Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 138

Thread: Se Polr thread split - jung discussion

  1. #1
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Se Polr thread split - jung discussion

    One time me, an ENFp, and an INFj were waiting at a restaurant.

    We were sitting at a table for a while and our server didn't arrive yet. I suggested that I'd physically walk up to the server and ask them to serve us (Se)

    This obviously made my INFj friend uncomfortable, and said no, lets be polite and wait for them. (Fi + Se PoLR)

    --

    Another way you see this manifest is if INFjs and INTjs are in leadership positions.

    When I've observed them organize group events, I noticed that they'd never push others to come out beyond the invite. They would kind of organize the events, then sit back, and let the individuals do their own thing. (Se PoLR)

    Whereas for me, I'd pester people to come out lol (Se)

  2. #2
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    One time me, an ENFp, and an INFj were waiting at a restaurant.

    We were sitting at a table for a while and our server didn't arrive yet. I suggested that I'd physically walk up to the server and ask them to serve us (Se)

    This obviously made my INFj friend uncomfortable, and said no, lets be polite and wait for them. (Fi + Se PoLR)

    --

    Another way you see this manifest is if INFjs and INTjs are in leadership positions.

    When I've observed them organize group events, I noticed that they'd never push others to come out beyond the invite. They would kind of organize the events, then sit back, and let the individuals do their own thing. (Se PoLR)

    Whereas for me, I'd pester people to come out lol (Se)
    Great examples

  3. #3
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hotelambush is a heretic in socionics. You don't want to go by his definitions.

  4. #4
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    One time me, an ENFp, and an INFj were waiting at a restaurant.

    We were sitting at a table for a while and our server didn't arrive yet. I suggested that I'd physically walk up to the server and ask them to serve us (Se)
    That's not Se per say. The situation could speak more to your use of Te. Imposing order, using your cognition for functionality to make the part function better with the whole, business logic. Also the fact you suggested the action and were cognizing it in terms of "I physically walk up" and do x shows means-end contemplation with yourself as an external behavior.

    Read Jung for more information on Se and Te.

  5. #5
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    That's not Se per say. The situation could speak more to your use of Te. Imposing order, using your cognition for functionality to make the part function better with the whole, business logic. Also the fact you suggested the action and were cognizing it in terms of "I physically walk up" and do x shows means-end contemplation with yourself as an external behavior.

    Read Jung for more information on Se and Te.
    Nah

  6. #6
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Nah
    Well, Jung is quite clear that reflective action is Te and that Te is a forceful function, so your example is much too simplistic to label Se. You aren't cutting deep enough. I mean, you don't want to be uninformed. That's why I recommend you read Jung. Jung is the cannon on functions. These are his functions you're using. The least you could do is learn about what they mean.

    If anything, what you're describing is more Te-creative. From Jung on Extraverted Thinking:

    When thinking holds prior place among the psychological functions, i.e., when the life of an individual is mainly governed by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds, or is intended to proceed, from intellectually considered motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type.

    Their sanction is: the ends justify the means.

    "Oughts" and "Musts" bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscious, or as the proponent of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould.


    Jung is referring to imperatives of action when he talks about Te's "oughts" and "musts". So if we have to put a function on it, this whole "pushing yourself to do things = Se" is more Te due to its intentionality. In your example at the restaurant, the desired action proceeds from your reflection on the situation. You even stop to contemplate to the person you're with that you "ought" to ask them to serve you. Just sounds more Si/Te > Ti/Se.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default Se Polr thread split

    lol

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, to provide a bit more. This is MBTI thinking lol on a Socionics forum. .... What peteronfireee wrote initially, that in Socionics was about Rationality + Se. Si leads are Irrational, it's Rationals who have the intentionality like that. In MBTI it's the other way around, sure, there Ti + Se ISTP is the Irrational without the purposeful intentionality and Si +Te ISTJ is the Rational with intentionality.

    And LOL, peteronfireee never wrote "ought". Idiotic reading between the lines.

  9. #9
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Click here to see Myst's constructive click on my post quoting Jung's definition of Ti on the Jordan Peterson thread.

    Then click here to see Myst's insane post over me typing her ILE, which was made about an hour before the above post.

    With that aside, let's subtract out what Myst just "added".

    Model A, intertype relations, subtypes and I would even go so far as to include the use of VI to classify type are all means for distinguishing Socionics from MBTI (certainly there can be no dispute on Model A and Intertype Relations). However, make no mistake that socionics still incorporates Jung's types into its theory, so you're using Jung. If you're not using Jung's definitions, then you are the idiot....only a garble-brained fool like Myst could delude herself into thinking that Jung's definitions aren't relevant to Socionics. His definitions are better than anybody else's definitions, for that matter. Jung is the one who thought up and described these functions for chrissake. There would most likely be no socionics but for Jung. MBTI and socionics both trace back to Jung.

