Ok, I promise. Just in case, I’d prefer Delta > Beta, but I won’t let it happen.Originally Posted by wasp
Ok, I promise. Just in case, I’d prefer Delta > Beta, but I won’t let it happen.
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
I do think Sol's fanaticism reached incredibly high levels lately (or I didn't notice these extreme examples of it before?).
In general I agree the forum needs more moderation and your suggestion does sound good as a first step. (That situation I mentioned also wouldn't even have happened in the first place and it would've helped everyone honestly.) I hope something will change about the moderation issue finally.
Also I do realize that I'm argumentativebut I really do not try to do personal attacks at people with it. I guess a problem can be though that some people will see discussions including even the arguments in a social context with a personal interpretation belonging to that even when it's really a technical and not social-personal topic (that is, Socionics) and so I just focus on the impersonal argument itself. Even if I sound quite involved. Some people (though this is hopefully the minority) did misunderstand this sometimes before and I'm still thinking of the best way to convey my actual attitude.
She fits LSE stuff way more anyhow.
The forum is at a decent level of moderation right now. Solve your inter-personal problems yourself with your own social skills.
If thats true, I wonder why you thought that I was being serious that time I did it.
wrooong, feeling harassed doesn't amount to being harassed. also back off (see what I did there). also being easily bothered is the exact case in point often cited as to precisely why its not harassment or defamation or to put it more generally "an invasion of a protected right" of any kind. i get that people don't like this, but its not the law of the forums its just american jurisprudence, people are free to disagree, but you're wrong about what the law actually is. I cited it as an example of what a country has decided to recognize on the basis of a great deal of this sort of debate. in other words, better minds than us have worked this out before
Lol. Actually how a person feels is taken into account in legal applications of harassment concepts. It is not the only issue, though, just one factor. Bye!
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I'm being harassed! someone stop this person!
Except she actually backed off and didn't continue. What makes something harassment is that the person continues after being asked to stop.
In the real world, if you ask someone to leave you alone and they keep following you around heckling you everywhere you go, parking outside your house waiting for you to come out, following you to work etc, you can get a restraining order against that person. The vast majority of people are reasonable enough that this never becomes necessary. Most people don't make a mission out of annoying someone, and have enough respect for others that they will stop when asked. The same kind of actions taken online are still harassment, just limited in scope, and subject to whatever rules govern the particular domain they're happening in.
While I personally would just find it funny if someone called me a heretic, and wouldn't care, obviously this is something that bothers hotel. Likewise, he isn't bothered by people who have harassed me. So, it really is individual. And I don't think it'd be particularly hard for Sol to disagree with hotel without calling his viewpoints heresy. Sol is welcome to call me a heretic if he likes lol, but hotel has expressed very clearly that this is something that he wants Sol to stop doing to him. It shouldn't be hard.
stop harassing me squark!
I think there's a pretty clear difference between me posting a message not directed toward to anyone in particular (i.e. one of my previous posts on this thread) and you sending me a long montage about you being depressed, then after I tried to console you, you pretended you were "pranking" me, and when I told you I didn't believe it was a "prank", you admitted I was right and that you were trying to cover up for the fact that you were embarrassed.
I never admitted to be embarrassed, wtf.
I just said that I told that, then for me it would be funny to say to you it was all a lie since you were like being taking it so seriously when it doesn't affect me because it happened many years ago. So I thought your attitude was cute.
Funny how you think I was embarrassed even when I told you that I wasn't.
Anyway, no hard feelings at all. stop imagining stuff, it was just funny to me that you said the before mentioned but at the same time unable to undeersand that others would play with it too. Like now.
Guess I cant mention anything to you anymore since you get all wrong like then.
So thats all.
>brings up something out of the blue
>"no hard feelings at all, stop imagining stuff"
I have credentials!
But more seriously, this is what the data shows:
Sol.png DA.png
lol Abbie I don't think there is a serious opposition to your LSE type.
Btw ^this is how a Te-Dom type supports his/ claims claims.
>brings up something out of the blue
>"no hard feelings at all, stop imagining stuff"
It wasn't out of the blue, you said something and I commented something related to that because I thought it was kinda ironic due your past behavior with me making pranks in the same way. Now, if you get angry about me saying anything at you, thats kinda ironic too, since you are wanting to change the atmosphere of the thread but you also get cranky at the slightest comment about your attitude.
Then, I wouldnt think that is fair that you get angry for me saying my opinion openly about your behavior when you have done the same with me, like for example in many of my threads.
Then, I didnt mentioned the later because of hard feelings, but because I thought it was ironic, as I said, its hard to understand, also the reason for you thinking that is normal for you to joke about your traumas but others do it because they are embarrased, and why on earth someone should be or feel embarrased about depression? Or why I should feel embarrased with you?
