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

[Jeremy8419]

I find the IQ relationship to sociotypes pretty fascinating. It very well may be the case that IQ has absolutely no dependency on type, but this would not seem to jibe with reality or my experience at least. While i've never personally been able to see the IQ scores of particular individuals, and i don't just judge people's intelligence based on my impressions, I have seen which types tend to do better in school and on standardized tests and whatever other things are correlated with g. In this case it seems that, uniformly, LIIs do the best. So If it is the case that certain types tend toward having higher IQs then I'd be interested to know which types score higher on certain aspects of intelligence i.e. do Ni doms tend to have higher verbal intelligence while Ti doms have higher mathematical intelligence or something of the sort? Do rational types do better in school than irrationals while IQ scores remain the same? Even more, I'd be interested to know what this says about IQ. Would it be safe to say that what IQ measures is a certain set of skills that a few types may have a propensity toward over others rather than an overall quality of cognition? In this case it would be harder to treat IQ like some sort of social darwinian test of mental efficacy or whatever.

My ignorance on this is partially on me because I have researched IQ but I've never actually taken an IQ test. If i did I might be able to answer the primary question here.



Yeah, i mean, sure. I think LIIs would too. Sometimes it's not even the logical holes as much as how incompatible it is with their preconceived notions of reality-- something we all have but some are more open to changing than others.



I'm approaching this for me. I'm mainly interested in the nature of the theory and how 'real' it is. I'm also interested in how much a single type can say about a person, that is, how deep it runs for an individual. I think I've gotten about all of the information I can from this theory in this capacity.

If they came up with 8 intelligences, they could just have tests for each, and label that the TIM probably lol.

Try to view things as information element pairs, not as TIMs. For instance, you refer to the fact that with Socionics I do ILE-esque things. However, that is just Ne-Ti, present in all static types. It's an ILE system, so I've naturally taken on ILE frame of reference for it. That's more about being able to converse with someone, than anything else. If someone speaks to you about something, most normal people will reciprocate in-kind.

[ghost of forum past]

Jeremy isn't exhibiting many LII characteristics, @Flaxe, though his Ne is evident in his abstract analyses and word choice. He's just parroting external information sources and getting mad when nobody does what he does. His views are only determined by what "Socionics authorities" say about something - LIIs go much more with their own understanding, and don't try to impose it on others. Unhealthy LIIs are assholes in of themselves, but they wouldn't have such weak Ti behind their arguments, or even a lack altogether.

I think a feeling of intellectual superiority is something that most Ixxj types can relate to as well, not just LIIs. Starting arguments to attempt to display this, however, speaks of insecurity more than anything.

Then again, maybe I'm deluded and I just want to believe that LIIs are perfect angels.

Sorry @Maritsa, I should really stop posting in this thread and stop contributing to the derailing that has taken place.

[Phantom]

If they came up with 8 intelligences, they could just have tests for each, and label that the TIM probably lol.

Try to view things as information element pairs, not as TIMs. For instance, you refer to the fact that with Socionics I do ILE-esque things. However, that is just Ne-Ti, present in all static types. It's an ILE system, so I've naturally taken on ILE frame of reference for it. That's more about being able to converse with someone, than anything else. If someone speaks to you about something, most normal people will reciprocate in-kind.

Lol, you're probably an Alpha NT. The quoted text is Ne with Ti, not because of the ILE thing, but because of how you reason.

[Jeremy8419]

Lol, you're probably an Alpha NT. The quoted text is Ne with Ti, not because of the ILE thing, but because of how you reason.

You realize that if you're a static type, you necessarily have to reason the same way, right? You're only capable of using three other elements with Ti (reason). One is Ne, one is Se, one is Te. Any time you Ti, you've only got those options. Si-Ti, Ti-Si, Ne-Ti, Ti-Ne. Only two of those will be your same cognition style. Te just passes info into Ti, which then requires the former 4 options.

What you're basically saying is, when I Ti, I tend to do so with Ne vs Se.

[Kim]

Jeremy is Ti > Te, that much is crystal clear.

[Jeremy8419]

I'd rather attribute this reasoning to the combination of Creative Ti, ignoring/normative Te.

Going from my own experience of ignoring Ni, which manifests as that internal voice saying; "There's no historic basis for the success of your initiative!" and my innate reaction being; "Shush, I'm trying to do something here!"
Following this pattern, I can totally see this being applicable in his case, citing the example of dimensionality in mathemathics and dimensionality in Socionics. Ignoring Te in this case, manifests as dismissing the difference in context and following the similarity of terminlology. (Not considering evaluation of effectiveness, which is what Te usually takes care of.)

