Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 01/10/2009, 03:59 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
Same. Extroverted Ethical types generally have the best social skills



I copied-and-pasted to show the actual sources of the information, rather than making gibberish up without any basis for it.
They're what Socionists say, not me

The use of like/dislike, moods, etc, are classified as ethical uses, in Socionics, since they're not based on logic but feelings.
You develop feelings about people and things because of how it makes you feel, not because it's logical.
Everyone can use logic and ethics, regardless of type, but ethical types have an easier time feelings comfortable about their feelings towards people/thing whereas logical types will often question if their feelings make sense.
Same thing for ethical types when it comes to matters of logic
You haven't addressed the issue of F being a judging function with some intuitive aspects, that it deals with the unknown.
Quote:
This is where the concept of duality comes in, to assist where the other is weak
A supervisor or any other type can also assist where one is weak, supervisors and ISFp-ISTp's etc and other relations can also become good friends and assist the other in their insecurities.

What about self-dualisation? Not everyone has a supportive dual.

Quote:
You're right, but they only use Ti through Te for Te
What does this mean? If someone displays Ti how do you know it's through Te? If it's Ti then it's Ti, you're distinction makes no sense, all you can estimate is that they're a T type.

Anyway you agree that a Te type can and does use Ti and doesn't therefore see Ti as pointless.

Re ESTj's not being involved in socionics, same can be said for ESFj's, maybe it's not function related as these types are just the most active in actual living to be around internet communities? And if it's related to it being simply Te then there wouldn't be so many of the other Te types around. How do you fit that in?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01/10/2009, 05:15 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I would suggest that you have to also consider how F works in action, not just on paper.
Exactly. Even on paper, what Marie84 said is not applicable, Socionics theory attests only that F judges by likes/dislikes, familiarity, etc, not that t's limited to humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
They're what Socionists say, not me
Indeed, but they don't support your assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
The use of like/dislike, moods, etc, are classified as ethical uses, in Socionics, since they're not based on logic but feelings.
You develop feelings about people and things because of how it makes you feel, not because it's logical.
Everyone can use logic and ethics, regardless of type, but ethical types have an easier time feelings comfortable about their feelings towards people/thing whereas logical types will often question if their feelings make sense.
Same thing for ethical types when it comes to matters of logic
Now we agree, except that you seem to mix again Ethics with mood, or emotional nature of man. But take these examples of most of us use:
- interacting with a thief, we treat him accordingly, independently if he has the intention to steal or not. We just suppose he has.
- "weapons are dangerous" - they are not dangerous by themselves, but we treat them likewise because of accidents in the past.

As you can see, they are not limited to people, neither to our caprices, but to good and bad, even when this "good" and "bad" is not easily demonstrable. The reasons for which ethical types can take very fast decisions when it comes to people is because people's intentions are not easy (most of the times impossible) to predict logically. Logical types find much harder to judge by these subjective criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02/10/2009, 02:07 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Exactly. Even on paper, what Marie84 said is not applicable, Socionics theory attests only that F judges by likes/dislikes, familiarity, etc, not that t's limited to humanity.
The theory does not state that F is limited to humanity, however having a mainly human focus is how it normally manifests itself.

Correct or incorrect?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02/10/2009, 02:47 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
Correct or incorrect?
Correct, as far as I can tell.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02/10/2009, 03:09 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Correct, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to do my little IEE test on Cyclops. If he passes I'll go with your IEE typing.

@Cyclops: Describe Love
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02/10/2009, 03:28 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
I'd like to do my little IEE test on Cyclops. If he passes I'll go with your IEE typing.

@Cyclops: Describe Love

..........
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02/10/2009, 04:31 AM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
You haven't addressed the issue of F being a judging function with some intuitive aspects, that it deals with the unknown.
This doesn't even make sense, since ethical functions are separate from intuitive ones. And what is the "unknown" and how does this apply to Ethical Sensory types?

Quote:
A supervisor or any other type can also assist where one is weak, supervisors and ISFp-ISTp's etc and other relations can also become good friends and assist the other in their insecurities.
Explain?
Supervisors don't possess your suggestive function but they do have your vulnerable function as a leading one, thus putting you in position where they reap the benefits while the supervisee is made to feel incompetent

Quote:
What about self-dualisation? Not everyone has a supportive dual.
Isn't this just an instinctive method of survival? What do you gain by forcing yourself to attempt to do something you'll never be good at on your own?

