Do Vi me pls
ok, my guess would have been introverted gamma NT. ILI
But you know... VI. It's mostly for my curiosity, bc I wanna know, if immediate impressions (however they are formed) can be on or how off the mark they are.
I mean I'm pretty sure, if you tell people, that you try to gauge an abstract concept like 'type' through sensory impressions, most will be like 'the fuck???'
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 06-26-2016 at 01:50 PM.
You beat me to it, Nymeria.Originally Posted by Nymeria
I would say, from the first two pictures, he's a good-looking guy, not sure of the type, but in the third picture, he looks Gamma NT. My first guess was LIE-Ni, but ILI-Te is certainly possible.
To differentiate between the two, he'd have to decide if he would rather make things happen in front of everyone right now, or would prefer to influence future events from behind the scene.
You are right about first impressions often being wrong. I met a guy a few weeks ago whom I thought was an ESI-Se, based on how much I liked him at first, and it turns out he is an IEE, who only appeared introverted because he had recently lost his job. I've always known that I formed an immediate liking for IEE females, now it turns out it happens for males, too. I need to fine-tune my judgements. Now that I think about it, I now believe that I'm less likely to immediately like ESI's (duals) than IEE's (Benefactors) on first meeting them.
To me, after the initial impresion of "nothing", ESI-Fi's seem to give off a subtle "I probably won't like you on a fundamental level which I'm keeping hidden" vibe which gradually warms up. The IEE gives off an initial "Hey! We can be friends!" vibe, which then goes nowhere, and trying to take it anywhere is a big mistake.
I'm sure that VI is fraught with the same potential for making mistakes as any other judgement based on first impressions.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 06-26-2016 at 02:18 PM.
video. photos are not serious
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450
Yah... I mean how do they say, first impressions can be misleading. Sorry to derail, but I do believe it's important to mention. I believe VI is based on your impression and how you connect this impression with certain things/associate them. Thing is, I believe you just have this vast sea of associations, but they don't necessarily are rooted in sth. definite/in a real connection between 2 things. There are no explicit rules, because you cannot really measure an impression. I think, that what this stuff was about when peeps measured head circumference and stuff and made connections to traits like intelligence or sth. I think when people look at it this way, then of course it's bogus.
Hence me saying, that if you go up to someone and talk about it this way, then they will think you're crazy. Thing is, that people do sth. akin to VI everyday. They might have read a book and when the film comes out they'll comment 'I don't find this actor fitting for this character' and you know this is not just reading body language and maybe saying, that someone is shy, because he often looks down. I mean explaining it that way, is probably understandable for a lot of people. But I think it really can go deeper than that. That certain personality traits, certain impression,s even if they arise from something like a book description, evoke certain pictures.
Idk.. if you could say like an archetypical sense for sth. that people carry around with themselves and can be conscious about or if it's sometimes more subconscious. I mean you even have it, that people say sth. like, they just take a look at someone and can't stand them? (like with someone on TV yesterday). But these are 'impressions'. I mean what forms these impressions? Hence me thinking it's 'irrational', you cannot really make the line, like explaining it 'rationally'. The thing with Socionics VI is, that it exactly took this missing step from everyday impressions (subjectivity) to categorizing them into/connect them to certain types (making it like 'objective') and this is where I think people will agree or disagree.
There are no rules, why this person seems ILI or this one ILE. It's 'irrational'. Different people will have different opinions. You don't really have access to, what another person might 'see'. I will say for now, that, yes I believe in people carrying conscious/subconscious notions around, but rn I still think, best not get carried away, like to check things against something outside of your own subjective .... whatever. Like yah... I mean most of the time it's just like a fun guessing game for me. Just to say, how I associate my impression with a certain type and to see where it goes. But I think it's important to not forget, that you can be so wrong with this, because it's still 'subjective'.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 06-26-2016 at 03:46 PM.
I completely agree, which is why I always moderate my typing judgements with a statement like "I think", or "This person seems like this type to me", rather than saying "this person is....."
In life decisions, I've been keeping track of the accuracy of my decisions, and it is hovering around 30-40%. Hence.....
And now, back on the rails.
I often get an impression of a person's type from their avatar picture. In the case of Israel-Capitan's picture, it has the impersonal rationality of an ILI, and the colorful impression that an LIE would like to make. So, no decision yet between the two.
Although, I am leaning LIE, or at least, perhaps sx-first, because when I was a teenager, I was also attracted to bright, bold colors and abstract patterns in art. I still am, but I now see that it might be a sublimation of the distinctive ways that ESI's often dress.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 06-26-2016 at 03:37 PM.
Either I am going crazy in a loop or people are just starting to look the same to me. I swear I have seen your picture before too. Some things cannot be unseen and I take snapshots in my mind. lol
No clue on your VI but welcome to the forum if I haven't said it before.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
LSE
-
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
O maritsa thinks youre hot
All very good, I will probably not do a video in the near future. Thank you for your time, but none guessed by supposed type. Many thought LIE, that was surprising.
About the avatar. It is one of the Standard ones you can choose if you are new.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
