Your typing of forum members

[Myst]

Yeah lets all gang up on one guy for his wrongdoings so we can forget about our own

I'm not talking about wrongdoings. In the sense that I'm not judging his person as "bad". I'm simply giving an evaluation of his actions/behaviour in terms of what issues there are with them. But yeah sure the hard cold truth can be hard to take without making it about one's person even when not intended in that way.

And don't jump to conclusions, it's not about forgetting other people's issues or even wrongdoings.

As for "ganging up": apparently some elements of his behaviour got to the point where multiple people notice issues. That, if not fixed, will just lead the person the wrong way even more. And will bother others too even more.

Lol btw you are ENFP now?

[Number 9 large]

@Number 9 large you're ENFP now. How come?

I'm not challenging or try to redicule - just want to understand your reasoning

Cuz i love u

[Cosmic Teapot]

Cuz i love u

lol it's time for me to give this forum a break

[Adam Strange]

lol it's time for me to give this forum a break

NOOOOoooooooo! Who will be the voice of Reason around here then?

[Cosmic Teapot]

NOOOOoooooooo! Who will be the voice of Reason around here then?

what? you two are too much
@Number 9 large

[Number 9 large]

Dat video

[golden]

NOOOOoooooooo! Who will be the voice of Reason around here then?

Ooh ooh me

[Adam Strange]

Ooh ooh me

@golden, you are the voice of emotional reason. @Cosmic Teapot is the voice of practical reason.

[golden]

@golden, you are the voice of emotional reason. @Cosmic Teapot is the voice of practical reason.

Why can't golden's style be both? https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...38/731/0fc.gif

It’s true I’m not the best at practical solutions, just average I think. Thanks for the votes of confidence and half-confidence.

[Myst]

I actually don't think Sol is someone that would genuinely loosen up in a Fe atmosphere. You can see he has a decent Fe role from his interactions in here with the other people. He reminds me of no Fi-role. I think LSE is his right type.

Well I can see how it would be hard to imagine that, he's so low on Fe lol. I don't really see Fe role tbh, he's too lost in his own opinions for that

[Hope]

Yeah lets all gang up on one guy for his wrongdoings so we can forget about our own

Spermatozoa is next, then another round of random punishment of Adam and we'll end up with Sol again. That's the order. Singu goes interleaved in each round.

[Bertrand]

when you put it like that social feedback sounds proper as long as it doesn't transform into pure scapegoating

these people aren't innocent victims with no role to play in their own persecution, but neither should the crowd take it too far, and fob off their own sins onto convenient targets in a 2 birds 1 stone style maneuver

[Myst]

role fe = ultimate desire is relationships (off the top of my head: he is the forums ESI-hunter, never stops posting in that weird "recent people you met" thread).

edit: funnily, the other relationship-obsessed person is also role fe - adam strange. i dont think he posts obsessively like Sol in that thread, but he's the forum's resident Dual-hunter (as well, if you analyze, his posts are often about relationships/his experience with them)

I don't see that as role Fe. More like sx stuff.

[Adam Strange]

For me, Fe is short-term friendliness, sx-first is bad to the bone.

[Myst]

youre free to disagree with my definitions. note, though, that the pieces fit.

To you

[Hope]

when you put it like that social feedback sounds proper as long as it doesn't transform into pure scapegoating

these people aren't innocent victims with no role to play in their own persecution, but neither should the crowd take it too far, and fob off their own sins onto convenient targets in a 2 birds 1 stone style maneuver

you are my animal spirit

[Myst]

For me, Fe is short-term friendliness, sx-first is bad to the bone.

Yeah you do have clear Fe role. Like you don't stick to opinions so doggedly and instead pay a bit of attention to how some things affect people's emotions.

(PS/Disclaimer: Ofc I know I'm guilty of that too lol, i.e. being opinionated and having low Fe. But @Sol goes to a whole new level with it )

They talk a lot about relationships openly because they rationally think the search of the dual is logically one of the most important things. They're actually rationally talking about their relationships, so it's just Te with a Fe mask, but they actually just seek Fi.

I just don't see the Fe mask really for @Sol...

