Your typing of forum members (archived '15-'17)

[Raver]

why do you hate me for being white?

You've lost me.

[ashlesha]

I just think the accusations of SJW sensitivity and defensiveness about it is funny. its like having cooties

[Bertrand]

Anyways, the whole problem with your argument is that it is based on the assumption that she got offended because her marriage is bad when there is the more likely possibility that she did not want her marriage discussed publically in a negative fashion even if it is completely fine.

yes how dare anyone discuss her marriage in a "negative fashion" publicly, when "negative fashion" means ITR on a forum devoted to ITR. Its like you're straining so hard to justify this when its obvious the reaction was not normal. The "negative fashion" is something you have to %100 invent in any case, so there's a bizarre circularity where you assume it was being "discussed negatively" just so as to justify lashing out, when it was never being discussed negatively to begin with

So out of one side of your mouth you accept that it was "negative" while denying there was anything to be "negative" about (it was false), while at the same time reserving for yourself the right to assume the "negativity" was intended on Sol's part, which is something you read into him while making that exact kind of judgement off limits as to her. Its just so incredibly motivated and partial while at the same time trying to come off as benevolent or something. the motive cannot be benevolent because the two parties are equally deserving all things considered so true benevolence would be not "taking sides" and reading reality not as favorable as to one, but equal as to both; what tips the scale is obvious underlying resentment toward Sol. otherwise there's absolutely zero reason to take a side and interpret one event one way over the other. only after all is said and done does it become clear that Sol is actually being targeted which does in fact tip the scales toward making a defense on his behalf. people have admitted as much in this very thread! its also kind of shameful you would use her as a mere pretense to go after him

the only way this makes any kind of sense otherwise is if you actually agree with Sol's assessment but just believe he shouldn't be making it because its hurtful, precisely because its true, which is what is really motivating all your little Ne'isms trying to make room for some good ol fashioned denial. But the point is you're arguing in bad faith, in defense of denial essentially, and you're applying an implicit double standard as to what can be known in regard to the real state of affairs of the world (Ne) as to the parties. you reserve for yourself the right to make biased judgements but no one else, which is hypocritical to the extreme, especially for one doing the preaching. its essentially saying Sol is right, but I'm going to argue as if he's wrong, because reverie 1) can't handle the truth, and 2) will totally buy my empty and manipulative justification I've decided on her behalf she needs. its patronizing and bizarre how highly you must think of yourself to think that is within your capacity to decide and not bat an eye while doing it

[Raver]

yes how dare anyone discuss her marriage in a "negative fashion" publicly, when "negative fashion" means ITR on a forum devoted to ITR. Its like you're straining so hard to justify this when its obvious the reaction was not normal

There is a big difference between I think you and your partner have a bad IR and I think you and your partner should break up because I think you have a bad IR. Even if the reaction is not normal, it does not justify what provoked it.

[someoneaskedmetofly]

Oh, I'm not offended, just curious to understand more. You don't need to apologize.

However, I feel that Penny's answer to my question was revealing in many ways.

She clearly feels that conflict in and of itself is a bad thing; that it is the source of the world's problems, and that if you could somehow remove prejudice, everyone would be happy. This is a very Delta-ish viewpoint, and you'll see iterations of it expressed often on the forum and elsewhere. My perspective is in opposition to hers: I view conflict as inevitable and a natural part of life - it's something that enables us to compete and evolve to become better. It is our struggle to achieve in life ad overcome adversity which makes us truly great. Harmony in a society would quickly become stifling and depressing. Such comfort would only make us weak. I believe we need harmony in our personal lives - to be loved by another, and to love ourselves. But love itself would lose its value if everyone got along.

I think you're deriving too much from his (I think he mentioned having a meat) post, though admittingly, my own cursory typing is based on his general impression.
There's a bit of a difference between his tinge of harmony (or at least his way of putting into words his espousal) and how I imagine delta NF harmony. I think it involves the difference between Ni/Se and Ne/Si, but I'm not sure.
Also, I appreciate your consideration in the beginning of your post. I felt I should've mentioned that, though I also didn't take my apology too seriously, to give you my view.