You seem to want to preserve some kind of unfair treatment towards me (and some others) and I end up finding it slightly obnoxious, honestly.
When i go to define term on google, i get the following for ideology:
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"the ideology of republicanism"[/COLOR]
synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More
I think socionics is a theory.
a system of some hypotheses by Jung and Augustinavichiute. from the objective and formal approach
also there is the problem what people call as Socionics. as they practically call any bs as Socionics, for example Gulenko's fantasies about subtypes, etc.
many people also do not get the degree they should trust to concrete hypotheses. they may mess Jung's dichotomies with Reinin's bs like they have the equal basis what is lol
Yeah, exactly, a system of ideas with some subjective justification like that... Like I said in my previous post. Sol does use Socionics in that form. He even calls people who have different views heretics etc... Tho' yeah that takes it quite far... I mean I like to stick to a system I deem good too, and then I do prefer (even if I don't force) others to agree too as long as it really is correct logically, but yeah I'm not this fanatic with it lol
So anyway yeah LSE doesn't really tend to do that with their way of thinking, they just look at what works pragmatically, ignoring subjective justification for the ideas or system.
Objective Te is Director Abbie's approach lol
Ti is still objective of course in terms of it still being quantitative and explicit rather than qualitative or implicit like Fe/Fi
I do agree with you though as you know, about how Gulenko has crazy fantasies etc.
It tends to be the N people that get that speculative
@Joy not SEE but Ti seeking type? which Ti porl would be pointing out every contradiction?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-of-instincts
Dang, people are retyping you after all this time.
Socionics really works y’all!
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
from language point, to retype is to change your opinion about someone's type. as when you say it in the 1st time - it's just a typing
the mass incorrect usage of the term "retyping" I saw at socioforum. where to say people your opinion about their type leads to the ban on 3 monthes. seems from the point of the admin Hrulyov the stupid and incompetent ones should to suffer from the mistake, and also people in possible relations with them
Sol, I hope that you are not actually correcting my English. I am usually patient with you, but that is beyond insane.
If you see people using the term that way in English, it’s because it is accepted usage.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I think it's just Ti nitpicking
I consult theI think it's just Ti nitpickingTarot deck before every post, so a bich betta not pick at any damn nits or the Oracle will be irate.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Maybe, tho I often see LSE-style Fe role tossing out a lot of catchphrases and/or woodenly following accepted usage.
I also don’t think Fe means accepting social norms, only knowing what they are and how to work them, as desired.
Someone playing word police while overlooking their own errors and limitations usually seems enneagram 1 to me. LSIs do nitpick, but it doesn’t come off like this somehow.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Heh I think Sol is a special case whatever his type is.Maybe, tho I often see LSE-style Fe role tossing out a lot of catchphrases and/or woodenly following accepted usage.
I also don’t think Fe means accepting social norms, only knowing what they are and how to work them, as desired.
Someone playing word police while overlooking their own errors and limitations usually seems enneagram 1 to me. LSIs do nitpick, but it doesn’t come off like this somehow.
I think what I experience with LSIs is that everything will be proceeding smoothly, in order, and I’m flowing along, and then there is some snag they’re pointing out, while I am okay with skipping ahead. Sometimes I get annoyed, I won’t lie, but otoh it’s usually valuable to go into the issue and sort it out. Or they are simply right about something that matters more than it seems like it should.
Over time I’ve noticed that some of the things my LSI husband gets stuck on are almost akin to me prognosticating long-term pitfalls. He doesn’t say what is going to go wrong, but he does happen to notice a thing that doesn’t add up or isn’t kosher, will even fight about that, and then it turns out eventually to be not just a disconnected detail but a symptom of something greater.
But I guess there are probably times it could just be petty? Not sure.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yeah that's Ti, it really is not just a disconnected detail even if it may seem like that to you or to some other people
It can be seen as petty nitpicking, sure, especially if the other party doesn't care about the issue (the "something greater").But I guess there are probably times it could just be petty? Not sure.
Or they think they don't care... it happened before that they ended up seeing the point later.
As for LSE vs LSI overall
WSS descriptions aren't bad...
Examining how they apply to @Sol I think LSI>LSE is pretty obvious...
LSI:
"The need for strict adherence to order is the main drive for LSIs, who demand a structured and consistent way of viewing their world. LSIs naturally direct their attentions to the way the world around them is organised, how things fit together and whether they make internal sense in their ideology. With great precision, they are able to assess the correctness of systems and whether they follow correctly from evident truths."
"The commitment to an ideology is of prime importance to LSIs as they use a set framework such as this to see and interpret phenomena around them. As such, the ideology they formulate or commit themselves to becomes an absolute guide for what the world is and how it ought to be approached, with areas of doubt and ambiguity reduced to insignificance."
http://worldsocionics.blogspot.com/2...ntegrator.html
vs
LSE:
"LSEs are highly practical and busy individuals who direct their energies to solving mechanical and procedural issues in the here and now."
"This can keep them continually on their feet moving from one task to the next in order to keep things working to a high quality. Frequently, the workings and processes of the immediate surroundings are taken on by the LSE as a personal responsibility and they will proactively attempt to improve this environment, not only fixing particular issues and keeping things working, but measuring and quantifying the results of their efforts, looking to see if there is anything to be learned for further improvements. LSEs need to feel that everything to be done to optimise their environment has been done"
http://worldsocionics.blogspot.com/2015/09/lse-logical-sensory-energiser.html
That was Ti vs Te.
Quite obviously, what Sol spends an inordinate amount of time on is the former, not the latter. Compare it to the typical LSEs who definitely don't spend time on any of that and instead go out and deal with processes of immediate surroundings.
Also, Fe:
LSI:
"Often, an LSI will attempt to deliver information by virtue of the structure they have thought out, telling people what needs to be done in an orderly, systematic manner, rather than in a way that is uplifting to hear. They lack the natural charm and comfort with public oration necessary to persuade people that their structure is important to follow, having difficulty inspiring the enthusiasm of others when appealing to the tenets of their system."
vs
LSE:
"Although naturally dry and businesslike in their approach to the world, LSEs understand the need to make themselves appealing to others and for the sake of ease in conversation, will endeavour to be friendly and appealing in public, breaking the ice and keeping people happy in a socially engaging manner. In doing so, LSEs are better able to persuade people to allow themselves to be helped, as well as keeping those who might interfere or disrupt their efforts from wanting to do so."
Pretty obvious that Sol is hardly socially engaging in a smooth manner for any sustained amount of time unlike LSEs, and having difficulty instead in inspiring others to the systematic understanding he's got.
your stubborness to seek for the rationalizations is outstanding
one thing ruins your compositions - I prefer base Fi types more than base Fe. it can be noticed in my lists where I take into account IR and find EII girls as more pleasant, while there is no systematic mistake in switching between E*I and E*E
I offer you to do not stop and create the hypothesis why LSI may do such
I saw some of the videos in your list before, I don't really type people the same way for quite some of the videos I looked at in the list.one thing ruins your compositions - I prefer base Fi types more than base Fe. it can be noticed in my lists where I take into account IR and find EII girls as more pleasant, while there is no systematic mistake in switching between E*I and E*E
I offer you to do not stop and create the hypothesis why LSI may do such
"social norms" are in any of 8 functions. What I said about related to Ti. Closer to social norms is to follow the norms of the language and the sense. But not to their pervertion common for someones due to the lack of m... thinking, what also leads those to long-time doubts in own types and hence being highly irritated [up to the wish of bans] when someone assumes other type, even in the place made for the related discussions.
Last edited by Sol; 07-02-2018 at 02:17 PM.
The important is that you can to use nonverbal method and to check is there the systematic mistake or not. I do not see other possibility to explain you my valued fuctions, besides you'd understood my IR.
As for any argument to Te behavior you'll dig another for Ti, while the weights of those sides you evaluate differently and to change it needs your better experience of watching people of different types. I may point you on argument to some trait, I do not know how to explain that those are more meaningful than the ones for Ti you found. One of reasons why I prefer to have also nonverbal - it place the additional weight on the needed side and makes the type more clear. Just by verbal way to understand clearly between close types like LS* is too hard, easy to mistake. The video I have no plans to do, but to use my examples would be enough for this task.
Nonverbal typing uses intensively Ne - weak nonvalued for LSI. Not their favorite method. I get the fun from massive nonverbal typing for years. We have the difference in this too. While I do not like to dig by Ti in behavior factors like you do - it's boring for me, but is funny for you. We differ in Ti value relation.
Check my IR for the final argument. Jung says N as the same function as T, - use it to type. I experimentally proved in 2015 in socioforum's experiment that average typing matches by nonverbal are much higher than chance (15-20%) and even comparable with other methods (SRT-99 gave in IRL interview close average match, questionnaire typing experiment on socioforum - also close).
I did notice you had some systematic patterns in your videos, but whether these directly follow from type or not is an entirely different matter altogether.
I do remember you noted some such stuff before (for why you see Te>Ti) and yes, our understandings differ in some important aspects, which aspects have not been fully presented/communicated so far, so it's definitely harder to get our points across due to that. Still whenever you have some reasoning, feel free to share. That can communicate/get some of the understanding behind it across, over time. Doesn't mean we are going to agree though lol, that would depend on what the understanding is.As for any argument to Te behavior you'll dig another for Ti, while the weights of those sides you evaluate differently and to change it needs your better experience of watching people of different types. I may point you on argument to some trait, I do not know how to explain that those are more meaningful than the ones for Ti you found.
Why not do the videoOne of reasons why I prefer to have also nonverbal - it place the additional weight on the needed side and makes the type more clear. Just by verbal way to understand clearly between close types like LS* is too hard, easy to mistake. The video I have no plans to do, but to use my examples would be enough for this task.
I mean it's really funny that you ask everyone for a video but you don't share your own
I don't think nonverbal typing must be Ne, it can be other information types too. I do like to watch people for VI but I have not systematized enough impressions to really share much about it to others. Since most of it remains in tentative state in terms of Socionics's system while I also try to figure out whether the nonverbal things I noted are better explained by non-Socionics things. Some of it I do see it as Socionics related directly though... but I require more proof and more consistency of observations to fully rely on this method of typing, and to be willing to share my observations publicly.Nonverbal typing uses intensively Ne - weak nonvalued for LSI. Not their favorite method. I get the fun from massive nonverbal typing for years. We have the difference in this too. While I do not like to dig by Ti in behavior factors like you do - it's boring for me, but is funny for you. We differ in Ti value relation.
As for the behavioural factors: oh no, I do NOT find that fun at all. But I had the patience in the past to process through a lot of data about behavioural factors according to Socionics's system. It was painful as hell though lol. My Ne PoLR hated it. Basically, having to assign internal motivation or other internal not visible Ne stuff to concrete behavioural observation, according to the Socionics model, and then having to check if it's even correct, checks out in reality, able to keep the logical consistency or not. A lot of the time I proved that the specific behavioural bit was not explained by Socionics at all.
Eventually I did get to some conclusions on all that though, it was not a complete waste of time, and I also added non-Socionics factors for explanation of these things I processed, which overall made a lot more sense than if just utilizing Socionics's model.
I noticed you've been using quite some of the behavioural factors too in your reasoning, I don't recall if you did before. I just remember when we first talked you only mentioned nonverbal typing and none of that behavioural stuff.
Overall I actually find the VI observations more fun than analysis of behavioural factors, because I don't have to align as many concrete variables at the same time for the VI (again, see, Ne PoLR issue) and I also don't try to apply Socionics's entire model much for this, it's more just systematizing pure observations in my own way.
What I find the most sensible is analysing cognition itself according to the definitions and overall logic of the system but hard to have really good data for that (because this is not behavioural). And again I've had to step beyond Socionics's model. Which isn't a problem of course. It gives a way better perspective to the logical analysis.
How was "actual" (correct) type determined that you checked your results against to calculate the accuracy of your method's?Check my IR for the final argument. Jung says N as the same function as T, - use it to type. I experimentally proved in 2015 in socioforum's experiment that average typing matches by nonverbal are much higher than chance (15-20%) and even comparable with other methods (SRT-99 gave in IRL interview close average match, questionnaire typing experiment on socioforum - also close).
That's really interesting and it points to the connection between Ti and Ni. There can be no Order without Meaning. (and vice versa)
Nonverbal typing employs Se or Fe, depending on whether it's static (visual) or dynamic (behavioral). Ne typing involves looking at a person on a broader, less immediate scale to sum up "what they are about". Ne methods (and also Ni) are closer to the "essence" of what type is, so they work better, with Se methods being the least effective. Fe is somewhere in the middle.
Lol (shooting Ne down now, sry) you could say "there can be no order without x" where x could be a lot of other things... I see no point in associating things/objects/concepts so randomly, like there is no deep link between them that really explains what they have to do with each other.
I actually don't really try to VI by most of the sensory traits of the person (what I assume you meant by Se). I don't believe that has much to do with type in terms of face/body. Things like dressing sometimes does and way of moving around does too sometimes, but it seems like a complex relationship for the latter. What I do try at is getting impressions of the um, mental/consciousness state of the person. That's something very tentative too and I can't do it well at all but I sometimes notice things and it can be a little fun too to try and find some systematic regularities there. I'm not sure if that impressionistic thingy is related to any IE, though if I really had to link it with IEs, I'd say Ni for it, because when sometimes I'm able to verbalize (usually not) these impressions, it sounds like the language I've seen some Ni egos use. I find most fun the watching of movements/ways of moving around/body language and facial expressions though. That's easy to do. I guess that's what also you meant by Se and maybe Fe.Nonverbal typing employs Se or Fe, depending on whether it's static (visual) or dynamic (behavioral). Ne typing involves looking at a person on a broader, less immediate scale to sum up "what they are about". Ne methods (and also Ni) are closer to the "essence" of what type is, so they work better, with Se methods being the least effective. Fe is somewhere in the middle.
@Myst the dynamic part is Fe. (I'm a bit skeptical of the static/dynamic interpretation but in this case it applies.)
Ok yeah I don't actually pay attention to that part.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