Quote:
What does this mean? If someone displays Ti how do you know it's through Te? If it's Ti then it's Ti, you're distinction makes no sense, all you can estimate is that they're a T type.
By the priority and use of Ti

Quote:
Re ESTj's not being involved in socionics, same can be said for ESFj's, maybe it's not function related as these types are just the most active in actual living to be around internet communities? And if it's related to it being simply Te then there wouldn't be so many of the other Te types around. How do you fit that in?
This is quite possibly true. Though the difference between a Te dominant and a Te creative is differentiated by the firsts drive for constant productivity opposed to the latter who tend to be more energy conserving.
I imagine the case with ESE's is more related to a need to be constantly proactive within their environment
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02/10/2009, 09:15 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
This doesn't even make sense, since ethical functions are separate from intuitive ones. And what is the "unknown" and how does this apply to Ethical Sensory types?
I think he used "intuitive" in general usage. Actually it seems to me that ethical types are rather named intuitive by people. Actually I don't remember any NT guy to be called "intuitive" by someone. Do you? What about ethical types, especially females?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
Supervisors don't possess your suggestive function but they do have your vulnerable function as a leading one, thus putting you in position where they reap the benefits while the supervisee is made to feel incompetent
This is interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
By the priority and use of Ti
So you mean logical types use both Ti and Te in different situations but in different quantities?
I tell you it's wrong, before reading your answer. They *can* use but the *don't* use their Id functions. To be more concrete, any type can use any function but they have different preferences and strengths on them, the ones described in Model A.

Ti and Te are incompatible, who takes one as ideal will reject the other. Ti is stopping a car and inspecting its build, Te is starting the car and drive-testing it. They are two completely different approaches and can't work together.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02/10/2009, 10:31 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
This doesn't even make sense, since ethical functions are separate from intuitive ones. And what is the "unknown" and how does this apply to Ethical Sensory types?
I can only refer you to mihai_m's threads and some posts on the subject, however i'll give you some more examples:

What happens when you are selling things to someone?

Supposing someone turned up looking scruffy in an old car, and someone else turned up with a nice suit on and a "fancy" car. How would you decide the price? You'd maybe sell it cheaper to the guy who looks scruffy because you think he doesn't have much money, he is struggling so you want to give him a break in life. Well, plenty of millionaires dress shabily, maybe he's trying to fool you into thinking he's poor? And the smart looking guy is actually struggling to make ends meat and is trying to look respectable?

If you are buying something with equal price and it's being sold by two people? You decide that for instance the guy who was young could do with the money more so you go with him, maybe you liked it that he said hello to your kid and that reminded you of someone you know who is friendly and can trust him? It's making decisions based on unknowns, but the F types use these unkowns.

These may not be as good as previous examples, but it's the sort of idea. In those situations using T is a struggle, because there's no way to be sure of the advantage (especially in the second example).

Quote:
Explain?
Supervisors don't possess your suggestive function but they do have your vulnerable function as a leading one, thus putting you in position where they reap the benefits while the supervisee is made to feel incompetent
A few things, you've already agreed that for instance a Te dominant (say LSE) can use both Te and Ti - and can actually display Ti, but here you say that your supervisor doesn't possess your suggestive function. Yes, they do, especially if you're an SEI because we know the LSE has and displays both Te and Ti. (and you're SEE supervisor will have and display both Se and Si).

Consider also the following example, supposing you have an SLI, he doesn't make the right moves in a social situation by smiling or being what's deemed as friendy etc, the supervisor gives him friendly advice on how to be in this situation. The SLI is happy because he's gained something - next time round people he likes won't think he's miserable and angry and this can make for better contacts with for instance aquaintances and work collegues.

He's strengthened his Fe and that's useful to him.

Also - supervisors - I spoke about this briefly in one of my blogs, consider that anyone who criticises you can be taken negatively and insulting, what if that criticism was delivered in friendship, in helping, in advice? Then we are greatful and take on the help. Supervision doesn't have to be painful, we can be quite receptive to assistance in our PoLR function.

