How to obtain a :Te: valuer

[consentingadult]

Galenogram revisited.

What is that, some kind of theory proposed by Galen? When i google it, I can't find.

ETA: or do you mean Galen's view on temperaments

[InvisibleJim]

What is that, some kind of theory proposed by Galen? When i google it, I can't find.

ETA: or do you mean Galen's view on temperaments

The galen approach to discussing the correct use of typology

I wub galen tho, he's alright, just a bit... passionate?

[consentingadult]

BEST POST EVER. I figured INTj would be understanding of the same. (Although I've seen you guys argue like fuck with one another!)

Obviously, LIIs are capable of understanding, but not when it comes to their supervisee. The attitudes of the supervisee are processed by their own biased filters, and they -like the rest of us- have difficulty removing these filters. I admit that I basically do the same to ESIs if I'm not acting very consciously, but at least I realize that making an effort to try to see things from the ESi perspective, it does give me hints that help me to get beyond the limitations of my self-serving views.

As I once said in a blog post:

"if it wasn't for the frustration of the supervisee, the joke of Supervision relations would actually be on the supervisor, for it is the supervisor who fails to gain from a learning opportunity."

[consentingadult]

The galen approach to discussing the correct use of typology

I wub galen tho, he's alright, just a bit... passionate?

I'm learning so many new things here, such as the meaning of the word "wub" ;-)

[krieger]

Well, in a non-socionics sense every individual has a need for material possessions, and thus, money. The questions is: how much energy are you willing to put into the acquisition of money, and beyond that, material wealth?

Let me take, as an example, my SEI GF, which imho has this attitude of consumerism that you are writing about. Now before I start of, let me state that this single observation is not necessarily evidence for a general pattern amongst SEIs (or Alphas in general), but my gut feeling does tell me we should be looking in that direction.

My GF has this "convenience oriented" attitude, as described by Dutch research company Motivaction. She likes to buy things: shoes, boots, gadgets, stuff for making clothes or paintings etc. Most of these things are comfort-producing (also in the Socionics sense), but that is not so much the point. What is important, is the question: is she willing to make sacrifices in order to get money so she can satisfy this need to buy things and create comfort for herself? I think it is not. She has a decent job which allows her to buy nice things, but if she had a job that paid less, she would not be inclined to work hard in order to make more money, so she can buy more. She will find another way of creating the comfort she needs and staying within budget. She will not, for example, go back to school or college to master new knowledge or skills, defer instant gratification for a while so in the end she can find a better paying job. And I hypothesize this is true for Alphas in general, even LIIs and ILEs. To have fun and a interesting, pleasurable live (whatever it is composed of) is their first priority. Even when working on something as spectacular as a Large Hadron Collider, ILEs and LIIs are not so much into it for the long term rewards, but for the 'excitement' of the process of getting there.

Such attitude is completely opposed to that of the Gamma quadra. If there is a quadra that can sacrifice the need for short term gratification in order to arrive at larger, long term goals, it's the Gamma quadra.

as if there aren't any Ni based reasons not to fall for the "deferred gratification" hard-work-trap.

a lot of weak Ni types are of the typical variety that slaves away to get qualifications for a "better" job, not realizing that ever nth $ of income they get out of it is matched by another hour of effort or another pressing implicit responsibility or limit on their freedom, something that often constitutes a net negative trade-off when progressive tax bracketing and the diminishing marginal utility of income are accounted for.

it's of course another matter when those responsibilities are an outgrowth of genuine passion toward the field the person works in, but that is to be like alphans in your example.

Obviously, LIIs are capable of understanding, but not when it comes to their supervisee. The attitudes of the supervisee are processed by their own biased filters, and they -like the rest of us- have difficulty removing these filters. I admit that I basically do the same to ESIs if I'm not acting very consciously, but at least I realize that making an effort to try to see things from the ESi perspective, it does give me hints that help me to get beyond the limitations of my self-serving views.

As I once said in a blog post:

"if it wasn't for the frustration of the supervisee, the joke of Supervision relations would actually be on the supervisor, for it is the supervisor who fails to gain from a learning opportunity."

the problem with finale's post aside from the thing about flat eartherism i already mentioned, is that you were the only butthurt person in this thread. his description was a farcically specious reversal of the roles of the people involved.

