Your typing of forum members

[Myst]

Alright, it wasn't personal then.

OK glad we clarified that.

I don't have beef with being typed IEI, I have 'beef' with being retyped on the wrong basis, on claims that never existed. It made me wonder if we were discussing theory (the topic) or if all this was some power-play for my typing that ignores anything I say or do.

Yeah no I'm not interested in that kind of power play, I don't find that sort of stuff okay at all.

Now this is not to type you as IEI if you don't want to hear more on it, say that, but just noting that if you felt I was ignoring some of your arguments, afaik that's often a complaints of IEIs. My actual intention is not ignoring them, I think it's just slow update of Ti HA vs Ni HA with new information. In case you find this is useful information and less of a "wrong basis".

The one we had been employing throughout the initial attempt at discussion, that's the idea I used for "one-fit-for-all." There was none other discussed.
I know that I am not LSI, that wasn't my point. My point is that your own reasoning supports me being Ne PoLR, and directly opposes IEI for me.

K, what is it exactly you do that you called "one-fit-for-all", to be sure I follow what you mean?

The thing I was thinking of is a LSI thing specifically (not simply Ne PoLR because distinct deductive logic also comes with it), about:

"Sol's take on Jung and Socionics is, in my view, a strongly pragmatic one - in the purest sense of the word as well as in the Socionics sense. There is the originator of a concept, and there are the offshoot theories of this concept. If these offshoot theories directly contradict the origin, then they are wrong and are to be corrected or discarded. If not, then you'll end up with a gazillion "versions" of the same theory that become more and more disconnected from reality, reducing the level of practical application of these models. One-fit-for-all is one strong pragmatic thought, a Te one."

I said it's LSI's Ne PoLR. Where there is universality of the logical thought system without considering any intuitive possibilities beyond. Especially when applied to people (weak Ne+Fi together). It's a very ST approach clearly even for matters where some NF would fit better.

Idk if that is what you meant, but this is what I meant.

In that case, the logical assumption to make would be that my understanding of Ti comes from my interactions with IEI's, whom I must have mistaken for high Ti users. Not that I myself would be one as I don't employ that type of reasoning.

No, since I was already viewing you as IEI, so that was my initial assumption here from which it followed that it would make sense for you to see Ti that way. I was not informed at that time that you explicitly don't employ that type of reasoning.

[Myst]

You think. To know you may only the objective. Opinions about types are far from this still.
Your talking style is funny, in case it's ESI indeed. So much of bad words and incline to quarrels. The base Fi I knew personally behaved other - they were more passive aggressive, while you oppose openly and easily.

I actually agree that ESI doesn't really talk this way. I don't think it's entirely type related though whether someone is passive-aggressive... it's more his style that doesn't seem ESI and seems more into Ti than any ESI I've ever seen.

@niffer: SEI-Fe

That is all for now.

@Bertrand: What do you think of this type for her?

....

She's as much SEI as you are LSI but ok

[Aramas]

I actually agree that ESI doesn't really talk this way. I don't think it's entirely type related though whether someone is passive-aggressive... it's more his style that doesn't seem ESI and seems more into Ti than any ESI I've ever seen.




....

She's as much SEI as you are LSI but ok

Yeah. Your typings are definitely trustworthy.

[Myst]

Yeah. Your typings are definitely trustworthy.

If you actually disagree with my typings, feel free to provide reasoning instead of claiming stuff randomly

[Aramas]

If you actually disagree with my typings, feel free to provide reasoning instead of claiming stuff randomly

Because reasoning is effective.

[Sol]

I don't think it's entirely type related though whether someone is passive-aggressive...

Some types should more avoid open conflicts: *II, E*I. The first do not like aggression, the second do not like non-pleasant emotions. So they have higher inclination to passive-aggressive behavior - rise the distance. This reduces open conflicting behavior between people, sometimes also reasons for it. Everything looks quiet like there is nothing.
Introversion also inclines to this, - as they lesser want to mess with external, more to say with negative one.

> it's more his style that doesn't seem ESI and seems more into Ti than any ESI I've ever seen

Fi types (base Fi, especially) I saw were rather soft and polite, in general. It's their native territory - to have emotionally pleasant relations as much as possible. So "bad words" to get from them is harder. But some people may behave partly not common. The degree he does this leaves the possibility for Fi type still.

[falsehope]

Except for idontgiveaf who swears by avatar in every post.

[Myst]

Some types should more avoid open conflicts: *II, E*I. The first do not like aggression, the second do not like non-pleasant emotions. So they have higher inclination to passive-aggressive behavior - rise the distance. This reduces open conflicting behavior between people, sometimes also reasons for it. Everything looks quiet like there is nothing.
Introversion also inclines to this, - as they lesser want to mess with external, more to say with negative one.

> it's more his style that doesn't seem ESI and seems more into Ti than any ESI I've ever seen

Fi types (base Fi, especially) I saw were rather soft and polite, in general. It's their native territory - to have emotionally pleasant relations as much as possible. So "bad words" to get from them is harder. But some people may behave partly not common. The degree he does this leaves the possibility for Fi type still.

Yeah, I'm just saying it's not *entirely* type related. There are some correlations, I don't know how strong they are but it's not entirely caused by type.

As for @Samson, yeah, I get what you mean, I'm just seeing a little more interest in Ti than what I've seen from ESIs.


Anyway... @niffer said I can respond to your post from her closed subtype thread:

(Also tagging @thehotelambush)

I've considered EIE (or, less likely, IEI) for you before for several reasons, e.g how you describe yourself as reclusive. But I think the way you tend to lash out at people at the worst possible times tends to point more towards weak Fi. When EIEs get mad it's usually still in line with their social agenda. You described your agenda before as something like "maybe if I berate this person enough they will stop being wrong and/or fix their pathetic life" - it's a bit more, uh, direct.

It's nice of you to ignore her logical issues to support the possibility of T type, which you rejected before. And that Fe types may also behave against nonvalued Fi, especially where they do not care about relations and having evident emotional issues like her which lead to some hooliganism.

Definitely the bolded is way more direct than beta NF.

By "T issues" I think you just mean she will not enter logical arguments as much as LSI.

SLEs really just don't care THAT much about the T side of things, they are not T lead, it can be an enormous difference in some situations between SLx and LSx. I mean they easily reason for things if they want to but then they don't really want to keep at it beyond a point, because they have other priorities overall.

[Samson]

You think. To know you may only the objective. Opinions about types are far from this still.
Your talking style is funny, in case it's ESI indeed. So much of bad words and incline to quarrels. The base Fi I knew personally behaved other - they were more passive aggressive, while you oppose openly and easily.

Know or think, the difficulty with objectivity in this domain is something I take for granted. So to 'know' or to 'think' might as well be the same, and I'm sure you understood what I meant regardless

I am awkward on forums, that's for sure, and because of this insecurity I get into paranoid states about people's motivations. The lack of visual cues freaks me out; I do much better with tone of voice and body language.

@Myst I see now that your intentions were good, and that I overreacted there. Sorry for that. I can't relate to Ni lead (or IEI for that matter) and conversation would be easier and less tense if this was respected and addressed before jumping to a typing - especially when this typing wasn't the subject to begin with. Someone's typing process is often a delicate and sensitive matter, no matter if you think that's a good or bad thing. As such, I see it as a better way that, when addressing someone's type, you make it clear that that's the topic and the focus of the conversation, so that discussion of one's type doesn't get diluted in the talk about something else (often something far less emotionally intensive) and so that the person whose type is being discussed doesn't feel disrespected, even if that was never the intention. --- Or at least, that's for me. I do realize that others benefit more from the "free-form" style of discussion on their type, but I can't do it.

On forums such as these I seem largely unable to go back and forth much with anyone. Must be my writing style or something; maybe it's too dense or too curt, or maybe I skip too many steps in my explanations. If I keep away from dialogue and instead just share information on my own, I fare a lot better.

[Myst]

I am awkward on forums, that's for sure, and because of this insecurity I get into paranoid states about people's motivations. The lack of visual cues freaks me out; I do much better with tone of voice and body language.

@Myst I see now that your intentions were good, and that I overreacted there. Sorry for that. I can't relate to Ni lead (or IEI for that matter) and conversation would be easier and less tense if this was respected and addressed before jumping to a typing - especially when this typing wasn't the subject to begin with. Someone's typing process is often a delicate and sensitive matter, no matter if you think that's a good or bad thing. As such, I see it as a better way that, when addressing someone's type, you make it clear that that's the topic and the focus of the conversation, so that discussion of one's type doesn't get diluted in the talk about something else (often something far less emotionally intensive) and so that the person whose type is being discussed doesn't feel disrespected, even if that was never the intention. --- Or at least, that's for me. I do realize that others benefit more from the "free-form" style of discussion on their type, but I can't do it.

On forums such as these I seem largely unable to go back and forth much with anyone. Must be my writing style or something; maybe it's too dense or too curt, or maybe I skip too many steps in my explanations. If I keep away from dialogue and instead just share information on my own, I fare a lot better.

Oh, no worries. Yeah online it's harder to see intentions etc. As for the typing issue, the thing is I don't naturally associate typing with the "feely-personal" self of the person, so I don't easily remember that some people see it as a delicate/sensitive matter, esp. because definitely not all people see it that way. I think your advice on making it clear whether my intended main topic is the type discussion or it's some aside seems useful.

[golden]

Oh, no worries. Yeah online it's harder to see intentions etc. As for the typing issue, the thing is I don't naturally associate typing with the "feely-personal" self of the person, so I don't easily remember that some people see it as a delicate/sensitive matter, esp. because definitely not all people see it that way. I think your advice on making it clear whether my intended main topic is the type discussion or it's some aside seems useful.

Yeah. Self-typing can get into the territory of self-concept easily. For many people it definitely will be a somewhat sensitive thing.

Seeing you guys declare a truce kinda makes me feel all warm inside. <3

**edited to fix iPad typo

[Myst]

Yeah. Self-typing can get into the territory of self-concept easily. For many people it definitely will be a somewhat sensitive thing.

I really have a goal of objectivity there (too), but I can understand if it's hard to remain entirely emotionally neutral to this topic... But an observation of mine is that some people can get upset more for the reason that they feel forced to reason for their type while they don't know how to verbalize such a reasoning (even if they have their type right), rather than for the reason of it affecting their self-concept. And when it's really just about adding info/my observations it's too bad that it can feel like pressure or whatever to some people. At least this is what I noticed sometimes, I could be wrong ofc.

Seeing you guys declare s truce kinda makes me feel all warm inside. <3

[golden]

I really have a goal of objectivity there (too), but I can understand if it's hard to remain entirely emotionally neutral to this topic... But an observation of mine is that some people can get upset more for the reason that they feel forced to reason for their type while they don't know how to verbalize such a reasoning (even if they have their type right), rather than for the reason of it affecting their self-concept. And when it's really just about adding info/my observations it's too bad that it can feel like pressure or whatever to some people. At least this is what I noticed sometimes, I could be wrong ofc.

I’m not sure if it’s about ppl being averse to reason, but the idea of “having to” reason for it ... well, they don’t really have to, they’re not obligated to.

Since there has been plenty of battle typing on the forum, and a lot of “I don’t like you so you’re not [in my quadra etc.],” there’s a frame creating the expectation of conflict around questioning someone else’s type.

[Sol]

Again, who the fuck are​ you?

This is Ti request about formal status. The function may be valued.

[Myst]

I’m not sure if it’s about ppl being averse to reason, but the idea of “having to” reason for it ... well, they don’t really have to, they’re not obligated to.

That's what I meant, that I'm not trying to obligate anyone like that - unless I explicitly say so but yeah if I just mention observations for type, I'm not like that. And sometimes I may be curious about what they think about why they are x type but that's still not the same as actually obligating them.

Since there has been plenty of battle typing on the forum, and a lot of “I don’t like you so you’re not [in my quadra etc.],” there’s a frame creating the expectation of conflict around questioning someone else’s type.

And that's really silly lol

[golden]

And that's really silly lol

It is, but framing, or maybe it’s more like priming here, is real and unavoidable and takes effort to overcome. It can be done on the front end of communication events by creating a frame deliberately to avoid upset.

[golden]

This is Ti request about formal status. The function may be valued.

Well, no, this is a colloquialism and a rhetorical question. It’s meant to correct or check undesired behavior.

He knows there is no formal status to inquire about, and he is pointing that out. No answer is expected. It’s like “Who died and made YOU king?”

[maniac]

I think Sol is right. But might be a stretch to type someone just based of that.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"Well I think they should attack the lower classes, er, first with bombs and rockets destroying their homes, and then when they run helpless into the streets, er, mowing them down with machine guns. Er, and then of course releasing the vultures. I know these views aren't popular, but I have never courted popularity."

[Samson]

This is Ti request about formal status. The function may be valued.

Well, no, this is a colloquialism and a rhetorical question. It’s meant to correct or check undesired behavior.

He knows there is no formal status to inquire about, and he is pointing that out. No answer is expected. It’s like “Who died and made YOU king?”

Yeah, it was rhetorical: whatever the answer is to this "question" is of no importance.