Also - importantly, consider criticism or even advice from ones dual, this can be quite unpleasant and can be something we don't want to hear, but it's useful because to grow and develop there must be some pain attached to it, eventually we see the use in it.

Personal attachment to someone can influence this greatly as well.
Quote:
Isn't this just an instinctive method of survival? What do you gain by forcing yourself to attempt to do something you'll never be good at on your own?
What good are we if we are sitting waiting on someone else to magically appear to solve all our "problems"?

Sure it's great, but not even duality works like that always in practice, duals have fights and disagreements too, see above.
Quote:
By the priority and use of Ti
Yes, I agree that a Te type will have a preference for Te, but that doesn't mean he or she won't use Ti as well at times.

And it goes back to the overall point, information to our weak functions helps strengthen them, getting Te or Ti can do it both, it is just that overall your dual will give you Te more than Ti, which it's this preference which means that duals are at least statistically better at clearing up arguments than other types.
Quote:
This is quite possibly true. Though the difference between a Te dominant and a Te creative is differentiated by the firsts drive for constant productivity opposed to the latter who tend to be more energy conserving.
I imagine the case with ESE's is more related to a need to be constantly proactive within their environment
I don't know, maybe, but it's not *just* "Te".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
I think he used "intuitive" in general usage. Actually it seems to me that ethical types are rather named intuitive by people. Actually I don't remember any NT guy to be called "intuitive" by someone. Do you? What about ethical types, especially females?
Yeah, good point actually!

My ethical mother is sometimes to me seems like having a 6th sense!

Quote:
Ti and Te are incompatible, who takes one as ideal will reject the other. Ti is stopping a car and inspecting its build, Te is starting the car and drive-testing it. They are two completely different approaches and can't work together.
Wrong!!!!!

You can't have any Ti without Te to inspect, investigate etc.

It's funny how as an N type, it seems like you loose sight of the whole here, although you're not the only one, it happens to a few, personally I blame the layout of how model A is typically presented.

It makes it look like for instance functions 1 and 2 and 7 and 8 are miles away from each other, but their not, and it causes confusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
I'd like to do my little IEE test on Cyclops. If he passes I'll go with your IEE typing.

@Cyclops: Describe Love
HERE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

and/or



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoH0DcGWRdU&feature=related

TIP: How to embed a YouTube video...





Most likely it's:






I might be ISTp


again!!!!




LUCKY


MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!







Last edited by Cyclops; 02/10/2009 at 10:40 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02/10/2009, 12:44 PM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
I think he used "intuitive" in general usage. Actually it seems to me that ethical types are rather named intuitive by people. Actually I don't remember any NT guy to be called "intuitive" by someone. Do you? What about ethical types, especially females?
Intuition, in general usage, does not necessarily transliterate into Socionics Intuition, same with Extroversion, Introversion, Logic, etc.

Quote:
So you mean logical types use both Ti and Te in different situations but in different quantities?
Not by situations, by general use. A Te uses Ti in a different way than a Ti uses it, and so on

Example,
This is how a Ti dominant uses Ti:
"The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions (often exaggerated) about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.
Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards."



This is how a Te dominant uses Ti:
"The individual understands easily, but is largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. The individual perceives such logical systems as largely worthless to his goals and finds them completely uninteresting and unproductive."

Quote:
I tell you it's wrong, before reading your answer. They *can* use but the *don't* use their Id functions. To be more concrete, any type can use any function but they have different preferences and strengths on them, the ones described in Model A.
No kidding, that's not what I'm even referring to though.

Quote:
Ti and Te are incompatible, who takes one as ideal will reject the other. Ti is stopping a car and inspecting its build, Te is starting the car and drive-testing it. They are two completely different approaches and can't work together.
You ignore one, but you can indeed still use it through the filter of your Ego Functions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
A few things, you've already agreed that for instance a Te dominant (say LSE) can use both Te and Ti - and can actually display Ti, but here you say that your supervisor doesn't possess your suggestive function. Yes, they do, especially if you're an SEI because we know the LSE has and displays both Te and Ti. (and you're SEE supervisor will have and display both Se and Si).
The Supervisor does not value your suggestive function, and thus doesn't use it (for the most part) in a way that can benefit you, they will also only use it through your vulnerable function, that's why they're Supervisors and not Benefactors. It's a one way power, where the Supervises on the opposite end

Quote:
Consider also the following example, supposing you have an SLI, he doesn't make the right moves in a social situation by smiling or being what's deemed as friendy etc, the supervisor gives him friendly advice on how to be in this situation. The SLI is happy because he's gained something - next time round people he likes won't think he's miserable and angry and this can make for better contacts with for instance aquaintances and work collegues.
The advice an ESE would give to an SLI would be deemed as insulting and bothersome.
To a Supervisee, Supervisor advice is like a "tainted" version of your own method, telling you to get to the same road by stomping over what you value.

For instance, SEE's and I both value Fi, but the SEE's method of using Fi is offensive to me; I view it as intrusive, aggressive and inconsiderate, even though that's not how it would be viewed by other types.
As an Se PoLR, I don't need or want my Se strengthen, as the use of it is repulsive to me, though I can appreciate it being used through an Si type.

I imagine Supervisor relationships occur, in less healthy individuals, who believe they need to change, be something other than themselves, so they view the Supervisor as someone who can accomplish that transition.
Though, you don't change, you just end-up feeling more incompetent than you did before.

Quote:
Also - importantly, consider criticism or even advice from ones dual, this can be quite unpleasant and can be something we don't want to hear, but it's useful because to grow and develop there must be some pain attached to it, eventually we see the use in it.
Very true, though duals don't hit your weak spots, their advice is beneficial without being intrusive.

Quote:
What good are we if we are sitting waiting on someone else to magically appear to solve all our "problems"?

Sure it's great, but not even duality works like that always in practice, duals have fights and disagreements too, see above.
That's not what I meant. People will, instinctively, use their suggestive function if they don't have someone strong in it to produce it, for them, but they will never be able to master it on their own, as they will never be able to evaluate its accuracy
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02/10/2009, 01:26 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
The Supervisor does not value your suggestive function, and thus doesn't use it (for the most part) in a way that can benefit you, they will also only use it through your vulnerable function, that's why they're Supervisors and not Benefactors. It's a one way power, where the Supervises on the opposite end
I don't wish to argue with you continously, but I can't help but feel you are missing my points, so i'll say some more then leave you to your place of being - whatever seems to work for the individual has got to have some merit (even if it seems you aren't appreciating the "living" of socionics, but are too engrossed in some aspects of what's on wiki or maybe some other sites, don't mean to be offensive, sorry).

So maybe to go over somethings (and answer your post)!

I'm saying that for instance, even though it may not be pleasant to receive information from your supervisor, it still benefits you because it increases the strength of a weak function. There's also the thing to consider of viewing your supervisor from afar, I don't know about you but i've learned a few things which have helped me in life from watching how they go about things. Who wants to completely suck at their PoLR? I'm sure everyone want's to develop it to assist them in actual living and such.
Quote:
The advice an ESE would give to an SLI would be deemed as insulting and bothersome.
To a Supervisee, Supervisor advice is like a "tainted" version of your own method, telling you to get to the same road by stomping over what you value.
I think the issue here is overload, among some other things which I don't want to go into too much, sorry.
Quote:
For instance, SEE's and I both value Fi, but the SEE's method of using Fi is offensive to me; I view it as intrusive, aggressive and inconsiderate, even though that's not how it would be viewed by other types.
As an Se PoLR, I don't need or want my Se strengthen, as the use of it is repulsive to me, though I can appreciate it being used through an Si type.
OK, you don't wish to develop yourself, that's up to you, I think I get it now.
Quote:
I imagine Supervisor relationships occur, in less healthy individuals, who believe they need to change, be something other than themselves, so they view the Supervisor as someone who can accomplish that transition.
Though, you don't change, you just end-up feeling more incompetent than you did before.
Well there is a big gap between imagining and "breathing" situations and life. I've had experiences with my supervisor from close and far psychological distance, also with other types with functions of strength which for me are not my naturals.
Quote:
Very true, though duals don't hit your weak spots, their advice is beneficial without being intrusive.
One thing i'd ask you (and it can be rhetorical, in the sense you don't have to answer) is why you think it's beneficial without being intrusive? Consider for instance the activity relation and how we are still receiving seeking functions, yet it's noted in the texts that after time our activities can overload our seeking and weak concious functions.
Quote:
That's not what I meant. People will, instinctively, use their suggestive function if they don't have someone strong in it to produce it, for them, but they will never be able to master it on their own, as they will never be able to evaluate its accuracy
If you say so, but I also use my PoLR function.

I'm going to end this on another note with something which may help you to step outside what seems to be your current thinking, I don't know if you've read this, but it's an article with a great translation by Tatyana Prokofieva. In this article she talks about a balance of a type, her "idea" is that the balance is 60/40. I think it touches on your view of how you don't want to improve your Se (as an INFj), maybe also your other weaker functions (like also your role too)? The idea of your seeking functions, your 5th and 6th, that you mention in this and other contexts, is quite easy to understand but I can't help but feel like talking about it some other time.

(Although she talks about some other things, the balance aspect is quite useful and appropriate in ways).

Anyway here is the article, I hope you get some use out of it:

http://www.socionics.ru/personality_development.htm

Good luck in your socionic quest!

Perhaps...Just remember the wholeness of types, and even remember those who seem to have it all together (maybe they have good balance)?!

ttyl possible quadra girl!!!

Last edited by Cyclops; 02/10/2009 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02/10/2009, 07:49 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
Intuition, in general usage, does not necessarily transliterate into Socionics Intuition, same with Extroversion, Introversion, Logic, etc.
You seem to forget(?) pretty easy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
This doesn't even make sense, since ethical functions are separate from intuitive ones. And what is the "unknown" and how does this apply to Ethical Sensory types?
I'm done with this absurd debate.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03/10/2009, 02:17 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

IEE test results: Fail - although can resit test.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03/10/2009, 08:04 AM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I don't wish to argue with you continously, but I can't help but feel you are missing my points, so i'll say some more then leave you to your place of being - whatever seems to work for the individual has got to have some merit (even if it seems you aren't appreciating the "living" of socionics, but are too engrossed in some aspects of what's on wiki or maybe some other sites, don't mean to be offensive, sorry).
I use the Wiki because it's consistent with the collective information on Model A by Socionists, just as, if I were sick, I would listen to the advice of a doctors instead of from people on online medical forums.
The idea of making-up information to further some agenda has absolutely no benefit to me, thus I will listen to the collective agreements of the experts

Quote:
I'm saying that for instance, even though it may not be pleasant to receive information from your supervisor, it still benefits you because it increases the strength of a weak function. There's also the thing to consider of viewing your supervisor from afar, I don't know about you but i've learned a few things which have helped me in life from watching how they go about things. Who wants to completely suck at their PoLR? I'm sure everyone want's to develop it to assist them in actual living and such.
You can't learn to be good at your Vulnerable Function from someone who values it, you'll be too busy trying to avoid it, like seeing a car speeding towards you, your instinct will be to get away from it, not try to observe it to see why it's speeding in the first place.
Supervisors can only make you feel worse about your weaknesses, even if that's not their intent.

Quote:
OK, you don't wish to develop yourself, that's up to you, I think I get it now.
I get help from beneficial sources, not harmful ones.

Quote:
Well there is a big gap between imagining and "breathing" situations and life.
I've had experiences with my supervisor from close and far psychological distance, also with other types with functions of strength which for me are not my naturals.
How can you know what a Supervision experience is like if you don't even know what type you are? At least according to this thread, unless I'm misreading something and you're still LII...?

Quote:
One thing i'd ask you (and it can be rhetorical, in the sense you don't have to answer) is why you think it's beneficial without being intrusive?
It's beneficial because they don't value what you're weak at, though they do value your strengths, thus they will not poke at your soar spots but will give you what you're seeking
A dual is like a teacher who assists you in a way that you like and can understand, instead of just calling you a failure and punishing you when they perceive faults in your methods

Quote:
Consider for instance the activity relation and how we are still receiving seeking functions, yet it's noted in the texts that after time our activities can overload our seeking and weak concious functions.
Activators don't hurt you (in the Socionics sense, at least) but they can bore you. Boring isn't harmful, it's just not as good as duality

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
I'm done with this absurd debate.
Good to know
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09/10/2009, 01:33 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Back to ISTp for me.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 14/10/2009, 10:46 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m
Your post imo is again typical Irrational speculation (yeah that again means I don't think you're SLI, check your PM, btw).
Hi, I wasn't quite sure whether to respond on other thread or pm, but I thought i'd put it here just now incase too many informations spread out over other threads, although maybe i'll take it to pm at some point.

I think you mentioned that you see some conflicting informations in me, if it's OK to mention that? Anyway, I can see that being the case, and I can see from some angles how I wouldn't be as easy to type as some other people can be.

I thought i'd resurrect this informations about me:

http://www.socionics.com/forums/show...75&postcount=2

Which may help.

Something else about me which may seem Fe valuing in some ways, I realised some point in the past that I can be quite direct and to the point with people at times. This can happen when i'm not aware of it, so it can cause offense to some people and I haven't realised it. So it's something I worked on to pay attention to my delivery, this way I am better at making my point to people whilst not unknowingly alienating them, so it's better overall to be able to get on with people without causing offense when it's not intended. So this may be the Fe valueing that you see at times.

Last edited by Cyclops; 14/10/2009 at 10:46 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 14/10/2009, 01:56 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Something else about me which may seem Fe valuing in some ways, I realised some point in the past that I can be quite direct and to the point with people at times. This can happen when i'm not aware of it, so it can cause offense to some people and I haven't realised it. So it's something I worked on to pay attention to my delivery, this way I am better at making my point to people whilst not unknowingly alienating them, so it's better overall to be able to get on with people without causing offense when it's not intended. So this may be the Fe valueing that you see at times.
I do know an SLI who behaves in a similar way and the explanation she gave for her behaviour was very similar.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 14/10/2009, 03:05 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I think you mentioned that you see some conflicting informations in me, if it's OK to mention that? Anyway, I can see that being the case, and I can see from some angles how I wouldn't be as easy to type as some other people can be.
It's ok to mention it, but please be aware: the fact that I've taken your response as Irrational has nothing to do with the conflicting information that I see - actually I'm more convinced you're and my only confusion is if you're Alpha or Delta. Btw, a video might have helped, I don't know why you didn't answer anything about it.

I will post in the other thread my intention to keep the ideas separated (again).

Edit: it seems nobody is interested actually in the explanation itself, but rather in that little (and low importance importance) remark about your type . But that can be told when and if any reply will be posted, at least you don't seem interested but is is also possible that I extended your idea too much - out of your initial purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 14/10/2009, 04:15 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
It's ok to mention it, but please be aware: the fact that I've taken your response as Irrational has nothing to do with the conflicting information that I see - actually I'm more convinced you're and my only confusion is if you're Alpha or Delta. Btw, a video might have helped, I don't know why you didn't answer anything about it.

I will post in the other thread my intention to keep the ideas separated (again).

Edit: it seems nobody is interested actually in the explanation itself, but rather in that little (and low importance importance) remark about your type . But that can be told when and if any reply will be posted, at least you don't seem interested but is is also possible that I extended your idea too much - out of your initial purpose.
The explanation itself is rather irrelevant since there is obviously something wrong with it -- because we know that your conclusion is false. So, why should we bother to dig deeply into a theoretical explanation that is contradicted by the empirical evidence, which clearly and indisputably indicates that Cyclops is most likely an SLI? And even if Cyclops, for some obscure and not yet known reason, is not an SLI, we know for a fact that there is no way in hell that he can be an IEE or ILE. Sometimes must take a stand and show the explanations to the door ...
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 14/10/2009, 07:07 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
And even if Cyclops, for some obscure and not yet known reason, is not an SLI, we know for a fact that there is no way in hell that he can be an IEE or ILE. Sometimes must take a stand and show the explanations to the door ...
What's the reason to believe Cyclops is Si and not Ne except common acceptance? It is obvious in your mind, but not for me.
Cyclops always find new connections and ideas in old stuff, I watch his open threads, if you know how SLIs are you know what I'm talking about - they're skeptical things can be seen from so radically different POVs. Basically the opposite through this aspect.

Check the basis, Prometheus, I can't tell you he's definitely Ne or you're wrong, but let's keep accurate, ok?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ego functions, prom is smarter than u


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM