Here
For those who would like to gossip amongst yourselves re. my type, here's your place to do it. Feel free to make judgements on my character and type based on whatever little information you'd like. You can also make snide remarks and other such things, just keep it out of other people's threads. Have fun!
Your avatar is stupid.
Hey Starfall...Originally Posted by Starfall
Stated my case, xSI
subtype is clear
Shadows? I already told you my opinions either in PM or in public. Maybe going in the shadows is you, I recall you said you complained to someone about how you were not going to talk to me and then passive-aggressively liking someone's post against me.
But if you want me to sum up the issue again, well, that last attempt of yours to bullshit about me by accusing me of indecency of putting PMs in public when I didn't actually do so was the most uncalled-for nastiness. And you are an idiot if you seriously think that me not agreeing with you means I cannot understand anything at all and if you think using the phrasing "I like" means I go by feelings.
I just find it possible you are not LSI, and perhaps not even an S type.
But I don't have any strong opinion on your type (so far).
As for your typing, yeah, I think Si>Se valuing, Te>Ti valuing and Ne dual seeking fits you.
Mainly because you do not see Ti as part of society and you do not see how Se creative creates a product of Ti ideology in the material world.
Then, I guess most of our conflicts is my Ti/Se valuing and your devaluing of Ti/Se, since 1) you don't engage in Ti discussion for long before you blow up always (which I attribute to your Ne dual seeking not getting the Ne input, too). 2) Then if you feel I ask for too much explaining, that's also your Ti devaluing, you do not wish to delve into Ti that much, how would you work with the Ti DS of EIE, uhh. 3) Finally, you expressed this worry to me before that I was ruining the peace. Very Ne/Si valuing of you. More details on that from the ISTj rules thread: when Slugabed asked me to not talk to her anymore, I complied fine. You were not asking me to do so and there was no need to. You were explicitly just worried about a tendency of the peace being ruined on this forum with too much aggression and I asked you if this was because of my conflict with Slugabed and you said yes. At that point my conflict already ended with Slugabed by my respecting her request to not talk to each other, you sent that PM later only.
Copypasting the other reasoning for it from that thread on Ne DS/Se devaluing where you blew up about not being able to keep clarity of thought with me:
"It is almost impossible to get an SLI to do something that is more complicated than what he is already doing. The same holds true on a mental level; SLIs admire people who are able to reduce phenomena to their essential characteristics, thus making it easier and easier to think about things.
SLIs easily lose their clarity of thought when people direct anger and negative emotions at them"
I also see this a lot in our arguments with you quitting it fast always and not just with me but with @niffer too for example: "Otherwise, SLIs can become uncommonly stubborn if people use too much emotion, abstract reasoning, haste, or pressure when dealing with them."
(Source: http://socionist.blogspot.hu/2008/06...scription.html)
This is also strongly correlated with Ni/Se devaluing: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1192048
The one point for possible Se valuing would be that you are now able to get into conflict and maybe resolve things instead of just peculiarly (random seeming) withdrawing when you feel like it to keep Si peace and comfort for yourself. I haven't seen what you are doing now in the past, that is, standing your ground for longer instead of withdrawing. Not saying LSIs are always up for a conflict but they don't withdraw in that peculiar way. (Edit: if you just mentioned my nick but actually still keep me on ignore then this point is invalid.)
Now one last way to explain that is if you are Harmonizing in DCNH. I'm Dominant in DCNH and those two can conflict bad supposedly with Harmonizing withdrawing. Though I know two LSI-H's and they are not like this either.
And I don't see the Fe dual seeking at all so far.
Last edited by Myst; 06-04-2017 at 08:04 PM.
Don't listen to them, Squark.
They're all mistyped.
Also, they have boobs. Don't trust boobs.
Activity relations?
Newp.Activity relations?
-------------
Hey, squark.
Reductionist or Non-Reductionist?
Absolutist or Skeptic?
Utilitarianism or Deontology?
No cheating!
I do think you are LSI. Although, you are kind of full of yourself.
Yeah, this is really passive-aggressive, rude, shady behaviour @squark . I'm tempted to like you again because of making this thread, but then I'm just trying not to. It's one thing to me to be retarded towards me since I want to avoid being bitter (even coming by to shit in my Ask an SLE Woman thread about me not being SLE -- actually kind of ironic in that light that you're starting this thread so other people's threads don't get shat in isn't it, hmm? Since you have no problem with doing it yourself towards others anyway), but then being an ass to Myst too was the straw that broke the camel's back in my impression of you.Shadows? I already told you my opinions either in PM or in public. Maybe going in the shadows is you, I recall you said you complained to someone about how you were not going to talk to me and then passive-aggressively liking someone's post against me.
But if you want me to sum up the issue again, well, that last attempt of yours to bullshit about me by accusing me of indecency of putting PMs in public when I didn't actually do so was the most uncalled-for nastiness. And you are an idiot if you seriously think that me not agreeing with you means I cannot understand anything at all and if you think using the phrasing "I like" means I go by feelings.
Go cry about other people not understanding you and your type no matter how much you do, idk. You should just stop being so haughty and shitty and take your head out of your ass IMO. Maybe it's not others who don't understand things, but you.
Heh this, I could've said this sentence myself wrt liking how there could be confronting of the issues instead of hiding. (Agree with the rest too, tho')
OK, for the topic of this thread (typing squark):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...naire-(squark)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...naire-(squark)
These show Fi valuing imo. SLI>ESI, don't see other options.
Considered ESI but dunno about that.Stated my case, xSI
I'm sincerely sorry for anyone who takes your views seriously. Ti = explaining, Se = bullying, Si = peace. I've lost track of how many false equivalences you've created. The bullshit people come up with to justify their own typings :/
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Strawman. This isn't at all what I was saying... The bullshit you come up with to justify your views about me.
I didn't complain to someone that I wasn't going to talk to you. Someone whose opinion I respect told me NOT to respond to you, and to put you on ignore, because he said if I responded I wouldn't be able to help but be antagonistic, bc he knows how I say things, and exactly what was going to happen, and how other people would join in. He was right, on all of it. My non-responses to things you've said wasn't me avoiding you, or avoiding conflict. It was because he knew how it would turn out and I was trying to take his advice for a change as he tends to be right on these things. I couldn't hold back from opening my mouth though so here we are.Shadows? I already told you my opinions either in PM or in public. Maybe going in the shadows is you, I recall you said you complained to someone about how you were not going to talk to me and then passive-aggressively liking someone's post against me.
But if you want me to sum up the issue again, well, that last attempt of yours to bullshit about me by accusing me of indecency of putting PMs in public when I didn't actually do so was the most uncalled-for nastiness. And you are an idiot if you seriously think that me not agreeing with you means I cannot understand anything at all and if you think using the phrasing "I like" means I go by feelings.
Talking about what anyone has said in a PM, about the subject matter regardless of whether it is a direct quote or not is not okay, and you should know that, and not pretend like it's okay.
And obviously complaining about how you don't understand anything has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but wait, no, sorry, that wouldn't be obvious to you.
You couldn't hold back from opening your mouth after you formed those incredible biased ideas on me while you yourself admitted you have no idea why you are bothered by stuff. Figure out what it is exactly that you are bothered by so much. It's your own problem, not me. Figure it out instead of blowing up like that.
You talked about it first but you distorted the facts so I corrected you on that. Are you really trying to get away with your distorting the facts to the point of lying about what actually happened? You think that's okay? I can't believe my eyes.Talking about what anyone has said in a PM, about the subject matter regardless of whether it is a direct quote or not is not okay, and you should know that, and not pretend like it's okay.
How is it "obvious" that it has nothing to do with disagreement? Prove it. Good luck.And obviously complaining about how you don't understand anything has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but wait, no, sorry, that wouldn't be obvious to you, would it. That's kind of the point.
LOL. Because you ask people a zillion questions that are completely unnecessary if you had just read their post to begin with. Things that are self-explanatory to everyone else you need detailed explanations of to even begin to understand. That's what I was referring to when I said you don't understand anything. Your denseness.