    The point is its reflective action and is clearly what Peter describes taking, or attempting to take, in his story.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-13-2018 at 01:58 AM.

  10. #10
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    siding with myst because thats the only thing you understand

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Click here to see Myst's constructive click on my post quoting Jung's definition of Ti on the Jordan Peterson thread.

    Then click here to see Myst's insane post over me typing her ILE, which was made about an hour before the above post.
    What's your problem now? You need continuous admiration or what?

    Sorry to burst your bubble, where I clicked constructive, I clicked it regardless of who posted that post. It wasn't personal admiration of you.


    With that aside, let's subtract out what Myst just "added".

    Model A, intertype relations, subtypes and I would even go so far as to include the use of VI to classify type are all means for distinguishing Socionics from MBTI (certainly there can be no dispute on Model A and Intertype Relations). However, make no mistake that socionics still incorporates Jung's types into its theory, so you're using Jung. If you're not using Jung's definitions, then you are the idiot....only a garble-brained fool like Myst could delude herself into thinking that Jung's definitions aren't relevant to Socionics. His definitions are better than anybody else's definitions, for that matter. Jung is the one who thought up and described these functions for chrissake. There would most likely be no socionics but for Jung. MBTI and socionics both trace back to Jung.

    The point is its reflective action and is clearly what Peter describes taking, or attempting to take, in his story.
    I don't know how you managed to misinterpret my post this much. I was talking about the issues with MBTI's function model, not about the issues with Jung. Because you were pretty much using MBTI logic in your post.

    But sure, Jung isn't god. Some of his stuff is ok, some of it needed an update.

    Also, I think you just can't recognize LSIs, you retyped both me and peteronfireee...

    Lol and I had a good laugh at your creative word use "garble-brained".

  12. #12
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    What's your problem now? You need continuous admiration or what?

    Sorry to burst your bubble, where I clicked constructive, I clicked it regardless of who posted that post. It wasn't personal admiration of you.
    Must've went over your head on that. It doesn't make a difference who posted it.

    You clicked the constructive for the information posted. I stated that Peterson is a dead ringer for Ti based on Jung's description and then posted excerpts from Jung's description of Ti.

    I don't know how you managed to misinterpret my post this much. I was talking about the issues with MBTI's function model, not about the issues with Jung. Because you were pretty much using MBTI logic in your post.
    Well the only logic in my post was that Peter's story described Te based upon Jung's description of Te and in the aspect of model A, creative Te. That's typological reasoning in socionics since Jung is a primary resource on the functions. MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other. You will recall that I used the same logic on the Jordan Peterson thread when I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. I note that you didn't state it being MBTI logic then. Also, an hour before you made the post to me on this thread, you notified me on another thread to let me know that I was an idiot over something having to do with me typing you ILE.

    But sure, Jung isn't god.
    He is certainly not a God. However, his descriptions are the primary resource for understanding each function, so it's essential to know if you're interested in Socionics. As far as Socionics goes, Jung's descriptions have a permanent place in the theory. Keep in mind that the chosen names for the functions are Fi, Ne, Te, Si, Se, etc. It's one thing to make elaborations upon Jung for sound reasons. Updating Jung because what Jung says doesn't fit the way some people type themselves or some set of possibilities you want to explore is not a sound reason for doing so, and by updating, it doesn't mean throwing Jung away (his descriptions still inform on the basic qualities for each function). If you're just going to make up your definitions for these functions, you would do better to rename them and start your own typology system.

    Some of his stuff is ok, some of it needed an update.
    Well, if anybody can grasp the possibility for a Socionics without Jung it's you. I would expect you to want to 'innovate' socionic concepts including descriptions for the functions to fit with your own personal vision of Socionics.

    Also, I think you just can't recognize LSIs, you retyped both me and peteronfireee...

    Lol and I had a good laugh at your creative word use "garble-brained".
    I recognize them just fine, thanks...maybe when you can see yourself with more detachment, you will come around to it. and I haven't retyped Peteronfireee. I typed what what he described in the story as more Te-creative. I noted it sounds more Si/Te. That doesn't automatically mean he is SLI.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Must've went over your head on that. It doesn't make a difference who posted it.

    You clicked the constructive for the information posted. I stated that Peterson is a dead ringer for Ti based on Jung's description and then posted excerpts from Jung's description of Ti.
    Over my head...? It was a joke.

    And I agree that Peterson is Ti. I'd still click constructive for that post. And it's totally unrelated to the posts here.


    Well the only logic in my post was that Peter's story described Te based upon Jung's description of Te and in the aspect of model A, creative Te. That's typological reasoning in socionics since Jung is a primary resource on the functions. MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other. You will recall that I used the same logic on the Jordan Peterson thread when I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. I note that you didn't state it being MBTI logic then. Also, an hour before you made the post to me on this thread, you notified me on another thread to let me know that I was an idiot over something having to do with me typing you ILE.
    My pointing out the MBTI logic here has zero to do with your typing me ILE etc.

    The Peterson post didn't utilize MBTI logic. Your post in this thread did. It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts.

    Basically. Your logic was MBTI logic because it failed to appreciate the Rationality of Ti lead, trying to explain all Rational intentionality as Te. Jung's Te definition being used or not, this is the same logic that MBTI's function stacking utilizes.



    He is certainly not a God. However, his descriptions are the primary resource for understanding each function, so it's essential to know if you're interested in Socionics. As far as Socionics goes, Jung's descriptions have a permanent place in the theory. Keep in mind that the chosen names for the functions are Fi, Ne, Te, Si, Se, etc. It's one thing to make elaborations upon Jung for sound reasons. Updating Jung because what Jung says doesn't fit the way some people type themselves or some set of possibilities you want to explore is not a sound reason for doing so, and by updating, it doesn't mean throwing Jung away (his descriptions still inform on the basic qualities for each function). If you're just going to make up your definitions for these functions, you would do better to rename them and start your own typology system.
    I'm not exploring "some set of possibilities". It's simpler than that, if some description or reasoning matches my observations, good, if not, then the logic needs fixing.

    In general, with the update thing I meant that there have been advances in the science of psychology since Jung that I find describe and explain some observations better than some of Jung's stuff. I was not referring to making my own typology system.


    Well, if anybody can grasp the possibility for a Socionics without Jung it's you. I would expect you to want to 'innovate' socionic concepts including descriptions for the functions to fit with your own personal vision of Socionics.
    Nice of you to see me as this creative but no, I'm not creative enough to innovate possibilities and I don't care either. Like I said, I wasn't talking about any personal version of Socionics.


    I recognize them just fine, thanks...maybe when you can see yourself with more detachment, you will come around to it.
    No. My cognition is anything but that divergent creativity of Ne or consideration of various possibilities. That shit just hurts my head and I find it pointless.


    and I haven't retyped Peteronfireee. I typed what what he described in the story as more Te-creative. I noted it sounds more Si/Te. That doesn't automatically mean he is SLI.
    Okay. I think you misinterpreted what he wrote, tho'.

  14. #14
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Over my head...? It was a joke.

    And I agree that Peterson is Ti. I'd still click constructive for that post. And it's totally unrelated to the posts here.
    It's identical to the logic on the Jordan Peterson thread. I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. That you clicked a constructive for and now seem to be taking the position that the same type of logic is suddenly MBTI logic.

    My pointing out the MBTI logic here has zero to do with your typing me ILE etc.
    I didn't say that it did....to turn your phrase back at you, "that's an idiotic reading between the lines."

    Furthermore, your "pointing out" the MBTI logic had zero to do with my post. So I wouldn't say you were pointing it out, rather you were imagining a possibility. My post only referenced Jung's description of Te. You will remember that Jung is a primary resource on the functions. As I said, MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other.

    The Peterson post didn't utilize MBTI logic. Your post in this thread did. It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts.
    The logic is identical in the Peterson post as it is in the post here. I posted the Ti descriptions from Jung and reasoned that Peterson was a dead ringer for Ti. I posted the Te descriptions from Jung and reasoned that Peter's story was describing Te. I don't see anything elaborate at all.

    Basically. Your logic was MBTI logic because it failed to appreciate the Rationality of Ti lead, trying to explain all Rational intentionality as Te. Jung's Te definition being used or not, this is the same logic that MBTI's function stacking utilizes.
    I never failed to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or tried to explain all "rational intentionality as Te." You were merely exploring the possibility that I was failing to appreciate and explain such things. All I did was apply Jung's description of Te to Peter's situation. See my post on the Jordan Peterson thread you clicked constructive on. Keep in mind that it's the same type of logic/reasoning. Jung's definitions are used as a primary resource.

    I'm not exploring "some set of possibilities". It's simpler than that, if some description or reasoning matches my observations, good, if not, then the logic needs fixing.
    Perhaps you would consider substituting the word observations with vision.

    You're exploring possibilities for innovating Jung's descriptions by synthesizing it with "advances in the science of psychology":

    In general, with the update thing I meant that there have been advances in the science of psychology since Jung that I find describe and explain some observations better than some of Jung's stuff. I was not referring to making my own typology system.
    I've mentioned before that Ne cognition naturally utilizes synthesis.

    Nice of you to see me as this creative but no, I'm not creative enough to innovate possibilities and I don't care either. Like I said, I wasn't talking about any personal version of Socionics.