[Bertrand]

whether Fe is short term depends on what its blocked with and whether it entails an element of globality (either base or - signed)... the problem is "short term friendliness" is how "global friendliness" comes across to someone who only operates on the basis of short term friendliness. in other words, such a person does not always see and appreciate the globality in a more sophisticated usage of a function, where what looks like piecemeal short term applications is a systemic application of Fe to the whole world. in other words, if Hamlet is literally preoccupied with the general state of humanity in terms of emotions, it may look, as a matter of projection, that he or she turns on and off friendliness as is convenient based on who comes near, but its actually not really in their control, they literally live concern for the world, their friendliness is universal within the limits of logical possibility. that's why any "fakeness" is more a projection, as is any suspicion of on/off. what triggers it is other people, its not a role within the meaning of a role function, the role is the opposite, the short term on/off is the business logic. in other words, for some types Fe is universal friendliness and Te is short term-business thinking, whereas for others Te is universal business thinking and short term friendliness. this is what Adam meant ("for me"), but I wanted to clarify because it could create the wrong impression if his statements aren't contextualized as specifically applicable to Fe role

you are my animal spirit

[WVBRY]

I don't think "talking about relationships" is seeking, if it is then I'm not seeking as I rarely open up about my private life. It's probably more related to sx first (as Myst has suggested before me) and I'm sp/sx. I also agree with Adam that manifests as friendliness in social situations. is more concerned with long-term relationships.

On a side I don't think you can really tell apart from on this criteria. Anyone can be friendly and anyone can talk about or have relationships, type not withstanding. That was my whole point - the criteria being used itt to determine what is seeking is terrible.

That said, I think Adam is LIE and Sol is some kind of beta.

[Myst]

hmmm. im not sure but let's reason this out.

if we define "+" as "immediate", i.e. as you said "short-term"

the difference between what adam's said here and his behavior vs sol's perfectly fits

LIE: +Fe - "short-term friendliness"
LSE: -Fe - "far-off"

adam is a go-getter with relationships (+Fe), whereas sol seems like some weird lech stalker/"lover from a distance" (-Fe)

maybe my +- attributions are wrong, or my definitions are, so this doesnt actually fit then (it would be opposite, lol)

God and from this little detail we can then determine type, wow

Go on enjoy your rabbitholes though

[Myst]

enjoy your fear and rejection of Ne aka rabbitholes aka your PoLR

i deleted the post because im done with this conversation. not that you cant quote whatever you want.

I didn't see you deleting the post before I posted. Anyway it's not really fear lol, I just don't see the point

[Bertrand]

loving from a distance can be beautiful, because its the lack of expectation of reciprocity that keeps it pure, and its its asinine business logic that makes it human

[squark]

[golden]

I don’t really have a problem seeing Sol as LSE. I think he’s trying to be helpful and productive, and I haven’t seen a lot of analysis of information, more the desire to implement it and an emphasis on whether it’s effective or not. And I’m not sure how well I think Fe comes across online so I wouldn’t use the issue of his role function to gauge it. Ymmv

[Myst]

I don’t really have a problem seeing Sol as LSE. I think he’s trying to be helpful and productive, and I haven’t seen a lot of analysis of information, more the desire to implement it and an emphasis on whether it’s effective or not.

Se creative does that: effective implementation.

And I’m not sure how well I think Fe comes across online so I wouldn’t use the issue of his role function to gauge it. Ymmv

@Adam Strange 's Fe role for example comes across online fine (I mention him as an example since he was brought up already above)

[Number 9 large]

Se creative does that: effective implementation.

Thats Te mate.

[Myst]

Thats Te mate.

Nah. Te is about efficiency / logic of efficient actions, not about implementing a Ti system in the tangible world to be effective / have influence with it on the real world.

[golden]

@Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to “this is the way it is because this is the way it is.”

[Myst]

@Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to “this is the way it is because this is the way it is.”

When he talks about which parts of the theories (Jung vs Socionics) are to be prioritized and why.

[golden]

When he talks about which parts of the theories (Jung vs Socionics) are to be prioritized and why.

I thought of that but it doesn't seem like enough, it’s not active analysis, just “this one works and this one doesn’t.”

Also where is the response to Fe? When I communicate with him I get like a sentence back. I maybe got two sentences once.

[Myst]

You're actually both right. Te does it more independently as a function, while a LSI's Se would require Ti: analysis+creation of a system (Ti) + forcing the outside objects to fit into the system (Se).
@Sol's method in a certain way reminds me of a harsh version of Adam's typing method. Let me explain: @Adam Strange bases his typings on what has worked for him in the past. There's not a "perfect" system he's referring to. He just knows that when a person has X, Y and Z traits, he tends to be an ??? type. There's no craving for perfection. It's pure functionality.

I don't even know where to begin listing the differences in how Adam vs Sol do their analyses and typings.... Adam just lists some facts, correlations and anecdotes and @Sol breaks it down (even if with very shitty Ne).

And despite Sol being a very direct person, he too doesn't pretend to have created a perfect system. He actually didn't create a system at all. He, like Adam, has developed a METHOD.

Just look at his IR typing method. It works like this (I'm making a short summary. Please take no offence): watch all the videos of the types. Who are you attracted too? That's your dual.

He did explain the logic behind the IR method in some post earlier. I'd have to find it...

For a Te lead the method becomes the system. For a Ti the method consists of comparing the reality to his system.

A Ti must first feel he has a global understanding of the subject, in order to create a system. An LII, after the creation of the system, will start speculating about the system and other weird stuff, or maybe will try to explain the system to others, without necessarily shoving it down their throat. A Se creative, as I said in the beginning of the post, would at that point force the system to the outer world.

Sol hates, absolutely hates Ne speculation of LIIs lol

Look at how he recently got at @thehotelambush about that stuff lol (ok I'd have to find the posts). And regularly rants against Gulenko, Reinin etc.

And he did get pushy about his system against thehotel's (and others too).

I thought of that but it doesn't seem like enough, it’s not active analysis, just “this one works and this one doesn’t.”

Also where is the response to Fe? When I communicate with him I get like a sentence back. I maybe got two sentences once.

It was more active analysis than that...

Idk about Fe, I haven't seen your communication with him.

[Sol]

I don't even know where to begin listing the differences in how Adam vs Sol do their analyses and typings.... Adam just lists some facts, correlations and anecdotes and Sol breaks it down (even if with very shitty Ne).

I may also use "facts, correlations and anecdotes", while Adam also uses VI.
While my "very shitty Ne" allows to type people good enough so their behavior fited good to the theory. The efficiency is also the question of trained skills and good management of the means, besides what functions are strong.

Unlike Adam, I have much more experience in typing and hence better skills by VI and common behavior anaylisis. Have better theory knowledge and understanding as Adam said bs about types, messing suggestive Fe vs Fi. The same mess in the heads I notice among other members, besides their hard heresy usage. The 99% of forums members have zero types understanding compared to me. Adam and you are just noobs to discuss what I do. Noobs which use heretic bs and studed typology by lame translated sources.

You have a speculative mess in your mind about what happens and then on this base your conclusions. The same is the reason you have exotic opinions about types, which said before. I suspect about many things in the life you have the similar basis of baseless speculative illusions. Ground to the Earth.

[Myst]

Yeah, I agree they're very different. I honestly haven't read much type me threads, but the impression I got from the typings I saw from Sol was more like "You're E, N." kind of stuff. I honestly haven't seen much Ti style breaking down. But I repeat, I haven't read much typing threads, since until today I was still creating the roots for my system, so I thought it would have been useless reading them. Today is the first time I've replied to a few of them and it's quite funny.
Sorry for derailing, but what I wanted to say is just that I mostly see from Sol a list of facts.

I'd like to read that.

I'de like to read that too.

He does also "you're E (reasoning)". (Not saying it's necessarily very good reasoning though...)

It's not derailing, it's the member type thread.

Uh, if I can easily find the threads, I'll get the links for you later.

I may also use "facts, correlations and anecdotes", while Adam also uses VI.
While my "very shitty Ne" allows to type people good enough so their behavior fited good to the theory. The efficiency is also the question of trained skills and good management of the means, besides what functions are strong.

Unlike Adam, I have much more experience in typing and hence better skills by VI and common behavior anaylisis. Have better theory knowledge and understanding as Adam said bs about types, messing suggestive Fe vs Fi. The same mess in the heads I notice among other members, besides their hard heresy usage. The 99% of forums members have zero types understanding compared to me. Adam and you are just noobs to discuss what I do. Noobs which use heretic bs and studed typology by lame translated sources.

You have a speculative mess in your mind about what happens and then on this base your conclusions. The same is the reason you have exotic opinions about types, which said before. I suspect about many things in the life you have the similar basis of baseless speculative illusions. Ground to the Earth.

Alright I get it if you are upset by my willingness to criticize some of your stuff. And especially my willingness to criticize in terms of your authority that you so wish to have here.

It's just funny that you accuse me of speculating and then you do the speculation about what I do in my life.

As for the rest of what you say here, it's all just your opinion without you being able to empirically prove it.

You don't gain authority just by randomly (without proof) claiming that others have no expertise/understanding.

[squark]

@Reyne I agree. I said the same thing re. system vs method HERE for Sol, but you elaborated on it much more than I did.

[golden]

lol. You sound mad, m8.

Hell yeah, cap’n, I want all that attenshun

[Bertrand]

I think reyne did a good job on describing the process whereby a systemic understanding emerges as a consequence of a primary focus on developing a method that works. I think in strong thinking types it bears mentioning that it can go both ways, with Ti adopting this approach (lets experiment and see what works) if it is seen to have rigor and not be something thoroughly discredited in principle, like various pseudo sciences. Which in this day and age pragmatism and empiricism have all sort of been integrated into respected modes of generating knowledge. In the same way Te types will read manuals and can develop a systematic understanding directly, in fact such a thing is often necessary, such that to see a Te type engaged in this would not be inconsistent with strong Te at all (doing general research to broaden one's knowledge). I think there's a general proclivity when looking at Ti/Te approaches to oversimplify and make it an either/or, but that is more how ethical types would like to view the world with respect to their 1d thinking function. The reality is always more complex. Ultimately what distinguishes Ti from Te is not "what works" but "why it works." Deepening one's understanding is either valued for its own sake or in terms of the work it can do. The relationship between Ti/Te is such that that Ti subconsciously makes that knowledge "work" for the person. In other words, deepening for its own sake always does collateral work, even if its sheer enjoyment, which is how you can spend $10 on a movie or simply read the dual nature of man for the 100th time, or what have you (Jeopardy fans are not necessarily Te valuing, in fact quite the opposite I would bet). In a similar way, Te can be genuinely synthetic in how it casts a broader net in seeking out knowledge that does work and contributes to an overall stronger body of knowledge, and these interconnections are like a spiral that deepens by itself over time. Its funny because people often stereotype the ethical and physical qualities of a person, but if you think about it, thinking is no less stereotyped in its own way. And by this I don't mean anything malicious but a kind of low res reduction in order to get a handle on things, but what results is often a comparison or taking sides, when in reality the difference is most often a product of the stereotype itself. people who strongly emphasize the superiority of one are therefore almost always the statements of someone actively defending their own weak side, not really commenting on other people, although other people and traits happen to get caught up in this, and this is precisely the basis on which real tragedies can occur, like all the evils of racism and so forth. this is the power ethical types often unintentionally exercise over the world with potentially disastrous consequences

[Exodus]

@Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to “this is the way it is because this is the way it is.”

If that isn't Ne vulnerable I don't know what is.

Yes, LSIs can be interested in logically analyzing things, but often once they've made their minds up, tend to view reevaluating their beliefs as a chore (or even threatening, in the worse cases).

LSEs by contrast are enthusiastic about new ideas, information, ways of looking at things etc. It's a misconception that they're "just a different type of rigid", whatever that means. I guess it's partly based on MBTI.