I have noticed a recurring pattern in my interactions with LIIs and ESIs: in discussions, LIIs often don't take seriously what I have to contribute.

i think i'll take a "learning opportunity" in employing your newly coined interpretation of the term and "contribute" something to my toilet bowl.

[consentingadult]

@labster: you are making a fool of yourself, by attacking me about things I never discussed nor implied and by using ad hominem arguments, which demonstrate your malevolent intentions towards and perceptions about me.

[Galen]

The galen approach to discussing the correct use of typology

Run by me one more time what such a correct usage may be.

[InvisibleJim]

Run by me one more time what such a correct usage may be.

Exactly. The applicability of the system is based on the perception of the user and therefore I think its a continually evolving process.

[jet city woman]

The galen approach to discussing the correct use of typology

I wub galen tho, he's alright, just a bit... passionate?

I use the word "delusional" at times.

a lot of weak Ni types are of the typical variety that slaves away to get qualifications for a "better" job, not realizing that ever nth $ of income they get out of it is matched by another hour of effort or another pressing implicit responsibility or limit on their freedom, something that often constitutes a net negative trade-off when progressive tax bracketing and the diminishing marginal utility of income are accounted for.

So, I suppose I'm definitely not a "weak Ni type".

Well, in a non-socionics sense every individual has a need for material possessions, and thus, money. The questions is: how much energy are you willing to put into the acquisition of money, and beyond that, material wealth?

Let me take, as an example, my SEI GF, which imho has this attitude of consumerism that you are writing about. Now before I start of, let me state that this single observation is not necessarily evidence for a general pattern amongst SEIs (or Alphas in general), but my gut feeling does tell me we should be looking in that direction.

My GF has this "convenience oriented" attitude, as described by Dutch research company Motivaction. She likes to buy things: shoes, boots, gadgets, stuff for making clothes or paintings etc. Most of these things are comfort-producing (also in the Socionics sense), but that is not so much the point. What is important, is the question: is she willing to make sacrifices in order to get money so she can satisfy this need to buy things and create comfort for herself? I think it is not. She has a decent job which allows her to buy nice things, but if she had a job that paid less, she would not be inclined to work hard in order to make more money, so she can buy more. She will find another way of creating the comfort she needs and staying within budget. She will not, for example, go back to school or college to master new knowledge or skills, defer instant gratification for a while so in the end she can find a better paying job. And I hypothesize this is true for Alphas in general, even LIIs and ILEs. To have fun and a interesting, pleasurable live (whatever it is composed of) is their first priority. Even when working on something as spectacular as a Large Hadron Collider, ILEs and LIIs are not so much into it for the long term rewards, but for the 'excitement' of the process of getting there.

Such attitude is completely opposed to that of the Gamma quadra. If there is a quadra that can sacrifice the need for short term gratification in order to arrive at larger, long term goals, it's the Gamma quadra.

I personally could do either. I could slack or I could make more money. But I've gotta admit, I wanna be rich, and I want to do it my way. Not necessarily to buy more goods, but to be self-indulgent and live a higher-quality, easier life.

[InvisibleJim]

I use the word "delusional" at times.

Then you would be wrong; crazedrat and reptilians yes, galen and his enneagram no.

[jet city woman]

Then you would be wrong; crazedrat and reptilians yes, galen and his enneagram no.

I think you may've missed a few of his posts.

[consentingadult]

I personally could do either. I could slack or I could make more money. But I've gotta admit, I wanna be rich, and I want to do it my way. Not necessarily to buy more goods, but to be self-indulgent and live a higher-quality, easier life.

Spoken like a true SLI ;-) (now I'm curious as to who is going to freak next out about this slanderous stereotypical statement of mine).

[jet city woman]

Spoken like a true SLI ;-) (now I'm curious as to who is going to freak next out about this slanderous stereotypical statement of mine).

I'm an LSI.

[consentingadult]

I'm an LSI.

So, how do you go about making money?

[jet city woman]

So, how do you go about making money?

Own my own computer repair business (which has as of yet, not gotten off the ground to where it will be. I've still got a good amount of work to do, although I've already done alot). But my long-term goal is to write fairly-simple video games.

Well, in a non-socionics sense every individual has a need for material possessions, and thus, money. The questions is: how much energy are you willing to put into the acquisition of money, and beyond that, material wealth?

Well, sure. In order to survive, we need to eat. I think the question might be: How much are you focusing (and how much time are you spending) on the acquisition of material goods? (Pretty much the same question you asked, rephrased). My ENTj S.O., for instance, couldn't care less what he owns for the most part, as long as he has a bed and a computer. Me, however, am totally decorating the house (although I don't really enjoy doing it), dealing with building our wardrobes, etc. I go shopping at least once a week for household goods and/or clothing, and I enjoy shopping, exploring and finding new stores.

[FDG]

Buying goods for the house and clothes - that's called being a woman.

[jet city woman]

Buying goods for the house and clothes - that's called being a woman.

I disagree. I know plenty of women who do what they have to do, but don't enjoy it. Men also have to buy goods for the house and clothing, and some of them don't enjoy it either. Some of them do enjoy it (my father for instance, liked to upgrade the facets of the home a lot more than I do. He loved to undertake home projects.)

the problem with finale's post aside from the thing about flat eartherism i already mentioned, is that you were the only butthurt person in this thread. his description was a farcically specious reversal of the roles of the people involved.

I disagree that the way it appears is that consentingadult is the only butthurt person in this thread. I also disagree that being irritated by others calling you names is "hysteria".

[FDG]

I disagree. I know plenty of women who do what they have to do, but don't enjoy it. Men also have to buy goods for the house and clothing, and some of them don't enjoy it either.

My post was as serious as this whole thread...

anyway @consentingadult , if I were to tell you that my ESI girlfriend has a similar attitude towards spending to your SEI one, what would you derive as a result? That either one is mistyped? Or that, perhaps, trying to connect all this to types is nonsense...?

[jet city woman]

My post was as serious as this whole thread...

Ahhh, k , I thought you were just a male chauvanistic pig.

@consentingadult , if I were to tell you that my ESI girlfriend has a similar attitude towards spending to your SEI one, what would you derive as a result? That either one is mistyped? Or that, perhaps, trying to connect all this to types is nonsense...?

I personally don't think it's complete nonsense. I think it's probably more likely that some types will be more-likely into spending money and acquiring goods than others.

[Words]

I personally don't think it's complete nonsense. I think it's probably more likely that some types will be more-likely into spending money and acquiring goods than others.

Seems to me it depends more on biological reproductive success. If someone is in a community and has a mating partner in this community that are all into an eco way of living then no someone probably doesn't need to aquire things. If someone is in an environment that does require to have money and material possessions in order to obtain a desired partner and take part in the society, eg hobbies, doing things with friends, house in an OK area, then yes someone will want to have money to spend money and aquire goods. Otherwise this person is a looser (not saying I necessarily find them a looser, but biologically/evolutionary wise other people will be having more success than them in their environment).

I don't think it's type related I'd say it's necessity related if it's required to adapt and survive. I suppose i'm addressing consentingadult with this post as well....maybe I am saying...step away from the trees there might be a forest

[jet city woman]

Seems to me it depends more on biological reproductive success. If someone is in a community and has a mating partner in this community that are all into an eco way of living then no someone probably doesn't need to aquire things. If someone is in an environment that does require to have money and material possessions in order to obtain a desired partner and take part in the society, eg hobbies, doing things with friends, house in an OK area, then yes someone will want to have money to spend money and aquire goods. Otherwise this person is a looser (not saying I necessarily find them a looser, but biologically/evolutionary wise other people will be having more success than them in their environment).

I don't think it's type related I'd say it's necessity related if it's required to adapt and survive. I suppose i'm addressing consentingadult with this post as well....maybe I am saying...step away from the trees there might be a forest

I think you're definitely viewing from an So perspective. I have a problem with the fact that first, you say it depends more on biological reproductive success, and then in the next sentence, begin adjusting to the fact that environment is actually the most essential additive. It's not a necessity for me to survive, when all I have to do is beg on the streets for money to gain food and shelter.

Yes, it's type-related, whether someone finds it necessary to spend money, and/or make their environments look attractive, and/or look for a rescuer, etc etc etc.

[1981slater]

Women buy goods for the house
Some men do that
Chuck Norris waits for the goods to come to his place

I should start another thread

[Words]

I think you're definitely viewing from an So perspective. I have a problem with the fact that first, you say it depends more on biological reproductive success, and then in the next sentence, begin adjusting to the fact that environment is actually the most essential additive. It's not a necessity for me to survive, when all I have to do is beg on the streets for money to gain food and shelter.

Yes, it's type-related, whether someone finds it necessary to spend money, and/or make their environments look attractive, and/or look for a rescuer, etc etc etc.

Cheers for correcting my logic I think the environment does have an impact on biological success, eg we have to adapt to our environment in order to be viewed as good mating potential.

Or maybe I don't understand what you mean or I mean lol... it happens

[jet city woman]

Women buy goods for the house
Some men do that
Chuck Norris waits for the goods to come to his place

I should start another thread

I think Chuck Norris would more than likely just kick your ass and forget about it.

[1981slater]

I think Chuck Norris would more than likely just kick your ass and forget about it.

Hello, Jet City Woman

[jet city woman]

Hello, Jet City Woman

Lol, Hi.

[InvisibleJim]

A little bit here, a little bit there. Hohum. The revelations of obtaining Te valuers, women, men and non-Te valuers.

[consentingadult]

anyway @consentingadult , if I were to tell you that my ESI girlfriend has a similar attitude towards spending to your SEI one, what would you derive as a result? That either one is mistyped? Or that, perhaps, trying to connect all this to types is nonsense...?

Similar is not the same, I can't tell until you are more specific. IMHO, on the outside ESIs can display similar behaviors as SEIs, but is is the underlying motivation that matters, and these are different for ESIs and SEIs. ESIs are not motivated by a need to create comfort, in the true Si sense of the word. They can certainly, for example, create nicely decorated homes (yes, another stereotype), often much better than SEIs, and with a lot more taste, but their purpose is not so much to create comfort as SEIs do. I have noticed many ESI women beautifully decorating their homes with antique or vintage or high class furniture, very pleasing to the eye and the intellect, everything very well matched and expensive, but often totally unsuitable for true physical comfortable relaxation.

So, perhaps you can tell us a bit more about your GF, and how you interpret her underlying motivations for her behavior. Then we might be able to say more.

[Finale]

the problem with finale's post aside from the thing about flat eartherism i already mentioned, is that you were the only butthurt person in this thread. his description was a farcically specious reversal of the roles of the people involved.

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree on both points, but as to what qualifies as flat-eartherism is subjective as well as the fact that nobody actually can be cited as stipulating "I'm butthurt" so therefore we're each forced to decide where we think such motive is behind their text.

I personally don't consider theories of "gold-diggerism" as potentially related to certain types tantamount to flat eartherism, and the point of butthurt being reached I judged being in reply to CA simply stating theories that alpha's usually don't have money and that two types are outward and inward gold-diggers.. whereas the replies to such theories involved them being "embarassing", "plain dumb", "ridiculous", and CA being a potentially "insipid troll"... The former do not strike me as butthurt motivated discussion, whereas the latter do. But to each their own as it's clearly a matter of subjective opinion.

On this topic though, I find there is merit to his claim on inward gold digging with ESI's, but I personally believe the merit may be from simple misunderstanding. I don't agree with the inward gold-digging, but I can theorize where that opinion may stem.

Of the many ESI's I've known, their life requirements have stereotypically been fairly average.. i.e. like everyone, they enjoy a lush, extravagant lifestyle and quality of life, but unlike all types it's not usually a 100% strong need nor would they kill themselves working to achieve such a life style. More importantly, if they reach a said level, anything above and beyond that is optional, albeit enjoyed. In these cases, even a solo ESI has a tendency to be more charitable than other types I've seen. Take for example a particular ESI at my work- as she enjoys more promotions and raises, she takes on more personal charity in the form of bringing more food to food banks monthly/holidays and well as adopts rescue animals whenever possible/affordable. I'd theorize that an ESI is more likely to adopt a rescue animal vs. buy a new Corvette when compared to other types when personal success starts to roll in.

If an ESI marries into wealth, there is no doubt this trend would continue and/or amplify. After marriage, the two incomes normalize into a community income, so if salaries are uneven, I can see there being perception of an inward gold digging, but I'd also bet if the income disparity in an ESI+XXX couple favored the ESI in reverse, the same level of charity would also be employed.

In a purely socionic way, it makes sense too since more practical minded types seem to be dubbed compatible with types that may stereotypically push themselves towards wealth/success, yet also have a nature to piss those rewards away. If not in socionics, but just natural selection, people that are wealthy and piss away their rewards would be better grounded/matched with those that have more practical sense or can do better things with said rewards... say, investing in the home, donating to community, rescue options vs. snorting cocaine off a stripper's tits with a rolled up 100 dollar bill.

Sorry, we've officially sucked all the sarcastic humor out of slater's thread. Perhaps we need a few cat pictures included next time to better categorize humor vs. seriozz bizzness.

[Beautiful sky]

Similar is not the same, I can't tell until you are more specific. IMHO, on the outside ESIs can display similar behaviors as SEIs, but is is the underlying motivation that matters, and these are different for ESIs and SEIs. ESIs are not motivated by a need to create comfort, in the true Si sense of the word. They can certainly, for example, create nicely decorated homes (yes, another stereotype), often much better than SEIs, and with a lot more taste, but their purpose is not so much to create comfort as SEIs do. I have noticed many ESI women beautifully decorating their homes with antique or vintage or high class furniture, very pleasing to the eye and the intellect, everything very well matched and expensive, but often totally unsuitable for true physical comfortable relaxation.

So, perhaps you can tell us a bit more about your GF, and how you interpret her underlying motivations for her behavior. Then we might be able to say more.

I agree with you, entirely, CG. What you've said is the reason why conflict relations are so common; "oh look, exactly what I'm looking for," is but a matter of interpretation; I say "look deeper."

[Beautiful sky]

Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree on both points, but as to what qualifies as flat-eartherism is subjective as well as the fact that nobody actually can be cited as stipulating "I'm butthurt" so therefore we're each forced to decide where we think such motive is behind their text.

I personally don't consider theories of "gold-diggerism" as potentially related to certain types tantamount to flat eartherism, and the point of butthurt being reached I judged being in reply to CA simply stating theories that alpha's usually don't have money and that two types are outward and inward gold-diggers.. whereas the replies to such theories involved them being "embarassing", "plain dumb", "ridiculous", and CA being a potentially "insipid troll"... The former do not strike me as butthurt motivated discussion, whereas the latter do. But to each their own as it's clearly a matter of subjective opinion.

On this topic though, I find there is merit to his claim on inward gold digging with ESI's, but I personally believe the merit may be from simple misunderstanding. I don't agree with the inward gold-digging, but I can theorize where that opinion may stem.

Of the many ESI's I've known, their life requirements have stereotypically been fairly average.. i.e. like everyone, they enjoy a lush, extravagant lifestyle and quality of life, but unlike all types it's not usually a 100% strong need nor would they kill themselves working to achieve such a life style. More importantly, if they reach a said level, anything above and beyond that is optional, albeit enjoyed. In these cases, even a solo ESI has a tendency to be more charitable than other types I've seen. Take for example a particular ESI at my work- as she enjoys more promotions and raises, she takes on more personal charity in the form of bringing more food to food banks monthly/holidays and well as adopts rescue animals whenever possible/affordable. I'd theorize that an ESI is more likely to adopt a rescue animal vs. buy a new Corvette when compared to other types when personal success starts to roll in.

If an ESI marries into wealth, there is no doubt this trend would continue and/or amplify. After marriage, the two incomes normalize into a community income, so if salaries are uneven, I can see there being perception of an inward gold digging, but I'd also bet if the income disparity in an ESI+XXX couple favored the ESI in reverse, the same level of charity would also be employed.

In a purely socionic way, it makes sense too since more practical minded types seem to be dubbed compatible with types that may stereotypically push themselves towards wealth/success, yet also have a nature to piss those rewards away. If not in socionics, but just natural selection, people that are wealthy and piss away their rewards would be better grounded/matched with those that have more practical sense or can do better things with said rewards... say, investing in the home, donating to community, rescue options vs. snorting cocaine off a stripper's tits with a rolled up 100 dollar bill.

Sorry, we've officially sucked all the sarcastic humor out of slater's thread. Perhaps we need a few cat pictures included next time to better categorize humor vs. seriozz bizzness.

My ESI cousin has always been generous.

[consentingadult]

My final words on the subject, then I will no longer bother you with my silly, trolling and moronic flat eartherism:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ld-digger.html

[Absurd]

Spoken like a true SLI ;-) (now I'm curious as to who is going to freak next out about this slanderous stereotypical statement of mine).

You sure know who to spot your duals, consentingadult. Best of luck.

Cool site though, bash them greedy Se people.

[1981slater]

My final words on the subject, then I will no longer bother you with my silly, trolling and moronic flat eartherism:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ld-digger.html

ESIs: covert gold diggers
IEEs: just gold diggers