    No. My cognition is anything but that divergent creativity of Ne or consideration of various possibilities. That shit just hurts my head and I find it pointless.

    Okay. I think you misinterpreted what he wrote, tho'.
    Well, you could have said that from the beginning and made it the main focus of your reply instead of getting carried away in all this business about Mbti logic.

    You also originally typed yourself SLE.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-13-2018 at 09:08 PM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    It's identical to the logic on the Jordan Peterson thread. I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. That you clicked a constructive for and now seem to be taking the position that the same type of logic is suddenly MBTI logic.
    Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical.


    I didn't say that it did....to turn your phrase back at you, "that's an idiotic reading between the lines."
    Then please don't associate random disparate things together.


    Furthermore, your "pointing out" the MBTI logic had zero to do with my post. So I wouldn't say you were pointing it out, rather you were imagining a possibility. My post only referenced Jung's description of Te. You will remember that Jung is a primary resource on the functions. As I said, MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other.
    Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner.

    Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it.


    I never failed to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or tried to explain all "rational intentionality as Te." You were merely exploring the possibility that I was failing to appreciate and explain such things.
    I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things.


    Perhaps you would consider substituting the word observations with vision.
    You sir, are seriously an idiot.


    You're exploring possibilities for innovating Jung's descriptions by synthesizing it with "advances in the science of psychology"
    I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing. And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case).


    Well, you could have said that from the beginning and made it the main focus of your reply instead of getting carried away in all this business about Mbti logic.
    I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that.


    You also originally typed yourself SLE.
    And?

  16. #16
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical.

    Logic is not your strong suit.

    Then please don't associate random disparate things together.

    I didn't.

    You made an "idiotic reading between lines."


    Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner.

    I am speaking about your cognition, not your motives. Socionics 101.

    Earlier you imagined me attempting to explain your motives:

    "It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts."

    I have made no such attempt.


    Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it.

    Well, the post's logic wasn't directly matching MBTI logic at all. It's not MBTI logic to reason logically about functions using Jung's definitions. And I haven't know that to be your position. You didn't have this response on the Jordan Peterson thread when I quoted excerpts from Jung's definitions of Ti and called it a dead ringer for Peterson. You even clicked constructive for the post. I note that you had typed Jordan Peterson an LII in that case, too.

    I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things.

    Well, in your mind it may have related to reality and not a possibility but it was a possibility that your mind imagined. And well, to imagine is to explore outside the scope of reality. So I still call that exploring a possibility, even if you were quick to declare it to yourself as having a definite relation to reality and/or have a stake in denying that you were imagining a possibility.

    You sir, are seriously an idiot.

    Ahh but I wasn't an idiot when you were clicking constructive or like for nearly all my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread.

    I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing.

    It's amusing that you can't own up to even the most obvious stuff I point out if it any way overlaps with ILE. very, very amusing.

    And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case).

    Now you're imagining the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in socionics. So add that one onto the list of possibilities you have imagined.

    In this interaction alone, you imagined the following possibilities (none of which pertain to the reality of anything I've said):

    -you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead".
    -you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
    -you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
    -you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
    -you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
    -you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.

    So all in all, I think I'll leave the imagining to you. You have a knack for it.


    I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that.

    Based on what he wrote in the post, I said it sounded like Si/Te and it does, based on the information I had of the situation, my read on the situation was right. Peter then proceeded to clarify certain aspects of the story after you imagined the possibility that I was retyping him.

    And?

    I am pointing out that you originally typed SLE.
    ...

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    K4 is right about extroverted thinking.

  18. #18
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst you might as well save your energy, there is an endless stream of Jung/MBTI blockheads that will never ever in a million years understand socionics. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

  19. #19
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    See, I told you Hotelambush is a heretic of Socionics.

    It's not Jung/MBTI versus Socionics. Both MBTI and Socionics branch off from Jung. Hotelambush is peddling around some heavy duty crap.

    "It incorporates Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism. Socionics is a modification of Jung's personality type theory that uses eight psychic functions, in contrast to Jung's model, which used only four. These functions are supposed to process information at varying levels of competency and interact with the corresponding function in other individuals, giving rise to predictable reactions and impressions—a theory of intertype relations.[1][2]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

    Gulenko considers himself an analytical psychologist and a disciple of Carl Gustav Jung. In his work he has sought to bring clarity to Jung's assertions and to show how socionics can justify them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Gulenko

  20. #20
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is a good article by Gulenko fleshing out the differences and similarities between MBTI and Socionics (as I mention earlier, the primary difference is that Socionics organizes Jung's functions into Model A and comes up with the intertype relations)...the common denominator is both typologies incorporate in theory and practice the same primary source (JUNG):

    Comparison between the American type theory and socionics became possible due to the publication in 1995-1996 of several books by American authors: D.Keirsey, M.Bates, O.Kroeger, J.Thuesen, P.Tieger, and B.Barron-Tieger [11-13,16]. Although the primary source, the theory of personality types developed by C.G.Jung [20], is the same for the both typologies, there is a serious difference between them in contents and language.

    There are only 4 pairs of Jungian dichotomies splitting mankind into 16 types. All socionic schools apply them both in theoretical works and in practice, e.g. type diagnostics.

    Most applicable in socionics are 6 groups based on Jungian dimensions (temperaments, attitudes towards certain activities, perception, communicability, stimuli, argumentation),

    http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/gulenko-mbti.html

  21. #21
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...gbs_navlinks_s

    Socionics, a comparatively new Social Psychology from the 1970's was exposed primarily by Lithuanian Sociologist Aushra Augusta. It also includes work from Carl Jung's Psychological Types, Sigmund Freud's work on the conscious and subconscious and incorporates Antoni Kepinski's informational metabolism theory.
    yup

    and
    Socionics also shares much in common with the work of Myers and Briggs, however there are circumstances when Socionics and MBTI® theory differ in a few significant ways.
    http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    there is an endless stream of Jung/MBTI blockheads that will never ever in a million years understand socionics
    Blockheads does not understand that Socionics, Jung and MBT are about same.
    If to do not relate doubtful heresies like Reinin's traits to Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    Socionics also shares much in common with the work of Myers and Briggs, however there are circumstances when Socionics and MBTI theory differ in a few significant ways.
    Socionics and MBT is same Jung's typology. The only major difference is that MBT has the contradiction to Jung about functions of I-type.

  23. #23
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Socionics and MBT is same Jung's typology. The only major difference is that MBT has the contradiction to Jung about functions of I-type.
    socionics is far more complex than MBTI, it involves more theories, not only Jung's one.

    then the main focus of socionics is the IR, which the MBTI doesn't consider and so didn't Jung.

    it's funny because the nature of IR is very similar to the function Fi, which is supposedly the PoLR of the ILE Aushra inventor of socionics, following her Model A (shaped following the ideas of Freud + Jung).

    it's funny because you wouldn't expect the PoLR to play such a predominant part for someone's ideas, yet her discontent within her marriage and her personal values led her to create the Model A in order to find our dualz = super Fi.

    This reminds me of the interconnections between MBTI and socionics, noted by Dario Nardi when analyzing the brains with an EEG machine.

    To ILEs the complementary would be an ESI maybe, which is as strong in Fi as it is.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    socionics is far more complex than MBTI
    Not far, as they are one typology. Socionics have added to Jung: IR theory and improved functions descriptions. The other add-ons are not Socionics.
    While from MBT side - there is good MBTI test and expanded J/P dichotomy description. These were taken in Socionics and by today Jungians.

    > To ILEs the complementary would be an ESI maybe, which is as strong in Fi as it is.

    Not in Jung's typology.

  25. #25
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post

    Not in Jung's typology.
    Jung didn't mention IR or duality, only opposed functions that are contained in our unconscious.

    He didn't develop a theory like MBTI or socionics, so we don't know if the functions contained in our unconscious are precisely what we seek in someone else (that's a work that Aushra added to Jung).

    The closest you can get to an idea of duality, in Jung, is the Animus/Anima, but there again it's an image we have inside, so it can be translated differently once it reaches the real, conscious world (notice that the 2 rings of consciousness, in model A, follow opposed directions as well).

    It's even interesting how the Animus/Anima, depending on the development of one's individuality, can cause feelings of both intense love and hate, where the more you're in contact with your unconscious the more healthy your approach to your Anim@, the worse your approach to your subconscious, the more the hate.

  26. #26
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,162
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    it's funny because you wouldn't expect the PoLR to play such a predominant part for someone's ideas, yet her discontent within her marriage and her personal values led her to create the Model A in order to find our dualz = super Fi.
    Socionics is so Fi PoLR.

