They're both LIE actually. Learn your functions.Originally Posted by Ryan
They're both LIE actually. Learn your functions.
ESE seem valid too.
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
Must be pretty cool to be certain about someones mental state who you've never met and barely spoken to O_o
Also, lol @ me being the "most obviously SEE since ever"....again, I wonder what this opinion is based off of...I suppose my old posts...
However, back in the day I was randomly depressed and at those times I identified with IEI descriptions....when I'm feeling healthy and "like myself" SEE fits perfectly. These days...I am able to be objective enough about myself and my habits...my trends...my moods....and SEE works for me however I've been question my subtype lately.
Havn't read this whole thread yet, just had to post before I forgot about this. And I'm not sure what conclusions anyone came too, but I'm not entirely opposed to SL being SEE...although Ive always felt EIE fit very well (I'm extremely familiar with EIE's, my best friend is one and so is my grandmother who raised me).....she has a sort of aggression that I do not associate with Gamma's.....but I'm the type of person who likes to get better ideas of peoples type by interacting with them in person or via cam etc. And I havn't with her. My view is similar to Starfalls all in all.
Sorry about resurrection this thread lol, just reading some stuff I've missed....
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Well let's see. I'm living in the same house you used to live in with your ex best friend and his parents. Do you really think neither of them ever talk about you? Because they do. I found some sort of "dark" artwork of yours a few months ago and I was looking at it. Nancy saw and explained that you were really depressed during that time, and for about 20 minutes she went on about how she was really worried about you, said you had been cutting yourself, etc. And when looking at old posts, it's the same time period that you self typed IEI.
As for your SEE typing, Peter and I occasionally talk about it when comparing you to other SEEs, or he will randomly mention some reckless thing that you did in the past (and all of these are things that my own SEE best friend has done/would do), and no IEI would do it.
And by the way, where is this hostility towards me coming from?
It's kinda neat how such a large group of different people are all comfortable talking about the same thing even with the disagreement.
Easy Day
Oh i didn't realize u two know each other... what a small world!
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
It does seem personal. It's probably better to see if she is willing to have info about herself of that sort to be exposed to the forum before doing it.
I assume you're referring to me? (and also squark's deleted post?)
I know I gave information that was personal, but it's not like it was out of line. She was addressing me in an obviously condescending and bitchy manner, when we have hardly interacted (and when we have, imo it was positive). How do I owe it to her to keep that stuff private when she is disrespecting me to begin with? Also, she wanted to know how I knew. So there is her answer.
Order of events:
1.)You mentioned me, commented on my depression (which is clearly no secret, however, I did not feel you have any place to speak of it publicly. Despite knowing my family/ex-bestfriend as you call him).
2.)I felt annoyed that you thought it was okay to speak of it, despite the fact that you have actually said, that we have never spoke or met. So I confronted you about it. And in my opinion, it wasn't all that hostile or bitchy. And even if it did have hints of annoyance, I feel rather entitled.
3.)You proceeded to over react in a highly emotional manner, lashing out at me by posting EXTREMELY personal shit that I wouldn't even put on here myself.
You may argue that I requested information as to how you know anything about my past, however you presented the information publicly and in a rather nasty manner that just wasn't called for. I in no way attacked you in anywhere near that level of hostility. I have no deep-seeded issue with you, no hidden hostility...this was merely a momentary random post that I did not like so I said so. It has no reflection on my over-all opinion of you, however your reaction to this has altered my opinion of you, at least temporarily.
All in all, I just didn't appreciate someone publicly speaking about me, my past, or anything to do with me personally without never having met me and barely spoken to me. I think this is a reasonable thing to be upset by, and your public reaction was uncalled for. If you need to speak to me, my PM box is open as well as my FB.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
The idea of IEIs not being reckless is laughable.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
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...
Wrong. ScarlettLux mentioned you being depressed, and that part that you quoted was my reply to her.
So really, you aren't mad that she brought up your depression, just that I responded to her. If you really wanted it to be private, you also could have came to me via PM, asking if I could take it down, or how I could know those things, etc. but instead you revive this topic and make this situation public, when it didn't need to be.
@George, I didn't say IEI's can't be reckless. I said she is reckless in a way that IEI's aren't, and compared her to my own SEE best friend, who even does some of the things she does.