[timber]

There is no challenge.

And stop creeping up on me. Fucking stalker.

Edit; Ah, that thread. So you're a troll. Great. Fuck off.

Dude, she and a small handful of others ARE legit stalking people. PM for details.

[Bertrand]

Yeah, it was rhetorical: whatever the answer is to this "question" is of no importance.

right, he could literally answer "I'm the king of england" and it would be like, "godamn I feel bad for your subjects." If Fi is more modesty its about bringing that into things. That's how I read it under the current context anyway--as a call for modesty, not to draw attention to formal subordinate relations but to request a modicum of self awareness in the most general sense. To be sure "who are you" could mean different things in different situations. But there's no way its a blanket aristocratic statement, and especially not in the way it came across this time

[Sol]

I think Sol is right. But might be a stretch to type someone just based of that.

I did not said that I'm sure only by that. I pointed on a factor for some type. Before I pointed on other one to doubt in ESI.

I notice and pointed on places where the behavior of Samson is doubtful for ESI, that possibility of him to be ESI is lower than of average one who claims some own type. I see the possibility of him to be Ti valued, as he acted against Fi norms without good reasons and demanded for a status where it's not appropriate. ESI are expected to be softer in the communication. They avoid senseless conflicts, but not support them like he did.

I'd prefer to see his video to have more clear opinion about his type.

[Samson]

that possibility of him to be ESI is lower than of average one who claims some own type.

I'd give it a 34% probability.

It's only 2% below average though.

[Volcana]

In real life, @Samson is kind and polite, while still having nuance with relations. I find it so interesting that people on forums provoke him, and then perceive him this way.
Part of the problem, I think, is that he is excellent at reading subtle body language cues, and he LOOKS sweet, so in person, people treat him with respect and dignity. Anyone that has ever met him in my life, likes him. My own friends like him more than they like me.

Type aside, the picture people are painting here, of him being rude, causing unnecessary conflict etc, is absolutely not related to who he is, or how people perceive the real him. This includes other forums and chats where we open up more than we do here. Everyone likes him. People perceive me being much more frank and causing more conflict. In real life, everyone types me as a thinker and him as a feeler. I just find it funny how perceptions of people here are so skewed.

[Samson]

Purrr <3

I just find it funny how perceptions of people here are so skewed.

The nature of the beast, I suppose? My presentation here isn't in line with my presentation... anywhere else really. But this is not done on purpose, and I seriously doubt I am the only one.

[Volcana]

Purrr <3


The nature of the beast, I suppose? My presentation here isn't in line with my presentation... anywhere else really. But this is not done on purpose, and I seriously doubt I am the only one.

Socionics is alpha language. People push on your Ne and Ti superego, and you can't use your higher functions to assess them as well as usual - Se, the present moment with their body language, reading people which you're so excellent at, being a Fi dom...

So you obviously bite back when they keep banging on your superego, correcting small things you say etc.

Ideas and concepts are used to communicate on forums, and such environments allow me a space to express my highly personal perspective. My nuance with this type of thinking makes me hard to provoke on a personal level in this setting, so people perceive this as Fi ego 'good relations.' But they don't know how much I suck at humans and relationships. My exes literally call me a robot, yet these people see me as some kind of fairy pumpkin. It is skewed.

Also, keep in mind, the people on this forum heavily overtype EIE or IEI. I have not spent much time here, but every single time I read a thread, including this one, I see nothing but Beta NF typings. Have they ever met an actual IEI? My best friend was IEI, and this guy had a highly personal bizarre way of speaking and lived mostly in his abstract mind palace. Their view of the type is unrealistic.

[Bertrand]

In real life, @Samson is kind and polite, while still having nuance with relations. I find it so interesting that people on forums provoke him, and then perceive him this way.
Part of the problem, I think, is that he is excellent at reading subtle body language cues, and he LOOKS sweet, so in person, people treat him with respect and dignity. Anyone that has ever met him in my life, likes him. My own friends like him more than they like me.

Type aside, the picture people are painting here, of him being rude, causing unnecessary conflict etc, is absolutely not related to who he is, or how people perceive the real him. This includes other forums and chats where we open up more than we do here. Everyone likes him. People perceive me being much more frank and causing more conflict. In real life, everyone types me as a thinker and him as a feeler. I just find it funny how perceptions of people here are so skewed.

yeah totally, I feel like you've perfectly captured the general air of things (I don't know Samson, but I know exactly what you're talking about because it %100 reflects my own lived experience). this is like the most true and accurate thing I've seen on these forums in a while. well said and thank you for saying so

[Volcana]

yeah totally, I feel like you've perfectly captured the general air of things (I don't know Samson, but I know exactly what you're talking about because it %100 reflects my own lived experience). this is like the most true and accurate thing I've seen on these forums in a while. well said and thank you for saying so

Thanks

Calling out "Ti" because someone gets provoked by people on a personal level, and thus asks, "Who the fuck are you?" is extremely lazy typing. Thinkers generally address the concept rather than the person's ethics, because they don't have much nuance with ethics. Now I know they were suggesting IEI, just as they do for everyone, but see, IEI is a positivist in a merry quadra. The real IEIs I know will use any chance as a way to get on top of the group dynamic and advance their place in the social hierarchy, manipulating people to like them. (This is not a negative connotation on 'manipulate,' as all types manipulate.) They are socially suave, and good at interpersonal dynamics. Fi is more intrapersonal and ignores Fe. Fe is geared toward group harmony. Relations for Fi is more about how close to get to someone and whether or not the relationship (note the word RELATIONS) will be fruitful. Being polite to strangers who are rude, actually has nothing to do with relations. And 'keeping positive relations' with strangers is not their primary concern, since that is about group harmony, which is Fe. That said, Fi doms are still feelers who have nuance with relations, so @Samson is more likely to be suitably and appropriately polite to the waiter than I. I just figure the waiter wants to be left alone because that's what I want. Or if I decide to talk I end up saying something socially unacceptable by accident. @Samson always starts with a polite smile and conducts himself with dignity, but then turns his primary attention to the person he has a CLOSE relationship with; the person he arrived with. An actual IEI will make a back and forth with strangers and exercise their Fe creative through joking, banter etc, in a merry manner. Samson is too serious for this, and that shows on this thread, so I don't see how they can miss this.

[Bertrand]

yeah there's a lot of EJ in general on these forums battling it out, with a dash of Se and its like the interplay between all these competing attempts to order the situation create a lot of drama. Very few people dedicate themselves to actually cultivating either their understanding or their relationships directly and with humility i.e.: with respect for what they don't know. This is why there's a general lack of sincerity and erudition because people can't be bothered and would rather play fuck fuck games and sling lazy bullshit like you said

[Volcana]

yeah there's a lot of EJ in general on these forums battling it out, with a dash of Se and its like the interplay between all these competing attempts to order the situation create a lot of drama. Very few people dedicate themselves to actually cultivating either their understanding or their relationships directly and with humility i.e.: with respect for what they don't know. This is why there's a general lack of sincerity and erudition because people can't be bothered and would rather play fuck fuck games and sling lazy bullshit like you said

Exactly. And @Samson and I are serious quadra (gamma), so while we may test out our theories or our wits on any forum (due to deep interest in the topic and in my case, becoming a better writer), we automatically take things more seriously, rejecting the endless circles of back and forth banter that leads nowhere. In my case, as an Ni dom, I see the general conversation on a forum is going nowhere productive (toward my own ends), and soon lose interest. And this may happen even if I like the people and perceive them as having good intentions or general intelligence. I'm too focused on my own path and, due to the vigor with which I pursue it, I fall out of touch with the people I love; a habit that annoys my friends. When it comes to close relations, I benefit greatly from intervention from feelers, but the 'happy fun banter' will never interest me for long.

[Singu]

Everyone thinks they've figured out some underlining pattern, due to the magic of Socionics.

[Cosmic Teapot]

@Singu why are you here

[Myst]

Socionics is alpha language. People push on your Ne and Ti superego, and you can't use your higher functions to assess them as well as usual - Se, the present moment with their body language, reading people which you're so excellent at, being a Fi dom...

So you obviously bite back when they keep banging on your superego, correcting small things you say etc.

Ideas and concepts are used to communicate on forums, and such environments allow me a space to express my highly personal perspective. My nuance with this type of thinking makes me hard to provoke on a personal level in this setting, so people perceive this as Fi ego 'good relations.' But they don't know how much I suck at humans and relationships. My exes literally call me a robot, yet these people see me as some kind of fairy pumpkin. It is skewed.

Also, keep in mind, the people on this forum heavily overtype EIE or IEI. I have not spent much time here, but every single time I read a thread, including this one, I see nothing but Beta NF typings. Have they ever met an actual IEI? My best friend was IEI, and this guy had a highly personal bizarre way of speaking and lived mostly in his abstract mind palace. Their view of the type is unrealistic.

