of Breivik in his "uniforms"]
– the program function. To take the attention of those that surround him, to hold it in himself; leading others aids him in experiencing an indefatigable fantasy. He is able to dedicate himself to serving a high ideal, especially if such activity aids him in recognizing his own sense of nobility and uniqueness. The demonstration of his uniqueness serves to stimulate and inspire him.
[The whole tragic catastrophy was just the work of a self delusional lost soul indulging in a fantasy with himself as the hero.]
As a rule he reads a lot. Not alien to having a literary gift, loves poetry, music, painting, and cinematography. Holds close to himself the ideas of humanism and general human values. He’s drawn towards the image of a noble person; sometimes he’ll be tempted by the desire to enter into a “secular society” where his talents would be properly noticed and his value properly evaluated.
[Fantasy Knight Templar]
The fact that his own imagination is what makes him appealing to the world leads to his attention being primarily directed towards global problems. Thus flashes of mutual anxiety and sympathy to those close by can just as easily “come to naught”. He may suddenly involuntarily insult another without understanding this. His heightened sense of vulnerability forces him into adopting a self-defensive stance; in which case through his sharpness and intolerance he can easily deliver (with words) a calculated “strike” against his target.
[In Breivik's case the "strike" wasn't so much in words as in action.]
These pics of him (OP post) are a bit misrepresenting as he was on steroids when they were taken and that gives him a stronger jawline etc making him come across as logical, at first I thought he was ISTj but no way. He looks different in pics from when he was younger and even a kid. From his lengthy nebulous writings/imaginations it is clear he is intuitive [subjective connections across timelines].
Last edited by Wittmont; 01-08-2012 at 02:58 AM.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
Breivik is EIE and yes they are very emotional as are ESE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I think it's quite possible that someone else stands behind this, carrying through their political (or whatever) agenda through this guy. Someone capable of thoroughly planning this act is also capable of planning the outcome - how it will be presented in the media, the social public, which political/socioeconomic/etc correlations are going to be drawn, what happens to the assailant, etc. Things like the "insane during massacre" pull-off are so cliche that anyone with little experience and power can easily arrange everything in advance.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
What doesn't fit in the picture is an EIE trying to do it all alone.
For the record, when I read about Breivik, a very familiar image appeared to me. I personally know IRL two SLEs "obsessed" with templars, hussars, centurions and things like that. By no means I suggets EIEs would not be interested in historical reenactments, however not from that uniform structural cell POV, but rather historical instances of the collective unity in feeling, the egregor covering the small and great, old and young, poor and rich alike together in one thought.
I think Breivik makes a bad example of Fe-Base, which would have implied, to my mind, attempts to have concrete collective support in advance. Besides, I find odd an Ethical Rational type to attempt such task opposing any live advise or feedback - if nothing else does, at least the notion of "Tx DS" sould tell you something.
The trial is now in Norway. He has been given lot's of time in court to explain his motivations etc. I've been reading what the newspapers report from it. He strikes me as LII.
he actually gives off a similar vibe to tcaud, as VI goes.
I don't know if anyone mentioned but he found it pitiful that the judge who demanded death sentence to him was removed from the case. He has said that all the proper verdicts are execution or release.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Phisical violence (especially such massive and successfull) is not for men having Se among weakest functions. ISTJ is best for him.
INTJs are not good warriors for straight combat and hence feel strong aversion to power coercion and such way to solve problems. Plus namely IS*J have weak Ne and hence hate variety (xenophobia), including cultural, racial, etc, - what was his main motive against other cultures and nations significantly joining european area beginning from about 1960s.
Last edited by Sol; 04-22-2012 at 02:01 PM.
I think an LII could do it. PoLR Se is described as provocking overreactions which weaken the legitamacy of his cause. Certainly that happened here.
Socionics -
the16types.info
POLR actions are weak and fast depleting, not this case with long planing, hard difficulty and successful result.
Overreaction of Se maybe in a form of impulsive aggression in situation with low probability of success (people with strong function act more adequate in region of it). Not in this case, when the man acted on expert level. Plus as I've said he have philosophy opposite to what is typical for INTJ, wich have no inclination to xenophobia.
Then I guess we have a different view on the polr. People can often be very ambivalent in the polr area. Like they are unsure of how to use it in a balanced way, but they still feel the need to show off. I don't see any problem with an Se polr being violent in the way Breivik was. And, how much Se do you really need to pull a trigger??
I think people react against PoLR, it's a blind spot.
I don't think it is something they use as a means to coerce others.
I haven't followed the thread, but just wanted to say I think he's ILE.
I think he's ILE too. If that's not it, then EIE. But.. he's ILE alright.
He reminds me of wikileaks guy, Ill say Ti dominant, LII or LSI
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...
yes he reminds me of ILE-Ti's. his facial expressions etc.
Assange? Ha, hadn't seen that at all, but totally agree. No idea about either of their types though.
IEE-Ne
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