The whole point of LIIs being so good at generating possibilities is because they ignore the contextual connection. (Just as ILEs ignore the historical data pointing towards what is most likely, and thus succeed with what others deemed impossible/unlikely.)






The strictness tends to be internalized for a Ti dom, which is displayed in his writing of not wanting to "accept"/"play around" with the idea that someone else's explanation could be right. Listing more facts (although without connections) attempting to impose his view, rather than doublechecking himself. (I recognize this reluctance in the same way as when someone tells me that what I see as a possibility, to be unlikely.)

Yup, it's true, it's parroting of sources - but only by usage of factual statements. When asked for connection, the request is dismissed with a rant on how ineffective someone else is at locating information. (See post #614. Funnily enough, this is consistent with MBTI theory of Te "Opposing function", which equals to Socionics normative/ignoring.)
Alternatively, this kind of behaviour shows disinterest in advancing a topic, in favour of advancing their own image of superiority. Which would support @Hacim's claim in post #615.

What lead me down this path is the difference between ILE and LII. (Ti doms - LII - tend to prefer attempting to impose their logical structure on existing structures, whereas ILE mainly voices the concerns about the existing structure, then works around it wherever possible.)

My main doubt of him being an ILE is the reference to validity by authority itself. (Post #611) If there's one thing that tends to be true for ILE, it's that an authority can also be wrong and we would not be content with simply citing authority without explanation, when faced with a question. - Sure, this one is not based directly in socionics but it's one of the most dominant ILE traits across the board.
Another doubt is the fact that a main ILE drive is "how something works", not "that something works".

Reference to authority is Role.

[Jeremy8419]

Jeremy is Ti > Te, that much is crystal clear.

It's pretty goofy to reference "Ti valuing" in a discussion on something that is Ti. Everyone would be Ti valuing in this thread.

You're not Delta, btw. You're basically in opposition to Delta Complex.

[Kim]

You're not Delta, btw. You're basically in opposition to Delta Complex.

How so?

[Jeremy8419]

How so?

Did you read them? You're not clipped wings. You get angry at the concept of wings even existing. You have beta complex.

[Kim]

Did you read them? You're not clipped wings. You get angry at the concept of wings even existing. You have beta complex.

What gives you that impression?

[Jeremy8419]

What gives you that impression?

Your death from above attitude. You aren't clipping your wings. You're firing arrows until others clip theirs.

Your entire vibe is beta. Your signature is beta. You behave nothing like IEE. If anything NF, you're most likely EIE.

[Beautiful sky]

Your death from above attitude. You aren't clipping your wings. You're firing arrows until others clip theirs.

Your entire vibe is beta. Your signature is beta. You behave nothing like IEE. If anything NF, you're most likely EIE.

How do vibes turn into objective reality

[Jeremy8419]

How do vibes turn into objective reality

Vibes already are objective reality.

[Beautiful sky]

Vibes already are objective reality.

no they are not. they are purely subjective notions with no objective criteria or perimeters to evaluate them.

[Jeremy8419]

no they are not. they are purely subjective notions with no objective criteria or perimeters to evaluate them.

It would help if you used those words correctly.

[Flaxe]

Jeremy isn't exhibiting many LII characteristics, though his Ne is evident in his abstract analyses and word choice. He's just parroting external information sources and getting mad when nobody does what he does. His views are only determined by what "Socionics authorities" say about something - LIIs go much more with their own understanding, and don't try to impose it on others. Unhealthy LIIs are assholes in of themselves, but they wouldn't have such weak Ti behind their arguments, or even a lack altogether.

I think a feeling of intellectual superiority is something that most Ixxj types can relate to as well, not just LIIs. Starting arguments to attempt to display this, however, speaks of insecurity more than anything.

Then again, maybe I'm deluded and I just want to believe that LIIs are perfect angels.