I have no idea how your exes could call you a robot. You are anything but that. Your arts stuff is ANYTHING but that.

BTW I don't think there are many EIEs on these forums really, some, not that many. But IEIs are definitely overrepresented and this is understandable because typology is often a preferred topic for them.

PS: I've met quite some IEIs, dated one and kind of almost dated another one, so I really know the type overall, but they do not have to be speaking bizarre all the time lol. In their inner circle maybe. Abstract mind palace is an OK way to put it though

[Myst]

Everyone thinks they've figured out some underlining pattern, due to the magic of Socionics.

There are patterns of behaviour and of interactions and none of that is magic. Human behaviour is not random.

[Volcana]

I have no idea how your exes could call you a robot. You are anything but that. Your arts stuff is ANYTHING but that.

BTW I don't think there are many EIEs on these forums really, some, not that many. But IEIs are definitely overrepresented and this is understandable because typology is often a preferred topic for them.

Thank you this post made me smile. I definitely express my soul in my art.

Also, you caught me as a Ni ego - and at this point I am certain I'm Ni dom. I'm leaning ILI heavily, but the only other type I'd consider is IEI; problem is, I am (and have always been) concrete goal-oriented and pragmatic, but not nearly as nuanced with interpersonal things as IEIs. My art expresses my underbelly and my shadow (there is apparently some Se in it too; an animalism); I have danced with my shadow all my life, which I'm sure is influenced by me being a 4.
Jung himself describes a process of incorporating and facing the shadow. I'm pretty sure he is IEI, what do you think? ... and some of what he says bears an uncanny similarity to my own writings and discoveries about the unconscious, though I am not convinced it is enough to justify Fe ego for me. I've been pragmatic and on point with getting things done and concrete goals all my life, and terrible, I mean *terrible* with people. I've worked hard on it; my work shows. And as far as I can tell, ILI, LIE, etc can express deep passion in their art. Trent Reznor (ILI) for example.

That's where I'm at now with my typing. And I really appreciate the compliment and that you see this in me
My exes, to be fair, were talking about how I handle interpersonal things. My feelings themselves are intense and nothing like a robot, but many thinker egos would relate to this.

[Volcana]

PS: I've met quite some IEIs, dated one and kind of almost dated another one, so I really know the type overall, but they do not have to be speaking bizarre all the time lol. In their inner circle maybe. Abstract mind palace is an OK way to put it though

Oh I know. I know IEIs can present in a socially acceptable, 'normal' way, but there will always be an abstract mind palace. I definitely have this kind of mind palace, but my husband ( @Samson ) doesn't .

[Singu]

There are patterns of behaviour and of interactions and none of that is magic. Human behaviour is not random.

It's not random, but it's not revealed by Socionics. Also, not completely predictable, unless you can say *how* there's a predictable pattern.

@Singu why are you here

To have a LAUGH.

[golden]

In real life, @Samson is kind and polite, while still having nuance with relations. I find it so interesting that people on forums provoke him, and then perceive him this way.
Part of the problem, I think, is that he is excellent at reading subtle body language cues, and he LOOKS sweet, so in person, people treat him with respect and dignity. Anyone that has ever met him in my life, likes him. My own friends like him more than they like me.

Type aside, the picture people are painting here, of him being rude, causing unnecessary conflict etc, is absolutely not related to who he is, or how people perceive the real him. This includes other forums and chats where we open up more than we do here. Everyone likes him. People perceive me being much more frank and causing more conflict. In real life, everyone types me as a thinker and him as a feeler. I just find it funny how perceptions of people here are so skewed.

This is a really helpful post because online communication can greatly distort our perceptions of others and our own behaviors.

I use a lot of learned and conscious strategies to communicate online, because I usually want to tamp down the endless unresolvable conflicts and prevent ppl from getting hurt if possible.

There’s simply less of that irl so I occupy a different position there and use different approaches.

[golden]

There are patterns of behaviour and of interactions and none of that is magic. Human behaviour is not random.

There are patterns, but humans are pattern-seeking animals and can find patterns and connections where they may not exist. I think that’s one of the things that a friend of mine who has psychosis has contended with. She is inundated with patterns and connections. If I postulate that people move along a continuum re pattern perception, and someone like her is at an extreme, then I don’t know at what point I could say someone is finding too many.

Now, it’s also possible that ppl viewed as having decent reality testing have only learned to block out a slew of patterns that actually do exist. But this strikes me as unlikely.