I'm sorry, but if you think that asking questions equals not understanding anything... well, no comment.
And, how comfortable that you skipped the rest of my post. It is funny to see your avoidance of it where I point out your extra nastiness in trying to get away with your lying. As if the original nastiness in bringing up your personal issues with me in the middle of a random Socionics thread wasn't enough. Congratulations.
Arguing over who said what when is only pushing to reveal the actual content of what was said, and I don't think that's an appropriate thing to do. I know that I didn't distort anything and I'm definitely not lying, and that is good enough for me. You know it too. And I don't need to convince anyone else.
No, I don't "know" it, and do not dare to claim such a thing, because I didn't delete your PM's so I know what the actual content of your PM was, and it isn't what you claimed. Incredible how you continue lying here.
You are free to reveal specifically the content of those PM's that we exchanged about the forum peace/Slugabed thing, I allow you to do so.
Actually, I could of course reveal my own PM's (without showing your PM's, which is where I'd first need your permission for it) which would already make it obvious that you have been lying.
I am not free to disclose any of those PMs because other people that are not you nor I were mentioned. So knock it off. You really don't understand how that's wrong?
You yourself mentioned Slugabed already, and no other people were specifically mentioned in them. And nothing about Slugabed mentioned in there was private. So that makes zero sense, sorry.
No, you stop putting BS in my mouth, I do *know* that you ARE lying, at best being shady especially with these excuses now.
Except I'm not lying. And we both know it. And I'm not going to entertain you continuing to try to twist the truth. (or to post PMs - I mean really, what the hell?)
Yes it was. 'That isn't what I was saying' isn't an argument. You said ' Then if you feel I ask for too much explaining, that's also your Ti devaluing, you do not wish to delve into Ti that much.' What does Ti have to do with explaining for you to use it as a rationale to de-value Ti? Is your conception of LSI one that constantly goes around explaining things? If it is, how does that reconcile with you as someone who hardly ever explains things, but instead seeks to argue using personal experiences, anecdotes, and descriptions? Do you see what you've written as examples of logic?
Cut the pie any way you want, it still leads away from Ti ego.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Does your 365 day man period never end, @Slade ?
Do not dare to put that sentence into my mouth again about how I "know" it. Also do not dare to claim (lie) that I'm the one twisting the truth. You know perfectly well that I can post screenshots of my PM with your parts cropped out to show how your claim is not true.
Actually, I'm posting this bit now because I hate how you think you can get away with lying. Nope you cannot. So here we go:
pm02.png
So your PM was not about telling me to back off Slugabed since I had to ask you if your message was even to do with Slugabed (since you mentioned nothing about her). Remember, your claim in the ISTj rules thread was: "I told you to back off of Slugabed because she asked you to and you couldn't see how your continued pressure on her was being a jerk."
This is what is not true, but a distortion of facts towards making me appear in a negative light just because of your irrational dislike towards me, biasing your view.
Your original PM was actually pretty nice instead and we got along alright after discussing your concern about the forum in a bit more detail.
I'm a bit tired of trying to figure out what set off this irrational dislike of yours towards me after that, I was MIA on this forum for 2 months, I was explicitly defending you in the Ti PoLR thread just before that (when someone questioned your typing), we talked about that thread too in PM afterwards, and then I went MIA a few days later and I come back basically on the very first (or second) day to this passive-aggressive reaction from you.
Yeah way too baffling and irrational to me. I have better ways to spend my time with than figuring out your reactions with this. Again, I don't really see this as Ti from you, sorry but yeah no.
So you are just going to ignore my post, aka, anything that points out your incoherency? What does any of this have to do with Ti?
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
@Myst Knock it off. I was trying to protect multiple people because you're a bully, and you badger people. I did not reveal their names to you, you guessed one person who I saw you bullying and I didn't tell you the other people. I'm not going to now, and you need to stop this. Stop calling me a liar, and stop threatening to post PMs that were only written to protect other people.
Edit: and the person you mentioned never asked for me to intervene, she was just one of the many you bullied and I noticed and decided to say something.
Last edited by squark; 06-05-2017 at 03:48 AM.
LSI and superficially similar to Myst. That's just my onion. My unsubstantiated, unlayered onion.
Heh, if you had read the ISTj rules thread more closely, you would see quite a bit more how I think about the type and you wouldn't have had to ask about this here. And no, another strawman there about "LSI constantly going around explaining"...
Regardless of that, I'm asked to explain things, I will gladly do so. You asked so I'm answering: if she regularly does not want to continue discussions that's full of the Ti information element (from me and from niffer too) then that's a pretty good basis for seeing her as devaluing Ti.
Discuss your opinion on my type in my type thread. I won't ask you again - I will ignore any further lines on this instead unless you take it to that thread. (Though that's also pointless but I'm ok with explaining to you more if you had genuine curiosity. Though my guess is that you don't.)Cut the pie any way you want, it still leads away from Ti ego.
I wasn't bullying anyone. You need to stop all this bs.
And, I think I've proven above that you lied and/or distorted stuff.
(At the minimum you remembered stuff wrong, your memory distorted by your bias towards me, and so you never bothered to check. The evasiveness from you with it wasn't cool at all.)
Maybe this here is Se creative yeah, and she explained how she withdrew before because of receiving advice on to do so, so I can consider ESI actually for her. I think that others considered ESI for her before anyway.
Wow your impatience O_o
(See my reply above.)
Yeah, I get a similar vibe from both squark and Myst as well. I think both are LSI IMO. The conflict between them is probably not type related.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I am interested in how you justify it, what I'm not interested is discussing this topic with someone who uses diversionary tactics like calling on logical fallacies where there isn't any, so cut it out. It's intellectually dishonest, if this isn't what you are claiming then explain your sentence. It's directly relevant to this thread, you posted that here. What does Ti have to do with explaining?
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
What the original conflict was caused by is that she doesn't like to delve too deep in arguments on the theory. This is a consistent pattern about her, not a one-time occurrence. I do see it as type related.
I personally don't mind if someone doesn't want to engage but I definitely appreciate it if ending of the debate happens without the other party simply blowing up in frustration like she frequently does it. Still, that was no real big deal to me. I didn't think bad of her because of it.
Then how the conflict escalated now happened quite possibly because she doesn't mind being driven by personal dislike and acting based on it. Another point against the LSI option.
Also she I guess lately came to misinterpret my intentions about arguments and calls it bullying now. While I have no intention to personally attack anyone in the arguments. I'm purely interested in the logical debate, in an impersonal "fight" only.
So well, this is how I see it as easily type related. Of course the Socionics model doesn't account for other factors and I'm sure there are other factors at play here, but the part highly relevant to Socionics is about the interactions in terms of information processing, see as above, again.
Put another way using the theory extension on Control Emotions (which I find makes quite some sense in general about differentiating weak/strong and valued/devalued functions), she doesn't have very positive Control Emotions for Ti so I highly doubt it's in Ego for her.
Yeah at this point anyone who takes this Slade guy (and squark at many points in this thread) seriously at all is insane. I don't really know his motivation for all of this garbage but if he's looking for an LSI online gf this isn't really the way to go.
Heh if you claim it was not a strawman then show how it was not to prove your claim.
And, I explained it already, if anything was unclear to you, ask.
But I'll explain more if you didn't follow as to how we arrived here:
I originally said: "1) you don't engage in Ti discussion for long before you blow up always (which I attribute to your Ne dual seeking not getting the Ne input, too). 2) Then if you feel I ask for too much explaining, that's also your Ti devaluing, you do not wish to delve into Ti that much, how would you work with the Ti DS of EIE, uhh."
Then you read this superficially and assumed it means Ti = explaining.
Then I explained what I meant by the original lines. (Which isn't about Ti being equated with explaining. Sigh, what a strawman still. You really thought I meant to equate the two?...)
Hope this makes it clear now, but forgive me for not really believing you have true genuine interest in getting what I was talking about... you've yet to prove that, too.
I'm not a huge fan of hypocrisy or dishonesty, for similar reasons I usually avoid responding to you.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Posting Permissions