Also, where does this claim that I lashed out at you come from? I said what happened. I didn't talk to you in the same way you did to me, and if i had then i could see where you are coming from. I posted something personal, but I didn't act hostile or over emotional as you say I did.
Jenna, are you happy?
-
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
Well that's a weird question. Currently in my life, yes I'm happy. Are you happy, Maritsa?
Yes, I am very happy.
Dual type
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
That's good
Kham is upset that you, a person she doesn't know and who doesn't know her, brought up private things about her life and you have access to that information which is further upsetting if I or anyone else was in her shoes. You shouldn't feel so inclined to share it without any due respect to her. You don't have any common courtesy and ability to hold your information to yourself. I think, honestly, that you're highly insensitive, immature, and inconsiderate.
But why wasn't she upset about Scarlettlux bringing it up? Because that's the person who actually did. I was just replying to Scarlettlux in my comment. That says that she is specifically sensitive to me bringing up personal information. She herself said that it was no secret.
Confronting me publicly in a bitchy tone was unnecessary. It could have been dealt with privately, and all would have been well. It's not only up to me to move things to a private conversation. This thread is where she decided to do it
As for me respecting her, I have. I've known this about her for a long time. I haven't shared it before, so obviously I was respecting her. However by disrespecting me for no reason, I didn't show any for her. It's really pretty simple.
oh dear god. who cares.
everyone just delete their posts.
BACK to the topic: I think Scarletlux is an Fe type fo sho from her posts. EIE.
She wasn't upset at that; as you may see, she excused that statement and went on; she probably got more upset at you speaking about what things are being told to you and talked about at the home you're living in now. Do you need me to point out the post to you?
You don't need to prove that you know anything about Kham. It's none of your business; she is Peter's friend or ex friend and that is something they have to work out; don't try to make it seem like you do. They've had a relationship before you were with Peter. You feel like it is your business to know because you're Peter's gf; but, you're airing your laundry out in a public forum; on this thread (do you want me to point the post out?); that is why I called you inconsiderate.
Don't try to influence people's opinions of Kham. Personally, it's not appropriate; it's immature.
Dual type
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've clarified at least twice (once directly to Peter) that I was not bothered by the mentioning of my depression, what confused me was why you think you have any authority to talk about my past as if you were a part of it. Sure, you now live with people involved in my past...you get their first hand accounts etc etc...but even then, those are just accounts. You spoke to the forum as if you know me at all what so ever, which I found rude. I expressed that I thought that that was rude, and you over reacted. Perhaps this is an incident of tones coming off badly through text and black and white....but no matter how many times I read what I said over, all I get from it is that it was a statement of challenge. And you claim that you were merely replying to prove to me why you know such things about me...you and I both though that that post was filled with anger and malice and was designed to also hurt me as much as you felt hurt. The fact that you're pretendeding otherwise is rather offensive in itself. The post in general, and its content, and the way it was delivered IS the hostility, IS the over reaction. To me, you reacted in a way that suggested that my post was more like, "Yo bitch, who the fuck do you think you are posting about me and my life?! Fuck you!" Where in reality....it was nooooooo wwhheeerrrreeee near this. -_- If you ask me, it seems like there is something more to this that you're upset about, and used this as a way to get at me.
You've already stated very private things and such, so I care not what else is private and what isn't. You would have reacted with equal amounts of anger whether I had PM'd you or not...which is still ridiculous.
If she's capable of influencing anyone's opinion of me here...then more power to her. I didn't even notice that that was a potential result of this confrontation O_o
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
I see no reason to delete anything.
But I concur with your assessment :]
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Yeah Lux is B NF for sho, EIE or IEI-Fe.
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...
I originally typed SL Se-SEE after the first time I met her, but the second time around it became evident to me that Fe-EIE fits much better overall, but she's not Fe-IEI imo.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You're going to have to kill her for the initiation in beta land to be complete. I think all betas should pass through such initiation to work out a reliable method for typing purposes. And of course, EIE seems fine.
Yourbecame more noticeable overall from general interactions and I realized your
was more likely a hidden agenda rather then your dominant function as it was something you used frequently, but it wasn't as natural as it would be for an
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