[Bertrand]

it probably has to do with if you hit LSE with some Ni they're going to resist it, primarily on rational grounds. which is what LSI does except with Ne. They're similar in the sense the like to keep the intuitive scope of their polr as constrained as rationality allows and it is in that narrowing they find their contribution to whatever field they're dedicated to. in other words they like to nail things down with a thinking process, and opening up a new front is likely to be considered a form of opposition, or at the very least perceived somewhat painfully to the extent it presents a legitimate claim. i've noticed this in law school, LSE is very good at thinking a few steps ahead, but if you take it even further and point out whichever path they take terminates in the same result they can get really frustrated. they like clamping the time axis to relatively near term and don't like to evaluate goals and aims in terms of things such as enantiodromia, or even large scale market forces naturally balancing certain efforts. they are believers in the ability of work to accomplish a goal, that is easily undermined by making it out to be more or less a chasing after the wind. they are very much not enthusiastic about those sorts of ideas, quite the opposite in fact. if you point out that cleverly constructing a law may just result in the market adjusting to compensate they tend to get pissed, because it makes apparent the futility of some of their approach. this often results in a flat refusal to broaden their perspective to incorporate this kind of information. what happens is they will deny in principle such counter balancing forces as speculative and in the absence of proof of their existence will proceed as if such a thing can't happen, leaving the decisive factor to the concrete and rational ones

[Exodus]

it probably has to do with if you hit LSE with some Ni they're going to resist it, primarily on rational grounds. which is what LSI does except with Ne. They're similar in the sense the like to keep the intuitive scope of their polr as constrained as rationality allows and it is in that narrowing they find their contribution to whatever field they're dedicated to. in other words they like to nail things down with a thinking process, and opening up a new front is likely to be considered a form of opposition, or at the very least perceived somewhat painfully to the extent it presents a legitimate claim.

No. An LSE will respond to Ni not with "rationality" but with Ne. The basic conflict here is between Vulnerable and Mobilizing.

Ni is about constraining, Ne is about expanding (possibilities). LSEs have a strong preference for the latter, as do ESEs. What you're saying is the exact opposite of this. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

[Myst]

I think reyne did a good job on describing the process whereby a systemic understanding emerges as a consequence of a primary focus on developing a method that works. I think in strong thinking types it bears mentioning that it can go both ways, with Ti adopting this approach (lets experiment and see what works) if it is seen to have rigor and not be something thoroughly discredited in principle, like various pseudo sciences. Which in this day and age pragmatism and empiricism have all sort of been integrated into respected modes of generating knowledge. In the same way Te types will read manuals and can develop a systematic understanding directly, in fact such a thing is often necessary, such that to see a Te type engaged in this would not be inconsistent with strong Te at all (doing general research to broaden one's knowledge). I think there's a general proclivity when looking at Ti/Te approaches to oversimplify and make it an either/or, but that is more how ethical types would like to view the world with respect to their 1d thinking function. The reality is always more complex. Ultimately what distinguishes Ti from Te is not "what works" but "why it works." Deepening one's understanding is either valued for its own sake or in terms of the work it can do. The relationship between Ti/Te is such that that Ti subconsciously makes that knowledge "work" for the person. In other words, deepening for its own sake always does collateral work, even if its sheer enjoyment, which is how you can spend $10 on a movie or simply read the dual nature of man for the 100th time, or what have you (Jeopardy fans are not necessarily Te valuing, in fact quite the opposite I would bet). In a similar way, Te can be genuinely synthetic in how it casts a broader net in seeking out knowledge that does work and contributes to an overall stronger body of knowledge, and these interconnections are like a spiral that deepens by itself over time. Its funny because people often stereotype the ethical and physical qualities of a person, but if you think about it, thinking is no less stereotyped in its own way. And by this I don't mean anything malicious but a kind of low res reduction in order to get a handle on things, but what results is often a comparison or taking sides, when in reality the difference is most often a product of the stereotype itself. people who strongly emphasize the superiority of one are therefore almost always the statements of someone actively defending their own weak side, not really commenting on other people, although other people and traits happen to get caught up in this, and this is precisely the basis on which real tragedies can occur, like all the evils of racism and so forth. this is the power ethical types often unintentionally exercise over the world with potentially disastrous consequences

If you want to hear from a Ti lead type, I don't really do deepening of my understanding just to have it, it has to have an agenda in society other than just sitting on my ass and doing mental masturbation. That's how Ti as an Ego function works, having some use for it in society, i.e. it has an agenda, a Rational purpose to work towards with the thinking.