Indeed, the idea about unhealthy behaviour struck me as well.
I agree that there's a mile difference between the healthy and the unhealthy behaviours of a personality type. The ones I was referencing were actually related to the unhealthier spectrum. (One tried using a narcissism diagnosis as an attempt at justifying disruptive behaviour, while the other simply thought he was the center of the universe.) Really smart people, able to turn a phrase really well but ultimately kept getting disappointed with everyone around them because people could not see their "brilliance". While their attempts at pursuading people into seeing it were either totally over the top - or non-existant. (Usually a sign one-dimensional Se.)
Imposition of will and the need to convince others of their own image of themselves, are common signs of general insecurity, outside of personality types. (The adage; "A leader never has to remind his peers that he is a leader", comes to mind.)
Though it's interesting to look at how different types deal with their insecurities based on the element in PoLR. (Although I don't have the reference material at this point, so can't make this analysis righ now . )

I don't think it's delusion, rather that you've encountered healthy ones. ^^

[Airman]

@Airman, just quickly, I find that SLEs get very attached to people. Again, I don't think Fi means to WANT more relationships are "deeper" ones, it means that with strong Fi, understanding them becomes a priority. A Fi-dominant will have an easier time figuring out why a relationship has gone awry and be less confused about problems and tensions. SLEs are a bit helpless in that way and it's a vulnerability that, I think, can make them even more attached (or can lead to "bad boy posturing" like "I am too cool for this shit" when really they are suffering). I have said before that I find them to be the most loyal of partners and friends (because it takes them so long to fully trust their relationship with you).

Yeah Kim I've considered SLE for me. And I still do. I find myself fitting just what you've said, but then maybe you said it just for me to fit in to SLE because you know some things about my relationship with women especially that last one I typed as EII. IDK what people's intentions over the internet are and for one thing, they're almost always biased. So you may be biased towards typing me Beta. idk.

[Jeremy8419]

Jeremy isn't exhibiting many LII characteristics, @Flaxe, though his Ne is evident in his abstract analyses and word choice. He's just parroting external information sources and getting mad when nobody does what he does. His views are only determined by what "Socionics authorities" say about something - LIIs go much more with their own understanding, and don't try to impose it on others. Unhealthy LIIs are assholes in of themselves, but they wouldn't have such weak Ti behind their arguments, or even a lack altogether.

I think a feeling of intellectual superiority is something that most Ixxj types can relate to as well, not just LIIs. Starting arguments to attempt to display this, however, speaks of insecurity more than anything.

Then again, maybe I'm deluded and I just want to believe that LIIs are perfect angels.

Sorry @Maritsa, I should really stop posting in this thread and stop contributing to the derailing that has taken place.

"to display this"?

That's not even close lol

[Jeremy8419]

@Maritsa

Objective:


Subjective:
"wave 1 is better than wave 2."
Or, "wave 1 is X and wave 2 is Y."


Fe (objective) -> Fi (subjective) -> Ne (objective) -> Ti (subjective) -> Te/Se/Ne (display)

[Airman]

@Maritsa

Objective:


Subjective:
"wave 1 is better than wave 2."
Or, "wave 1 is X and wave 2 is Y."


Fe (objective) -> Fi (subjective) -> Ne (objective) -> Ti (subjective) -> Te/Se/Ne (display)

Wow @Maritsa I'm really impressed. Did they teach you that back when you were KGB, Anzhelika? Hahaha...now really this is interesting definition of objective versus objective, quite simplified, but not innacurate.

[Jeremy8419]

Wow @Maritsa I'm really impressed. Did they teach you that back when you were KGB, Anzhelika? Hahaha...now really this is interesting definition of objective versus objective, quite simplified, but not innacurate.

You high or something? You may want to re-read your post. You also may want to rethink your manic nature in general. I don't recall who said you are like @Adam Strange, but y'all aren't even remotely similar.

[Myst]

Just to add to what you said;
I find the Ex parameter to be representative of the fact that Socionics is a static system - a snapshot of preferences in regards to the use of cognitive functions.
As time goes and the longer we live, we pick up on more information through our infeiror functions and become more adept at using them. It takes longer time to develop a 1D function than a 4D function, but they get developed nonetheless. (This overlaps nicely with MBTI theory, where the sentiment is that different functions "develop" at different points in life. Although I would rather say that we become aware of them, because they are all inherently there to begin with.)
Thus it becomes harder to type people based on their behaviours once they get older. Behaviours do indeed change, but preferences of an information structure tends to remain the same. (There's a reason that some functions are considered to be "valued" - because we find the use of them mentally rewarding.)

No, the 1D doesn't exactly become 4D... no way. I don't find it harder to type older people than younger people.

I'd rather attribute this reasoning to the combination of Creative Ti, ignoring/normative Te.

Well, ILE has Creative Ti and Demonstrative Te.

Going from my own experience of ignoring Ni, which manifests as that internal voice saying; "There's no historic basis for the success of your initiative!" and my innate reaction being; "Shush, I'm trying to do something here!"
Following this pattern, I can totally see this being applicable in his case, citing the example of dimensionality in mathemathics and dimensionality in Socionics. Ignoring Te in this case, manifests as dismissing the difference in context and following the similarity of terminlology. (Not considering evaluation of effectiveness, which is what Te usually takes care of.)

The whole point of LIIs being so good at generating possibilities is because they ignore the contextual connection. (Just as ILEs ignore the historical data pointing towards what is most likely, and thus succeed with what others deemed impossible/unlikely.)

I don't really see Jeremy doing this.

The strictness tends to be internalized for a Ti dom, which is displayed in his writing of not wanting to "accept"/"play around" with the idea that someone else's explanation could be right.

I'm sorry but that's not going to make a person Ti base. Anyone can be stubborn.

Listing more facts (although without connections) attempting to impose his view, rather than doublechecking himself.

Yep, not exactly Ti base.

(I recognize this reluctance in the same way as when someone tells me that what I see as a possibility, to be unlikely.)

I never debated Ne ego for him.

Yup, it's true, it's parroting of sources - but only by usage of factual statements. When asked for connection, the request is dismissed with a rant on how ineffective someone else is at locating information.

Again, not exactly Ti base.

(See post #614. Funnily enough, this is consistent with MBTI theory of Te "Opposing function", which equals to Socionics normative/ignoring.)

That's not MBTI per se, that's Beebe's theory. I don't see how it's consistent with that -- too speculative.

What lead me down this path is the difference between ILE and LII. (Ti doms - LII - tend to prefer attempting to impose their logical structure on existing structures, whereas ILE mainly voices the concerns about the existing structure, then works around it wherever possible.)

My main doubt of him being an ILE is the reference to validity by authority itself. (Post #611) If there's one thing that tends to be true for ILE, it's that an authority can also be wrong and we would not be content with simply citing authority without explanation, when faced with a question. - Sure, this one is not based directly in socionics but it's one of the most dominant ILE traits across the board.
Another doubt is the fact that a main ILE drive is "how something works", not "that something works".

Yeah, one of the reasons why EII makes more sense for him. I don't think LII is different from ILE in terms of this. I'm quite surprised at what weird notions you have of LII.

[Myst]

It is entirely a loophole. It's representative of the typer's experience of the individual, not of the individual's experience.

If enough data is collected then this shouldn't be a problem. Of course inconsistencies should not be ignored.

[Jeremy8419]

If enough data is collected then this shouldn't be a problem. Of course inconsistencies should not be ignored.

But time exists. As you attempt to gather data, more is created.

*bill made questionnaire and Typer and Jeremy discuss in private*
Typer: Well, Bill displayed 1D Fi five times, and no 2D Fi. He displayed 1D Ne five times, and 2D Ne twice. He is SLE.
Jeremy: Ah okay. That makes sense.
*bill makes new questionnaire*
Typer: Ah. Bill showed 1D Fi seven times, and 2D Fi five times. He displayed 1D Ne five times, and 2D Ne one time. He is LSI.
Jeremy: That doesn't make any sense. He was SLE last time.
Typer: Yes, but including this questionnaire, he will be LSI, as he showed normative Fi most.
Jeremy: But he showed normative Ne as well?
Typer: Ah, yes. That's something that he has picked up based upon Experience.
Jeremy: So whichever one shows norms most is his real 2D, and the other is just Ex he has from the interactions with 2D from others?
Typer: That's correct.
Jeremy: So how do you know that this new one isn't his Ex, and the other is his real 2D.
Typer: Of course, this is just based upon these. Given enough time, the real self always shows through to the Typer.
Jeremy: So it's just a matter of time?
Typer: Exactly. The real self shows in enough time.
Jeremy: Yeah, but Bill exists outside of your experience of him.
Typer: What do you mean?
Jeremy: If you spend hours with him on a daily basis, he still exists outside of his external interactions with you.
Typer: Yes, but he can not hide his real self given enough time.
Jeremy: Yeah, but half of the time he is with you, half of him is engaged in external interactions with you, and the other is his internal thoughts he is having. You may even be less than half his conscious thought during that time frame. He could be halfway interacting with you and actually daydreaming about trees and ducks or something.
Typer: Eventually time shows...
Jeremy: Just like first questionnaire compared to second, time exists, and he exists outside of the time you see him. If he's with you everyday for 4 hours, and displays Norms of Fi the whole time and none for Ne, how do you know that he doesn't display Ne Norms and no Fi Norms for the remaining 12 waking hours of the day?
Typer: Well, a highly qualified Typer can...
Jeremy: Time still exists for Bill outside your own relationship with him.
Typer: Well, sure, he COULD be different technically, yes, but it is highly unlikely.
Jeremy: How is it "highly unlikely" if you just straight up have absolutely no idea?
.......
..
......