    I think it is exactly what one should expect. ILEs often analyze relationships. But they don't use Fi for that. Instead the itching PoLR makes the person deal with it with strong functions. It's like Karl Marx (ILE) and developing a social theory. Many ILEs are also interested in ideology and politics.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  27. #27
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    right socionics is like Fi polr by definition, in its original incarnation its literally an attempt to get around Fi via Ti (creative Ti displaces the "rejected alternative" Fi). I think in that sense its a departure from Jung who never really intended it to take that direction. Gulenko seems to bring more Fi role sensibility into it with his emphasis on the humanitarian aspects, which is precisely how the clock is supposed to proceed, with ILE venturing an idea and LII refining it into a more working (i.e.: balanced) prototype. I think one of the reason 1d Fi types resist moving on from augusta or otherwise limit the scope to these narrow constructions and goals is for precisely the same reason, which is they have trouble viewing relations in terms other than logical relations or pragmatic ones. in essence, for them, typology becomes a kind of "technology", see my recent exchange with K4m, not unlike a sex doll or some other form of substitute (ethically empty but "effective") for directly managing relations, (although far less crude, etc)... therapy v technology is a good way to divide the ethical vs logical merit of typology, with the therapuetic angle used to understand oneself and others toward managing relations directly, with technology being more about managing relations indirectly with direct attention to the formal constructions of the theory. in this sense Jung envisioned typology as a tool which facilitated therapy but did not essentially displace it and become primary, so there is always a sort of irony when people invoke Jung as the basis for their conclusions but only take "half" of him to do so, but this sort of blindness is precisely the aforementioned weak Fi aspect in (in)action. nevertheless socionics-as-technology still has valuable insights and its good people work both ends, the main thing is to recognize one another as valuable, because to disregard others for their framing of the issue itself creates the problem to be avoided in the back door--letting relations degrade, misunderstanding etc
    Last edited by Bertrand; 03-14-2018 at 04:23 PM.

  28. #28
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah @Tallmo I liked how you once made a thread called "how polr influences ego", it's just related to this

    Fi valued or not, the essence of Fi (establishing human relationships) is inside socionics at its max

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    none of your goddamn business
    Posts
    460
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why would Myst constructing one of kill4me's old posts somehow prove that what he's saying is now correct? Even a broken clock is right two times a day. Any support of what somebody says in a specific moment never represents some sort of broad blanket brush of everything they say.

    (and sorry if that sounds too harsh, I don't compare anybody to broken clocks but my point still stands)

  30. #30
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yeah @Tallmo I liked how you once made a thread called "how polr influences ego", it's just related to this

    Fi valued or not, the essence of Fi (establishing human relationships) is inside socionics at its max
    yeah I think its in that sense you can think of those various projects as Fi "labors of love"

  31. #31
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    in essence, for them, typology becomes a kind of "technology", see my recent exchange with K4m, not unlike a sex doll or some other form of substitute (ethically empty but "effective") for directly managing relations, (although far less crude, etc)...
    Bert has a collection of sex dolls in his room that he names after different forum members.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-14-2018 at 06:17 PM.

  32. #32
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrangel View Post
    Why would Myst constructing one of kill4me's old posts somehow prove that what he's saying is now correct?
    The post from the Peterson thread is not why I'm right about extroverted thinking. That's a separate issue.

    The post isn't that old either. It's from 03/08/18.

    Even a broken clock is right two times a day. Any support of what somebody says in a specific moment never represents some sort of broad blanket brush of everything they say.
    Generally true, but what somebody says in a specific moment may still have relevance to some things they say or do at a later date. Time and content are factors to take into consideration. If it's way back in the past, then its remoteness may not have as much relevance if they had said it a week ago. Such information doesn't necessarily prove anything. Proof and relevance are two different things.

    (and sorry if that sounds too harsh, I don't compare anybody to broken clocks but my point still stands)

  33. #33
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Blockheads does not understand that Socionics, Jung and MBT are about same.
    If to do not relate doubtful heresies like Reinin's traits to Socionics.



    Socionics and MBT is same Jung's typology. The only major difference is that MBT has the contradiction to Jung about functions of I-type.
    It's clear that Jung is a primary source for both.

    When I was researching some actors I typed, I came across the major schools of acting that the great actors studied at. The same two schools kept reoccuring. It was either Strasberg or Stella Adler. James Dean and Al Pacino studied under Lee Strasberg in New York, for example. Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro studied under Stella Adler in New York. In spite of their differences, both Strasberg's method and Stella Adler's method derive from Stanislavksy. Stanislavsky was to Strasberg and Stella Adler what Jung is to MBTI and Socionics.

  34. #34
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    wait till you encounter Nietzsche, and Heraclitus

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    "Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical."

    Logic is not your strong suit.
    Lol then why are you typing me ILE if you think that.

    "Then please don't associate random disparate things together."

    I didn't.

    You made an "idiotic reading between lines."
    No, I didn't need to read between the lines to name what you did - listing things that are not connected to each other, that is, disparate.


    "Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner."

    I am speaking about your cognition, not your motives. Socionics 101.
    Call it cognition or whatever, but you are speaking about imagined internal stuff here: "you were imagining a possibility". It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track.


    Earlier you imagined me attempting to explain your motives:

    "It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts."

    I have made no such attempt.
    So then you just listed disparate things randomly, okay.


    "Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it."

    Well, the post's logic wasn't directly matching MBTI logic at all. It's not MBTI logic to reason logically about functions using Jung's definitions. And I haven't know that to be your position. You didn't have this response on the Jordan Peterson thread when I quoted excerpts from Jung's definitions of Ti and called it a dead ringer for Peterson. You even clicked constructive for the post. I note that you had typed Jordan Peterson an LII in that case, too.
    When are you finally going to get it into your thick skull that in terms of the MBTI logic issue, your Peterson post was completely different from the post in this thread?

    The Peterson one didn't use MBTI logic, it's as simple as that. Really that hard to understand?

    You were reasoning here about more than just Jung's definitions (and I explained how it was MBTI-esque). In the Peterson thread you didn't do that. You may have had the same problematic views as here, but you didn't express them in that post, so I had nothing to disagree with there.


    "I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things."

    Well, in your mind it may have related to reality and not a possibility but it was a possibility that your mind imagined. And well, to imagine is to explore outside the scope of reality. So I still call that exploring a possibility, even if you were quick to declare it to yourself as having a definite relation to reality and/or have a stake in denying that you were imagining a possibility.
    Maybe one day you will learn what the difference is between exploring possibilities and a definite declaration. The former is noncommittal, bringing up ideas, potential, whatever, and is not defined, the latter is very much definite, committed and certain.

    And lol, see you are trying to imagine motives for me, where you say here that I have a stake in denying that I was imagining a possibility. Lol wtf... I think I'm gonna stop wasting time on this stupid bullshit from you.


    "You sir, are seriously an idiot."

    Ahh but I wasn't an idiot when you were clicking constructive or like for nearly all my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread.
    Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation.


    "I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing."

    It's amusing that you can't own up to even the most obvious stuff I point out if it any way overlaps with ILE. very, very amusing.
    Obvious in your imagination. And again you are trying to imagine motives for me.


    "And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)."

    Now you're imagining the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in socionics. So add that one onto the list of possibilities you have imagined.
    Do you even know what the word "possibility" means. I doubt it. I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics.


    In this interaction alone, you imagined the following possibilities (none of which pertain to the reality of anything I've said):

    -you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead".
    -you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
    -you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
    -you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
    -you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
    -you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.

    So all in all, I think I'll leave the imagining to you. You have a knack for it.


    I made declarations, so fix all your sentences to that.

    If you don't explain all rational intentionality as Te, why call peteronfireee's stuff Te.

    The admiration thing was a joke and I already said so...

    And yes you are trying to explain motives behind my lines, with (wrongly) assuming I could have a stake in denying things and assuming the (wrong) motive that I would intentionally disagree with anything ILE stuff stated about me.



    "I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that."

    Based on what he wrote in the post, I said it sounded like Si/Te and it does, based on the information I had of the situation, my read on the situation was right. Peter then proceeded to clarify certain aspects of the story after you imagined the possibility that I was retyping him.
    It wasn't right, peteronfireee corrected you.


    "And?"

    I am pointing out that you originally typed SLE.
    And? What's your point with this lol. You are just a broken record.


    And I'm done explaining things because it would just get repetitive because you are not getting it at all. See ya.

  36. #36
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Lol then why are you typing me ILE if you think that.

    Because you are Ne-lead. Imagining possibilities is your strong suit.

    No, I didn't need to read between the lines to name what you did - listing things that are not connected to each other, that is, disparate.

    It is not disparate or random at all. The logic is identical.

    It's only random and disparate to you because you imagined MBTI logic into the post.


    And along with that the other possibilities you took imagined from our interaction here.

    Call it cognition or whatever, but you are speaking about imagined internal stuff here: "you were imagining a possibility". It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track.

    They aren't unrealistic. I'm pulling right out of your posts. They don't pertain to reality so they come to you through the imagination of a possibility.

    My view is not foggy and confused at all. I don't have any personal investment in you being an ILE or a LSI. I'm just typing, like I would type anybody.

    And you didn't call my view foggy and confused when you clicked constructive for at least five of my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread. I note that on the Peterson thread you also typed Peterson LII. I typed Peterson LII, too. On this thread you disagree with the typing at issue.


    So then you just listed disparate things randomly, okay.

    They weren't random at all.

    When are you finally going to get it into your thick skull that in terms of the MBTI logic issue, your Peterson post was completely different from the post in this thread?

    The Peterson one didn't use MBTI logic, it's as simple as that. Really that hard to understand?

    Neither post used MBTI logic. You only imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."

    You clicked constructive to a post applying Jung's definition of function to a typing. That was only about two weeks ago. Here, you claimed that the same application of Jung was MBTI logic. In the post where you imagined me using MBTI logic, you also ended off with a condescending remark about my "idiotic reading between the lines." And only an hour before that you responded condescendingly to me on another thread for retyping you ILE where you referred to me as an idiot and were frustrated that I hadn't responded to you. And I told you to go fuck yourself. So it's hard to tell what position you really take as it seems to change within short periods of time.


    You were reasoning here about more than just Jung's definitions (and I explained how it was MBTI-esque). In the Peterson thread you didn't do that.

    Maybe one day you will learn what the difference is between exploring possibilities and a definite declaration. The former is noncommittal, bringing up ideas, potential, whatever, the latter is very much committed and certain.

    You imagined the possibilities at some point before committing to it. It did not come from any data in reality. Plenty of ILEs take their intuitions for the truth and this can lead them to insisting upon the reality of one or more possibilities.

    And lol, see you are trying to imagine motives for me, where you say here that I have a stake in denying that I was imagining a possibility. Lol wtf... I think I'm gonna stop wasting time on this stupid bullshit from you.

    You said I was imagining motives even before I said that.

    I said in the last post you had a stake in making these denials. You said I was weaving "elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts" about two or three posts before that.

    This suggests you have a non-linear cognition. You took something that happened after you said it and apparently claim it as a basis for your saying it in the first place. This non-linear cognition does not conform to Ti-dom but Ne-dom.


    Obvious in your imagination. And again you are trying to imagine motives for me.

    Nice projection. You're the one imagining motives, as follows:

    "Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

    "Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

    "I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality.The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."


    If you don't explain all rational intentionality as Te, why call peteronfireee's stuff Te.

    So you're still exploring the possibility that I said it. It doesn't seem to be sinking in. I called his stuff Te because it fit Jung's description of Te....same logic as used in my application of Jung's description of Ti to Peterson. I never said all rational intentionality was Te. That's a pondering from your imagination.

    The admiration thing was a joke and I already said so...

    You provided a post-hoc explanation.

    And yes you are trying to explain motives behind my lines, with (wrongly) assuming I could have a stake in denying things and assuming the (wrong) motive that I would intentionally disagree with anything ILE stuff stated about me.

    Me saying you have a stake in denying that you imagine possibilities hardly counts as any elaborate theory about the motives behind your reasoning, especially considering that you made that claim prior to the post where I said you have a stake in denying that you imagine possibilities.

    And it's not based on any reading between the lines but on what you wrote. In the last post alone you denied it three times:

    -"Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities."
    -"I wasn't "exploring a possibility"
    -"And not exploring possibilities either,"

    And if that wasn't enough, you denied it more times in this recent post. Me thinks the lady doth protest a bit much.

    You're the one trying to weave together elaborate theories to explain my motives behind my reasoning that you're an ILE, as follows:

    "Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

    "Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."


    It wasn't right, peteronfireee corrected you.

    He was clarifying. Read his post. That's another possibility you imagine.

    And? What's your point with this lol. You are just a broken record.

    Your type came up.

    On the ILI/LII thread, I told you I thought you were ILE. You called me an idiot.

    However, you originally typed yourself SLE. ILE and SLE are lookalike relations.

    Not hardly the broken record you are with the number of times you denied cognizing possibilities.


    And I'm done explaining things because it would just get repetitive because you are not getting it at all. See ya.
    You haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:

    "Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

    "Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

    "I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

    Clear Ne-dom stuff pulled out of your imagination. ^ Your responses to me here are much too illogical for a Ti-dom. You aren't clear-headed.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-15-2018 at 07:09 PM.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    You haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:

    "Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

    "It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

    "Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

    "I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

    Clear Ne-dom stuff pulled out of your imagination. ^ Your responses to me here are much too illogical for a Ti-dom. You aren't clear-headed.
    If only you had the ability to stop to think for a second to get what my original reasoning was.

    Like I said I'm not going to repeat the explanations that all went over your head.

    Also if the quoted sentences are Ne dom then you are Ne dom... and everyone else is, too.

  38. #38
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrangel View Post
    Why would someone constructing one of kill4me's old posts somehow prove that what he's saying is now correct?
    It doesn't. But iff the constructive was demonstrating agreement with the use of Jung in defining elements, then it would be inconsistent and nonsensical to later disagree with this. In other words a person doing that would be disagreeing with themselves, aka hypocrisy.

  39. #39
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like and constructive K4m's posts all the time, case closed

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    It doesn't. But iff the constructive was demonstrating agreement with the use of Jung in defining elements, then it would be inconsistent and nonsensical to later disagree with this. In other words a person doing that would be disagreeing with themselves, aka hypocrisy.
    I was told that you posted this... so let me correct this bollocks, yet again. I was not disagreeing with the use of Jung, I was disagreeing with something else and I already explained what that was in earlier posts. If anyone's interested, I can elaborate on it further, sure. This has zero to do with hypocrisy, you just assume everyone else is like you with that.

    PS: Yeah since you talked about me, breaking what you agreed to earlier, I will naturally respond to that.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •