I think he is referring to a specific kind of empathy that’s Socionically-relatedOriginally Posted by ooo
I think he is referring to a specific kind of empathy that’s Socionically-related
read about the dimensionality of functions, it has nothing to do with what these self proclaimed experts are talking about.
very simply: 1D functions (Polr+ Dual Seek), are based only on experience. the more dimensionality a function has, the more it integrates other levels of information.
no he reffered to a line you said in your test and a to question he did and to which you replied that once you met a woman on the bus and felt for her. this fits 1D functions.
True as well. In the end, it all depends on whether this was an anecdote for a high level IE dimensionality, or just proof of human empathizing. Depending on perspective, there are multiple conclusions that can be drawn from this example.
"your IR test gave LIE>IEI=IEE as key results"
the needed was all 16 types sorted by the criterion. it was said clearly and you've rejected to do this without rational basis
those 3 favorite types are close to neutral for ILE (IEI is better than average). so it's possible to be. LII is lesser possible than ILE, as IEE is subrevisie of them. so there is some use from those tears to support ILE as main version. from full results could be taken more and the process of sorting iteself is important to do place the types correctly. you'd could to place at top other types in case you'd followed to recommendations
as for distrust of some noobs - it's important in the degree of basis. while contarguments there were speculative, baseless from theory point and against not bad facts of efficiency - that means not much to take into account.
that you pay attention on baseless opposings, being rather smart dude, points that are emotionally predisposed to assign yourself Se valued type. having NT type - you'll understand your mistake with a good chance later, if will study the typology seriously
at 1st you've rejected to follow recommendation to video and then to IR test. this is an additional argument for your P type. they do not like to follow the rules. especially it's about base N - which tend to improvise much
also I notice that you supress your emotions in our conversation, despite I provoked you a little. you hold to T types style.
by the behavior you should be P-T: ILE, SLE, ILI, SLI
what fits to ILE supposed to you
You're an idiot. Seriously. A unicorns fucking in outer space, farting rainbow streamers moron of the highest tier.
@Flying Dutchman
sure thing, everything can be said about the tiniest element you give. and that's why we need a lot of information to type someone. if in 100 lines you mention some specific theme three times, I'm gonna assume that said element is not as prominent in you as something else you've expressed more. and if said elements are expressed only within a context of personal experience, I'm gonna assume they belong to the most basic Dimension.
socionics stereotypes take place everyday: T types don't feel for anyone, F types can't formulate anything correct, N are made of the same stuff of dreams, while S types exist for real. seriously, stop it.
you're talking to yourself ; )
Listen, you haven’t provided any arguments at all regarding any possible type other than your “gut”. Look, if you disagree with my method of handling things, I suggest you stop visiting this thread. There is no objective proof to cooperate with your gut, it’s possible that you have influenza now and then; manipulating your conclusions since you deem logical viewpoints unnecessary to provide.
@Flying Dutchman I'm quoting myself here regarding function dimensionality--I'll get to the rest of your inquiry in a minute.
All dimensions of Se would be able to reach that conclusion, albeit with different scopes and, arguably, levels of accuracy and certainty.What D Se is it when they use their logic to determine that something isn’t bringing in enough material rewards for them to act on the said venture?
1D Se would arrive there based on past experiences of themselves and others; 2D Se would arrive there based on past experiences + what the norms (theoretical collective/"common" knowledge) usually dictate; 3D would arrive there based on past experiences + what the norms dictate + using the aforementioned situationally/across context; 4D would arrive there based on past experiences + what the norms dictate + applying situational context + how the aforementioned might develop at any point on the time continuum, divorced from the current reality, thereby foreseeing various outcomes and potentialities.
Therefore, it would seem to be a safer bet to go with 4D Se's "reading"/understanding of a certain Se-related situation than someone with 1D Se who can't get away from their own limited experiences, even though that past experience could be rooted in a truth relevant to the conclusion reached; however, 4D Se would bring much greater scope most likely leading to some correct/accurate action or lack thereof, which may not be so bad a thing for all others to heed, considering that's their "superpower"/expertise.