[Flaxe]

No, the 1D doesn't exactly become 4D... no way. I don't find it harder to type older people than younger people.

Yes, you are correct in that - although it's unrelated to what I wrote. Please keep in mind that I said "stronger", which does not automatically equate to increased in dimensionality.
What I mean with stronger is that people become more adept at dealing with, and applying said functions.
To use my 2D Fe as an example; I still can't imagine how I will react in any given situation, but I can now catch on to a much wider range of emotional queues in a social situation, than I could several years ago. Also I'm no longer put off balance whenever I encounter an unexpected emotional reaction.

Well, ILE has Creative Ti and Demonstrative Te.

Ah, I see what I did there. Thanks for pointing it out. ^^
Original post corrected to reflect what I intended to say: Leading Ti and Ignoring/Normative Te.

I don't really see Jeremy doing this.

Alright, would you mind elaborating on what you see, in regards to the case? (Mathematical dimensionality being applicable to Socionics dimensionality. Post #603)

As far as I understood it, actions occur outside of functions. They may driven by information processed in the functions - which is subject to dimensionality - but the actions themselves occur outside of them.
Thus, the whole idea of being able to "see" different dimensions of a function in an action seems completely misguided.
If not, would you be able to provide examples of 1D-, 2D-, 3D- and 4D-actions within the same function?

Additionally, I'd like to add an analogy in contrast to the explanation given in the post:
An ESE (4D Fe) may pick up on more emotional queues in a situation than an ILE (2D Fe). If the ESE explains to the ILE what she picked it up on, the ILE is able to create a model, learn what to look for, and build understanding by repeat exposure. (By testing whether the reality follows the model.)

I'm sorry but that's not going to make a person Ti base. Anyone can be stubborn.

That's right, although stubbornness manifests differently for different types.
But that, together with the posts I read, I consider an indicator to the Holographical-Panoramic Cognition.

* The obvious disadvantage of this cognitive style is that it appears too rough, lacking adequate consideration to details which become important when a process flows smoothly. Its information-dense constructs are often difficult to decompress and unpack; to outsiders, they may seem void of intermediate links for establishing coherency in their connections
* Holographical cognition corresponds to a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning. In comparing the conditionability of an LSI psyche to its Involutionary Mirror SLE, observation shows that the degree of psychological resistance is much higher in the latter.

Ref: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

Again, not exactly Ti base.
&
That's not MBTI per se, that's Beebe's theory. I don't see how it's consistent with that -- too speculative.

If you want to be specific, I was going for Linda Beren's theory of the 8 functions, which are considered a subsection of MBTI theory. Just like the Reinin dichotomies are a subsection of what we call "Socionics". No?
What I found the mentioned behaviour (Dismissing request with rant on another's ineffectiveness) relate to, was the following excerpts:
Your 5th function is used mainly as a defense. It's how you might become stubborn, uncooperative, unfriendly, rude, or obstructive.
The opposing role is often how we get stubborn and argumentative-refusing to "play" and join in whatever is going on at the time.


With the following reasoning:
Te is the function in charge of effectiveness evaluation.
Referenced post used evaluation of (in)effectiveness as dismissal of request.
According to above citation, it's a sign of the Opposing role coming into action.
Opposing role in MBTI is Ignoring/Normative function in Socionics.
If Te is Ignoring/Normative, Leading must be Ti.

Yeah, one of the reasons why EII makes more sense for him. I don't think LII is different from ILE in terms of this. I'm quite surprised at what weird notions you have of LII.

Well, I'm glad I could surprise you!
My notions may seem "weird" because I prefer to relate existing information mainly to personal experience, while correlating what I can to knowledge I found relevant, rather than imagining behaviour based solely on descriptions. Just like I base my understanding of the functions to how they have come to manifest in my own experience.
(Mind you, that I haven't looked over all of his activity, but only looked over the last few pages in a couple threads he has been active in. Also keep in mind that from where I am, there is no reference to age, gender, cultural upbringing or traumatic events which could have affected someone's personal development.)

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as I am relating this to personal experience of the LIIs I've known. Those who came to mind, when reading his posts, were unhealthy individuals with strong narcissistic traits. It is just as likely that I may be reacting more to the narcissistic traits perceived in the posts, rather than to the function stack. But ultimately, I'm not here to force people into boxes or insist on their psychological state.
I'm here to check how my understanding holds up, where it goes wrong - and why.

I may as well be outright wrong - about any of the points I've ever made - but in that case I want to know; where I went wrong, and how.
(Disagreeing or saying that I'm wrong, without providing any information on where one perceives my error to be, will however make it quite difficult for me to troubleshoot my own line of thought.)

[Jeremy8419]

@Flaxe

"As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as I am relating this to personal experience of the LIIs I've known."

You're basing your logic off your view of people being correct. You won't see two people's relationships the same as they do, nor there relationships with others. You're basing your understanding of relationships solely on your own experiences, which is counter to the nature of relationships. Relationships for others exist outside of the self's perception of them based upon their own experiences.

[Flaxe]

@Flaxe

"As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as I am relating this to personal experience of the LIIs I've known."

You're basing your logic off your view of people being correct. You won't see two people's relationships the same as they do, nor there relationships with others. You're basing your understanding of relationships solely on your own experiences, which is counter to the nature of relationships. Relationships for others exist outside of the self's perception of them based upon their own experiences.

Again, your message doesn't hold relevance to the context in my post. (What you quoted is about my subjective experience of a personality type. Relationships have not been mentioned, nor implied anywhere.)
...but I'll bite.

However, before doing so, please elaborate on what you mean by the "nature of relationships" - and please provide an example grounded in reality. (Instead of an abstract description)

[Jeremy8419]

Again, your message doesn't hold relevance to the context in my post. (What you quoted is about my subjective experience of a personality type. Relationships have not been mentioned, nor implied anywhere.)
...but I'll bite.

However, before doing so, please elaborate on what you mean by the "nature of relationships" - and please provide an example grounded in reality. (Instead of an abstract description)

Relationships imply more than one heart. What is in your heart concerning others is not the same as what is in others' hearts for people. Socionics can't correctly model personalities nor the relationships between them, because it attempts to do so from a single perspective and one which tries to eliminate the existence of people and their relationships changing over time. It is based solely upon one's own experiences, while rejecting the existence of others' subjective experiences in relation to others. Socionics is 1D Fi approach to relationships.

[Contra]

@Jeremy8419 Just looking at the pictures you posted in the member's pictures thread, ignoring what i know about you, I think you look LII. Merry, logical, introverted. Doesn't mean you couldn't be EII. It's just my impression.

[Airman]

I'm not going to participate on this thread anymore due to offenses by member Jeremy. I strongly suggest a temporary ban for him, he just wants attention and you are giving it to him, you fell into his little trap. Anyone can contact me via message though, but I won't be reading this thread or any other anymore.

[Jeremy8419]

@Jeremy8419 Just looking at the pictures you posted in the member's pictures thread, ignoring what i know about you, I think you look LII. Merry, logical, introverted. Doesn't mean you couldn't be EII. It's just my impression.

It's a good one.

However, take into context the question presented within the application of VI in the first place: How does this person appear in this picture? What's missing from it? The acknowledgement of what is not known. If I appear Merry in the pictures, why could such be the case? How often do people seem joyous, sad, or apathetic? How does there environment affect such? How and when and why do people take pictures?

The pictures are from a vacation my parents took me on and paid for. If knowing this, and knowing the expressions of "serious," wouldn't the nature of "being Fi" entail "being Merry" in this situation?

I do actually look most like one of the LII's in Filtovas article, though. Lol. Been waiting for someone to pick up on it.

[Jeremy8419]

I'm not going to participate on this thread anymore due to offenses by member Jeremy. I strongly suggest a temporary ban for him, he just wants attention and you are giving it to him, you fell into his little trap. Anyone can contact me via message though, but I won't be reading this thread or any other anymore.

So ignore me? Derp.

[Airman]

So ignore me? Derp.

No, I want you banned. You're trolling and offending people. Your ban is coming. Enjoy the remaining days left for you here until some of the mods decide to actually take a look at your posting history. Goodbye.

[Jeremy8419]

No, I want you banned. You're trolling and offending people. Your ban is coming. Enjoy the remaining days left for you here until some of the mods decide to actually take a look at your posting history. Goodbye.

Banned for what? Talking sense into people? Are you under the impression that the "end goal" of people on here is to spend the rest of their lives on an internet forum? Maybe some are, but most people don't get on such a forum about understanding people and relationships so that they can prevent their own healthy interactions with society.

Just look at the thread... Most people are equating their own individual experiences of me with who I am as a person. Do you think I just disappear and cease to exist outside of the forum? That your perception of me is "reality" and anyone else who disagrees is "wrong"?

[Contra]

It's a good one.

However, take into context the question presented within the application of VI in the first place: How does this person appear in this picture? What's missing from it? The acknowledgement of what is not known. If I appear Merry in the pictures, why could such be the case? How often do people seem joyous, sad, or apathetic? How does there environment affect such? How and when and why do people take pictures?

The pictures are from a vacation my parents took me on and paid for. If knowing this, and knowing the expressions of "serious," wouldn't the nature of "being Fi" entail "being Merry" in this situation?

I do actually look most like one of the LII's in Filtovas article, though. Lol. Been waiting for someone to pick up on it.

Well, Im not just looking at the photos of you in the wax museum. If i was just looking at those i would have harder time distinguishing between alpha and delta. In your selfies, you look logical to me. Even so, just as you say, EIIs might act more "merry" in a picture when they are on vacation, but LIIs fall into the "merry" quadra, making them "merry" all of the time. If the "merriness" of the 2 manifests as the same, how the hell would i tell them apart lol.

Regardless I still think you are EII, for now.

[Jeremy8419]

Well, Im not just looking at the photos of you in the wax museum. If i was just looking at those i would have harder time distinguishing between alpha and delta. In your selfies, you look logical to me. Even so, just as you say, EIIs might act more "merry" in a picture when they are on vacation, but LIIs fall into the "merry" quadra, making them "merry" all of the time. If the "merriness" of the 2 manifests as the same, how the hell would i tell them apart lol.

Regardless I still think you are EII, for now.

Only the mirror one is me taking a picture of myself. The rest are all from the same vacation this past summer.

To see an EII-esque expression, someone would have to randomly photograph me lol. Pictures, in general, are usually merry by nature, because they are taken to commemorate happy occasions.

It's just exercises. I figured you might like the data to think through.

[Flaxe]

Relationships imply more than one heart. What is in your heart concerning others is not the same as what is in others' hearts for people. Socionics can't correctly model personalities nor the relationships between them, because it attempts to do so from a single perspective and one which tries to eliminate the existence of people and their relationships changing over time. It is based solely upon one's own experiences, while rejecting the existence of others' subjective experiences in relation to others. Socionics is 1D Fi approach to relationships.

Indeed, relationships do involve more than one person. This is why I didn't talk about relationships between people at all, in my post. What I talked about was my experience, which is - and forever will be - subjective. Anyhow, that point is passed already.
Getting back on topic:

Cool theory, bro.
So let's put it to the test.

Can you provide two practical examples - as in, applicable and verifiable in real life - of:
a) A 1D experience of a relationship
b) A 3D (or 4D) experience of a relationship

This way, we can discern the difference and validate if there is an application to the theory.


Also, a sidenote on modelling personalities:
Although there is a large part of Socionics attempting to model personalities or even going towards a theory of "social progress", the core of Socionics is modelling of an individual's information metabolism.
Personality models are a side-effect of this, which vary to a great degree, depending on your source.
Socionics don't explain everything, but it's a good step on the way to self-discovery. (As much as I have tried, I have yet to find a psychological model that accounts for all aspects of personality)

[Flaxe]

@Contra

Just curious, have you noticed anything in regards to the communication styles, and compared it to other known (LII, EII) members of this forum?
What caught my eye is how I relate his messages to the "Cold-blooded" style, rather than the "Sincere/Soulful" style:
They understand communication as an exchange of missing information of explanatory nature.
Passive expectation of feelings from their partner. Expect partner to show emotions. See communication as a tranmission of information rather than emotion or action of any sort.

Or is the communication styles a defunct theory by now?

Ref:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ication_styles
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-communication

[blank]

Ugh, delicious music to mow down cyber zombies with a chaingun

[blank]

Jesus why the fuck did I post that video in here?