[Bertrand]

There is a big difference between I think you and your partner have a bad IR and I think you and your partner should break up because I think you have a bad IR. Even if the reaction is not normal, it does not justify what provoked it.

really show me where he said that

I actually he believe he said the opposite when he said bad ITR is no reason to break vow

[Chthonic Daydream]

Oh, I'm not offended, just curious to understand more. You don't need to apologize.

However, I feel that Penny's answer to my question was revealing in many ways.

She clearly feels that conflict in and of itself is a bad thing; that it is the source of the world's problems, and that if you could somehow remove prejudice, everyone would be happy. This is a very Delta-ish viewpoint, and you'll see iterations of it expressed often by self-typed EIIs on the forum. My perspective is in opposition to hers: I view conflict as inevitable and see differences as a natural part of life - they enable us to compete, succeed, distinguish ourselves and evolve to become better. It is our struggle to achieve in life and overcome adversity which makes us truly great. Harmony in a society would quickly become stifling and depressing. Such comfort would only make us weak. While I believe that we need some resolution in our personal lives - the needs to be loved by another, and to love ourselves, must be realized for true happiness - love itself would lose all value if everyone got along.

We see the world similarly. My analogy was more of a thing for the current 'Socionics- the reality show' situation that has been going on lately.

As a whole though, my ideology is as follows: A life without sorrows is a life not worth living. I view harmony as a 'passing transcendence'. I have visions of global riots and revolutions, sparked out of the human desire for change. Peace is to me, if you will, like a climax: Possible only after the tension and heat of such a conflict.

Think of it as a storm. You're drenched, the wind is tearing you apart and you spatter mud with each step. Yet you are happy, [I am happy] not because of the storm, but because I know that I'll have a place to come back to: home. So we get in, take deep breaths, eat, drink, make jokes, watch a few romcoms, even. Then we grab our guns, and off into another uprising we go.

This feels like a word salad, but it's really hard for me to explain myself. Ugh

[Raver]

really show me where he said that

I actually he believe he said the opposite when he said bad ITR is no reason to break vow

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1241395

He did not directly say she should break up with him, but indirectly implied it with his implications. There is a lot of baseless assumptions in that post about her unconscious anger towards her husband and lacking love for each other, etc... This has little to nothing to do with Socionics. If he just told her that you have a bad IR and that was it then we wouldn't be discussing this now.

[Bertrand]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1241395

He did not directly say she should break up with him, but indirectly implied it with his implications. There is a lot of baseless assumptions in that post about her unconscious anger towards her husband and lacking love for each other, etc... This has little to nothing to do with Socionics. If he just told her that you have a bad IR and that was it then we wouldn't be discussing this now.

this is stupid, you're basically saying you get to make assumptions but no one else does. which, I get it, you're IEE you're going to believe whatever and throw it around like its gold, but the fact that its so transparently capricious makes it worthless

by prosecuting this exact rationale you're cheapening your opinions because its obvious you're digging deep but no one wants the person known for fabricating pleasant lies to come around when bad news strikes. it has the opposite of intended effect, just sayin'

[Raver]

this is stupid, you're basically saying you get to make assumptions but no one else does. which, I get it, you're IEE you're going to believe whatever and throw it around like its gold, but the fact that its so capricious makes it worthless

I am sure you can find logical holes in my arguments because of my PoLR and win this whole debate off of that, but that still doesn't mean what he said was right. So in other words, I am not going to let myself be dug further into this imaginary hole you've created.

[Bertrand]

that's funny cause I think of you as the one who is mainly abusing word play

you know, its not even courageous, being IEE in that way. you basically took the lowest hanging fruit possible and you couldn't even get that right

[Spermatozoa]

We see the world similarly. My analogy was more of a thing for the current 'Socionics- the reality show' situation that has been going on lately.

As a whole though, my ideology is as follows: A life without sorrows is a life not worth living. I view harmony as a 'passing transcendence'. I have visions of global riots and revolutions, sparked out of the human desire for change. Peace is to me, if you will, like a climax: Possible only after the tension and heat of such a conflict.

Think of it as a storm. You're drenched, the wind is tearing you apart and you spatter mud with each step. Yet you are happy, [I am happy] not because of the storm, but because I know that I'll have a place to come back to: home. So we get in, take deep breaths, eat, drink, make jokes, watch a few romcoms, even. Then we grab our guns, and off into another uprising we go.
This feels like a word salad, but it's really hard for me to explain myself. Ugh

My worldview: express yourself passionately and creatively, but mind your own business - don't try to change others or take what's theirs. Make the best of the talents you have, find someone else to love, and fuck them hard and often. The more I focus on shit that's distracting and not important (like random people's opinions, politics, social causes etc), the more depressed I become and the less energy I will have to become truly great. So I don't try to affect social change unless a trend in society genuinely makes it harder for me to get what I want. I would rather have some sex crazed bitch drain my balls after work than go out and destroy somebody's private property. I am like a homing missile, hungry, lustful, focused and determined to win my prize. I want the most dramatic, powerful and sexual life possible. My music will become so grand and arousing, that it will be transcendentally blissful to experience. Like imagine being taken on a mystical, erotic journey through time.

I become truly merry if I win somehow, especially when I preside over an immense victory. I imagine that this will be at my wedding. Just imagine the magnetism of that moment, when her eyes are on you and nothing can sever the intimacy that you have. Mmmm...

[powerrainbowcrystal]

lol omg somebody typed me and k0rpsey as duals. That's..... interesting to say the least.

[Sol]

I actually he believe he said the opposite when he said bad ITR is no reason to break vow

My relation to marriages was there. Also I discussed with Adam Strange his divorce from same point.

[Bertrand]

yeah its funny how people will falsely accuse you of things, and yet be absolutely certain of their own moral high ground

its like why would anyone take a person like that seriously.. their definition of the truth is literally whatever they imagine it to be, which is pointless to entertain because it is fundamentally unprincipled and ungrounded in reality. you can't have a discussion all you can do is fight. it literally immediately escalates things to the level of violence in order to resolve issues or leave them forever open regardless of their truth value. its like that is not civilized, its a fundamental denial of truth as "word" in principle and reverts us back to the jungle. something tells me these exact people rely entirely on the indulgence of more mature parties not to take them up on it, which just adds another layer to their hypocrisy

[Sol]

yeah its funny how people will falsely accuse you of things, and yet be absolutely certain of their own moral high ground

Those people are often F types with thinking issues. It's not always intentionally.

[Bertrand]

Those people are often F types with thinking issues. It's not always intentional.

ya you're right. God bless em

[Chthonic Daydream]

God bless me.

[at sirac son of sirac]

My relation to marriages was there. Also I discussed with Adam Strange his divorce from same point.

Interfering with peoples marriages is your speciality then - even when they tell you to fuck off, according to you, it's perfectly fine to continue.

But, after telling someone relentlessly they have marital problems - even at the insistence they don't, gaslighting someone into believing a lie, to therefore potentially create problems out of nothing, you then say that you are for marriages.

Your stupidity amazes me. Forums are a good place for you, keeps the streets safe.

[Bertrand]

Interfering with peoples marriages

lol watch out guys we got a homewrecker

[at sirac son of sirac]

^ There we go, Mrs Sol steps in.

[chrys]

[Bertrand]

^ There we go, Mrs Sol steps in.

its funny to me how you see the world through the lens of unreasoned bias. truly the projections of a logical type

[at sirac son of sirac]

its funny to me how you see the world through the lens of unreasoned bias. truly the projections of a logical type

Of course, because on here - every unspeakable behavior is explained through type and those who disagree are to be re-typed.

You're as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara.

[Bertrand]

one of us is certainly wrong

[Sol]

Craper, as being unable to do reasonable discussions and such to keep the attention to your useless person, you've switched to stupid insulting and homosexual fantasing, I'm placing you to ignore. Reading Gulenko and roleplaying T type have damaged your brains too much.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Craper, as being unable to do reasonable discussions and such to keep the attention to your useless person, you've switched to stupid insulting and homosexual fantasing, I'm placing you to ignore. Reading Gulenko and roleplaying T type have damaged your brains too much.

I'm surprised you don't like people commenting on stuff which they would know nothing about - you are soooo emotional about it too!!!! Imagine someone was doing that to you, repeatedly, across many threads, encouraging other people with w/e it was you didn't like. You've no grounds to complain whatsoever, unless hypocrisy is something that is in the LSE type description.

But, all you have to do is say you don't like something, and it stops, there's no need for all these histrionics, is there?

For what it's worth I don't hold anything against you, and wish you well. We're all on a course for improvement in this world, and learning too.

But, I do have to admit, I am a bit glad that my post has finally seemingly perhaps gotten through to you, maybe you'll see it better now, but it appears too late. :Mirror love:

[strangeling]

Let's type Bertrand.

I'll start the poop show.

Bertrand - ILE. Loves to generalize and argue about correlations as if they are fact, so Ti. Also wants to be right. Doesn't give a shit that it annoys a lot of people, a lot of Fi-valuers mostly it seems. Never stops arguing with people, often initiating. Also is hugely inclined to have a strong need to be right, so thinking type at least - Ti producing seems apt with some kind of Fi Polr. Or at least LII-Ne that acts like an extrovert on the forum or something.


I love the power of Socionics - typing people's negative traits into my opposing quadra. You're welcome Bertrand.

[Hays]

@Bertrand, I went looking for your video thread but couldn’t find it so I will link here what I thought was a doppelgänger for you to consider as similar or not.
https://www.google.com.au/search?cli...ToZbBdpXsUI%3D
I have been watching him on Law & Order True Crime where he plays one of the Menendez Brothers and haven’t looked at his type outside of the show though seems possible introverted intuitive...am thinking perhaps LII.

[Aramas]

Let's type Bertrand.

I'll start the poop show.

Bertrand - ILE. Loves to generalize and argue about correlations as if they are fact, so Ti. Also wants to be right. Doesn't give a shit that it annoys a lot of people, a lot of Fi-valuers mostly it seems. Never stops arguing with people, often initiating. Also is hugely inclined to have a strong need to be right, so thinking type at least - Ti producing seems apt with some kind of Fi Polr. Or at least LII-Ne that acts like an extrovert on the forum or something.


I love the power of Socionics - typing people's negative traits into my opposing quadra. You're welcome Bertrand.

LII-Ne. You got it.

[The Reality Denialist]

anyone who doesn't do what I want is being too emotional

suggestive?

[Muddy]

Sorry guys, I'd really like to contribute to these Bertrand debates but I literally can not understand the main point of any of his post. Probably best that I continue sitting these out.

[Sol]

Sorry guys, I'd really like to contribute to these Bertrand debates but I literally can not understand the main point of any of his post.

Bertrand's posts are awesome. You may take any point of them and debate with it. It's like fractals.

[Bertrand]

positive feedback on my role are like unexpected treatz

[Nehtaro]

@Bertrand: EIE @Raver: IDE (Intuitive Declaring Extrovert, see Talanov) @Aramas: IEE @Slade: I won't reveal hir secrets publicly @Nehtaro: I just wish people would battletype me QQ

[Bertrand]

reveal slade's secrets

[Aramas]

@Bertrand: EIE @Raver: IDE (Intuitive Declaring Extrovert, see Talanov) @Aramas: IEE @Slade: I won't reveal hir secrets publicly @Nehtaro: I just wish people would battletype me QQ

I thought you said I was some Se-seeking type lol.

[Nehtaro]

I thought you said I was some Se-seeking type lol.

My first typing for you was IEE, back in June. I hold this view now as well. Let's not worry what I may or may not have said between then and now

[Aramas]

My first typing for you was IEE, back in June. I hold this view now as well. Let's not worry what I may or may not have said between then and now

Okay. I will let you cover up your mistake.

[Nehtaro]

@Aramas oh shit thanks for reminding me. made me think 'why did I think he was Se-seeking' and then I started to remember.
You're probably IEI tbh, I wouldn't have known if you hadn't reminded me. Funny that you've ended up where I started though; back when I thought you were IEE, you thought you were ESI lol!