No I'm talking to a skull fucked peon who barely knows her own type, yet feels qualified to accurately type someone else. Fuck outta here.
keep talking to yourself, lol
Are you and Alonzo conflicting types or what?
socionics says about comparative tendencies. it's noobs tend to use traits as absolute
more F types noobs
@Flying Dutchman please don't start putting it all under a socionics lens, some people are just not gonna get along very well, and apparently someone's a bit touchy.. like you and your previous classmates, were they all conflictors to you?
they can be mirrors.Are you and Alonzo conflicting types or what?
kind of play between them
superego generally stalk with each other. conflictors are too different to get opposing. also weakest function is suggestive by Jung
don't u like them ; )socionics says about comparative tendencies. it's noobs tend to use traits as absolute
more F types noobs
the classmate which I remembered as the worst was EIE
the woman which I remembered as hurted me in the childhood the most was EIE
in uni one of the assholes responsible for my life-long spine trauma was EIE
conflictors were quiet and dreamy. one was funny - he liked to tell bs. women conflictors were nice to see - so feminine and charming
I like strong in them, but I understand and don't like the weak in them. at best I take the weak trait as cute kiddy behavior - that can be acceptable until you don't depend from that behavior
where's your typing thread, Soli?
She's a ditzy, flighty, cornball, nigh retarded Ne lead who can barely come to any conclusion on anything, let alone who the fuck she actually is, because--oh wait, MUH POSSIBILITIES!!!, ever inclined towards some idiotic, inconsequential, unnecessary stream of consciousness that doesn't do anything but add additional confusion...to herself and for anyone within the vicinity of her over active yet useless imagination.Are you and Alonzo conflicting types or what?
This is what I said >
For those who know how to fucking read and haven't suffered one to many dicks to the skull, where does that imply that logical types completely lack empathy? I always speak with nuance, acknowledging degrees and extents. The whole point of being a logical type is that ethics are submerged and deprioritized, but not that they are utterly lacking and the same goes for the ethical types and their use of logic. You will never read a Socionics article that would stupidly purport for a logical type to be good at matters of empathy. Furthermore, a SLE with 1D Fi would more readily and quickly be able to close psychological distances with people and concerning issues they have previously encountered--like a family member where there has been close contact and repeated instances where there was a need for cogntive empathy. But that will never be their strong suit (something they can use instantaneously and with broad scope like a ESI or EII), and most assuredly not as a teenager, where their strong, conscious prioritized functions aren't even fully developed yet.Logical types do not engage in this type of thing with any cognitive ease, comfort, sophistication and natural facility.
I tried to answer but don't think it's worth the effort. I'm just baffled by all the hate.. ironic right.
I was lucky to be sured in own type before these crazy forums where noobs try to type other noobs became popular or even appeared.
I'm ancient one.
Don't be baffled, dear, you low key called me a sociopath. "Talk shit, get hit." In your delusional world, empaths are effortlessly amazing at logic and logical types are deeply and hopelessly feeling beings, but guess what? Socionics doesn't agree with you. Do subconscious logic and ethics drive conscious logic and ethics? Of fucking course, but without being dualized or extreme situations, it can take an entire lifetime for the subconscious to fully emerge in a way that makes the functions confined to that space more ostensible and apparent. Therefore, to imply that one is a sociopath unless they have an "easy, nuanced, sophisticated" handling of ethics/empathy is FALSE and a particular shitty thing to say. But it's all good, because I know that's how you really feel--just be honest and not a passive aggressive slag. I see right through your shit. Don't try to throw the stone and hide your hand.
Relax, I was just joking. For all I care, you could’ve been duals. It was only a reference to your constant battle in arguments.
She's my bullshit benefactor, always trying to imply with some passive aggressive remark that she thinks my Fi is subpar. But that's fine because her Te is warm, diarrhea stew with a cold glass of horse piss on the side.
I'm sorry for derailing your thread--it just bothers me a lot when people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about like to assert themselves as if they are competent when there's too much evidence to the contrary--if she were so knowledgeable, she'd know what her own type is. And especially when they use their own confusion to confuse someone else who is trying to discover themselves. Your ego functions are still growing, maturing, and evolving and so I think you should give yourself time to reach a definitive conclusion about your type--it's not uncommon for IEIs (if that's what you actually are) to require more time with this process > absorbing the moods and emotions (large and small) of others all day long can skew what you yourself are actually and truly feeling and valuing + abstractly juggling and shifting perspectives with Ni depending on what some particular person/circumstance requires can make you seem like some sort of shape-shifter, chameleon. These things can cause IEIs to frequently doubt who they are. So don't let anyone pressure or bully you into anything, including me--I just want to help. But you're obviously a smart lad, I'm sure you'll figure it out on your own.
I know you were, but you're even curious to see how socionics works in action, and by the other things you've wondered about last night, like "how does a Fi polr manifs indeniably?" or "maybe there's a kind of empathy that is socionics related", I have the impression you're mixing up NonTypeRelatedFactors with what can actually be typed. Also, jokes hide more truth than what it's given them credit for. I just wanted to make the point clear.
So, to make it more clear, there are different kinds of empathy. In psychology empathy is considered a characteristic, evolutionary feature of humanity, it was necessary in order to survive and reproduce, so that we all have some kind and level of empathy. It can further be divided in positive and negative, positive is when we tend to deal with the positive spectrum of the emotions shared, negative is when we tend to respond to their more negative spectrum.
In socionics, F is in general associated with empathy, in particular Fe can be related to the kind of empathy that shares and imitates the feelings of the other, while Fi is more attuned in understanding what the other is experiencing. In practice, the 2 things easily overlap. Even Si, with its internal sensations is liked to a higher degree of empathy.
Socionics has some theories about the distribution of empathy: https://socionic.ru/index.php/2010-1...11-09-23-44-21. In each quadra the extroverted logicians are said to display a not too bad level of empathy, which is necessary in order to ensure that relationships and exchanges happen. The lowest degree of empathy belongs to the intoverted logicians of each group. And the most empathetic are the introverted feelers of each quadra.
Introverted feelers have 4D F, which would make their empathy compass perform in pretty much all occasions. Extroverted logicians use their empathy to understand their environment, it basically plays a role of "matter of fact situations, how things are", in relationship to their F.
-Se in particular the function that reads and reacts to the outside "objects" with the greatest intensity. from https://sociotype.com/socionics/types/SLE-ESTp/ "SLEs have trouble evaluating the internal emotional state of other people unless it is accompanied by a visible emotional expression. They are typically inept at reading people's inner feelings and often do not expect people to react to them on the basis of sentiments that are not outwardly visible." this could apply to the episode from the bus you've described.
Also, one particularity of 1D functions is that they're so weak that we respond to them greatly, the famous Polr is here, and even our precious DS. If something happens in these functions, be sure it won't go unnoticed. Polr and DS reactions are famous for being very intense.
Last thing, as I've repeated... stereotypes, we should avoid them. People of the same type can behave and respond to things in very different ways, this because they are all different people with different experiences and different bodies and minds etc. A Si Polr doesn't manifest the same for two EIEs for ex., and their Si Polr can even have the same content and expression of a Si base. As I've said before, we need not one, but many elements to type someone.
I'm not 100% sure you're a SLE, I was being a bit cheeky. I see other possibilities working for you, but at this point I'm just repeating socionics stuff that you can and should look up for yoursef.
BTW, I'm not willing to interact in this thread anymore. I don't wanna be rudely insulted like this for sharing some views on socionics. Your support to his behavior is unsettling, I hope you realize.
You were being a passive aggressive, worthless, unhelpful troll--someone's path of self discovery and earnest desire for information is not the chance for you to be cute--which you aren't, by any stretch of the imagination. You shouldn't have tried to "interact" in the first place because you added nothing of value; how about your "interact" with yourself and find out who the fuck YOU are before you attempt to mistype someone else. The only thing unsettling is your inability to understand...anything. Don't try to guilt him into anything he had no part of. I seriously hope you've been spayed. Don't breed. Please.
Here you are lieing. There were also rational arguments for ILE type. But it's not important in the situation. Though, so bad dealing with facts supports that base Te is not your type.
There is no objective logical proof for types now. There are only speculative arguments. Their value is not high in general and you as a novice have no even qualification to understand them correctly. There is no enough trusted and full info about you for rational arguments for a type and no wish to do hard logical argumentation for random dude.
But the most important is - it's not needed to say you logical arguments to help you understand own type. You are here for the correct type - you get it and then _you think yourself_ why it's true. There is no objective basis to trust absolutely to any typer and arguments - you gather them yourself step by step until you become assured - you evaluate probabilities and notice they stably point on a single type, despite how much new data you are geting after time - then you are sured in this type. Typers only point to where to look more, where is more possible to be your correct type. For example, you always need to type people _yourself_ to check your type by IR - many people - >10, including close and other important ones - and anyone should fit good to IR theory except when you may find clear nontypes factors for distortions. IR is in irrational friendly sympathy in informal communication, 1st of all, not surface relations.
then
Results of IR test could to be a good argument for my opinion and you knew this. By the principle and by examples said to you.
But you've sabotaged this by either not geting the full sorting. Or those types were your interpretation of results, but not 3 favorite types. In this case. It's evident there is no clear and single-value interpreration, also this needs a qualification, and there can be goten more details than you've written. You've hiden your results, meanwhile you are predisposed to think yourself as Se valued type. Probably results pointed good on Si valued type and ILE possibility. Your predisposition to some type should be emotional - mb you are in relations with a girl which think as having beta type or other emotional reasons. Anyway, the only what is meaningful is your sorting of all types from IR test and nothing else. You've sabotaged this testing - you've hiden its results. Mb also broke other "rules" in not following to all recommendations.
Also. LIE, IEE, IEI - all are N types, what good argument for your N. Your talking style is not emotional, even when you feel not ok - you prefer to protect logically (what should be region of your higher assurance in yourself), not emotionally - for your T type -> NT. Among these types the 1st LIE is close to ILE. The more common traits among that 3 types are: E, P, F -> IEE as average, which is close to ILE. What you got says that ILE is rather possible to think about. Unlike betas, in case you do not dream yourself as externally "low-emotional" Fe type.
I suspect IR test gave something good to support ILE. In this case - it's my main logical argument - the match between 2 methods, besides other above. The problem - you could to miss the degree ILE was supported by the results. In IRL typing you'll notice your values, anyway.
resume
You are incompetent in the typology enough to trust to your opinion about own type, its traits or to disagree with me about your type.
You are here to gather opinions of more experienced ones and then to find arguments pro and contra those opinions yourself!
study the types (read English book of Filatova+Jung, at least). type people. you'll probably find arguments to agree with ILE. definetely NT type, not beta. it's the common way and the only correct. on other ways you'll be jumping between types and will be seeking for muddy and heretic rationalizaitions for your doubtful opinions as will be geting much of bs on practice
to doubt is ok. to be irrationally negative is not. be more realistic from objective point, but not to protect your current noobish opinions
also
8 type of Enneagram may look as more assertive and hence sensory. here is a girl @sbbds with IEI which supposes herself as... SLE lol
Last edited by Sol; 06-01-2019 at 03:41 PM.
But not the one who supposes this as weighty argument in a typing and meanwhile thinks himself as base T type.
you are funny
I have not, and do not support behavior that includes attacking each other. What I meant with “Socionics-correlated” empathy, is that certain skills regarding people, are associated with empathy by some. It was merely an objective statement that was not to be necessarily taken in comparison with my responses on this forum. I do not deny that any type has empathy. Even psychopaths do, yes it’s crazy but they do. It is just not “on” in their regular mode, whereas with neurotypical people, “on” is its natural mode.
However, not to get strayed away from my point; I do not need Socionics to necessarily correlate empathy with certain types, but I do like to get some feedback by everyone reading this thread regarding typing methods and what to look for. Looking into mulidimentionality is one of them. Some others don’t help me any further and that’s ok. But I understand if you don’t like to constantly clash with someone else because of your attempts to type me. I wish you a very nice day.
he's close. SLE give better impression in S in nonverbal
you may compare him with my SLE examples. then look at ILE and notice to which group of people he's closer by your intuitive impressions
Well, I really haven’t sabotaged it. I merely drew the conclusion that the top 3 would be enough. My method in this was to first eliminate all types that really bothered me. Then I proceeded to rate the other ones on a scale of zero to five. Needless to say, I eventually came to the conclusion of these three types to be me top 3. Those were my favorites. There were others that were really appealing, but there were always a few other videos of that type that would give me a major “tun-off”.Here you are lieing. There were also rational arguments for ILE type. But it's not important in the situation. Though, so bad dealing with facts supports that base Te is not your type.
There is no objective logical proof for types now. There are only speculative arguments. Their value is not high in general and you as a novice have no even qualification to understand them correctly. There is no enough trusted and full info about you for rational arguments for a type and no wish to do hard logical argumentation for random dude.
But the most important is - it's not needed to say you logical arguments to help you understand own type. You are here for the correct type - you get it and then _you think yourself_ why it's true. There is no objective basis to trust absolutely to any typer and arguments - you gather them yourself step by step until you become assured - you evaluate probabilities and notice they stably point on a single type, despite how much new data you are geting after time - then you are sured in this type. Typers only point to where to look more, where is more possible to be your correct type. For example, you always need to type people _yourself_ to check your type by IR - many people - >10, including close and other important ones - and anyone should fit good to IR theory except when you may find clear nontypes factors for distortions. IR is in irrational friendly sympathy in informal communication, 1st of all, not surface relations.
then
Results of IR test could to be a good argument for my opinion and you knew this. By the principle and by examples said to you.
But you've sabotaged this by either not geting the full sorting. Or those types were your interpretation of results, but not 3 favorite types. In this case. It's evident there is no clear and single-value interpreration, also this needs a qualification, and there can be goten more details than you've written. You've hiden your results, meanwhile you are predisposed to think yourself as Se valued type. Probably results pointed good on Si valued type and ILE possibility. Your predisposition to some type should be emotional - mb you are in relations with a girl which think as having beta type or other emotional reasons. Anyway, the only what is meaningful is your sorting of all types from IR test and nothing else. You've sabotaged this testing - you've hiden its results. Mb also broke other "rules" in not following to all recommendations.
Also. LIE, IEE, IEI - all are N types, what good argument for your N. Your talking style is not emotional, even when you feel not ok - you prefer to protect logically (what should be region of your higher assurance in yourself), not emotionally - for your T type -> NT. Among these types the 1st LIE is close to ILE. The more common traits among that 3 types are: E, P, F -> IEE as average, which is close to ILE. What you got says that ILE is rather possible to think about. Unlike betas, in case you do not dream yourself as externally "low-emotional" Fe type.
I suspect IR test gave something good to support ILE. In this case - it's my main logical argument - the match between 2 methods, besides other above. The problem - you could to miss the degree ILE was supported by the results. In IRL typing you'll notice your values, anyway.
resume
You are incompetent in the typology enough to trust to your opinion about own type, its traits or to disagree with me about your type.
You are here to gather opinions of more experienced ones and then to find arguments pro and contra those opinions yourself!
study the types (read English book of Filatova+Jung, at least). type people. you'll probably find arguments to agree with ILE. definetely NT type, not beta. it's the common way and the only correct. on other ways you'll be jumping between types and will be seeking for muddy and heretic rationalizaitions for your doubtful opinions as will be geting much of bs on practice
to doubt is ok. to be irrationally negative is not. be more realistic from objective point, but not to protect your current noobish opinions
also
8 type of Enneagram may look as more assertive and hence sensory. here is a girl @sbbds with IEI which supposes herself as... SLE lol
I do not reject any type just because someone did not provide arguments with them. I don’t even reject ILE for that matter. I only reject your way of getting to that conclusion, because it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know before. Before this forum, I started to investigate what my type was. Immediately after my discovery of Socionics I did and am still doing. I have been researching a number of possibilities, but they had crossover tendencies that would only describe a certain part of my behavior/mode of operation. Let’s say temperament; EJ vs EP. Simply put, I am both really organized in my daily life and always planning but I also really like to relax, take it easy and not care about anything instead (not literally, but you get the point). In such a situation it gets trickier because a lot of descriptions (in case I am basing off type descriptions) describe types as one way or the other. So is the case with other temperaments.
And (can’t believe I have to repeat this) I am much more expressive IRL than in videos where I like to maintain a degree of professionalism and look composed. Even the way I speak is different.
To name asking for help understanding a theory to more experienced people than myself incompetency, is a rather shortsighted observation than a deliberate one. And no, I don’t like just getting type suggestions without a basis because I probably have researched almost every type that has been mentioned here before. Saying that you expect ME to come up with the reasons for that typing is really lazy and dumb. As if I have never thought of that before. The only reason I participate in a Type Me thread is to get as much objective observations + arguments as possible. What I do with them, is my business.
I've seen people say this many times before but this is the worst thing to do when being "VI'd." lol I completely understand that for the vast majority of people, the moment one puts a lens/camera on them, it instantaneously alters who they are, to some degree--for most people, there will be some level of heightened "awareness" that can potentially make someone feel not as natural as they usually are. But, to the best of one's ability, there must be as much naturalness as possible, from multiple angles, in order to arrive at a fuller, more accurate impression. Any type of staging/posing/acting will skew your results and prohibit people from truly "seeing" the realest you possible, which is the whole point of being typed by video.
the most useful would be you posting the list of all 16 types by your sorting. in case you did that before opened the key
I'd checked how another ILE did my test
such data is important to understand how the test works
this test or similar approach will be used to prove the duality effect sometimes and then... Socionics will be accepted as a science and will become wide practice. more good marriages and happier people with them will appear
Yeah, ok. I’m probably going to do the test again, then. Following the process you prefer. But look, I still am not fully buying the whole “VI intuition rules intellect” thing. I tend to view VI as a prop to compare to the information a user has given. And use it as either a second confirmation, or as a sign that something doesn’t add up when the results are too different. Do you get what I mean? You have a certain stubbornness that prevents you from using other methods than VI which is very annoying. But for research sake, I will do the bloody IR test.
no list -> almost no use of IR test -> no argument which you wanted to have
and then you blame me *sigh*
P types are not consistent
Read the mentioned 2 books and then try to type people by normal theory and by VI, not only common behavior and tests and then you'll understand your type. I did such (just read a little more, in Russian there are more books than a single adequate one). This approach was effective.
wbr
Unnecessary IMO, you clearly value Se if everything you have said is truly how you perceive the world. Also, using Sols' IR test is only useful if you believe he has typed every one of those people correctly.
you can read ppl well and see their intentions, your worst fear is not being able to be yourself, you feel very connected to your anger, you dislike that you get angry pretty easily...I think there's a clear pattern here of ethics of emotions (Fe). You are also ambitious and like to direct and control things (Se valuing and rational type).
EIE>LIE
Last edited by Hope; 06-05-2019 at 02:37 AM.
Good point, and EIE isn't an impossible typing either. Te Role could actually fit me better than Te PoLR (IEI). Reason why I am somewhat in flux regarding type is because I am as well IRL. Taking on a certain role quickly feels like a confinement of expectations and image. I see myself as a person with a lot of different aspects. People sometimes tend to feel dull to me, boring, without a life. I sometimes look around me and wonder why they even get up in the morning.
When I was very young, this was even more pronounced. I saw myself as a human among zombies who were tied to their own world of how people should behave. When I started to watch tv shows like Law and Order SVU, I realized that people were a lot more interesting beings than I thought. I became more active around them and I eventually tried to adapt to them. But I would never feel the same as them and always like an outsider. And because I feel that I am more than can possibly be showed in one image, I try on different "faces". I am that future hipster guy at the Starbucks with a MacBook one month, and a future successful entrepreneur the other month. And when I do that, others are totally convinced by it as well.
Taking on such images provides me with a certainty about how to act, how to behave. But because I am more than just that, I eventually become anxious about people seeing me as just that and I then respond by overhauling my behavior to show to them that I am more. Because with certain behaviors you attract certain people while you repel others. And I hate that people can't just see, really see what I mean. Some do, but those are not common.
Well, this was a short rant but I hope it proves helpful in typing.
I saw a lot of Se, not only in your description of yourself, but your presentation, and ways of dealing with issues. When you brought up the part about green-peace needing to be more forceful and your ways of dealing with the issue, I definitely saw it then, and what I perceived to be Fi since you were so passionate about it, but it isn't out of the ordinary for any of the beta types I've come into contact with and seen, to be so concerned about an issue to the point of taking those measures. Your aversion to illogical arguments/statements was also pretty clear you should consider LSI or SLE.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote