fg ~ Sakinorva Databank

Mbtibase

Users

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

ISTJ 7

INTJ 6

ENTJ 2

ESTJ 1

ISFJ 1

6w5 9

5w6 6

1w9 6

1wb 1

cp6w5 1

1w2 1

sp/so 6

so/sx 5

so/sp 5

sp/sx 2

LSI 18

SLE 2

ESE 1

VLEF 4

VLFE 2

total votes 124

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/12/05 (Sat) 05:29:34 #8604
	why i changed my ESTJ for INTJ and SLE for LSI. because introspection is not a fiable method because we are both the subject and the object which is intolerable for a strong analysis, on the contrary an analysis by psychologist is much more viable . changed in my life happened since i wrote this . I created a whole new revolutionnary system of typology that was my obsession during the summer and still is http://francois-garet.e-monsite.com/pages/new-system-socio-evolutionnary-type.html i had been analized by a psychological team (a psychomotrician and two psychiatrist). i learn that i had to go to the hospital because of a psychotic episode and i could become bipolar or . i continued to be followed by a psychomotrician who suspected in me two thing: i abstract almost everything i came in contact (Ni/ white logic) with and i could have autistic tendencies. due to the stress caused by this two revelation (psychotic episode and autism) i had a crisis of violence (i overthrow a table) that almost caused me a disciplanary measure (inf Se). i went back to the hospital and another psychiatrist that i asked for because i feared a schizophrenia did not spot schizophrenia but rather a potential asperger . LSI being the most common type for Asperger i decided to type me acoording to the statistic in matter of socionics.

Editing post #8604 by fg why i changed my ESTJ for INTJ and SLE for LSI. because introspection is not a fiable method because we are both the subject and the object which is intolerable for a strong analysis, on the contrary an analysis by psychologist is much more viable . changed in my life happened since i wrote this . I created a whole new revolutionnary system of typology that was my obsession during the summer and still is http://francois-garet.e-monsite.com/pages/new-system-socio-evolutionnary-type.html i had been analized by a psychological team (a psychomotrician and two psychiatrist). i learn that i had to go to the hospital because of a psychotic episode and i could become bipolar or . i continued to be followed by a psychomotrician who suspected in me two thing: i abstract almost everything i came in contact (Ni/ white logic) with and i could have autistic tendencies. due to the stress caused by this two revelation (psychotic episode and autism) i had a crisis of violence (i overthrow a table) that almost caused me a disciplanary measure (inf Se).<br>i went back to the hospital and another psychiatrist that i asked for because i feared a schizophrenia did not spot schizophrenia but rather a potential asperger . LSI being the most common type for Asperger i decided to type me acoording to the statistic in matter of socionics.
Replying to post #8604 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/25 (Tue) 03:51:50 #8462
	we are talking about two different country's situation. i am talking about france, you're talking about USA. not the same mentality/ framework. not the same political situation. so the discussion is pointless. there is no real disagreement because the impact of confinment will be different depending the countries mentality.

Editing post #8462 by fg we are talking about two different country's situation. i am talking about france, you're talking about USA. not the same mentality/ framework. not the same political situation. so the discussion is pointless. there is no real disagreement because the impact of confinment will be different depending the countries mentality.
Replying to post #8462 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/08/24 (Mon) 17:01:10 #8460
	Perhaps things are more under control in France, but in the untied states, it's becoming very important that we are able to reopen both safely and and as soon as possible. I think a mask helps some, but it isn't enough in and of it's self. You call the fear of a virus "irrational." Is the feeling of loneliness that comes from a lack of social interaction any more "rational" a feeling?

Editing post #8460 by Tman Perhaps things are more under control in France, but in the untied states, it's becoming very important that we are able to reopen both safely and and as soon as possible. I think a mask helps some, but it isn't enough in and of it's self. You call the fear of a virus "irrational." Is the feeling of loneliness that comes from a lack of social interaction any more "rational" a feeling?
Replying to post #8460 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/24 (Mon) 13:00:41 #8454
	majority of doctor that i seen say to wear it for the protocole but very few seemed to really believed in it's utility. mask is pherhaps useful for covid (not prooven) but is surely domagable for the quality of social contact. we actually are totally irationnal with the covid , we focus all our attention in an unknow ennemy but do not look at obvious danger that came with the increase of social distanciation.

Editing post #8454 by fg majority of doctor that i seen say to wear it for the protocole but very few seemed to really believed in it's utility. mask is pherhaps useful for covid (not prooven) but is surely domagable for the quality of social contact. we actually are totally irationnal with the covid , we focus all our attention in an unknow ennemy but do not look at obvious danger that came with the increase of social distanciation.
Replying to post #8454 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/08/21 (Fri) 11:30:38 #8452
	Okay so let me see if I understand you correctly. You have no evidence that wearing a mask won't work. You (presumably) know that the majority of medical professionals have asked you to ware a mask, as they will keep both your self and others safe. But you still want to disobey the mask rule, just to make a point that you should be able to? Isn't doing something because someone told you that you couldn't kind of juvenile? And couldn't you still protest mandatory mask rules by showing that there not necessary, and that your still willing to do what you need to protect other people, even if no one forces you to?

Editing post #8452 by Tman Okay so let me see if I understand you correctly. You have no evidence that wearing a mask won't work. You (presumably) know that the majority of medical professionals have asked you to ware a mask, as they will keep both your self and others safe. But you still want to disobey the mask rule, just to make a point that you should be able to? Isn't doing something because someone told you that you couldn't kind of juvenile? And couldn't you still protest mandatory mask rules by showing that there not necessary, and that your still willing to do what you need to protect other people, even if no one forces you to?
Replying to post #8452 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/20 (Thu) 14:29:07 #8449
	after an honest introspection. i am Si>Ni my symbolic is rather historically oriented than mythologic oriented . i refer more to past experience to judge the world rather than following my first intuition like a Ni user would do. but why ESTJ over ISTJ. Because despite liking similarity over change i am too much oriented towards very different system i am also too politically non-legalist for a Si dom. i participed to a college blocus and want to disobey to mask rules because i think it is a sign of a society of cowardness and paranoia. I also talk with far more easiness with opposite point of view without clashing for being an ISTJ. the similarity that other spotted in me the ressemblance with freud (who is not inf Ne , he saw himself as a discover of continent, it's only his old day that make him more Ne-inf ). the creation of my own system that i showed to few of you indicate a Ne too powerfull for a Si DOm. for the SLE change it's because my white logic is more develloped than the average LSI due to the philosophy study. despite looking serious i am typing and take interest in new theory because it is fun. 2nd Logic > 1st Logic. My writing style compared to phsc is a potential example of me not being naturally this good at white logic (he is far better than me in the intellectual rigor), i also only write article but can't create a long book (i tried but i am not enough patient for this). i am too impatient for the average LSI, i had to go in a psychoterapeutic center because i simply coul not rest myself because of addictness to doing stuff like muscular training, writing, talking to georgous girl, hanging out with friends (girl included) and walk and general impatience with my goal life (black sensing). it's clearly a sign of Si ignoring. i am also not black logic ignoring, too focused on external authority of expertise for that. I am also too rebellious for the average LSI, I insulted in my life more than once consciously professor i did not respect and openly tell my opinion to them in class when i see something that i judge useful to the subject . They tend to congragulate me for my critical spirit . I also tend to dislike psychorigid teacher in term of aesthetical presentation , i am very unclean in this regard (si ignoring). I also relate a lot to startievska definition of SLE's Fi vulnerable more than Ne vulnerable. I am also too much focus on authority to be a 5, also too focus on practicing over detachment for being a 5. i play too much with consciousness the devil advocate for being a 1.

Editing post #8449 by fg after an honest introspection. i am Si>Ni my symbolic is rather historically oriented than mythologic oriented . i refer more to past experience to judge the world rather than following my first intuition like a Ni user would do. but why ESTJ over ISTJ. Because despite liking similarity over change i am too much oriented towards very different system i am also too politically non-legalist for a Si dom. i participed to a college blocus and want to disobey to mask rules because i think it is a sign of a society of cowardness and paranoia. I also talk with far more easiness with opposite point of view without clashing for being an ISTJ. the similarity that other spotted in me the ressemblance with freud (who is not inf Ne , he saw himself as a discover of continent, it's only his old day that make him more Ne-inf ). the creation of my own system that i showed to few of you indicate a Ne too powerfull for a Si DOm. for the SLE change it's because my white logic is more develloped than the average LSI due to the philosophy study. despite looking serious i am typing and take interest in new theory because it is fun. 2nd Logic > 1st Logic. My writing style compared to phsc is a potential example of me not being naturally this good at white logic (he is far better than me in the intellectual rigor), i also only write article but can't create a long book (i tried but i am not enough patient for this). i am too impatient for the average LSI, i had to go in a psychoterapeutic center because i simply coul not rest myself because of addictness to doing stuff like muscular training, writing, talking to georgous girl, hanging out with friends (girl included) and walk and general impatience with my goal life (black sensing). it's clearly a sign of Si ignoring. i am also not black logic ignoring, too focused on external authority of expertise for that. I am also too rebellious for the average LSI, I insulted in my life more than once consciously professor i did not respect and openly tell my opinion to them in class when i see something that i judge useful to the subject . They tend to congragulate me for my critical spirit . I also tend to dislike psychorigid teacher in term of aesthetical presentation , i am very unclean in this regard (si ignoring). I also relate a lot to startievska definition of SLE's Fi vulnerable more than Ne vulnerable. I am also too much focus on authority to be a 5, also too focus on practicing over detachment for being a 5. i play too much with consciousness the devil advocate for being a 1.
Replying to post #8449 by fg

	phsc 2020/04/14 (Tue) 16:09:38 #7993
	You know, compared to anonymous voting and creating fake personas, there are actions that are much worse, like leaving the website and asking for your votes to be deleted and asking for your poll to be deleted MULTIPLE TIMES and coming back anyway after, under a new name even, but I don't think that in typology cowardness is the biggest problem, stupidity and not trying to learn is much worse, like imagine if you create a new account under a new name, then you start acting exactly like someone who has more knowledge about some field, with a similar framework to that kind of person, if you want to stay anonymous it obviously not a very good move, but then, the method in which you communicate is oddly similar too? I find it amazing how people want a different result and instead of changing the core cause which is the method they change the result in a specific part, truly amazing. But back to anonymous votes, is it always bad? same can apply to not giving your name online, it can be a tactical move, just like retreating from a battle.

Editing post #7993 by phsc You know, compared to anonymous voting and creating fake personas, there are actions that are much worse, like leaving the website and asking for your votes to be deleted and asking for your poll to be deleted MULTIPLE TIMES and coming back anyway after, under a new name even, but I don't think that in typology cowardness is the biggest problem, stupidity and not trying to learn is much worse, like imagine if you create a new account under a new name, then you start acting exactly like someone who has more knowledge about some field, with a similar framework to that kind of person, if you want to stay anonymous it obviously not a very good move, but then, the method in which you communicate is oddly similar too? I find it amazing how people want a different result and instead of changing the core cause which is the method they change the result in a specific part, truly amazing.<br><br>But back to anonymous votes, is it always bad? same can apply to not giving your name online, it can be a tactical move, just like retreating from a battle.
Replying to post #7993 by phsc

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 17:40:13 #7844
	The problem of attempting to ground an objective ethics without the use of God dosn't seem to become much essier in the case of virtue than in the case of rights. The main difrenice inbtween a bodly organ and a person is that a bodly organ dosn't have slef concousneses, and therefor only has moral vaule in so far as it relates to the wellbeing of a concsouse agent. This holds true weither that vaule comes form God, potentual virture, rights, the abilty to feel happeniss, or any other thing peple try to use in order to ground morlaity. I agree man is a social animal, I simply hold there may be times when he needs to make radical changes in the socity in which he lives, possiblly even cutting himself of from socity untill a better one can be found in extem cases. I will say that such cases are never ideal though.

Editing post #7844 by Tman <p>The problem of attempting to ground an objective ethics without the use of God dosn't seem to become much essier in the case of virtue than in the case of rights. </p> <p>The main difrenice inbtween a bodly organ and a person is that a bodly organ dosn't have slef concousneses, and therefor only has moral vaule in so far as it relates to the wellbeing of a concsouse agent. This holds true weither that vaule comes form God, potentual virture, rights, the abilty to feel happeniss, or any other thing peple try to use in order to ground morlaity.</p> <p>I agree man is a social animal, I simply hold there may be times when he needs to make radical changes in the socity in which he lives, possiblly even cutting himself of from socity untill a better one can be found in extem cases. I will say that such cases are never ideal though. </p>
Replying to post #7844 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/04/01 (Wed) 15:30:30 #7843
	the jusnaturalist"had the right" is justly that does not make sense for me. a right is something given by an authority after a processus of deliberation . the authority who give right in Locke's philosophy is god. And god is not a very reliable material to base ourself. the "had the right" of this people to return to the state of nature is also absurd. society is a whole like an organism or a machine. you can say "oh mr brain you want your autonomy and leave this body you don't want to be a part of, that's fine, let's do it".

Editing post #7843 by fg <p>the jusnaturalist"had the right" is justly that does not make sense for me. a right is something given by an authority after a processus of deliberation . the authority who give right in Locke's philosophy is god. And god is not a very reliable material to base ourself. the "had the right" of this people to return to the state of nature is also absurd. society is a whole like an organism or a machine. you can say "oh mr brain you want your autonomy and leave this body you don't want to be a part of, that's fine, let's do it".</p>
Replying to post #7843 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/04/01 (Wed) 14:05:37 #7840
	i did not remember about the family part. "I think it's more likly that man begain in extrermly small scale triblasitic socities" yeah i agree but even with this statement, i don't think it save Locke's theory. i think we should rather focus on what men become when cities and small village rised rather than basing ourselve on this extremly small example that does not exist anymore and can't come back because of our wide population.

Editing post #7840 by fg <p>i did not remember about the family part.</p> <p>"I think it's more likly that man begain in extrermly small scale triblasitic socities" yeah i agree but even with this statement, i don't think it save Locke's theory. i think we should rather focus on what men become when cities and small village rised rather than basing ourselve on this extremly small example that does not exist anymore and can't come back because of our wide population.</p>
Replying to post #7840 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/03/31 (Tue) 06:09:04 #7834
	ethically speaken i believe in ethic of virtues (yet, in a more atheist perspective than Elisabeth Anscombe). ethic is the normative discipline of behaviors. So i would not defend the position of accepting coward as coward. cowardness is the lack of one of the virtue (courage). it would be inconsistent with my theorical position in ethical philosophy.

Editing post #7834 by fg <p>ethically speaken i believe in ethic of virtues (yet, in a more atheist perspective than Elisabeth Anscombe). ethic is the normative discipline of behaviors. So i would not defend the position of accepting coward as coward. cowardness is the lack of one of the virtue (courage). it would be inconsistent with my theorical position in ethical philosophy. </p>
Replying to post #7834 by fg

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/03/31 (Tue) 00:45:01 #7831
	Aside from SSS, public voting wasn’t a thing on previous typology databanks, and it was because the norm had been to keep your votes private that the leftover P-D community recommended that I implement an opt-in anonymous voting system when making this site. Anonymous voting exists as a utility to protect cowards from public scrutiny or backlash or whatever other reason they have to hide their votes—some people feel uncomfortable voting publicly even under a website persona, and that should be perfectly okay. That being said, there are a lot of troll voters whose votes I have yet to purge, and they’re all cowardly private voters. I don’t really get it, either. If you make an account called HairyBalls, you might as well troll vote proudly and publicly, right?

Editing post #7831 by strawberry crisis <p>Aside from SSS, public voting wasn’t a thing on previous typology databanks, and it was because the norm had been to keep your votes private that the leftover P-D community recommended that I implement an opt-in anonymous voting system when making this site. Anonymous voting exists as a utility to protect cowards from public scrutiny or backlash or whatever other reason they have to hide their votes—some people feel uncomfortable voting publicly even under a website persona, and that should be perfectly okay. That being said, there are a lot of troll voters whose votes I have yet to purge, and they’re all cowardly private voters. I don’t really get it, either. If you make an account called HairyBalls, you might as well troll vote proudly and publicly, right?</p>
Replying to post #7831 by strawberry crisis

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/03/28 (Sat) 00:23:05 #7815
	it is not a joke . at first, Being anonymous on internet allow to hide ourslef from responsability when telling something about someone . Which i find coward. that's why my site and my youtube channel have my name on it. I am probably the only one on this site that shared his IRL identity name. When i write pr tell that i find Macron hysterical or Gulenko's cognitive style in a total inadequation with fact, everyone can know that François Garet told that. i am coherent in this regard. the, why do i don't consider the political anonymous vote as cowardness and an anonymous vote on someone's type as. A vote on someone's type is a rapport individual to individual .the inequality is only between the level of argumentation between the two individuals if there is a request for argumentation. while the anonymous political vote was about not letting the surrounding judging the individual, it's a mass-individual potential confrontation that we want to avoid in this case.

Editing post #7815 by fg <p>it is not a joke . at first, Being anonymous on internet allow to hide ourslef from responsability when telling something about someone . Which i find coward. that's why my site and my youtube channel have my name on it. I am probably the only one on this site that shared his IRL identity name. When i write pr tell that i find Macron hysterical or Gulenko's cognitive style in a total inadequation with fact, everyone can know that François Garet told that. i am coherent in this regard. the, why do i don't consider the political anonymous vote as cowardness and an anonymous vote on someone's type as. A vote on someone's type is a rapport individual to individual .the inequality is only between the level of argumentation between the two individuals if there is a request for argumentation. while the anonymous political vote was about not letting the surrounding judging the individual, it's a mass-individual potential confrontation that we want to avoid in this case.</p>
Replying to post #7815 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/10/16 (Wed) 04:56:25 #7247
	number of possibilities is important in typology. because typology is , guess what a tool to type people and that we want a system where we can make the maximum of people fit in . that's as simple as that. i don't want to create a system like that because it would just be a different interpretation of socionics from a guy who don't have the authority or the academical credit that allow him to do this. Since socionics is not academically present in France i can't become a socionist. but actually i am talking about socionics and my work about it with some of my classmates, maybe i will talk about this system with my ethical-political philosophy teacher who is also involved into psychology to talk with her about this system and my work. but i only have class with her the second semester.

Editing post #7247 by fg <p>number of possibilities is important in typology. because typology is , guess what a tool to type people and that we want a system where we can make the maximum of people fit in . that's as simple as that. i don't want to create a system like that because it would just be a different interpretation of socionics from a guy who don't have the authority or the academical credit that allow him to do this. Since socionics is not academically present in France i can't become a socionist. but actually i am talking about socionics and my work about it with some of my classmates, maybe i will talk about this system with my ethical-political philosophy teacher who is also involved into psychology to talk with her about this system and my work. but i only have class with her the second semester.</p>
Replying to post #7247 by fg

	phsc 2019/10/15 (Tue) 19:14:26 #7243
	I don't see how number of possibilities is really an important aspect in typology , since we are working with ordering, instead of 2^x, kind of using boolean states for defining aspects of personalities, as we have in let's say MBTI(4), or Big-5(5) or HEXACO(6), or limited by a number of functions in a specific place, nn, in both I believe all function magic systems and socionics, both using 4 functions for each possibility, or a very weird system like the enneagram that has 9 options then... 2 out of these, that not considering counterphobic types, or with the tritype theory (which beats all systems in possibilities by far) being composed of 3!333 which gives us 162 possibilities, not considering wings or counterphobic stuff, but this system instead just uses orders which is a simple 4! that being 24, but the 4 possible different positions for a function isn't that far from limiting function systems to have let's say 1st function thinking/feeling and then the 2nd needing to be intuition/sensing and etc. What you had the idea of has been a constant idea in my mind too for some time, actually if you simply take quadras by what they truly are, a group of people that value the same stuff, instead of let's say preset ideologies or methods to view the world, that can already fit, the system is narrow as all of typology as a whole is narrow, it is about limiting people and categorizing them after all, you can actually make everybody fit in but it requires you to kind of ignore some aspects of it and kind of go by what fits the best instead of what truly fits in perfectly with the system, not far from what happens with functions or even socionics sometimes. But here is the thing fg, if you want a system that is like that, what about creating it yourself? I myself did think about it but then I would probably want to create something too big or complicated and actually rework a lot of core typology aspects with it, but then what about just trying out a system where you have the 8 functions in any order within socionics definitions? that would be 8! and thus 40320 types, which is hard to take on individuallt but creating core concepts that fit together well it is possible to achieve an interesting system. About the vote, it is hard to type aspects of people we are unable to find out about, if you want to give me your arguments in private chat just send a message to me as I can clearly change my opinion based on new information, that website is actually not bad, it's test is, but tests as a whole are very hard to make good versions of, it seems to really favor giving people V high and has some weird aspects and problem I see with tests as a whole as in taking results instead of method to find out the method, while you can achieve such results in different ways. I have a few problems with this system, I think E being linked to intuition is stupid, some people (such as me) do get a lot of insights and easily can act based on pure intuition but choose not to, because of lack of evidence let's say, or lack of logic, etc, and that system puts the insight aspect together with E, another problem but I think we can just pick it off or look at it in %s or in a scale is that some people relate to aspects of E that are more extroverted but not the introverted ones, or the opposite, etc, or people that simply do not fit in almost all functions in a general way, but that is common for all typology systems I guess, I personally relate quite well to the LVFE type other than what I already mentioned.

Editing post #7243 by phsc <p>I don't see how number of possibilities is really an important aspect in typology , since we are working with ordering, instead of 2^x, kind of using boolean states for defining aspects of personalities, as we have in let's say MBTI(4), or Big-5(5) or HEXACO(6), or limited by a number of functions in a specific place, nn, in both I believe all function magic systems and socionics, both using 4 functions for each possibility, or a very weird system like the enneagram that has 9 options then... 2 out of these, that not considering counterphobic types, or with the tritype theory (which beats all systems in possibilities by far) being composed of 3!333 which gives us 162 possibilities, not considering wings or counterphobic stuff, but this system instead just uses orders which is a simple 4! that being 24, but the 4 possible different positions for a function isn't that far from limiting function systems to have let's say 1st function thinking/feeling and then the 2nd needing to be intuition/sensing and etc.</p> <p>What you had the idea of has been a constant idea in my mind too for some time, actually if you simply take quadras by what they truly are, a group of people that value the same stuff, instead of let's say preset ideologies or methods to view the world, that can already fit, the system is narrow as all of typology as a whole is narrow, it is about limiting people and categorizing them after all, you can actually make everybody fit in but it requires you to kind of ignore some aspects of it and kind of go by what fits the best instead of what truly fits in perfectly with the system, not far from what happens with functions or even socionics sometimes.</p> <p>But here is the thing fg, if you want a system that is like that, what about creating it yourself? I myself did think about it but then I would probably want to create something too big or complicated and actually rework a lot of core typology aspects with it, but then what about just trying out a system where you have the 8 functions in any order within socionics definitions? that would be 8! and thus 40320 types, which is hard to take on individuallt but creating core concepts that fit together well it is possible to achieve an interesting system.</p> <p> </p> <p>About the vote, it is hard to type aspects of people we are unable to find out about, if you want to give me your arguments in private chat just send a message to me as I can clearly change my opinion based on new information, that website is actually not bad, it's test is, but tests as a whole are very hard to make good versions of, it seems to really favor giving people V high and has some weird aspects and problem I see with tests as a whole as in taking results instead of method to find out the method, while you can achieve such results in different ways.</p> <p>I have a few problems with this system, I think E being linked to intuition is stupid, some people (such as me) do get a lot of insights and easily can act based on pure intuition but choose not to, because of lack of evidence let's say, or lack of logic, etc, and that system puts the insight aspect together with E, another problem but I think we can just pick it off or look at it in %s or in a scale is that some people relate to aspects of E that are more extroverted but not the introverted ones, or the opposite, etc, or people that simply do not fit in almost all functions in a general way, but that is common for all typology systems I guess, I personally relate quite well to the LVFE type other than what I already mentioned.</p>
Replying to post #7243 by phsc

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/10/15 (Tue) 18:27:30 #7242
	from what i have understood this system have the advantage of a large number of combination, but have the disadvantage of only have 4 possible position for a function. i already talked with Kawaii about my desire of a variation of the socionics system that would permit more combination (possibility of being black ethic base and Black logic vulnerable for example, or being LII and Beta etc...). but this system don't really answer to my desire either, the narowness of only 4 possible link toward a function (confident, flexible,insecure, obvlious) seem to make this system too narrow (in comparison of socionics) to have a reasonable amount of actual people fitting with this theory. but about your vote as emotion obvlious , i don't relate to it from the description of https://www.attitudinalpsyche.com (but i would prefer to argue about it in private message since i will probably have to give specific personnal example to explain more my disagreement.). My statement is about https://www.attitudinalpsyche.com's definition, but that may be the equivalent of socionics.com in psyche.

Editing post #7242 by fg <p>from what i have understood this system have the advantage of a large number of combination, but have the disadvantage of only have 4 possible position for a function. i already talked with Kawaii about my desire of a variation of the socionics system that would permit more combination (possibility of being black ethic base and Black logic vulnerable for example, or being LII and Beta etc...). but this system don't really answer to my desire either, the narowness of only 4 possible link toward a function (confident, flexible,insecure, obvlious) seem to make this system too narrow (in comparison of socionics) to have a reasonable amount of actual people fitting with this theory. but about your vote as emotion obvlious , i don't relate to it from the description of https://www.attitudinalpsyche.com (but i would prefer to argue about it in private message since i will probably have to give specific personnal example to explain more my disagreement.). My statement is about https://www.attitudinalpsyche.com's definition, but that may be the equivalent of socionics.com in psyche.</p>
Replying to post #7242 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/09/29 (Sun) 04:56:49 #7172
	Teru, for starting , thanks for this post, i sincerely appreciate your detailed explanation and your more serious tone than usual. "Thing is, I think it goes against the point of the Myers-Briggs to use ability rather than preference, and type you intuitive simply because you enjoy learning about philosophy and things that aren't necessarily connected to the physical world, or put your intelligence on display. It's more important to focus on the how and why than the what, and even this is related to why I would type you S over N. When for example you type people, you don't try to find out why they do the things that they do, you apply your set of predefined characteristics on their behavior, almost like a manual, that you use to make things easier on you, to reduce possibilities, to arrive at one or a small few factual conclusions that you will always be able to prove and back up with what you can observe and what people have said about themselves. You compare them to others you have observed throughout history (who may or may not be accurately typed), use lists of traits that connect typology with philosophy or political preference, and don't want to listen when people tell you these things aren't that important, might overlap or are just straight up inaccurate. You take a system that denotes how people's minds function and that influences their behavior yet strip away all the layers of subjectivity, leaving you with only behavior which - to you - is fact, and who can disagree with objective fact? Well, sophists would. After seeing you do these same things over and over I just can't see you as N, which expands on possibilities and is experimental rather than literal and reductionist, would spend more time listening to what's actually being said than gauging whether or not the information comes from credible sources, and would see a bigger grey area between "fairy tale and fact", and not make as many black vs white statements and assumptions." i can see what you say, yes, i rarely care about asking individual why they act like that and i can see how you can see me as a reductionnist because of my approach. i relate to this approach mostly because i don't trust people judgment about themselves because being the object as well as the subject is a tricky thing that lead towards bias. i also rather prefer using this kind of approach because there is no such thing as science of the individual, only of the general. despite using a pseudoscience i try to be the most rigorous possible . yes i am making elimination, because i do classification. i someone is a girl, this person is not a boy. a classification also impede some possibilities, yes. i did not choose this method because i like reducing possibility but rather because of a lack of trust about self-typing (that's also the reason why i tend to attack the S argument rather than defending the N argument), that's also why in this page i posted information about what different kind people think about me IRL rather than doing a long explanation why i think i am x type. And about "fairy tale and fact", contrary to what you seem to believe i don't despise fairy tale. on the contrary. the use of fiction is a good tool to find truth. just like Descartes act as if our senses always mislead us (despite knowing it is not always the case) to find an absolute truth, the socionics system is a fairy tale, people are not truly split in 16 categories, 4 quadra and 4 clubs but it is a temporary glasses that permit to have a general understanding of people. "To use one of your historical examples, it's like the difference between Freud (S) and Jung (N), both of them being very influential but having vastly different approaches, Jung disliking Freud's approach because he saw it as overly constraining and negative, Freud disliking Jung and labeling all of his more out-of-the-box theories pseudoscience bullshit, despite both of them being psychologists and thus not really needing objective fact. Every other time you comment, I see you complaining about something the same way Freud complained about Jung, the same thing people keep pointing out yet you keep labeling insults and coming from "sophists", no matter who it comes from." this comparison to me with Freud is at the same time flattering, insulting and quite revelative of how you see me like how Jung saw Freud. No matter of Freud's type N or S. I think Jung had a biased understanding of him (despite being rather on the side of Jung, but i may have follow the old revolutionnary to became the new conservative, it is not impossible). Jung saw Freud as a person who did not see the potential of his ideas and did not see his intellectual potential (and it might be true as well as Freud for Jung and me for you). But Jung overly generalised this particular injustice and creating an image of a close-minded freud from it. I am a relatively "important" person in the typology community (not at first when you met me just like Freud was at a much bigger level, and you are an outsider in your behavior just like Jung was. so of course i like Freud seem more "inside the box" because of our social position. I don't call people sophist "no matter who it comes from" you were the only one that i remember calling sophist, ok. You probably did not mean this litterally but be more carefull with your words on the future. and yes it is again one of the reason why you seem to think i am S, but in that case even Hegel is. "It's like there's black or white, us or them, smart or dumb, right or wrong, N or insult, authoritative sources or sophists; like you pick two opposing traits, draw a line and write one on each side of a piece of paper and filter any information as falling under either of them so you're ultimately left with a system of "either-or" labeling with nothing in-between, like your thought process basically embodies the line that's gatekeeping the information, and because you don't see anything in-between, everyone who does must be wrong and dumb and doesn't know what they're talking about, no matter the content or context of what they're saying; and I think that's mostly because you have a lot of trouble filtering between opposing ideas not just in preference but in general, it's something I see you struggle with a lot, like you don't know that there are different shades of black and white that are equally viable as the extremes and if something even leans slightly more towards one than the other, they must also encompass that entirely, even if explicitly stated that they don't, you don't and won't recognize the possibility that there can be a "grey area" or that things aren't as simple as what you've reduced them to, and even if you do it's irrelevant as it's something you never actively try to do, meaning you somewhat lean towards a sensory preference." i will finally answer to the black or white argument who is the most redundant and boring speech that people tend to make here about me, even if i see where it come from. i can judge some people as all black (like i did to you, but you just make me change my mind with this comment) but i rarely judge something as all white. I am easily annoyed by small things which lead me to be harsh in my judgment and arguments. i believe in grey: i am grey about Tman for example. i am not black or white, because i tend to always criticize the system i use despite using those systems (i criticize lot of intertype relationship stuff in socionics, reinin dichotomies etc...), and i admitted function was not perfect despite using them and make fun of my "function knight"personna. phsc "Your articles constantly mention things I've never seen in other's articles and they also don't really make sense for theory (as far as I know about it, maybe you just know different sources), a few examples from your common characteristics between duals article: "are not confuse between right and left (good spatial intelligence)" "feminist views" "bad long-term memory" "cynicism towards psychotherapy’s efficiency" "like the sound of their own voice" "bad coordination of movement" "strong hate towards the bourgeoisie’s values but adherence towards the aristocratic values" "developed sexual imagination" "high sensitivity towards pain" "a tendency to love rock n roll" "more religious than the average of the population" "know how to play with children"" this informations came from talanov's experimentations https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/dualy1.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700270&usg=ALkJrhi5jj1CIOHx2o0Qo534WfFW975XtQ https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/dualy2.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700270&usg=ALkJrhi3tZVuuTbfJzfnm6EHl9MW6Gt17Q

Editing post #7172 by fg <p>Teru, for starting , thanks for this post, i sincerely appreciate your detailed explanation and your more serious tone than usual.</p> <p>"Thing is, I think it goes against the point of the Myers-Briggs to use ability rather than preference, and type you intuitive simply because you enjoy learning about philosophy and things that aren't necessarily connected to the physical world, or put your intelligence on display. It's more important to focus on the <em>how</em> and <em>why</em> than the <em>what</em>, and even this is related to why I would type you S over N. When for example you type people, you don't try to find out <em>why</em> they do the things that they do, you apply your set of predefined characteristics on their behavior, almost like a manual, that you use to make things easier on you, to reduce possibilities, to arrive at one or a small few factual conclusions that you will always be able to prove and back up with what you can observe and what people have said about themselves. You compare them to others you have observed throughout history (who may or may not be accurately typed), use lists of traits that connect typology with philosophy or political preference, and don't want to listen when people tell you these things aren't that important, might overlap or are just straight up inaccurate. You take a system that denotes how people's minds function and that influences their behavior yet strip away all the layers of subjectivity, leaving you with only behavior which - to you - is fact, and who can disagree with objective fact? Well, sophists would. After seeing you do these same things over and over I just can't see you as N, which expands on possibilities and is experimental rather than literal and reductionist, would spend more time listening to what's actually being said than gauging whether or not the information comes from credible sources, and would see a bigger grey area between "fairy tale and fact", and not make as many black vs white statements and assumptions."</p> <p>i can see what you say, yes, i rarely care about asking individual why they act like that and i can see how you can see me as a reductionnist because of my approach. i relate to this approach mostly because i don't trust people judgment about themselves because being the object as well as the subject is a tricky thing that lead towards bias. i also rather prefer using this kind of approach because there is no such thing as science of the individual, only of the general. despite using a pseudoscience i try to be the most rigorous possible . yes i am making elimination, because i do classification. i someone is a girl, this person is not a boy. a classification also impede some possibilities, yes. i did not choose this method because i like reducing possibility but rather because of a lack of trust about self-typing (that's also the reason why i tend to attack the S argument rather than defending the N argument), that's also why in this page i posted information about what different kind people think about me IRL rather than doing a long explanation why i think i am x type. And about "fairy tale and fact", contrary to what you seem to believe i don't despise fairy tale. on the contrary. the use of fiction is a good tool to find truth. just like Descartes act as if our senses always mislead us (despite knowing it is not always the case) to find an absolute truth, the socionics system is a fairy tale, people are not truly split in 16 categories, 4 quadra and 4 clubs but it is a temporary glasses that permit to have a general understanding of people.</p> <p>"To use one of your historical examples, it's like the difference between Freud (S) and Jung (N), both of them being very influential but having vastly different approaches, Jung disliking Freud's approach because he saw it as overly constraining and negative, Freud disliking Jung and labeling all of his more out-of-the-box theories pseudoscience bullshit, despite both of them being psychologists and thus not really needing objective fact. Every other time you comment, I see you complaining about something the same way Freud complained about Jung, the same thing people keep pointing out yet you keep labeling insults and coming from "sophists", no matter who it comes from." this comparison to me with Freud is at the same time flattering, insulting and quite revelative of how you see me like how Jung saw Freud. No matter of Freud's type N or S. I think Jung had a biased understanding of him (despite being rather on the side of Jung, but i may have follow the old revolutionnary to became the new conservative, it is not impossible). Jung saw Freud as a person who did not see the potential of his ideas and did not see his intellectual potential (and it might be true as well as Freud for Jung and me for you). But Jung overly generalised this particular injustice and creating an image of a close-minded freud from it. I am a relatively "important" person in the typology community (not at first when you met me just like Freud was at a much bigger level, and you are an outsider in your behavior just like Jung was. so of course i like Freud seem more "inside the box" because of our social position. I don't call people sophist "no matter who it comes from" you were the only one that i remember calling sophist, ok. You probably did not mean this litterally but be more carefull with your words on the future. and yes it is again one of the reason why you seem to think i am S, but in that case even Hegel is.</p> <p>"It's like there's black or white, us or them, smart or dumb, right or wrong, N or insult, authoritative sources or sophists; like you pick two opposing traits, draw a line and write one on each side of a piece of paper and filter any information as falling under either of them so you're ultimately left with a system of "either-or" labeling with nothing in-between, like your thought process basically embodies the line that's gatekeeping the information, and because <em>you</em> don't see anything in-between, everyone who does must be wrong and dumb and doesn't know what they're talking about, no matter the content or context of what they're saying; and I think that's mostly because you have a lot of trouble filtering between opposing ideas not just in preference but in general, it's something I see you struggle with a lot, like you don't know that there are different shades of black and white that are equally viable as the extremes and if something even leans slightly more towards one than the other, they must also encompass that entirely, even if explicitly stated that they don't, you don't and won't recognize the possibility that there can be a "grey area" or that things aren't as simple as what you've reduced them to, and even if you do it's irrelevant as it's something you never actively try to do, meaning you somewhat lean towards a sensory preference." i will finally answer to the black or white argument who is the most redundant and boring speech that people tend to make here about me, even if i see where it come from. i can judge some people as all black (like i did to you, but you just make me change my mind with this comment) but i rarely judge something as all white. I am easily annoyed by small things which lead me to be harsh in my judgment and arguments. i believe in grey: i am grey about Tman for example. i am not black or white, because i tend to always criticize the system i use despite using those systems (i criticize lot of intertype relationship stuff in socionics, reinin dichotomies etc...), and i admitted function was not perfect despite using them and make fun of my "function knight"personna. </p> <p>phsc "Your articles constantly mention things I've never seen in other's articles and they also don't really make sense for theory (as far as I know about it, maybe you just know different sources), a few examples from your common characteristics between duals article: "are not confuse between right and left (good spatial intelligence)" "feminist views" "bad long-term memory" "cynicism towards psychotherapy’s efficiency" "like the sound of their own voice" "bad coordination of movement" "strong hate towards the bourgeoisie’s values but adherence towards the aristocratic values" "developed sexual imagination" "high sensitivity towards pain" "a tendency to love rock n roll" "more religious than the average of the population" "know how to play with children"" this informations came from talanov's experimentations https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/dualy1.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700270&usg=ALkJrhi5jj1CIOHx2o0Qo534WfFW975XtQ https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/dualy2.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700270&usg=ALkJrhi3tZVuuTbfJzfnm6EHl9MW6Gt17Q</p> <p><br /> </p> <p><br /> <br /> </p>
Replying to post #7172 by fg

Teru Mikami 2019/09/28 (Sat) 20:50:50 #7169
I don't usually make serious comments like this because no one on the (public) intarnets will ever settle for having a discussion and instead just throw rhetorical insults at your head (I'm not a hypocrite because I'm self-aware so it's perfectly okay trust me) but every single time I see a comment with a couple paragraphs in it, it ends up involving or name-dropping me some way or another, turning other people's type into a matter of my type or my intertype relations, which no one can agree on and I really don't give two shits about the opinions of teenage political extremists in non-mocking sense; and though it's funny to read, it's getting very annoying that this entire community is founded on an endless strain of misinterpretations and false assumptions from people who can't accept for a second that their brain is not actually the center of the universe and despite exuberating enlightenment and being very, very smart and at the cutting edge of 19th century political thought, they (believe it or not) are also prone to "being wrong", their opinion of themselves might not be all that correct and they might not be taking in the whole picture when they talk about people they spent 4x as much time gatekeeping against than actually talking to, especially after admitting that reading between the lines of what I say is something they have a lot of trouble with, and definitely not after just hearing a bunch of other takes from other people that pretty much claim the opposite is true; and while I had made peace with the fact that I live rent-free inside your tiny head as some kind of disabled jester who honks his horn whenever you open your mouth and given up on the idea of ever working past your stubborn shell, you are probably not as closed-minded as I first thought, so here's a kind of template slur of [more politely represented] ideas I sent to phsc earlier in our extremely chaotic Think Tank Group Chat while he was writing his comment: Thing is, I think it goes against the point of the Myers-Briggs to use ability rather than preference, and type you intuitive simply because you enjoy learning about philosophy and things that aren't necessarily connected to the physical world, or put your intelligence on display. It's more important to focus on the how and why than the what, and even this is related to why I would type you S over N. When for example you type people, you don't try to find out why they do the things that they do, you apply your set of predefined characteristics on their behavior, almost like a manual, that you use to make things easier on you, to reduce possibilities, to arrive at one or a small few factual conclusions that you will always be able to prove and back up with what you can observe and what people have said about themselves. You compare them to others you have observed throughout history (who may or may not be accurately typed), use lists of traits that connect typology with philosophy or political preference, and don't want to listen when people tell you these things aren't that important, might overlap or are just straight up inaccurate. You take a system that denotes how people's minds function and that influences their behavior yet strip away all the layers of subjectivity, leaving you with only behavior which - to you - is fact, and who can disagree with objective fact? Well, sophists would. After seeing you do these same things over and over I just can't see you as N, which expands on possibilities and is experimental rather than literal and reductionist, would spend more time listening to what's actually being said than gauging whether or not the information comes from credible sources, and would see a bigger grey area between "fairy tale and fact", and not make as many black vs white statements and assumptions. To use one of your historical examples, it's like the difference between Freud (S) and Jung (N), both of them being very influential but having vastly different approaches, Jung disliking Freud's approach because he saw it as overly constraining and negative, Freud disliking Jung and labeling all of his more out-of-the-box theories pseudoscience bullshit, despite both of them being psychologists and thus not really needing objective fact. Every other time you comment, I see you complaining about something the same way Freud complained about Jung, the same thing people keep pointing out yet you keep labeling insults and coming from "sophists", no matter who it comes from. It's like there's black or white, us or them, smart or dumb, right or wrong, N or insult, authoritative sources or sophists; like you pick two opposing traits, draw a line and write one on each side of a piece of paper and filter any information as falling under either of them so you're ultimately left with a system of "either-or" labeling with nothing in-between, like your thought process basically embodies the line that's gatekeeping the information, and because you don't see anything in-between, everyone who does must be wrong and dumb and doesn't know what they're talking about, no matter the content or context of what they're saying; and I think that's mostly because you have a lot of trouble filtering between opposing ideas not just in preference but in general, it's something I see you struggle with a lot, like you don't know that there are different shades of black and white that are equally viable as the extremes and if something even leans slightly more towards one than the other, they must also encompass that entirely, even if explicitly stated that they don't, you don't and won't recognize the possibility that there can be a "grey area" or that things aren't as simple as what you've reduced them to, and even if you do it's irrelevant as it's something you never actively try to do, meaning you somewhat lean towards a sensory preference. This style of reductionary thinking limits possibilities, it centers itself as opposite to the expansive nature of intuition, and again it's much more important to look at how you interpret and deal with information than exactly what type of information falls into the realm of your personal interests, as that's not how actual Myers-Briggs preferences are measured. This doesn't imply you're "full S" or that I'm a crony or a sophist or insulting you, it's simply applying the S-N dichotomy to how you think rather than what type of interests are most correlated with either end of the spectrum, and what I told phsc earlier today. Please stop arguing over my type on this page you retards

Editing post #7169 by Teru Mikami <p>I don't usually make serious comments like this because no one on the (public) intarnets will ever settle for having a discussion and instead just throw rhetorical insults at your head (I'm not a hypocrite because I'm self-aware so it's perfectly okay trust me) but every single time I see a comment with a couple paragraphs in it, it ends up involving or name-dropping me some way or another, turning other people's type into a matter of <em>my </em>type or <em>my </em>intertype relations, which no one can agree on and I really don't give two shits about the opinions of teenage political extremists in non-mocking sense; and though it's funny to read, it's getting very annoying that this entire community is founded on an endless strain of misinterpretations and false assumptions from people who can't accept for a second that their brain is not actually the center of the universe and despite exuberating enlightenment and being very, very smart and at the cutting edge of 19th century political thought, they (believe it or not) are also prone to "being wrong", their opinion of themselves might not be all that correct and they might not be taking in the whole picture when they talk about people they spent 4x as much time gatekeeping against than actually talking to, especially after admitting that reading between the lines of what I say is something they have a lot of trouble with, and <em>definitely </em>not after just hearing a bunch of other takes from other people that pretty much claim the opposite is true; and while I had made peace with the fact that I live rent-free inside your tiny head as some kind of disabled jester who honks his horn whenever you open your mouth and given up on the idea of ever working past your stubborn shell, you are probably not as closed-minded as I first thought, so here's a kind of template slur of [more politely represented] ideas I sent to phsc earlier in our extremely chaotic Think Tank Group Chat while he was writing his comment:</p> <br> <p>Thing is, I think it goes against the point of the Myers-Briggs to use ability rather than preference, and type you intuitive simply because you enjoy learning about philosophy and things that aren't necessarily connected to the physical world, or put your intelligence on display. It's more important to focus on the <em>how</em> and <em>why</em> than the <em>what</em>, and even this is related to why I would type you S over N. When for example you type people, you don't try to find out <em>why</em> they do the things that they do, you apply your set of predefined characteristics on their behavior, almost like a manual, that you use to make things easier on you, to reduce possibilities, to arrive at one or a small few factual conclusions that you will always be able to prove and back up with what you can observe and what people have said about themselves. You compare them to others you have observed throughout history (who may or may not be accurately typed), use lists of traits that connect typology with philosophy or political preference, and don't want to listen when people tell you these things aren't that important, might overlap or are just straight up inaccurate. You take a system that denotes how people's minds function and that influences their behavior yet strip away all the layers of subjectivity, leaving you with only behavior which - to you - is fact, and who can disagree with objective fact? Well, sophists would. After seeing you do these same things over and over I just can't see you as N, which expands on possibilities and is experimental rather than literal and reductionist, would spend more time listening to what's actually being said than gauging whether or not the information comes from credible sources, and would see a bigger grey area between "fairy tale and fact", and not make as many black vs white statements and assumptions.</p> <p>To use one of your historical examples, it's like the difference between Freud (S) and Jung (N), both of them being very influential but having vastly different approaches, Jung disliking Freud's approach because he saw it as overly constraining and negative, Freud disliking Jung and labeling all of his more out-of-the-box theories pseudoscience bullshit, despite both of them being psychologists and thus not really needing objective fact. Every other time you comment, I see you complaining about something the same way Freud complained about Jung, the same thing people keep pointing out yet you keep labeling insults and coming from "sophists", no matter who it comes from. It's like there's black or white, us or them, smart or dumb, right or wrong, N or insult, authoritative sources or sophists; like you pick two opposing traits, draw a line and write one on each side of a piece of paper and filter any information as falling under either of them so you're ultimately left with a system of "either-or" labeling with nothing in-between, like your thought process basically embodies the line that's gatekeeping the information, and because <em>you</em> don't see anything in-between, everyone who does must be wrong and dumb and doesn't know what they're talking about, no matter the content or context of what they're saying; and I think that's mostly because you have a lot of trouble filtering between opposing ideas not just in preference but in general, it's something I see you struggle with a lot, like you don't know that there are different shades of black and white that are equally viable as the extremes and if something even leans slightly more towards one than the other, they must also encompass that entirely, even if explicitly stated that they don't, you don't and won't recognize the possibility that there can be a "grey area" or that things aren't as simple as what you've reduced them to, and even if you do it's irrelevant as it's something you never actively try to do, meaning you somewhat lean towards a sensory preference.</p> <p>This style of reductionary thinking limits possibilities, it centers itself as opposite to the expansive nature of intuition, and again it's much more important to look at how you interpret and deal with information than exactly what type of information falls into the realm of your personal interests, as that's not how actual Myers-Briggs preferences are measured. </p> <br> <p>This doesn't imply you're "full S" or that I'm a crony or a sophist or insulting you, it's simply applying the S-N dichotomy to how you think rather than what type of interests are most correlated with either end of the spectrum, and what I told phsc earlier today. Please stop arguing over my type on this page you retards</p>
Replying to post #7169 by Teru Mikami

	Taco110 Ni-Se you'll see ST 2019/09/28 (Sat) 19:00:50 #7168
	I don't normally comment as I rarely vote and visit the site anymore but I do agree that you are sensing, and honestly who gives a fuck if you are or not? Its not the be-all, end-all. I've accepted it after having my own secret suspicions/questions, after trying to actually look at my own patterns after getting tired of the persona (which a vast majority of people in the typology community do at some point let's be honest) and after finally talking to Teru and Phsc for the pieces of the puzzle to finally click and make sense. Just accept it.

Editing post #7168 by Taco110 I don't normally comment as I rarely vote and visit the site anymore but I do agree that you are sensing, and honestly who gives a fuck if you are or not? Its not the be-all, end-all. I've accepted it after having my own secret suspicions/questions, after trying to actually look at my own patterns after getting tired of the persona (which a vast majority of people in the typology community do at some point let's be honest) and after finally talking to Teru and Phsc for the pieces of the puzzle to finally click and make sense. Just accept it.
Replying to post #7168 by Taco110

	phsc 2019/09/28 (Sat) 18:48:52 #7167
	"i don't really use my past experience with type" Your articles constantly mention things I've never seen in other's articles and they also don't really make sense for theory (as far as I know about it, maybe you just know different sources), a few examples from your common characteristics between duals article: "are not confuse between right and left (good spatial intelligence)" "feminist views" "bad long-term memory" "cynicism towards psychotherapy’s efficiency" "like the sound of their own voice" "bad coordination of movement" "strong hate towards the bourgeoisie’s values but adherence towards the aristocratic values" "developed sexual imagination" "high sensitivity towards pain" "a tendency to love rock n roll" "more religious than the average of the population" "know how to play with children" You see, all of that is not really deduced logically from functions, it is based on your experiences with types, you also constantly compare and mention other's types when typing people, that is just one article but there are more in others, could go on for quite a long time. "and i did not typed teru based on comparison with any other SLI. i typed him SLI by default . ILE don't work due to his lack of interest for any kind of system of though and his opposition about those kind of things, the simple idea of category make him whine. he is an irrational and Si-Ne > Ni-Se. SLI was a better option than ILE on my opinion." I didn't say you ALWAYS compare people's types, as I mentioned I do not believe you to be 100% S, you do have more theoretical typings, but many times and your general mentality seems to be like what I talked about in my previous comment still, but even then you did compare him, SLI isn't by default a type without political views, you don't see that by functions, at most Fe POLR can be related to that but then ILI exists and is quite interested in politics sometimes, I do agree that SLI is not a type to get into political discussions but that is not directly linked with the theory, it is you using your experience for typing, but here is the thing, Teru is actually very interested in systems of thinking, he is just kind of unable to sit down and read stuff because of ADHD, but he likes it, I can talk about that kind of stuff with him for a very long time, he also doesn't oppose them? unsure about how you achieved that? he whines because he is a intuition dominant and not a introverted logic dominant, he is also extremely P unlike both of us, categorization is J, even then, how does Fe POLR fit? he is very reactive, emotionally alive and not socially awkward or apathetic, also IP, delta quadra (dude is obviously alpha, as much as I dislike using quadras), he actually is interested in systems, he was going to create an website for him to write stuff about typology as a whole, he is into programming, and of course he also is into typology which is a system and he is one of the users here with the most knowledge after all, and this actually is proof for my typing for the black and white thinking, you think he is dumb so you ignore him, may I mention that kawaii mentions extremely obvious stuff, nothing very abstract, Teru actually fits that much better if you have a serious talk to him about how he thinks and actually we can support it with science because he does drugs so literally his thinking is less rational and more intuitive after all? I mean not like you can really trust reality or your mind when you alter it? ""you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things.". why. yes. how. no. if not i would not argued for CF for years." I am talking about that when typing people, good example is 4w5 for tman, something I guessed, it is purely about why he acted the way he did, but then let's take Taco, you have him as LSE and ESTJ, plot twist, Taco is actually extremely IP and he also has a very fake use of Se which just makes him look edgy and that is extremely obvious, it is forced, he also is extremely chill, when he is not you can see how forced it is, it is quite cringy, and guess? he agrees with me and Teru when we talked about that with him and accepts SLI as his type, also being a sensor, see? that is why in typology, I've never seen you do that, and I've done that many times here, ResoluteSoul, tman, Taco, to a certain extent even mike but that was much more personal, etc, I agree you care about understanding why people do things but you don't put a focus into such aspects when typing people, which is the main point of discussion. ""S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them" i researched how the formula of socionics was deduced. it's based on philosophical distinction of "how" vs "why", ethic of principles vs utilitarian ethic, Kantian categories, Schopenhauer's influence on Freud + Jung ." That was a metaphor. It is not about what makes socionics socionics, yet what makes someone a type, you took it literally, applying it to the entire concept of socionics and not of type. Sorry if i misjudge you but you seem to be biased by a form of cronyism with Teru. This is true because I think Teru is very underrated as a typist here, mostly by you, it makes sense considering the supervisor relation, may I mention that I have a lot of discussions about people's types with Teru and he is very good at typology, mostly by bringing in new possibilities or points of view, that being Ne, literally ILE-LII mirror relationship, I used to take Teru as some filthy troll until I actually got to talk to him on discord constantly. ""even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic" you are right i tend to deal with political philosophy rather than other field of philosophy, but i am very interested by metaphysics (especially the debate about free-will vs determinism) but i talk less about it because i am unsure of which position i am, while i am clear in politic (btw you just use the field of interest as a way to indicate me S while you say it was not the good method to follow)." May I mention that I do not believe I am a full N, I also am going with your beliefs (by your articles) and considering experience as arguments to change your mind using arguments you are more likely to consider valid or understand, does not mean that is my main argument for S, it is actually a very weak argument from my point of view and I did not say that the method I believe not to be accurate is something you or anyone else should not follow too, I remind you of that at the end of my comment, but even then, socionics has a big focus on what types will do in society, while SLE will be some form of leader, LII will be some kind of theorist, which fits this, so it is not necessarely S and instead part of the theory that was made with the S aspect in mind. ""I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well)" i would not choose them if i did not believed to be better than other :) . more seriously i can agree with this. i have lack of tolerance for a lot of mentalities. but it does not make me happy or feeling superior, those mentalities make me sincerely feel bad because most of time they don't even know that their are on the influence of it, and because the actual world encourage them to be low. my website looks terrible? lol,i do not see it as terrible, it do it's work." I think you mix in arbitrary values that are too dependant on ones completely subjective experience or preferences or starting assumptions in which I see there is no better one with more objective topics, like I really see nothing wrong with funko-pops, as much as I wouldn't buy them, in my opinion it is all arbitrary, but then typology kind of makes me be more comfortable with the fact I think it is all arbitrary and that people might have a more rigid view on what I consider arbitrary, this explains my view quite well: "If asked to express a unique, personal sentiment, such as a favorite color or football team, the LII may find difficulty choosing if there is no "obvious" answer. He often feels like he has no real personal, subjective feelings at all, and usually has to make a conscious decision where other types could easily supply an instinctive reaction." Better, worse, it all depends on how you view it, I like to think of that as like 3D objects, they can look 2D from a point of view but 3D from another, and hell maybe there is a 4D object but we are too ignorant to know it, etc. About the website, a lot of people told me it looks very bad, like a lot of people, almost everyone I show it to says it looks bad, a lot of people think you should use a more aesthetically pleasant way of structure in your ar ticles too, not a very good way to catch people's attention or make so they stay in the article, it is also kind of weirdly organized and not very practical to use too, it does work, but it could be much more effective, you need to remember not everyone doesn't care about how a thing looks like or appears as, consider multiple mentalities to make so more people contest you so you can be sure what you believe in is true. "" you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black," wrong again. i am often saying (heuristically most of time i have to admit) that Epicure may be right while i was almost always opposed to him philosophically." You actually kind of contradict yourself, you think of Teru as dumb and ignore what he says, but then bother reading my quite long comments, it is a very black and white method of thinking, may I mention that I also have never seen you say that? like at all? and do you have other examples? "i can see 6w5 but i rarely fear rejection and tend to lack of conformism (in the site you can see that i have no problem with being alone vs the rest), you did not give many argument for it but it's the one that i have the less problem with." Read on defense mechanisms, a big aspect in my typing for you is not abundance of arguments but the lack of arguments for other things, what are the arguments for N other than what I mentioned in my comment? I really don't see them, which is why I am very unsure about you on the scale of 0 to 100%, I am up to changing my mind and vote if you make arguments for it but all of your reply was about showing why I was wrong and not why you are right, which could also indicate black and white thinking because MBTI is a quite poor system and X is a possible thing in it. "And most of your S argument is about my assertive temper who is clearly biased by the communication support (internet)." Not at all, you actually seem quite chill, you are not being assertive or whatever, assertive people are ones like Based (unsure if you know about him), and even then I don't see the correlation you are making? and how directly the internet changes that? I am unsure if you think you are being assertive and aspects such as the lack of more formal writing (lack of ponctuation, capitalization, etc - not that I have a problem with it) makes you look less assertive online so it is actually negative for the point you are making? as in it is positive because you did not define if it is biased as in online you are more assertive and real life you are less assertive and thus explain the bias in a more well defined way? for real I don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this specific argument. "Thyssen voted me IEI 947 so i am quite skeptical about him right now." It is clearly not a serious vote, you are clearly not IEI, 9 or 7, I think it was because we had a conversation about your type in a discord group we have and there are a lot of jokes and similar stuff so he might have not been very serious and decided it would be funny to do that and I actually think of that as lame and cringe but then he is younger than me and I don't really think I choose what is funny or not after all, this could also be taken as being less intuitive and more sensorial and literal since if someone voted me SEI I would take it as someone retarded trying to have a cheap laugh or make fun of me, an assumption? yes, I would try to verify if they are being serious or not, but then it all depends on the specific context and many other variables not mentioned here.

Editing post #7167 by phsc <p><em>"i don't really use my past experience with type"</em></p> <p>Your articles constantly mention things I've never seen in other's articles and they also don't really make sense for theory (as far as I know about it, maybe you just know different sources), a few examples from your common characteristics between duals article: "are not confuse between right and left (good spatial intelligence)" "feminist views" "bad long-term memory" "cynicism towards psychotherapy’s efficiency" "like the sound of their own voice" "bad coordination of movement" "strong hate towards the bourgeoisie’s values but adherence towards the aristocratic values" "developed sexual imagination" "high sensitivity towards pain" "a tendency to love rock n roll" "more religious than the average of the population" "know how to play with children"</p> <p>You see, all of that is not really deduced logically from functions, it is based on your experiences with types, you also constantly compare and mention other's types when typing people, that is just one article but there are more in others, could go on for quite a long time.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"and i did not typed teru based on comparison with any other SLI. i typed him SLI by default . ILE don't work due to his lack of interest for any kind of system of though and his opposition about those kind of things, the simple idea of category make him whine. he is an irrational and Si-Ne > Ni-Se. SLI was a better option than ILE on my opinion."</em></p> <p>I didn't say you ALWAYS compare people's types, as I mentioned I do not believe you to be 100% S, you do have more theoretical typings, but many times and your general mentality seems to be like what I talked about in my previous comment still, but even then you did compare him, SLI isn't by default a type without political views, you don't see that by functions, at most Fe POLR can be related to that but then ILI exists and is quite interested in politics sometimes, I do agree that SLI is not a type to get into political discussions but that is not directly linked with the theory, it is you using your experience for typing, but here is the thing, Teru is actually very interested in systems of thinking, he is just kind of unable to sit down and read stuff because of ADHD, but he likes it, I can talk about that kind of stuff with him for a very long time, he also doesn't oppose them? unsure about how you achieved that? he whines because he is a intuition dominant and not a introverted logic dominant, he is also extremely P unlike both of us, categorization is J, even then, how does Fe POLR fit? he is very reactive, emotionally alive and not socially awkward or apathetic, also IP, delta quadra (dude is obviously alpha, as much as I dislike using quadras), he actually is interested in systems, he was going to create an website for him to write stuff about typology as a whole, he is into programming, and of course he also is into typology which is a system and he is one of the users here with the most knowledge after all, and this actually is proof for my typing for the black and white thinking, you think he is dumb so you ignore him, may I mention that kawaii mentions extremely obvious stuff, nothing very abstract, Teru actually fits that much better if you have a serious talk to him about how he thinks and actually we can support it with science because he does drugs so literally his thinking is less rational and more intuitive after all? I mean not like you can really trust reality or your mind when you alter it?</p> <p> </p> <p><em>""you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things.". why. yes. how. no. if not i would not argued for CF for years."</em></p> <p>I am talking about that when typing people, good example is 4w5 for tman, something I guessed, it is purely about why he acted the way he did, but then let's take Taco, you have him as LSE and ESTJ, plot twist, Taco is actually extremely IP and he also has a very fake use of Se which just makes him look edgy and that is extremely obvious, it is forced, he also is extremely chill, when he is not you can see how forced it is, it is quite cringy, and guess? he agrees with me and Teru when we talked about that with him and accepts SLI as his type, also being a sensor, see? that is why in typology, I've never seen you do that, and I've done that many times here, ResoluteSoul, tman, Taco, to a certain extent even mike but that was much more personal, etc, I agree you care about understanding why people do things but you don't put a focus into such aspects when typing people, which is the main point of discussion.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>""S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them" i researched how the formula of socionics was deduced. it's based on philosophical distinction of "how" vs "why", ethic of principles vs utilitarian ethic, Kantian categories, Schopenhauer's influence on Freud + Jung ."</em></p> <p>That was a metaphor. It is not about what makes socionics socionics, yet what makes someone a type, you took it literally, applying it to the entire concept of socionics and not of type.</p> <p><em>Sorry if i misjudge you but you seem to be biased by a form of cronyism with Teru.</em></p> <p>This is true because I think Teru is very underrated as a typist here, mostly by you, it makes sense considering the supervisor relation, may I mention that I have a lot of discussions about people's types with Teru and he is very good at typology, mostly by bringing in new possibilities or points of view, that being Ne, literally ILE-LII mirror relationship, I used to take Teru as some filthy troll until I actually got to talk to him on discord constantly.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>""even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic" you are right i tend to deal with political philosophy rather than other field of philosophy, but i am very interested by metaphysics (especially the debate about free-will vs determinism) but i talk less about it because i am unsure of which position i am, while i am clear in politic (btw you just use the field of interest as a way to indicate me S while you say it was not the good method to follow)."</em></p> <p>May I mention that I do not believe I am a full N, I also am going with your beliefs (by your articles) and considering experience as arguments to change your mind using arguments you are more likely to consider valid or understand, does not mean that is my main argument for S, it is actually a very weak argument from my point of view and I did not say that the method I believe not to be accurate is something you or anyone else should not follow too, I remind you of that at the end of my comment, but even then, socionics has a big focus on what types will do in society, while SLE will be some form of leader, LII will be some kind of theorist, which fits this, so it is not necessarely S and instead part of the theory that was made with the S aspect in mind.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>""I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well)" i would not choose them if i did not believed to be better than other :) . more seriously i can agree with this. i have lack of tolerance for a lot of mentalities. but it does not make me happy or feeling superior, those mentalities make me sincerely feel bad because most of time they don't even know that their are on the influence of it, and because the actual world encourage them to be low. my website looks terrible? lol,i do not see it as terrible, it do it's work."</em></p> <p>I think you mix in arbitrary values that are too dependant on ones completely subjective experience or preferences or starting assumptions in which I see there is no better one with more objective topics, like I really see nothing wrong with funko-pops, as much as I wouldn't buy them, in my opinion it is all arbitrary, but then typology kind of makes me be more comfortable with the fact I think it is all arbitrary and that people might have a more rigid view on what I consider arbitrary, this explains my view quite well:</p> <p>"If asked to express a unique, personal sentiment, such as a favorite color or football team, the LII may find difficulty choosing if there is no "obvious" answer. He often feels like he has no real personal, subjective feelings at all, and usually has to make a conscious decision where other types could easily supply an instinctive reaction."</p> <p>Better, worse, it all depends on how you view it, I like to think of that as like 3D objects, they can look 2D from a point of view but 3D from another, and hell maybe there is a 4D object but we are too ignorant to know it, etc.</p> <p>About the website, a lot of people told me it looks very bad, like a lot of people, almost everyone I show it to says it looks bad, a lot of people think you should use a more aesthetically pleasant way of structure in your ar ticles too, not a very good way to catch people's attention or make so they stay in the article, it is also kind of weirdly organized and not very practical to use too, it does work, but it could be much more effective, you need to remember not everyone doesn't care about how a thing looks like or appears as, consider multiple mentalities to make so more people contest you so you can be sure what you believe in is true.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"" you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black," wrong again. i am often saying (heuristically most of time i have to admit) that Epicure may be right while i was almost always opposed to him philosophically."</em></p> <p>You actually kind of contradict yourself, you think of Teru as dumb and ignore what he says, but then bother reading my quite long comments, it is a very black and white method of thinking, may I mention that I also have never seen you say that? like at all? and do you have other examples?</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"i can see 6w5 but i rarely fear rejection and tend to lack of conformism (in the site you can see that i have no problem with being alone vs the rest), you did not give many argument for it but it's the one that i have the less problem with."</em></p> <p>Read on defense mechanisms, a big aspect in my typing for you is not abundance of arguments but the lack of arguments for other things, what are the arguments for N other than what I mentioned in my comment? I really don't see them, which is why I am very unsure about you on the scale of 0 to 100%, I am up to changing my mind and vote if you make arguments for it but all of your reply was about showing why I was wrong and not why you are right, which could also indicate black and white thinking because MBTI is a quite poor system and X is a possible thing in it.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"And most of your S argument is about my assertive temper who is clearly biased by the communication support (internet)."</em></p> <p>Not at all, you actually seem quite chill, you are not being assertive or whatever, assertive people are ones like Based (unsure if you know about him), and even then I don't see the correlation you are making? and how directly the internet changes that? I am unsure if you think you are being assertive and aspects such as the lack of more formal writing (lack of ponctuation, capitalization, etc - not that I have a problem with it) makes you look less assertive online so it is actually negative for the point you are making? as in it is positive because you did not define if it is biased as in online you are more assertive and real life you are less assertive and thus explain the bias in a more well defined way? for real I don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this specific argument.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"Thyssen voted me IEI 947 so i am quite skeptical about him right now."</em></p> <p>It is clearly not a serious vote, you are clearly not IEI, 9 or 7, I think it was because we had a conversation about your type in a discord group we have and there are a lot of jokes and similar stuff so he might have not been very serious and decided it would be funny to do that and I actually think of that as lame and cringe but then he is younger than me and I don't really think I choose what is funny or not after all, this could also be taken as being less intuitive and more sensorial and literal since if someone voted me SEI I would take it as someone retarded trying to have a cheap laugh or make fun of me, an assumption? yes, I would try to verify if they are being serious or not, but then it all depends on the specific context and many other variables not mentioned here.</p>
Replying to post #7167 by phsc

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/09/28 (Sat) 17:33:25 #7166
	i don't really use my past experience with type and i did not typed teru based on comparison with any other SLI. i typed him SLI by default . ILE don't work due to his lack of interest for any kind of system of though and his opposition about those kind of things, the simple idea of category make him whine. he is an irrational and Si-Ne > Ni-Se. SLI was a better option than ILE on my opinion. i tend to miss his jokes because i believe him to be stupid, so i tend to be more literal with him than with other, i don't struggle to understanding unilateral IRL or with people i am used to (ask kawaii). "you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things.". why. yes. how. no. if not i would not argued for CF for years. "S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them" i researched how the formula of socionics was deduced. it's based on philosophical distinction of "how" vs "why", ethic of principles vs utilitarian ethic, Kantian categories, Schopenhauer's influence on Freud + Jung . Sorry if i misjudge you but you seem to be biased by a form of cronyism with Teru. "even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic" you are right i tend to deal with political philosophy rather than other field of philosophy, but i am very interested by metaphysics (especially the debate about free-will vs determinism) but i talk less about it because i am unsure of which position i am, while i am clear in politic (btw you just use the field of interest as a way to indicate me S while you say it was not the good method to follow). "I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well)" i would not choose them if i did not believed to be better than other :) . more seriously i can agree with this. i have lack of tolerance for a lot of mentalities. but it does not make me happy or feeling superior, those mentalities make me sincerely feel bad because most of time they don't even know that their are on the influence of it, and because the actual world encourage them to be low. my website looks terrible? lol,i do not see it as terrible, it do it's work." you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black," wrong again. i am often saying (heuristically most of time i have to admit) that Epicure may be right while i was almost always opposed to him philosophically. i can see 6w5 but i rarely fear rejection and tend to lack of conformism (in the site you can see that i have no problem with being alone vs the rest), you did not give many argument for it but it's the one that i have the less problem with. And most of your S argument is about my assertive temper who is clearly biased by the communication support (internet). Thyssen voted me IEI 947 so i am quite skeptical about him right now.

Editing post #7166 by fg <p>i don't really use my past experience with type and i did not typed teru based on comparison with any other SLI. i typed him SLI by default . ILE don't work due to his lack of interest for any kind of system of though and his opposition about those kind of things, the simple idea of category make him whine. he is an irrational and Si-Ne > Ni-Se. SLI was a better option than ILE on my opinion. i tend to miss his jokes because i believe him to be stupid, so i tend to be more literal with him than with other, i don't struggle to understanding unilateral IRL or with people i am used to (ask kawaii). "you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things.". why. yes. how. no. if not i would not argued for CF for years. "S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them" i researched how the formula of socionics was deduced. it's based on philosophical distinction of "how" vs "why", ethic of principles vs utilitarian ethic, Kantian categories, Schopenhauer's influence on Freud + Jung . Sorry if i misjudge you but you seem to be biased by a form of cronyism with Teru. "even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic" you are right i tend to deal with political philosophy rather than other field of philosophy, but i am very interested by metaphysics (especially the debate about free-will vs determinism) but i talk less about it because i am unsure of which position i am, while i am clear in politic (btw you just use the field of interest as a way to indicate me S while you say it was not the good method to follow). "I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well)" i would not choose them if i did not believed to be better than other :) . more seriously i can agree with this. i have lack of tolerance for a lot of mentalities. but it does not make me happy or feeling superior, those mentalities make me sincerely feel bad because most of time they don't even know that their are on the influence of it, and because the actual world encourage them to be low. my website looks terrible? lol,i do not see it as terrible, it do it's work." you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black," wrong again. i am often saying (heuristically most of time i have to admit) that Epicure may be right while i was almost always opposed to him philosophically. i can see 6w5 but i rarely fear rejection and tend to lack of conformism (in the site you can see that i have no problem with being alone vs the rest), you did not give many argument for it but it's the one that i have the less problem with. And most of your S argument is about my assertive temper who is clearly biased by the communication support (internet). Thyssen voted me IEI 947 so i am quite skeptical about him right now.</p>
Replying to post #7166 by fg

	phsc 2019/09/28 (Sat) 14:31:16 #7165
	The biggest reason for me to believe you're S is how literal you are, you really miss a lot of information, the best example is Teru's jokes or Teru's arguments about people's types, you seem to ignore them but then if tman makes a terrible argument you reply to him, but even then sometimes you truly do miss them, there is a poll I am unable to remember you miss a joke, Teru makes another joke and you miss it again, then he mentions how you missed it twice, but another big thing is theory vs facts, which well, you do follow both, but you seem to be more factual, and trust more your experience than pure theory, first of all, you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things, you have a tendency to put them into predefined boxes for the entire type instead of taking them apart and focusing function per function as I do when I type people, that is taken to the extreme when you type someone purely based on a thing such as quadras, another example of you using a more sensorial way of typing is when you used to post descriptions of types and highlight what fits, instead of trying to understand the person itself, it is the difference betwen S and N people in mathematics, S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them, I and teru are the later, we focus a lot on functions instead of preset things of socionics, while you are clearly the first, you also seem to consider a lot ones general achieved mentality instead of how they achieve it, Teru being apolitical (not completely true) meaning he is SLI because most SLIs you've met have been apolitical, you constantly compare people to other people instead of the theory itself, not like comparing is necessarely S because that is actually a pretty good method of achieving someones type but many times other aspects of typology really makes people weird and that quite hard to apply. A good example of the S and N difference is Jung vs Freud, the first being N and the later S, Freud was a more sensorial person of course, being more "scientific" and using more "factual" aspects such as sexuality to understand people, while Jung was more theoretical, "pseudoscientifical", and not really depending on facts, Freud was cp6w5 and I believe you are 6w5 because you both seem to have a common concept of mentality - not saying that you believe that people act mostly based on sexual desire - but you do seem to have a quite prominent black and white form of thinking, sophist or not, smart or dumb, a good example is how you tread Teru and tman, as much as I agree tman probably has void in his head instead of a brain, I do see him making quite interesting arguments many times, as much as he gets a lot of the theory out of oblivion and defines everything in a different way, I do not get annoyed by that, I get annoyed when he thinks his definitions are better than others - while you seem to believe words are much more objective which I think is a much more S thing, I remember you talking about galaxy using the right word for democracy when he could easily achieve his objective which is getting his idealized mental concepts to us, and as much as these are not completely equal it is enought for conversation or debate to happen - and that is why I also believe I am higher on the N side of things because I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well), which is very related to Ne in socionics and also function magic (which weirdly enought I don't see you define a lot as much, as it is a clusterfuck of definitions), and since I believe you are a LSI (EIE is ridiculous by the way, will touch on this later) and such type has Ne POLR it also fits very well with everything mentioned, but back to 6, you are quite collectivistic, I imagine you're going to say collectivism can be achieved in many ways other than 6 but I think the defense mechanism for 6 fits extremely well for you too, you also don't seem to care about competency in all aspects or knowledge of all kinds, take a look at me, I try to have good grammar, understand all fields of knowledge with a focus on specific things but also be competent in everything I do, which is also why I see 1 as not as likely for your main type while clearly being in the tritype, the core motivations really don't work out, your website looks terrible and it's content is literally what I said about you using your experience, you and your past experiences with types, which I am not saying is wrong or bad, but I'm just saying it is what it is. Continuing on my tritype vote, I believe you are a tritype 3 or 4, you seem to care about being different or having a personality or whatever, but you also seem to care about your public image, I am unsure about which fits the best, thinking you are EIE is very delusional and maybe even some form of persona thing people in typology tend to have a lot, and 4s are of course the ones that have it the most and are many times terrible typists too, tman, Jacobus, mike, you're of course not in the same level as them, but the same concept applies when considering that and the method of use which seems to be correlated with function magic Fi which I consider you a user of as well as a Te user, but now, since I mentioned it, I am unsure if you are a Ni or a Si dominant, both can be likely, I am unsure about how future oriented or truly intuitive you are, since definitions for such aspects are extremely different for everyone and that is why I consider it magic, I am unsure about how you exactly define it because people seem to mix it up in their heads and consider experience instead of purely theoretical aspects and add to it - X is not the same as X + 5 - if you consider it as past experience oriented thinking you surely do fit in it quite well, your method of typing is not about truly understand what goes inside of people's heads but instead of comparing people to your experiences with specific types or information you have on them which is many times not theoretical. Well, now I imagine you're going to try to refute me, the first argument is going to be similar to how you replied to LadyX or how Galaxy replies to me, Teru and Taco (by the way he admits he is S) thinking you are S: FG IS A PHILOSOPHY STUDENT WHO SPENDS A LOT OF TIME LEARNING ABOUT AN OBSCURE RUSSIAN THEORY, and here is my response: what the fuck does that change? it is not purely about interests, its about method, its about how your mind works, how your mentality goes, not what results you achieve, the way you do it is very S by default, and most people in typology agree with that which I find ridiculous, as well as people seem to go by with information people tell them, which generates a lot of lying all around, Taco is very clearly a ISTP SLI 9w8 after I and Teru made him open up and stop trying to project some form of focus on Se or function's Te, the way people act online is also easy to change, there are no aspects of social anxiety being extremely visible, and thus I believe a lot of people use typology as a form of escapism for their miserable real lifes and then build up internet personas (a good example is mike) and people seem to believe it while it often shows many problems and it actually is what I believe is the worst aspect of typology, bias and ignorance, people thinking they are what they are not or having wishful thinking for their types, another S argument is that even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic, epistemology, which is basically what I enjoy about philosophy and you can see that with the philosophers I have typed, which is a more N thing, as these are purely theoretical subjects which I believe are applied only in specific cases, this is all very related to Ne POLR in socionics, you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black, it all makes a lot of sense as a whole, S, 6w5 and LSI, and may I mention I have no problems with how you think, just that everybody should always consider new possibilities. And that is why I believe you are S, I can easily change my mind, I am unsure about how much on the scale you are on S and N, which is what I will look for in your future comments and also past ones, out of this I would also like to ask a few things, why do you have me as someone with low N? I do believe I am not a full N but -N seems to be the best fit, the fact that I try to be clear and state facts I use when trying to understand people I type is just to make it clearler to less intuitive or in a general way intelligent people, another thing I want to know your opinion on is my tritype, 1-3-5 seems to be clear but the order is the what has been up to discussion, some people such as Teru and tman believe 531, while others such as Taco and Thyssen (who you probably have not met but he is a quite intelligent individual) believe 513, I am curious about what you see as the best fit.

Editing post #7165 by phsc <p>The biggest reason for me to believe you're S is how literal you are, you really miss a lot of information, the best example is Teru's jokes or Teru's arguments about people's types, you seem to ignore them but then if tman makes a terrible argument you reply to him, but even then sometimes you truly do miss them, there is a poll I am unable to remember you miss a joke, Teru makes another joke and you miss it again, then he mentions how you missed it twice, but another big thing is theory vs facts, which well, you do follow both, but you seem to be more factual, and trust more your experience than pure theory, first of all, you don't have a focus on finding out why or how people do things, you have a tendency to put them into predefined boxes for the entire type instead of taking them apart and focusing function per function as I do when I type people, that is taken to the extreme when you type someone purely based on a thing such as quadras, another example of you using a more sensorial way of typing is when you used to post descriptions of types and highlight what fits, instead of trying to understand the person itself, it is the difference betwen S and N people in mathematics, S people learn the formula and apply it, N people learn how the formula was deduced to then apply such concepts and find out other formulas or more uses for them, I and teru are the later, we focus a lot on functions instead of preset things of socionics, while you are clearly the first, you also seem to consider a lot ones general achieved mentality instead of how they achieve it, Teru being apolitical (not completely true) meaning he is SLI because most SLIs you've met have been apolitical, you constantly compare people to other people instead of the theory itself, not like comparing is necessarely S because that is actually a pretty good method of achieving someones type but many times other aspects of typology really makes people weird and that quite hard to apply.</p> <p>A good example of the S and N difference is Jung vs Freud, the first being N and the later S, Freud was a more sensorial person of course, being more "scientific" and using more "factual" aspects such as sexuality to understand people, while Jung was more theoretical, "pseudoscientifical", and not really depending on facts, Freud was cp6w5 and I believe you are 6w5 because you both seem to have a common concept of mentality - not saying that you believe that people act mostly based on sexual desire - but you do seem to have a quite prominent black and white form of thinking, sophist or not, smart or dumb, a good example is how you tread Teru and tman, as much as I agree tman probably has void in his head instead of a brain, I do see him making quite interesting arguments many times, as much as he gets a lot of the theory out of oblivion and defines everything in a different way, I do not get annoyed by that, I get annoyed when he thinks his definitions are better than others - while you seem to believe words are much more objective which I think is a much more S thing, I remember you talking about galaxy using the right word for democracy when he could easily achieve his objective which is getting his idealized mental concepts to us, and as much as these are not completely equal it is enought for conversation or debate to happen - and that is why I also believe I am higher on the N side of things because I am easily able to accept different mentalities or opinions, while you seem to really think yours are better than others (you talking about Millenials shows that very well), which is very related to Ne in socionics and also function magic (which weirdly enought I don't see you define a lot as much, as it is a clusterfuck of definitions), and since I believe you are a LSI (EIE is ridiculous by the way, will touch on this later) and such type has Ne POLR it also fits very well with everything mentioned, but back to 6, you are quite collectivistic, I imagine you're going to say collectivism can be achieved in many ways other than 6 but I think the defense mechanism for 6 fits extremely well for you too, you also don't seem to care about competency in all aspects or knowledge of all kinds, take a look at me, I try to have good grammar, understand all fields of knowledge with a focus on specific things but also be competent in everything I do, which is also why I see 1 as not as likely for your main type while clearly being in the tritype, the core motivations really don't work out, your website looks terrible and it's content is literally what I said about you using your experience, you and your past experiences with types, which I am not saying is wrong or bad, but I'm just saying it is what it is.</p> <p>Continuing on my tritype vote, I believe you are a tritype 3 or 4, you seem to care about being different or having a personality or whatever, but you also seem to care about your public image, I am unsure about which fits the best, thinking you are EIE is very delusional and maybe even some form of persona thing people in typology tend to have a lot, and 4s are of course the ones that have it the most and are many times terrible typists too, tman, Jacobus, mike, you're of course not in the same level as them, but the same concept applies when considering that and the method of use which seems to be correlated with function magic Fi which I consider you a user of as well as a Te user, but now, since I mentioned it, I am unsure if you are a Ni or a Si dominant, both can be likely, I am unsure about how future oriented or truly intuitive you are, since definitions for such aspects are extremely different for everyone and that is why I consider it magic, I am unsure about how you exactly define it because people seem to mix it up in their heads and consider experience instead of purely theoretical aspects and add to it - X is not the same as X + 5 - if you consider it as past experience oriented thinking you surely do fit in it quite well, your method of typing is not about truly understand what goes inside of people's heads but instead of comparing people to your experiences with specific types or information you have on them which is many times not theoretical.</p> <p>Well, now I imagine you're going to try to refute me, the first argument is going to be similar to how you replied to LadyX or how Galaxy replies to me, Teru and Taco (by the way he admits he is S) thinking you are S: FG IS A PHILOSOPHY STUDENT WHO SPENDS A LOT OF TIME LEARNING ABOUT AN OBSCURE RUSSIAN THEORY, and here is my response: what the fuck does that change? it is not purely about interests, its about method, its about how your mind works, how your mentality goes, not what results you achieve, the way you do it is very S by default, and most people in typology agree with that which I find ridiculous, as well as people seem to go by with information people tell them, which generates a lot of lying all around, Taco is very clearly a ISTP SLI 9w8 after I and Teru made him open up and stop trying to project some form of focus on Se or function's Te, the way people act online is also easy to change, there are no aspects of social anxiety being extremely visible, and thus I believe a lot of people use typology as a form of escapism for their miserable real lifes and then build up internet personas (a good example is mike) and people seem to believe it while it often shows many problems and it actually is what I believe is the worst aspect of typology, bias and ignorance, people thinking they are what they are not or having wishful thinking for their types, another S argument is that even in things such as philosophy, you have a focus on reality, politics is a real thing, something you can act on, something that gives you benefit, and you seem to focus on that, while people like me focus on more socionics Ne aspects instead of Se aspects such as politics, such as metaphysics, logic, epistemology, which is basically what I enjoy about philosophy and you can see that with the philosophers I have typed, which is a more N thing, as these are purely theoretical subjects which I believe are applied only in specific cases, this is all very related to Ne POLR in socionics, you seem not to consider the fact taht maybe people with completely different mentalities might be right, or that there is a grey area to something, instead of white or black, it all makes a lot of sense as a whole, S, 6w5 and LSI, and may I mention I have no problems with how you think, just that everybody should always consider new possibilities.</p> <p>And that is why I believe you are S, I can easily change my mind, I am unsure about how much on the scale you are on S and N, which is what I will look for in your future comments and also past ones, out of this I would also like to ask a few things, why do you have me as someone with low N? I do believe I am not a full N but -N seems to be the best fit, the fact that I try to be clear and state facts I use when trying to understand people I type is just to make it clearler to less intuitive or in a general way intelligent people, another thing I want to know your opinion on is my tritype, 1-3-5 seems to be clear but the order is the what has been up to discussion, some people such as Teru and tman believe 531, while others such as Taco and Thyssen (who you probably have not met but he is a quite intelligent individual) believe 513, I am curious about what you see as the best fit.</p>
Replying to post #7165 by phsc

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/08/05 (Mon) 22:56:15 #6910
	Esfps are probably socially awkward. Though they often make a lot of money because of the social awkwardness. As of the perceived trolling or lack of logic get a time machine and go back before February 2016 (phsc), I was more what you call "logical" back before February 2016. After that, I think I joined mbtidatabank and oddly in mbtibase in June or July 2016 I was typed ENFP with a black brick wall page.

Editing post #6910 by jt <p>Esfps are probably socially awkward. Though they often make a lot of money because of the social awkwardness.</p> <p>As of the perceived trolling or lack of logic get a time machine and go back before February 2016 (phsc), I was more what you call "logical" back before February 2016. After that, I think I joined mbtidatabank and oddly in mbtibase in June or July 2016 I was typed ENFP with a black brick wall page.</p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #6910 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/08/04 (Sun) 09:32:50 #6890
	who are you? what are you. (when describing SPs) I'm kinda using the ideas of Socrates/Descartes. I'm perhaps saying SPs are just going with the flow, not knowing what they're doing, and once they reach a certain level of awareness especially in intuition they realize the socializing skill they think they have is just them expressing their lack of awareness, it could manifest as cursing, anger, deviancy, etc. It could manifest in other ways if properly trained by their SJs, as god forbid diseases or embarrassing ailments (thats way beyond the level of ontological metaphysics for most people). Perhaps when I think of socializing the way I define and use it, perhaps is better expressed as the word "authentic friendship". And perhaps the socializing you think of, I perfer to consider it as mirroring of other peoples behavior patterns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron Though if socializing in such way, some SP types can be easily brainwashed to supporting regimes as harmful as the Nazi Germany movement, such as the Nazi Youth. Though SP types remain like that even after the advent of adulthood. Of course away from the influences, the SPs including ESFPs come across as much more socially awkward. Just because they are "socially useful" doesn't mean they have a nagging feeling of awkwardness inside, you're only looking at the external for evidence. However the ESFP is socially awkward in reality. I'd refer you to look at social alter concept by Lloyd Demause. Are ESFPs really awkward outside of it? Yes

Editing post #6890 by jt <p>who are you? what are you. (when describing SPs) I'm kinda using the ideas of Socrates/Descartes. I'm perhaps saying SPs are just going with the flow, not knowing what they're doing, and once they reach a certain level of awareness especially in intuition they realize the socializing skill they think they have is just them expressing their lack of awareness, it could manifest as cursing, anger, deviancy, etc. It could manifest in other ways if properly trained by their SJs, as god forbid diseases or embarrassing ailments (thats way beyond the level of ontological metaphysics for most people). Perhaps when I think of socializing the way I define and use it, perhaps is better expressed as the word "authentic friendship". And perhaps the socializing you think of, I perfer to consider it as mirroring of other peoples behavior patterns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron</p> <p>Though if socializing in such way, some SP types can be easily brainwashed to supporting regimes as harmful as the Nazi Germany movement, such as the Nazi Youth. Though SP types remain like that even after the advent of adulthood. Of course away from the influences, the SPs including ESFPs come across as much more socially awkward. Just because they are "socially useful" doesn't mean they have a nagging feeling of awkwardness inside, you're only looking at the external for evidence. However the ESFP is socially awkward in reality. I'd refer you to look at social alter concept by Lloyd Demause. Are ESFPs really awkward outside of it? Yes</p>
Replying to post #6890 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/08/04 (Sun) 13:02:44 #6889
	who are you? what are you. (when describing SPs) I'm kinda using the ideas of Socrates/Descartes. I'm perhaps saying SPs are just going with the flow, not knowing what they're doing, and once they reach a certain level of awareness especially in intuition they realize the socializing skill they think they have is just them expressing their lack of awareness, it could manifest as cursing, anger, deviancy, etc. It could manifest in other ways if properly trained by their SJs, as god forbid diseases or embarrassing ailments (thats way beyond the level of ontological metaphysics for most people). Perhaps when I think of socializing the way I define and use it, perhaps is better expressed as the word "authentic friendship". And perhaps the socializing you think of, I perfer to consider it as mirroring of other peoples behavior patterns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Editing post #6889 by jt <p>who are you? what are you. (when describing SPs) I'm kinda using the ideas of Socrates/Descartes. I'm perhaps saying SPs are just going with the flow, not knowing what they're doing, and once they reach a certain level of awareness especially in intuition they realize the socializing skill they think they have is just them expressing their lack of awareness, it could manifest as cursing, anger, deviancy, etc. It could manifest in other ways if properly trained by their SJs, as god forbid diseases or embarrassing ailments (thats way beyond the level of ontological metaphysics for most people). Perhaps when I think of socializing the way I define and use it, perhaps is better expressed as the word "authentic friendship". And perhaps the socializing you think of, I perfer to consider it as mirroring of other peoples behavior patterns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron</p>
Replying to post #6889 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/08/04 (Sun) 06:08:03 #6886
	phsc you've given me an idea... perhaps ISTPs ARE socially awkward. However, the SJs really utilized several inventions ... coca cola/pepsi, iPhones, and thus set up a society to help distract not just ISTPs, but ESTPs, ISFPs, ESFPs. Yes, the truth is that the SP temperament IS indeed socially awkward. Are these SP types REALLY socializing? I hate to have to examples for each of the four types... sigh. ISTP: is being macho and playing video games really just an excuse to not speed race cars or other such? God forbid, if they think about their feelings towards their mom and dad. ESTP is similar, though you'd have to discuss it in a more religious way using images such as in Lloyd Demause's work. As of the feeler SP types ESFP ISFP, you'd do the same strategies to make them not obsessess over toxic makeup, prostitution, or listening to music 247. And of course, the general senses (iphone, food, etc)

Editing post #6886 by jt <p>phsc you've given me an idea... perhaps ISTPs ARE socially awkward. However, the SJs really utilized several inventions ... coca cola/pepsi, iPhones, and thus set up a society to help distract not just ISTPs, but ESTPs, ISFPs, ESFPs. Yes, the truth is that the SP temperament IS indeed socially awkward. Are these SP types REALLY socializing?</p> <p>I hate to have to examples for each of the four types... sigh. </p> <p>ISTP: is being macho and playing video games really just an excuse to not speed race cars or other such? God forbid, if they think about their feelings towards their mom and dad. ESTP is similar, though you'd have to discuss it in a more religious way using images such as in Lloyd Demause's work. As of the feeler SP types ESFP ISFP, you'd do the same strategies to make them not obsessess over toxic makeup, prostitution, or listening to music 247. And of course, the general senses (iphone, food, etc)</p>
Replying to post #6886 by jt

	phsc 2019/08/02 (Fri) 14:56:06 #6858
	Fg you need to understand that jt is just a troll, he is very likely not even josephty and instead someone like pikup, he isn't going to learn socionics or leave the website (for him to leave the website the best way is to ignore him, think of that as how I dealed with bloomer when he was trolling, and that is because they all just want people to react), and thus you need to ignore him, I know it is annoying as fuck to see crap posted on your poll and the general lack of logic from that dude - I believe that can't be natural but I didn't get to meet the actual original josephty - but if you keep replying to him he is going to realize that what he does is working and will keep doing that. Also Fe isn't necessarely being rude or not, Ti users do that quite often, Teru is probably more of an asshole than fg, Based is by far the biggest from this general community and he is ESTP, they aren't socially awkward but they are assholes, hell even I am considered an asshole (I made a dude called Jaden leave for questioning his beliefs, this is interesting because he was probably an IEE with Ti polr and my use of Ti made him annoyed into ignoring me, like I do when I block someone like cena or Based when they're just being ignorant and stupid and saying ignorant Se base things), I believe that is better explained by sociotype and the use of Fi, Based and Teru being Fi polr and me and fg being Fi roles.

Editing post #6858 by phsc <p>Fg you need to understand that jt is just a troll, he is very likely not even josephty and instead someone like pikup, he isn't going to learn socionics or leave the website (for him to leave the website the best way is to ignore him, think of that as how I dealed with bloomer when he was trolling, and that is because they all just want people to react), and thus you need to ignore him, I know it is annoying as fuck to see crap posted on your poll and the general lack of logic from that dude - I believe that can't be natural but I didn't get to meet the actual original josephty - but if you keep replying to him he is going to realize that what he does is working and will keep doing that.</p> <p>Also Fe isn't necessarely being rude or not, Ti users do that quite often, Teru is probably more of an asshole than fg, Based is by far the biggest from this general community and he is ESTP, they aren't socially awkward but they are assholes, hell even I am considered an asshole (I made a dude called Jaden leave for questioning his beliefs, this is interesting because he was probably an IEE with Ti polr and my use of Ti made him annoyed into ignoring me, like I do when I block someone like cena or Based when they're just being ignorant and stupid and saying ignorant Se base things), I believe that is better explained by sociotype and the use of Fi, Based and Teru being Fi polr and me and fg being Fi roles.</p>
Replying to post #6858 by phsc

	tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2019/08/02 (Fri) 10:47:27 #6847
	Because (in terms of functions) he doesn't use Fe-Ti. Whenever FG get's questioned on something philosophy related, and becomes convinced the person has no idea what there talking about, he will generally respond with "I have half a god damn PHD, I don't need this shit." You can also see him being completely unwilling to engage with you on this page beyond, "your and idiot fuck off." That would be pretty shoddy reasoning for Te in and of it's self, but then when has FG ever really shown signs of Fe? I get the impression that he can sometimes come of a rude without realizing it, once again, not like an Fe user would never do that, but it seems to happen a lot. His arguments are blunt and to the point, consered with getting the point across without showing signs of concern for the emotional atmosphere of the conversation, or social dynamics. I mean, I guess all of those could be an INFJ. But what signs do we have that he is? In terms of letters, this is even worse. FG cares a lot about logic. He dosn't realy show any signs of feeling. Also, your taking a conisdence of id number and turing it into some kind of weird, pusdo mystical bullshit to prove he's INFJ? Come on man, really? How could that prove anything? Fg, why you saying "learn socinocincs" when jt dosn't have a socincoics vote?

Editing post #6847 by tman <p>Because (in terms of functions) he doesn't use Fe-Ti. Whenever FG get's questioned on something philosophy related, and becomes convinced the person has no idea what there talking about, he will generally respond with "I have half a god damn PHD, I don't need this shit." You can also see him being completely unwilling to engage with you on this page beyond, "your and idiot fuck off." That would be pretty shoddy reasoning for Te in and of it's self, but then when has FG ever really shown signs of Fe? I get the impression that he can sometimes come of a rude without realizing it, once again, not like an Fe user would never do that, but it seems to happen a lot. His arguments are blunt and to the point, consered with getting the point across without showing signs of concern for the emotional atmosphere of the conversation, or social dynamics. I mean, I guess all of those could be an INFJ. But what signs do we have that he is?</p> <p>In terms of letters, this is even worse. FG cares a lot about logic. He dosn't realy show any signs of feeling. Also, your taking a conisdence of id number and turing it into some kind of weird, pusdo mystical bullshit to prove he's INFJ? Come on man, really? How could that prove anything?</p> <p>Fg, why you saying "learn socinocincs" when jt dosn't have a socincoics vote?</p>
Replying to post #6847 by tman

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/08/02 (Fri) 01:49:40 #6840
	What is cancer (the disease)? Either way, despite this special page of yours, Also Teru, assuming your mbti is either ISTP (translate to socionics -> ISTj -> Beta) or ENTP (translate to socionics -> Alpha) keep in mind that there are people there that are more socially private (Gammas, Deltas). Gammas and Deltas in socionics indicates use of Te/Fi though perhaps Fi hurts in the social popularity status game Though I'd like to know, what circumstances propeled you to get not only competent at cursing/swearing, but using Ti function to socialize while using swear/curse words and meme manipulation, gossip, etc.

Editing post #6840 by jt <p>What is cancer (the disease)? Either way, despite this special page of yours, </p> <p>Also Teru, assuming your mbti is either ISTP (translate to socionics -> ISTj -> Beta) or ENTP (translate to socionics -> Alpha) keep in mind that there are people there that are more socially private (Gammas, Deltas). Gammas and Deltas in socionics indicates use of Te/Fi though perhaps Fi hurts in the social popularity status game</p> <p>Though I'd like to know, what circumstances propeled you to get not only competent at cursing/swearing, but using Ti function to socialize while using swear/curse words and meme manipulation, gossip, etc.</p>
Replying to post #6840 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/07/30 (Tue) 23:51:46 #6788
	ISFJs and INTJs are more similar than most people think honestly. ISFJs love book stores. INTJs love university libraries built next to a laboratory. Both love to be indoors. ISFJs alienate many women out (absoultely true...) Philosophy degree is typically INTP, however, given how functionwise INTP differs from INTJ, (not that an INTJ wouldn't major in philosophy) fg, I remembered some of your comments back in mbtibase and I thought, INTJ, ENTJ, yeah right. Note that in the image that kittens are in it. Also, teru, how do you manage to curse on a regular basis

Editing post #6788 by jt <p>ISFJs and INTJs are more similar than most people think honestly.</p> <p>ISFJs love book stores. INTJs love university libraries built next to a laboratory. Both love to be indoors. ISFJs alienate many women out (absoultely true...)</p> <p>Philosophy degree is typically INTP, however, given how functionwise INTP differs from INTJ, (not that an INTJ wouldn't major in philosophy)</p> <p><img alt="" src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4a/22/b7/4a22b76835f81dd63e3a9b7b8e48896a.jpg" /></p> <p>fg, I remembered some of your comments back in mbtibase and I thought, INTJ, ENTJ, yeah right. Note that in the image that kittens are in it. Also, teru, how do you manage to curse on a regular basis </p>
Replying to post #6788 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/07/30 (Tue) 18:19:58 #6782
	ISFJ males typically don't, you know, folow the stereotype.. ISFJ - "leading with introverted sensing and then extroverted feeling - the type most focused on tangible information and the opinions of others. Also capable of being fantastic caring friends who always remember your birthday by sending your a beautifully wrapped gift with your favorite color wrapping paper. But not when in counterphobic mode- a level of development soon outgrown with some effort."

Editing post #6782 by jt <p>ISFJ males typically don't, you know, folow the stereotype..</p> <p>ISFJ - "leading with introverted sensing and then extroverted feeling - the type most focused on tangible information and the opinions of others. Also capable of being fantastic caring friends who always remember your birthday by sending your a beautifully wrapped gift with your favorite color wrapping paper. But not when in counterphobic mode- a level of development soon outgrown with some effort."</p>
Replying to post #6782 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/07/09 (Tue) 06:26:48 #6615
	i have not heard up with the sakinorva discord gossip. last time I checked fg account is listed as a possibly inactive user. Either way, teru, you have to prove you deserve the N (intuitive) status YAY thanks teru 615 is the first 3 digits of something (an old user id number somewhere?) - I totally forgot the exact but I thought this would be comment id 6614

Editing post #6615 by jt <p>i have not heard up with the sakinorva discord gossip. last time I checked fg account is listed as a possibly inactive user. Either way, teru, you have to prove you deserve the N (intuitive) status</p> <p> YAY thanks teru 615 is the first 3 digits of something (an old user id number somewhere?) - I totally forgot the exact but I thought this would be comment id 6614</p>
Replying to post #6615 by jt

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/07/09 (Tue) 06:14:40 #6611
	nope, it's a characteristics. it's like being called short while not being by someone who on the contrary is and clam to be tall, even if he is objectivly shorter than you. the comment is not about the person being x characteristics like it is in an insult, but a wrong perception of relation between things and concepts.

Editing post #6611 by fg <p>nope, it's a characteristics. it's like being called short while not being by someone who on the contrary is and clam to be tall, even if he is objectivly shorter than you. the comment is not about the person being x characteristics like it is in an insult, but a wrong perception of relation between things and concepts.</p>
Replying to post #6611 by fg

Teru Mikami 2019/06/26 (Wed) 14:16:58 #6515
ESFj-Fe subtype: "The ethical subtype is kind and affable, but obstinate and pig-headed when significant questions are directed towards them; because of this they appear to show excessive persistence. Are inclined to finish what they start, find it difficult to stop doing something after starting it and subsequently may waste time and regret it later. Try to be serious, restrained and polite in dialogue, but often render strong emotional pressure upon those that challenge their point of view. Like to take the interlocutor by the hand, to touch his/her clothes. Able to receive visitors in their homes but is more keen of interacting with others in public. Like give gifts to friends and relatives and for this purpose find suitable occasions. Dresses tastefully, but is rather modest. Gait is projected in quick actions, as if about to jump up; more often thin and a little angular. Their face can easily replace signs of discontent and indignation with a radiant smile."

Editing post #6515 by Teru Mikami <p>ESFj-Fe subtype: "The ethical subtype is kind and affable, but <strong>obstinate and pig-headed when significant questions are directed towards them; because of this they appear to show excessive persistence. Are inclined to finish what they start, find it difficult to stop doing something after starting it and subsequently may waste time and regret it later. Try to be serious, restrained and polite in dialogue, but often render strong emotional pressure upon those that challenge their point of view.</strong> Like to take the interlocutor by the hand, to touch his/her clothes. Able to receive visitors in their homes but is more keen of interacting with others in public. Like give gifts to friends and relatives and for this purpose find suitable occasions. <strong>Dresses tastefully, but is rather modest. Gait is projected in quick actions, as if about to jump up; more often thin and a little angular.</strong> Their face can easily replace signs of discontent and indignation with a radiant smile."</p>
Replying to post #6515 by Teru Mikami

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/06/04 (Tue) 15:57:03 #6293
	i have not a mathematic related disability. i have a spatial and motricity related dyspraxia. i was not good in geometry for the spatial aspect of it. at 16 years old/ 2nd class of highschool i had among the best results of my class this year, my notes was around 16/17 in math. but i have to admit that most of time the two other year in my highschool part of scolarity i was around 11/20 and 14/20 ( i had the same teacher in my first and last year of highschool, highschool is during 3 years in france). i am not doing math since i am in college.

Editing post #6293 by fg <p>i have not a mathematic related disability. i have a spatial and motricity related dyspraxia. i was not good in geometry for the spatial aspect of it. at 16 years old/ 2nd class of highschool i had among the best results of my class this year, my notes was around 16/17 in math. but i have to admit that most of time the two other year in my highschool part of scolarity i was around 11/20 and 14/20 ( i had the same teacher in my first and last year of highschool, highschool is during 3 years in france). i am not doing math since i am in college.</p>
Replying to post #6293 by fg

	phsc 2019/06/04 (Tue) 15:34:32 #6292
	It isn't that bad of a source, first of all most of it isn't original, subtype descriptions are taken from others such as Gulenko and the ones by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov, which I don't think are perfect but they are not bad and fg used to use them back then, their Model A page is quite good, dichotomies is decent and information elements is also acceptable, their test is not terrible, at least it doesn't give me fucking SLE, they have the intertype relationship thing which is decent and the socionics types comparison tool which can be useful if you're betwen two types but it does not compare to actually reading about both with things by people such as Stratiyevskaya, there are better websites and may I recommend http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home but it is not the 16personalities of socionics, I think it would be http://www.socionics.com/, which fits everything you categorized https://www.sociotype.com/ as while it clearly is not that bad. Also that dude is trolling unsure if you guys realized that already...

Editing post #6292 by phsc <p>It isn't that bad of a source, first of all most of it isn't original, subtype descriptions are taken from others such as Gulenko and the ones by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov, which I don't think are perfect but they are not bad and fg used to use them back then, their Model A page is quite good, dichotomies is decent and information elements is also acceptable, their test is not terrible, at least it doesn't give me fucking SLE, they have the intertype relationship thing which is decent and the socionics types comparison tool which can be useful if you're betwen two types but it does not compare to actually reading about both with things by people such as Stratiyevskaya, there are better websites and may I recommend <a href="http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home">http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home</a> but it is not the 16personalities of socionics, I think it would be <a href="http://www.socionics.com/">http://www.socionics.com/</a>, which fits everything you categorized <a href="https://www.sociotype.com/">https://www.sociotype.com/</a> as while it clearly is not that bad.</p> <p> </p> <p>Also that dude is trolling unsure if you guys realized that already...</p>
Replying to post #6292 by phsc

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/06/03 (Mon) 19:40:53 #6283
	I don't see how you are INTJ at all. You seem much more social than even an ISTJ, so I'm not sure... but you said you had some math or number based learning disability, (different from dsylexia) so I've never heard of dysphonia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia? before so that should factor you acting differently from typical xNTJ, so I still think you are xNTJ Honestly, I don't really like the average math student in college either. Math is a great subject, but the students in the math classes...yuck. http://sociotoday.narod.ru/index2.html Also Rene Descartes is ILL which is according to Talanov and ILL is INTj or INTP.

Editing post #6283 by jt <p>I don't see how you are INTJ at all. You seem much more social than even an ISTJ, so I'm not sure... but you said you had some math or number based learning disability, (different from dsylexia) so I've never heard of dysphonia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia? before so that should factor you acting differently from typical xNTJ, so I still think you are xNTJ</p> <p>Honestly, I don't really like the average math student in college either. Math is a great subject, but the students in the math classes...yuck.</p> http://sociotoday.narod.ru/index2.html <p>Also Rene Descartes is ILL which is according to Talanov and ILL is INTj or INTP.</p>
Replying to post #6283 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/05/30 (Thu) 00:50:13 #6186
	how is ILI socionics mbti INTP? I suppose, ILI's definition of Introverted Thinking is (id block) ILIs are often able to understand formal logical systems without difficulty. Nonetheless, most ILIs are often not interested in interpreting overly systematic or deterministic models of reality. The ILI's view of reality is a mental and often esoteric one, and models which focus on systematic connections with little apparent external basis. Instead, ILIs often ground themselves by focusing on real-world or practical examples of their mental wanderings. ILIs not uncommonly reject the notion of overly complicated theories in favor of simple, sensible interpretations that are easily understood and observe ... the INTPs I talked to do match with this definition https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/ However, I have barely studied this socionics version of mbti

Editing post #6186 by jt <p>how is ILI socionics mbti INTP? I suppose, ILI's definition of Introverted Thinking is (id block)</p> <p>ILIs are often able to understand formal logical systems without difficulty. Nonetheless, most ILIs are often not interested in interpreting overly systematic or deterministic models of reality. The ILI's view of reality is a mental and often esoteric one, and models which focus on systematic connections with little apparent external basis. Instead, ILIs often ground themselves by focusing on real-world or practical examples of their mental wanderings. ILIs not uncommonly reject the notion of overly complicated theories in favor of simple, sensible interpretations that are easily understood and observe</p> <p>... the INTPs I talked to do match with this definition</p> <p><a href="https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/">https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/</a></p> <p>However, I have barely studied this socionics version of mbti</p>
Replying to post #6186 by jt

	jt ISFJ 1 <3 fg 2019/05/28 (Tue) 02:33:57 #6155
	@fg, all admin had to do is remove tinymce. he got into some real world distractions so he didn't do that. the admin's making money with the trolls, though you like the mbtibase website enough that actually I want to change my vote for you to INTP - it feels right regarding economics and theory, perhaps donate a euro or a french frac if possible to sakinorva (wait is this possible). as of me leaving, well since many of the other users have already stopped commenting it is highly likely I might too due to chance .. give it a month or two

Editing post #6155 by jt <p>@fg, all admin had to do is remove tinymce. he got into some real world distractions so he didn't do that. the admin's making money with the trolls, though you like the mbtibase website enough that </p> <p>actually I want to change my vote for you to INTP - it feels right</p> <p>regarding economics and theory, perhaps donate a euro or a french frac if possible to sakinorva (wait is this possible). as of me leaving, well since many of the other users have already stopped commenting it is highly likely I might too due to chance .. give it a month or two</p>
Replying to post #6155 by jt

	phsc 2019/04/01 (Mon) 13:01:03 #5763
	Function votes are IDR votes not MBTI votes and that description uses functions, I don't know fg well enought to type him so there is nothing else for me to talk about, I just wanted to point that that fallacy that is extremely common in typology as a whole so people don't fall for it and don't use it. But I really love it when people instead of showing me where I am wrong just say that I am!

Editing post #5763 by phsc <p>Function votes are IDR votes not MBTI votes and that description uses functions, I don't know fg well enought to type him so there is nothing else for me to talk about, I just wanted to point that that fallacy that is extremely common in typology as a whole so people don't fall for it and don't use it.</p> <p>But I really love it when people instead of showing me where I am wrong just say that I am!</p>
Replying to post #5763 by phsc

	LadyX intp 5 2019/04/01 (Mon) 12:37:27 #5762
	Wow phsc - quite the imagination! ISFJ - leading with introverted sensing and then extroverted feeling - the type most focused on tangible information and the opinions of others. Also capable of being fantastic caring friends who always remember your birthday by sending your a beautifully wrapped gift with your favorite color wrapping paper. But not when in counterphobic mode- a level of development soon outgrown with some effort. I'll update my assessment to an IxxJ, but resist the normative demands to conform.

Editing post #5762 by LadyX <p>Wow phsc - quite the imagination! </p> <p>ISFJ - leading with introverted sensing and then extroverted feeling - the type most focused on tangible information and the opinions of others. Also capable of being fantastic caring friends who always remember your birthday by sending your a beautifully wrapped gift with your favorite color wrapping paper. But not when in counterphobic mode- a level of development soon outgrown with some effort.</p> <p>I'll update my assessment to an IxxJ, but resist the normative demands to conform.</p>
Replying to post #5762 by LadyX

	phsc 2019/04/01 (Mon) 05:46:35 #5760
	I think I still wrote it in a bad way. LadyX: fg is Ctype={ISFJ, cp6w5} fg: I'm not ISFJ! LadyX: That's what a cp6w5 would say! That considering type as a whole, but even if it is not one can assume LadyX does that for ISFJ when he says "Il vaut mieux réfléchir :)" keeping his opinion for very likely trolling but what he does there is part of the kafka trap as: LadyX: fg is Ctype={ISFJ, cp6w5} fg: I am not. LadyX: Refllecting time! fg: No I am not. LadyX: That is what a cp6w5 would say! In theory he even uses a post hoc ergo propter hoc too as there is no reason a 1w9 or a 5w6 or even a cp5w6 wouldn't act like that.

Editing post #5760 by phsc <p>I think I still wrote it in a bad way.</p> <p>LadyX: fg is Ctype={ISFJ, cp6w5}</p> <p>fg: I'm not ISFJ!</p> <p>LadyX: That's what a cp6w5 would say!</p> <p>That considering type as a whole, but even if it is not one can assume LadyX does that for ISFJ when he says "<em>Il vaut mieux réfléchir :)</em>" keeping his opinion for very likely trolling but what he does there is part of the kafka trap as:</p> <p>LadyX: fg is Ctype={ISFJ, cp6w5}</p> <p>fg: I am not.</p> <p>LadyX: Refllecting time!</p> <p>fg: No I am not.</p> <p>LadyX: That is what a cp6w5 would say!</p> <p>In theory he even uses a post hoc ergo propter hoc too as there is no reason a 1w9 or a 5w6 or even a cp5w6 wouldn't act like that.</p>
Replying to post #5760 by phsc

	phsc 2019/04/01 (Mon) 00:25:09 #5759
	The way I wrote it makes it look like theres no correlation but it very likely was abait by LadyX for cp6w5 using the ISFJ vote that is wrong to get a reaction from fg but that would also apply for a comment about cp6w5 I mean any kind of reaction like that, bloomer did the same but more directly with me, and even if it is a mistaken use but I don't think it is it could easily turn into one as following the bait.

Editing post #5759 by phsc <p>The way I wrote it makes it look like theres no correlation but it very likely was abait by LadyX for cp6w5 using the ISFJ vote that is wrong to get a reaction from fg but that would also apply for a comment about cp6w5 I mean any kind of reaction like that, bloomer did the same but more directly with me, and even if it is a mistaken use but I don't think it is it could easily turn into one as following the bait.</p>
Replying to post #5759 by phsc

	phsc 2019/04/01 (Mon) 00:01:07 #5758
	So may I tell you guys about a wonderful fallacy I've seen used here twice: Many times by bloomer as many other fallacies and now by LadyX but I imagine both are trolling. Kafka's trap, as the name says is a trap and it was made from Kafka; from the book The Trial, let's get into the fallacy. So here is is being used by LadyX, let me explain it: A: "B is X!" B: "I am not X!" A: "Those who are X say that!" It does not mean that fg is a 6w5 or a cp6w5 or that I am a 6w5 as bloomer says(in his case its a little bit better because I'm paranoid about him being other people that makes some minimal sense), it just means that we disagree, it is commonly used to prove arguments about racism and feminism. It does not say anything, just because a 6w5 or cp6w5 would disagree it does not mean he is that because that is expected from them because if that person is not a 6w5 or a cp6w5 that person would also do the same! the only way is pointing that fact out and sometimes just saying a simple "No." or maybe the best option which is "I might be! do you have any arguments for that?" but the second case can still fall into it, it is mostly to make so it looks ridiculous how true what A states is, in both cases here I would say it is just people trolling and that is it's most common use. But may fg also says "vous êtes d'ailleurs le seul membre de ce site à ne pas me voter comme un T à 100%. peut être qu'il vaut mieux argumenter plutôt que se contenter d'affirmer :)" which is in theory an argumentum ad populum even though of course that is not the main cause so it just acts as a cherry on the top and I would assume the vast majority of people know that but I am unsure about the level of thinking people use here and in a general way in typology communities. I imagine I am just stating the obvious though.

Editing post #5758 by phsc <p>So may I tell you guys about a wonderful fallacy I've seen used here twice: Many times by bloomer as many other fallacies and now by LadyX but I imagine both are trolling.</p> <p>Kafka's trap, as the name says is a trap and it was made from Kafka; from the book The Trial, let's get into the fallacy.</p> <p>So here is is being used by LadyX, let me explain it:</p> <p>A: "B is X!"</p> <p>B: "I am not X!"</p> <p>A: "Those who are X say that!"</p> <p> </p> <p>It does not mean that fg is a 6w5 or a cp6w5 or that I am a 6w5 as bloomer says(in his case its a little bit better because I'm paranoid about him being other people that makes some minimal sense), it just means that we disagree, it is commonly used to prove arguments about racism and feminism.</p> <p>It does not say anything, just because a 6w5 or cp6w5 would disagree it does not mean he is that because that is expected from them because if that person is not a 6w5 or a cp6w5 that person would also do the same! the only way is pointing that fact out and sometimes just saying a simple "No." or maybe the best option which is "I might be! do you have any arguments for that?" but the second case can still fall into it, it is mostly to make so it looks ridiculous how true what A states is, in both cases here I would say it is just people trolling and that is it's most common use.</p> <p> </p> <p>But may fg also says "vous êtes d'ailleurs le seul membre de ce site à ne pas me voter comme un T à 100%. peut être qu'il vaut mieux argumenter plutôt que se contenter d'affirmer :)" which is in theory an argumentum ad populum even though of course that is not the main cause so it just acts as a cherry on the top and I would assume the vast majority of people know that but I am unsure about the level of thinking people use here and in a general way in typology communities.</p> <p>I imagine I am just stating the obvious though.</p>
Replying to post #5758 by phsc

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/03/30 (Sat) 12:04:32 #5747
	mais votre vote me paraît symptomatique d'une mauvaise réflexion . Il me semble plus affecté par des affects que par des arguments. Si argument il y a pour supporter ce vote, j'aimerai l'entendre. S est ridicule, on me reproche souvent d'être trop dans la théorie et trop abstrait, je suis élève en licence de philosophie. F semble tout aussi indéfendable lorsque on connaît mon indifférence voir mon aversion par rapport a une quelconque harmonie, vous êtes d'ailleurs le seul membre de ce site à ne pas me voter comme un T à 100%. peut être qu'il vaut mieux argumenter plutôt que se contenter d'affirmer :)

Editing post #5747 by fg <p>mais votre vote me paraît symptomatique d'une mauvaise réflexion . Il me semble plus affecté par des affects que par des arguments. Si argument il y a pour supporter ce vote, j'aimerai l'entendre. S est ridicule, on me reproche souvent d'être trop dans la théorie et trop abstrait, je suis élève en licence de philosophie. F semble tout aussi indéfendable lorsque on connaît mon indifférence voir mon aversion par rapport a une quelconque harmonie, vous êtes d'ailleurs le seul membre de ce site à ne pas me voter comme un T à 100%. peut être qu'il vaut mieux argumenter plutôt que se contenter d'affirmer :)</p>
Replying to post #5747 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/09/17 (Mon) 11:07:50 #3317
	and even if it is indeed his one . it is natural that a dead penis became smaller. and even if is penis was indeed a micropenis, what does it change? it would not change the fact that he was one of the most powerful man of his time and that he have totally changed the whole institutions of his country. how many porn actor did do the half of what he did ? none.

Editing post #3317 by fg <p>and even if it is indeed his one . it is natural that a dead penis became smaller. and even if is penis was indeed a micropenis, what does it change? it would not change the fact that he was one of the most powerful man of his time and that he have totally changed the whole institutions of his country. how many porn actor did do the half of what he did ? none.</p>
Replying to post #3317 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/09/17 (Mon) 09:55:02 #3314
	Galaxy Strider you said that i was the most J user when you were on the discord, then you are typing me as SLE. we can add it with the many proof of your lack of consistency.all of it, just because i hurted your little feeling when i typed you 316 . you are the typical example of a black sensing revengefullness without any logical function for supporting it. thanks for bringing me even more argument for my typing. since you typed me SLE/ the conqueror. i will add this Napoleonic painting for symbolizing my superiority on you as well as your pathetic defeat.

Editing post #3314 by fg <p>Galaxy Strider you said that i was the most J user when you were on the discord, then you are typing me as SLE. we can add it with the many proof of your lack of consistency.all of it, just because i hurted your little feeling when i typed you 316 . you are the typical example of a black sensing revengefullness without any logical function for supporting it. thanks for bringing me even more argument for my typing. since you typed me SLE/ the conqueror. i will add this Napoleonic painting for symbolizing my superiority on you as well as your pathetic defeat.</p> <p><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157677/original/image-20170221-18633-oinun2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip" style="width:100%" /></p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #3314 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/08/31 (Fri) 17:06:37 #3131
	"While Ones certainly do think, they are primarily people of action, and are only interested in ideas that lead to some practical result. Fives, however, are truly a mental type: they can ponder any proposition or idea and do not particularly care about its practical ramifications." "Ones are people of strong convictions and opinions as befitting a type in the Instinctive (or Gut) Triad. Average to unhealthy Ones are entirely convinced of the rightness of their views, and respect people who hold similar strength in their convictions. They think as a way of buttressing their already established beliefs. Average to unhealthy Fives tend to get lost in a maze of uncertainty. " https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misidentifying-1-and-5 based on it i am indeed 1>5.

Editing post #3131 by fg <p>"While Ones certainly do think, they are primarily people of action, and are only interested in ideas that lead to some practical result. Fives, however, are truly a mental type: they can ponder any proposition or idea and do not particularly care about its practical ramifications."</p> <p>"Ones are people of strong convictions and opinions as befitting a type in the Instinctive (or Gut) Triad. Average to unhealthy Ones are entirely convinced of the rightness of their views, and respect people who hold similar strength in their convictions. They think as a way of buttressing their already established beliefs. Average to unhealthy Fives tend to get lost in a maze of <em>uncertainty</em>. "</p> <p>https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misidentifying-1-and-5</p> <p>based on it i am indeed 1>5.</p>
Replying to post #3131 by fg

	Dr. Klemphoff 5w6 LII 2018/08/27 (Mon) 22:09:55 #3042
	LSI-Ti: The ISTj Logical Subtype Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov Appearance The logical subtype is self-assured, calm, restrained, correct and impenetrable. At times he may seem arrogant. Sufficiently kind, imperturbable, and unemotional. Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes to specify and clarify everything, but sometimes becomes too focused on details that are nonessential to others. Unhurried, perhaps even slow. Likes receiving exhaustively comprehensive and thorough information to his inquiries. Dislikes ambiguity. Internally, he is quite collected. Never loses his spirit and sense of perseverance. Tries to encourage those who are in need of support. Has a direct, motionless gaze that seems to look right through and not at his conversation partner. His movements are measured but constrained; there is a tendency to shuffle his feet against the floor when walking. When he turns, he does so with his entire body such that it sometimes seems like his neck is fixed to his shoulders; doesn't like to turn his head. Character A sober realist who knows how to find a way out of difficult situations. Stoic: overcomes difficulties without complaining. Dislikes running too much ahead and is able to patiently wait for the outcome. It is difficult to convince him to change his stances. He is uncompromising in matters that he considers to be important. Prefers to prepare for everything in advance since he doesn't like improvising; feels uncomfortable with change and instability. Somewhat contradictory and given to internal doubts, but ultimately does not let his internal vacillations undermine his main orientations. Knows how to consistently and persistently overcome all obstacles. Prefers to implement his knowledge into practice. Tries to stabilize any situation. Bravely endures through misfortunes and adversity while not losing his heart and spirit. Lacks sufficient flexibility in dealing with people and is poor at taking their individual abilities into account. Does not trust those who are light-headed and light-hearted because he is not sure of whether their feelings are trustworthy. Tolerant of defects of those who are close to him; serves as a reliable support for them. Quickly grows tired of interacting with people; quite tolerant of solitude. Restrained and unobtrusive. The objective matters for him are more important than personal relationships and feelings. Usually a private person who does not readily share his experiences with outsiders. Doesn't demonstrate what he is feeling: hunger, fear, pain, etc. Tries not to burden others with himself; relies on the help of close people only in extreme cases. He loves precision and concreteness in everything. Consistent and thorough in his activities and decisions. Careful and thorough in carrying out his tasks. Intolerant of slackness and irresponsibility from others. Follows through his assignments to their completion. Trusts only in official sources of information. A good researcher of narrow issues. Delves into all the details without dismissing and losing sight of anything minor. Accurately maintains records, likes to clarify facts, readily informs those who turn to him for advice about any regulations, about which he is usually informed. In an administrative position, he can establish a clear work regimen, discipline, and order. As a manger, he most often adheres to a chain of command. Very operative and conscientious, possesses a sense of duty. Demanding of himself and others. Tries to be even and reasonable, not go to extremes or fall into illusions. Modest and unpretentious in his household. Tends to be conservative in his views and habits. If he finds his work interesting and inspirational, may give it his preference while neglecting his personal needs, may see the main purpose of his life in his work. Attentive and friendly companion who knows how to patiently listen and give useful advice. Description by Victor Gulenko Most rational logical type. Very constructive. Their aims are in hierarchy; works thoroughly and brings everything to its end without missing a detail. Not very dynamic and does not transfer confusion. Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a barrack style of behaviour. Clothing is conservative, for males: his suit is often in a strict, dark tone. Sexual behavior Restrained in their expression of feelings with an aim towards clarity and definition; disposed to flatness in relations and reacts negatively to quarrels. Inclined to doubts and distrustfulness. Often show concern about their partner and provide them with pleasant gifts and trifles. Require a sensitive, delicate partner, since they are straight-line/simple in sexual contacts and sufficiently restrained in the positive and negative expression of emotions. Need an attentive, thoughtful partner, whom will not tie them to their will. Their partner should yield to their persuasions and strive to satisfy all of their requirements. This article incorporates text from Wikisocion.org.

Editing post #3042 by Dr. Klemphoff <p><strong><em>LSI-<a href="http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/Ti">Ti</a>: The </em></strong><a href="http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LSI-ISTj/"><strong><em>ISTj</em></strong></a><strong><em> Logical Subtype</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Appearance</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>The logical subtype is self-assured, calm, restrained, correct and impenetrable. At times he may seem arrogant. Sufficiently kind, imperturbable, and unemotional. Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, </em></strong><strong><em>likes</em></strong><strong><em> to specify and clarify everything, but sometimes becomes too focused on details that are nonessential to others. Unhurried, perhaps even slow. Likes receiving exhaustively comprehensive and thorough information to his inquiries. Dislikes ambiguity. Internally, he is quite collected. Never loses his spirit and sense of perseverance. Tries to encourage those who are in need of support. Has a direct, motionless gaze that seems to look right through and not at his conversation partner. His movements are measured but constrained; there is a tendency to shuffle his feet against the floor when walking. When he turns, he does so with his entire body such that it sometimes seems like his neck is fixed to his shoulders; doesn't like to turn his head.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Character</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>A sober realist who knows how to find a way out of difficult situations. Stoic: overcomes difficulties without complaining. Dislikes running too much ahead and is able to patiently wait for the outcome. It is difficult to convince him to change his stances. He is uncompromising in matters that he considers to be important. Prefers to prepare for everything in advance since he doesn't like improvising; feels uncomfortable with change and instability. Somewhat contradictory and given to internal doubts, but ultimately does not let his internal vacillations undermine his main orientations. Knows how to consistently and persistently overcome all obstacles. Prefers to implement his knowledge into practice. Tries to stabilize any situation. Bravely endures through misfortunes and adversity while not losing his heart and spirit.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Lacks sufficient flexibility in dealing with people and is poor at taking their individual abilities into account. Does not trust those who are light-headed and light-hearted because he is not sure of whether their feelings are trustworthy. Tolerant of defects of those who are close to him; serves as a reliable support for them. Quickly grows tired of interacting with people; quite tolerant of solitude. Restrained and unobtrusive. The objective matters for him are more important than personal relationships and feelings. </em></strong><strong><em>Usually</em></strong><strong><em> a private person who does not readily share his experiences with outsiders. Doesn't demonstrate what he is feeling: hunger, fear, pain, etc. Tries not to burden others with himself; relies on the help of close people only in extreme cases.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>He loves precision and concreteness in everything. Consistent and thorough in his activities and decisions. Careful and thorough in carrying out his tasks. Intolerant of slackness and irresponsibility from others. Follows through his assignments to their completion. Trusts only in official sources of information. A good researcher of narrow issues. Delves into all the details without dismissing and losing sight of anything minor. Accurately maintains records, likes to clarify facts, readily informs those who turn to him for advice about any regulations, about which he is usually informed. In an administrative position, he can establish a clear work regimen, discipline, and order. As a </em></strong><strong><em>manger</em></strong><strong><em>, he most often adheres to a chain of command. Very operative and </em></strong><strong><em>conscientious,</em></strong><strong><em> possesses a sense of duty. Demanding of himself and others. Tries to be even and reasonable, not go to extremes or fall into illusions.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Modest and unpretentious in his household. Tends to be conservative in his views and habits. If he finds his work interesting and inspirational, may give it his preference while neglecting his personal needs, may see the main purpose of his life in his work. </em></strong><strong><em>Attentive</em></strong><strong><em> and friendly companion who knows how to patiently listen and give useful advice.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Description by Victor Gulenko</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Most rational logical type. Very constructive. Their aims are in </em></strong><strong><em>hierarchy</em></strong><strong><em>; works thoroughly and brings everything to its end without missing a detail. Not very dynamic and does not transfer confusion. Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a </em></strong><strong><em>barrack style</em></strong><strong><em> of </em></strong><strong><em>behaviour</em></strong><strong><em>. Clothing is conservative, for males: his suit is often in a strict, dark tone.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Sexual behavior</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Restrained in their expression of feelings with an aim towards clarity and definition; disposed to flatness in relations and reacts negatively to quarrels. Inclined to doubts and distrustfulness. Often show concern about their partner and provide them with pleasant gifts and trifles. Require a sensitive, delicate partner, since they are straight-line/simple in sexual contacts and sufficiently restrained in the positive and negative expression of emotions. Need an attentive, thoughtful partner, whom will not tie them to their will. Their partner should yield to their persuasions and strive to satisfy all of their requirements.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" target="_blank"><img alt="Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a> This article incorporates text from Wikisocion.org.</em></strong></p>
Replying to post #3042 by Dr. Klemphoff

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/08/25 (Sat) 05:12:44 #3005
	about relationship i probaby look like more to gamma because gamma's description seem a lot related with serious topic discussion, but if we go by how i percieve the world it's very beta related i tend to see people as member of hierarchy, superstructure, country, social class and have a tendency to attribute some characteristics to this belongings.

Editing post #3005 by fg <p>about relationship i probaby look like more to gamma because gamma's description seem a lot related with serious topic discussion, but if we go by how i percieve the world it's very beta related i tend to see people as member of hierarchy, superstructure, country, social class and have a tendency to attribute some characteristics to this belongings.</p>
Replying to post #3005 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/08/09 (Thu) 18:58:05 #2748
	i partly disagree because of the comparison made on the socionicstype.com(who use reinin dichotomies, that is often invalidate by representative example of the types) but you are right that i have a lot of socio Te. you are very convincing about the enneagramm 1 social typing but when i did the enneagramm test on sarkinova 2 was my last type with -36 as a score. so 1w2 is less probable than 1w9 if we take in account those score.i thank you for your explanation.

Editing post #2748 by fg <p>i partly disagree because of the comparison made on the socionicstype.com(who use reinin dichotomies, that is often invalidate by representative example of the types) but you are right that i have a lot of socio Te. you are very convincing about the enneagramm 1 social typing but when i did the enneagramm test on sarkinova 2 was my last type with -36 as a score. so 1w2 is less probable than 1w9 if we take in account those score.i thank you for your explanation.</p>
Replying to post #2748 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/08/09 (Thu) 18:51:06 #2747
	the comparison between the types in socionicstype.com are related to reinin dichotomies. a thing that is criticized by a lot of socionists (i'm also against this dichotomies) in general socionicstype.com is a very limited source. i advise you to watch the descriptions made in wiki socionics instead of socionicstype.com .

Editing post #2747 by fg <p>the comparison between the types in socionicstype.com are related to reinin dichotomies. a thing that is criticized by a lot of socionists (i'm also against this dichotomies) in general socionicstype.com is a very limited source. i advise you to watch the descriptions made in wiki socionics instead of socionicstype.com .</p>
Replying to post #2747 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/07/25 (Wed) 10:47:10 #2369
	i tend to value both socio Ti (categorization, ideology, duty, principle, structure) and socio Te (results, facts, authority figure , good work process). and tend to relate with socio Se/Ni axis (Ni:interested about political possibilities, change in time, comparison between ages, determinism etc...) (Se: authority, control, plannification, winning a conflict, determination) far more than with socio Ne/Si axis. so i am beta ST or gamma NT. if we go with general descriptions of quadra made herehttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/15-Socionics-Four-Quadra i am more Beta but if we go by group attitude i am more Gamma.

Editing post #2369 by fg <p>i tend to value both socio Ti (categorization, ideology, duty, principle, structure) and socio Te (results, facts, authority figure , good work process). and tend to relate with socio Se/Ni axis (Ni:interested about political possibilities, change in time, comparison between ages, determinism etc...) (Se: authority, control, plannification, winning a conflict, determination) far more than with socio Ne/Si axis. so i am beta ST or gamma NT. if we go with general descriptions of quadra made herehttp://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/15-Socionics-Four-Quadra i am more Beta but if we go by group attitude i am more Gamma.</p>
Replying to post #2369 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/07/15 (Sun) 03:24:32 #2138
	he probably voted ISTP because i humiliated him in our debate on Nietzsche.or because he is enough ignorant to think that cognitive function = socionics functions. but in MBTI i'm certainly not a Se type even at a second function, i hate taking risk and i'm not able too interacte correctly with my phisycal environments.i'm also more Te than Ti, (i use rules created by some authorities systematicly) and i quote a lot, instead of trying to "make sense" with the object, and trying to make my own rules.

Editing post #2138 by fg <p>he probably voted ISTP because i humiliated him in our debate on Nietzsche.or because he is enough ignorant to think that cognitive function = socionics functions. but in MBTI i'm certainly not a Se type even at a second function, i hate taking risk and i'm not able too interacte correctly with my phisycal environments.i'm also more Te than Ti, (i use rules created by some authorities systematicly) and i quote a lot, instead of trying to "make sense" with the object, and trying to make my own rules. </p>
Replying to post #2138 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/07/10 (Tue) 17:19:27 #2042
	hard to choose because i relate much with the LSI-Ti as well ."The logical subtype is self-assured, calm, restrained, correct and impenetrable. At times he may seem arrogant. Sufficiently kind, imperturbable, and unemotional. Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes to specify and clarify everything, but sometimes becomes too focused on details that are nonessential to others. Unhurried, perhaps even slow. Likes receiving exhaustively comprehensive and thorough information to his inquiries. Dislikes ambiguity. Internally, he is quite collected. Never loses his spirit and sense of perseverance. Tries to encourage those who are in need of support. Has a direct, motionless gaze that seems to look right through and not at his conversation partner. His movements are measured but constrained; there is a tendency to shuffle his feet against the floor when walking. When he turns, he does so with his entire body such that it sometimes seems like his neck is fixed to his shoulders; doesn't like to turn his head. A sober realist who knows how to find a way out of difficult situations. Stoic: overcomes difficulties without complaining. Dislikes running too much ahead and is able to patiently wait for the outcome. It is difficult to convince him to change his stances. He is uncompromising in matters that he considers to be important. Prefers to prepare for everything in advance since he doesn't like improvising; feels uncomfortable with change and instability. Somewhat contradictory and given to internal doubts, but ultimately does not let his internal vacillations undermine his main orientations. Knows how to consistently and persistently overcome all obstacles. Prefers to implement his knowledge into practice. Tries to stabilize any situation. Bravely endures through misfortunes and adversity while not losing his heart and spirit. Lacks sufficient flexibility in dealing with people and is poor at taking their individual abilities into account. Does not trust those who are light-headed and light-hearted because he is not sure of whether their feelings are trustworthy. Tolerant of defects of those who are close to him; serves as a reliable support for them. Quickly grows tired of interacting with people; quite tolerant of solitude. Restrained and unobtrusive. The objective matters for him are more important than personal relationships and feelings. Usually a private person who does not readily share his experiences with outsiders. Doesn't demonstrate what he is feeling: hunger, fear, pain, etc. Tries not to burden others with himself; relies on the help of close people only in extreme cases. He loves precision and concreteness in everything. Consistent and thorough in his activities and decisions. Careful and thorough in carrying out his tasks. Intolerant of slackness and irresponsibility from others. Follows through his assignments to their completion. Trusts only in official sources of information. A good researcher of narrow issues. Delves into all the details without dismissing and losing sight of anything minor. Accurately maintains records, likes to clarify facts, readily informs those who turn to him for advice about any regulations, about which he is usually informed. In an administrative position, he can establish a clear work regimen, discipline, and order. As a manger, he most often adheres to a chain of command. Very operative and conscientious, possesses a sense of duty. Demanding of himself and others. Tries to be even and reasonable, not go to extremes or fall into illusions. Modest and unpretentious in his household. Tends to be conservative in his views and habits. If he finds his work interesting and inspirational, may give it his preference while neglecting his personal needs, may see the main purpose of his life in his work. Attentive and friendly companion who knows how to patiently listen and give useful advice."

Editing post #2042 by fg <p>hard to choose because i relate much with the LSI-Ti as well ."The logical subtype is self-assured, calm, restrained, correct and impenetrable. At times he may seem arrogant. Sufficiently kind, imperturbable, and unemotional. Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes to specify and clarify everything, but sometimes becomes too focused on details that are nonessential to others. Unhurried, perhaps even slow. Likes receiving exhaustively comprehensive and thorough information to his inquiries. Dislikes ambiguity. Internally, he is quite collected. Never loses his spirit and sense of perseverance. Tries to encourage those who are in need of support. Has a direct, motionless gaze that seems to look right through and not at his conversation partner. His movements are measured but constrained; there is a tendency to shuffle his feet against the floor when walking. When he turns, he does so with his entire body such that it sometimes seems like his neck is fixed to his shoulders; doesn't like to turn his head. A sober realist who knows how to find a way out of difficult situations. Stoic: overcomes difficulties without complaining. Dislikes running too much ahead and is able to patiently wait for the outcome. It is difficult to convince him to change his stances. He is uncompromising in matters that he considers to be important. Prefers to prepare for everything in advance since he doesn't like improvising; feels uncomfortable with change and instability. Somewhat contradictory and given to internal doubts, but ultimately does not let his internal vacillations undermine his main orientations. Knows how to consistently and persistently overcome all obstacles. Prefers to implement his knowledge into practice. Tries to stabilize any situation. Bravely endures through misfortunes and adversity while not losing his heart and spirit. Lacks sufficient flexibility in dealing with people and is poor at taking their individual abilities into account. Does not trust those who are light-headed and light-hearted because he is not sure of whether their feelings are trustworthy. Tolerant of defects of those who are close to him; serves as a reliable support for them. Quickly grows tired of interacting with people; quite tolerant of solitude. Restrained and unobtrusive. The objective matters for him are more important than personal relationships and feelings. Usually a private person who does not readily share his experiences with outsiders. Doesn't demonstrate what he is feeling: hunger, fear, pain, etc. Tries not to burden others with himself; relies on the help of close people only in extreme cases. He loves precision and concreteness in everything. Consistent and thorough in his activities and decisions. Careful and thorough in carrying out his tasks. Intolerant of slackness and irresponsibility from others. Follows through his assignments to their completion. Trusts only in official sources of information. A good researcher of narrow issues. Delves into all the details without dismissing and losing sight of anything minor. Accurately maintains records, likes to clarify facts, readily informs those who turn to him for advice about any regulations, about which he is usually informed. In an administrative position, he can establish a clear work regimen, discipline, and order. As a manger, he most often adheres to a chain of command. Very operative and conscientious, possesses a sense of duty. Demanding of himself and others. Tries to be even and reasonable, not go to extremes or fall into illusions. Modest and unpretentious in his household. Tends to be conservative in his views and habits. If he finds his work interesting and inspirational, may give it his preference while neglecting his personal needs, may see the main purpose of his life in his work. Attentive and friendly companion who knows how to patiently listen and give useful advice."</p>
Replying to post #2042 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/07/10 (Tue) 03:19:33 #1998
	LSI-Se subtype:"Appearance: The sensory subtype appears more restless in behavior and internally emotional than the logical subtype. May seem somewhat restrained yet also obstinate and stubborn in his views, willing to enter conflicts when his opinions are not honored. Self-controlled and impersonal in his demeanor. Dislikes objections and lengthy explanations. Often watches the actions of others in order to try to assist them or to point out their mistakes. Sometimes in indignation he makes reprimanding remarks, other times he simply completes the task himself or tries to help another person do it better. Flaring up, he can become unduly sharp and absolutist in his statements. Occasionally he tries to amend the situation and smiles with kindness and charm. He walks at a rapid pace, placing his feet as if he is "stamping" the ground. Makes an impression of a well-coordinated and active person. Dresses conservatively, but aims for an aesthetically pleasant, even stylish, appearance. In conversation, he attempts to get closer to his partner but doesn't make direct contact. Not inclined to overly sensitive, affectionate, and permissive treatment. Character: He is persistent in achieving his goals. Orients quickly in extreme situations, displaying considerable willpower, endurance, and practical resourcefulness. Able to protect the interests of his project or business with energy and obstinacy in various situations. Usually confident in his opinions, which he bases on facts and his experience. Sometimes manifests excessive obstinacy and intractability. Dislikes being objected to or when someone else tries to impose their will or working methods on him. Inquisitive, accumulates useful information. Often has interests in areas of morality, art, and legislation. Refers to novel and differing points of view with distrust and suspicion, since it is quite difficult for him to change his positions and way of thinking. Can apply pressure on his subordinates if he is in a leadership position, forcing them to work conscientiously; inclined to "tighten the screws" giving instructions in imperative intonation; will check if his orders have been carried out. If his arguments are not taken under consideration, may flare up and try to force others to do everything as it should be done. Internally disapproves of violations of established regulations. Assesses and judges work by the difficulties and challenges that were overcome during its implementation. Applies the same requirements to everyone without taking individual abilities and circumstances into account. From time to time needs an emotional discharge to alleviate his inner tensions. In such cases does not hide his emotions and waits for reciprocal sincerity from his partner. Finds it difficult to attain inner balance. At times he loses his restraint and with an outburst can undermine previously established relationships. He is not always able to maintain stable and friendly relations with other people due to his intransigence and straightforwardness of his views and opinions. Despite this, he is usually quite hardy and enduring, both on emotional and physical level. Rarely talks about his own feelings and personal affairs; and if he does, he speaks about such subjects to very few people. Does not delve deeply into the personal lives of other people, except may be out of politeness. Considers it his duty to help other people in difficult moments; in such cases he shows attentiveness and sympathy and tries to provide the necessary service. Poorly discerns how other people relate to him; due to this it is inclined to doubt their sincerity, or, conversely, can mistake his own desire to be loved for actual love. Prone to harboring ill-founded suspicions. Hardworking, takes on many tasks and chores thinking that he can do them better than others. Dedicated to taking care of his loved ones and does so selflessly feeling responsible for their well-being. Tries to provide everything that is needed for his household. Watches for cleanliness and order; strives for aesthetics in appearance and his everyday life. Inclined to create comfort, but dislikes excesses. Feels irritated when others touch his things or do something without his permission."

Editing post #1998 by fg <p>LSI-Se subtype:"Appearance: The sensory subtype appears more restless in behavior and internally emotional than the logical subtype. <strong>May seem somewhat restrained yet also obstinate and stubborn in his views, willing to enter conflicts when his opinions are not honored. Self-controlled and impersonal in his demeanor. Dislikes objections and lengthy explanations. Often watches the actions of others in order to try to assist them or to point out their mistakes. Sometimes in indignation he makes reprimanding remarks, other times he simply completes the task himself or tries to help another person do it better. Flaring up, he can become unduly sharp and absolutist in his statements. Occasionally he tries to amend the situation and smiles with kindness and charm. </strong>He walks at a rapid pace, placing his feet as if he is "stamping" the ground. Makes an impression of a well-coordinated and active person. Dresses conservatively, but aims for an aesthetically pleasant, even stylish, appearance. In conversation, he attempts to get closer to his partner but doesn't make direct contact.<strong> Not inclined to overly sensitive, affectionate, and permissive treatment.</strong><br /> <br /> Character: <strong>He is persistent in achieving his goals.</strong> Orients quickly in extreme situations, <strong>displaying considerable willpower, endurance, and practical resourcefulness. Able to protect the interests of his project or business with energy and obstinacy in various situations. Usually confident in his opinions, which he bases on facts and his experience. Sometimes manifests excessive obstinacy and intractability. Dislikes being objected to or when someone else tries to impose their will or working methods on him. Inquisitive, accumulates useful information. Often has interests in areas of morality, art, and legislation. Refers to novel and differing points of view with distrust and suspicion, since it is quite difficult for him to change his positions and way of thinking.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong>Can apply pressure on his subordinates if he is in a leadership position, forcing them to work conscientiously; inclined to "tighten the screws" giving instructions in imperative intonation; will check if his orders have been carried out. If his arguments are not taken under consideration, may flare up and try to force others to do everything as it should be done. Internally disapproves of violations of established regulations. Assesses and judges work by the difficulties and challenges that were overcome during its implementation. Applies the same requirements to everyone without taking individual abilities and circumstances into account.</strong><br /> <br /> From time to time needs an emotional discharge to alleviate his inner tensions. In such cases does not hide his emotions and waits for reciprocal sincerity from his partner. Finds it difficult to attain inner balance. At times he loses his restraint and with an outburst can undermine previously established relationships.<strong> He is not always able to maintain stable and friendly relations with other people due to his intransigence and straightforwardness of his views and opinions. </strong>Despite this, he is usually quite hardy and enduring, both on emotional and physical level.<br /> <br /> <strong>Rarely talks about his own feelings and personal affairs; and if he does, he speaks about such subjects to very few people. Does not delve deeply into the personal lives of other people, except may be out of politeness. </strong>Considers it his duty to help other people in difficult moments; in such cases he shows attentiveness and sympathy and tries to provide the necessary service. Poorly discerns how other people relate to him; due to this it is inclined to doubt their sincerity, or, conversely, can mistake his own desire to be loved for actual love. Prone to harboring ill-founded suspicions.<br /> <br /> <strong>Hardworking, takes on many tasks and chores thinking that he can do them better than others. </strong>Dedicated to taking care of his loved ones and does so selflessly feeling responsible for their well-being. Tries to provide everything that is needed for his household. Watches for cleanliness and order; strives for aesthetics in appearance and his everyday life. Inclined to create comfort, but dislikes excesses.<strong> Feels irritated when others touch his things or do something without his permission."</strong><br /> </p>
Replying to post #1998 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/05/18 (Fri) 02:33:57 #636
	if this can help too type Berlioz: He likes: petting Sleep on my mother's computer (he have some trouble when he wake up) on office chair on his pillow on my father's carpet in the laundry basket play with lizard dead body that he have killed. his toys pens the wool ball of my mother (he had some trouble after she find it) almost anything small that he can find he fear my mother when she find that he made trouble other cats (he start to attack them when they are on his territory, then when the other cat start to be intimidating he ask us some help) my neighbour's dog everyone at night when he think that he have to go to bed, and every one will try to caught him. (he is lock on the kitchen at night because my mother don't want to heard him at night==> when he enter on a room the night he start to catch and nibble our foots) the vacuum cleaner

Editing post #636 by fg <p>if this can help too type Berlioz:</p> <p><strong>He likes:</strong></p> <p>petting</p> <p><strong>Sleep</strong></p> <p>on my mother's computer (he have some trouble when he wake up)</p> <p>on office chair</p> <p>on his pillow</p> <p>on my father's carpet</p> <p>in the laundry basket</p> <p><strong>play with</strong></p> <p>lizard dead body that he have killed.</p> <p>his toys</p> <p>pens</p> <p> the wool ball of my mother (he had some trouble after she find it)</p> <p>almost anything small that he can find</p> <p><strong>he fear</strong></p> <p>my mother when she find that he made trouble</p> <p>other cats (he start to attack them when they are on his territory, then when the other cat start to be intimidating he ask us some help)</p> <p>my neighbour's dog</p> <p>everyone at night when he think that he have to go to bed, and every one will try to caught him. (he is lock on the kitchen at night because my mother don't want to heard him at night==> when he enter on a room the night he start to catch and nibble our foots)</p> <p>the vacuum cleaner</p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #636 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2018/05/17 (Thu) 03:04:15 #573
	if it can help you to type me what i love my cat functions debate classifing concept dirty jokes my family my country what i hate when people type by letter anti-intellectualism birds romance series everyday life discussion religion the president of my country My Hobbies watching political debate, science fiction,animated movies, fantasy,and political documentary build bionicle read comic books,manga or read philosophy books my academical center of interest philosophy(especially political philosophy),history,litterature and sociology. description of me: made by my teacher serious,hard working,exemplary behaviour,quick minded,mature and intersted. made by my family obsessive,intolerant,funny,helpful, head in the cloud(in a negative way),stressed,too much argumentative, intellectual, tactless. made by my friends stressed,perverted sense of humour,thinking too much, funny, obsessive,cocky. made by my classmate know it all,serious,rigid,intolerant but sympathic despite everything.

Editing post #573 by fg <p>if it can help you to type me</p> <p><strong>what i love </strong></p> <p>my cat</p> <p>functions</p> <p>debate</p> <p>classifing concept</p> <p>dirty jokes</p> <p>my family</p> <p>my country</p> <p><strong>what i hate</strong></p> <p>when people type by letter</p> <p>anti-intellectualism</p> <p>birds</p> <p>romance series</p> <p>everyday life discussion</p> <p>religion</p> <p>the president of my country</p> <p><strong>My Hobbies</strong></p> <p>watching political debate, science fiction,animated movies, fantasy,and political documentary</p> <p>build bionicle</p> <p>read comic books,manga or read philosophy books</p> <p><strong>my academical center of interest</strong></p> <p>philosophy(especially political philosophy),history,litterature and sociology.</p> <p><strong>description of me:</strong></p> <p><strong>made by my teacher</strong></p> <p>serious,hard working,exemplary behaviour,quick minded,mature and intersted.</p> <p><strong>made by my family</strong></p> <p>obsessive,intolerant,funny,helpful, head in the cloud(in a negative way),stressed,too much argumentative, intellectual, tactless.</p> <p><strong>made by my friends</strong></p> <p>stressed,perverted sense of humour,thinking too much, funny, obsessive,cocky.</p> <p><strong>made by my classmate</strong></p> <p>know it all,serious,rigid,intolerant but sympathic despite everything.</p>
Replying to post #573 by fg

date	username	vote
21/01/10 11:06	Helvetica	ENTJ
20/03/27 16:29	Thyssen	ITJ
19/09/30 15:07	BasedGOD	INTJ
19/09/28 21:51	ally	ISTJ
20/10/03 09:42	phsc	NTJ
19/08/04 06:04	jt	ISFJ
19/05/26 14:18	ResoluteSoul	ENTJ
19/04/01 05:51	Kawaii	INTJ
20/03/28 00:06	LadyX	INTJ
20/03/01 17:34	Tman	INTJ
20/01/08 23:17	Tch	INTJ
18/08/27 21:45	fiddlediddle	ISTJ
20/03/28 04:12	fg	ENTJ
18/12/15 13:44	switchblades	ENTJ
18/06/30 02:23	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys	ISTJ
20/08/25 03:25	Diobono	ISTJ
18/08/11 07:02	Teru Mikami	ISTJ
19/07/09 03:39	Taco110	ISTJ
18/05/14 02:21	lvna	INTJ
18/05/14 03:01	edza	INTJ
18/05/12 10:40	Khel	INTJ
18/05/12 04:35	Nyx	INTJ
18/06/15 06:29	~snow~	INTJ

date	username	vote
20/07/05 07:20	Diobono	ISTJ
20/05/09 13:41	Phantom	ENTJ
20/05/09 10:44	phsc	ISTJ
19/10/11 19:36	Not Now	INTJ
19/09/30 15:07	BasedGOD	INTJ
19/08/04 06:04	jt	ISFJ
19/07/08 16:59	tman	INTJ
19/03/26 00:50	Taco110	INTJ
18/06/19 08:11	Teru Mikami	ISTJ
18/06/15 06:29	~snow~	INTJ
20/10/04 10:33	fg	INTJ
18/05/18 12:39	Tiger	ISTJ

date	username	vote
21/01/10 11:06	Helvetica	6w5
20/12/01 13:28	Flower-like	6w5
20/05/09 10:19	phsc	6w5
20/12/21 15:00	Tman	cp6w5
19/10/11 19:36	Not Now	1wb
19/09/30 15:07	BasedGOD	5w6
19/09/28 21:51	ally	1w9
19/05/26 14:18	ResoluteSoul	1w2
19/10/12 00:47	LadyX	6w5
19/02/27 13:21	BIoomer	5w6
18/12/15 13:54	switchblades	1w9
20/05/30 15:15	Diobono	6w5
20/08/20 07:59	fg	6w5
18/07/11 09:08	kawaii	1w9
18/06/05 08:51	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys	5w6
19/12/29 18:08	Tiger	1w9

EverybodyLovesNi 2021/02/17 (Wed) 09:14:06 #8647
Contraflow asf

Editing post #8647 by EverybodyLovesNi Contraflow asf
Replying to post #8647 by EverybodyLovesNi

	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys INTP 5w4 2020/11/06 (Fri) 22:46:58 #8535
	@fg it's a dude, trust me

Editing post #8535 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys @fg it's a dude, trust me
Replying to post #8535 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys

	Helvetica INTP 5w4 ILE 2020/11/05 (Thu) 10:33:29 #8534
	Do you have Discord? If so, do you mind sending it to me? I'm interesed in inviting you to my server, as you seem like an interesting person.

Editing post #8534 by Helvetica Do you have Discord? If so, do you mind sending it to me? I'm interesed in inviting you to my server, as you seem like an interesting person.
Replying to post #8534 by Helvetica

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/28 (Fri) 02:49:06 #8466
	of course you don't deal a situation of crisis with a claustrophobic and an agoraphobic. country does not have the same fear due to different history.

Editing post #8466 by fg of course you don't deal a situation of crisis with a claustrophobic and an agoraphobic. country does not have the same fear due to different history.
Replying to post #8466 by fg

Diobono int 5w4 ili 2020/08/27 (Thu) 06:14:42 #8465
So PANDEMIC measures should befit according to each countries 'mentality'? Sounds real reasonable bro

Editing post #8465 by Diobono So PANDEMIC measures should befit according to each countries 'mentality'? Sounds real reasonable bro
Replying to post #8465 by Diobono

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/27 (Thu) 04:20:54 #8464
	my result are approximation, xNTJs and ISTJ stay possible so i will put TJ. Beta ST is the most safe socionist result to describe me so i will stay in this generality. 6w5 as enneagramm is enough firm.

Editing post #8464 by fg my result are approximation, xNTJs and ISTJ stay possible so i will put TJ. Beta ST is the most safe socionist result to describe me so i will stay in this generality. 6w5 as enneagramm is enough firm.
Replying to post #8464 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/08/25 (Tue) 10:39:15 #8463
	This is an excellent point.

Editing post #8463 by Tman This is an excellent point.
Replying to post #8463 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/08/21 (Fri) 01:22:38 #8451
	from the medecine i have to deal with when i had to go to a psycho therapeutic center. i can't make a scientific argument about it because i am not. i am first politically against the mask. I can say the political aspect. i am a philosopher and a citizen not a scientist.

Editing post #8451 by fg from the medecine i have to deal with when i had to go to a psycho therapeutic center. i can't make a scientific argument about it because i am not. i am first politically against the mask. I can say the political aspect. i am a philosopher and a citizen not a scientist.
Replying to post #8451 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/08/20 (Thu) 19:14:57 #8450
	What evidence do you have that masks don't work? Refusing to ware a mask seems more like a lack of prudence then it does courage.

Editing post #8450 by Tman What evidence do you have that masks don't work? Refusing to ware a mask seems more like a lack of prudence then it does courage.
Replying to post #8450 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/04/01 (Wed) 18:13:23 #7846
	it come from the consent of the governed but Locke never refer as it a source of validation. he refer to nature/god.

Editing post #7846 by fg <p>it come from the consent of the governed but Locke never refer as it a source of validation. he refer to nature/god.</p>
Replying to post #7846 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 18:04:47 #7845
	In response to post #7843. Also, in terms of what "rights are given" why wouldn't this also apply to the right to rule? Where, if not from the consent of the goverend, should this come from?

Editing post #7845 by Tman <p>Also, in terms of what "rights are given" why wouldn't this also apply to the right to rule? Where, if not from the consent of the goverend, should this come from? </p>
Replying to post #7845 by Tman

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 15:04:40 #7842
	Also, Locke felt the same, he mearly stated that people had the right to returen to a state of nature, not that they always should.

Editing post #7842 by Tman <p>Also, Locke felt the same, he mearly stated that people had the right to returen to a state of nature, not that they always should. </p>
Replying to post #7842 by Tman

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 14:42:31 #7841
	I can agree with that, so long as it reamins the case that the goverment mantains there right to rule from the concent of the goverened.

Editing post #7841 by Tman <p>I can agree with that, so long as it reamins the case that the goverment mantains there right to rule from the concent of the goverened. </p>
Replying to post #7841 by Tman

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 10:29:56 #7839
	Never made the claim you did belive in it. Locke did not imagine a man as completly disconected from others. He did imagine them as in a stateless socity, but they still exist as faimlies. I think it's more likly that man begain in extrermly small scale triblasitic socities.

Editing post #7839 by Tman <p>Never made the claim you did belive in it. Locke did not imagine a man as completly disconected from others. He did imagine them as in a stateless socity, but they still exist as faimlies. I think it's more likly that man begain in extrermly small scale triblasitic socities.</p>
Replying to post #7839 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/04/01 (Wed) 03:31:33 #7838
	i don't believe in natural law. Laws came from an institution nothing more nothing less. also, Locke's one seem the most detached of "human tendency" . men is a social animal by nature so deriving him a moral from him as an individual disconnected from other is a little bit stupid imo.

Editing post #7838 by fg <p>i don't believe in natural law. Laws came from an institution nothing more nothing less. also, Locke's one seem the most detached of "human tendency" . men is a social animal by nature so deriving him a moral from him as an individual disconnected from other is a little bit stupid imo.</p>
Replying to post #7838 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/04/01 (Wed) 00:13:06 #7837
	That makes sense. I tend more towards a rights based natrual law theory (like the kind Locke advocated for) and so I tend not to see the problem with people wanting to protect there privacy, no matter how insgnficant there reasons.

Editing post #7837 by Tman <p>That makes sense. I tend more towards a rights based natrual law theory (like the kind Locke advocated for) and so I tend not to see the problem with people wanting to protect there privacy, no matter how insgnficant there reasons. </p>
Replying to post #7837 by Tman

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/03/31 (Tue) 13:33:09 #7836
	This is coward betrayal!!!

Editing post #7836 by strawberry crisis <p>This is coward betrayal!!!</p>
Replying to post #7836 by strawberry crisis

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/03/31 (Tue) 04:33:43 #7833
	Lol fg before you pull me down into this one, don’t you think we should let cowards be their cowardly selves?

Editing post #7833 by strawberry crisis <p>Lol fg before you pull me down into this one, don’t you think we should let cowards be their cowardly selves?</p>
Replying to post #7833 by strawberry crisis

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/03/31 (Tue) 03:58:13 #7832
	A==>B does not imply B ==> A. telling that private voters are coward does not say that there is no coward among public voters. "some people feel uncomfortable voting publicly even under a website persona, and that should be perfectly okay." from where do you derivate this "should" ?

Editing post #7832 by fg <p>A==>B does not imply B ==> A. telling that private voters are coward does not say that there is no coward among public voters. "some people feel uncomfortable voting publicly even under a website persona, and that should be perfectly okay." from where do you derivate this "should" ?</p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #7832 by fg

	LadyX intp 5 2020/03/28 (Sat) 00:39:07 #7817
	I agree. I'm not sure what the value of anonymous voting is, when we have the option (that nearly everyone takes) of creating a persona that exists only on this site.

Editing post #7817 by LadyX <p>I agree. I'm not sure what the value of anonymous voting is, when we have the option (that nearly everyone takes) of creating a persona that exists only on this site. </p>
Replying to post #7817 by LadyX

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2020/03/27 (Fri) 22:04:24 #7814
	In response to post #7813. FG, I'm not sure weither or not your joking, so I'm sorry if I'm just not getting the joke, but isn't that a bit harsh? Why would anyomous voting on someones page be any worse then doing it any other cermstance?

Editing post #7814 by Tman <p>FG, I'm not sure weither or not your joking, so I'm sorry if I'm just not getting the joke, but isn't that a bit harsh? Why would anyomous voting on someones page be any worse then doing it any other cermstance? </p>
Replying to post #7814 by Tman

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2020/03/27 (Fri) 15:30:46 #7813
	anonymous vote on someone's type is cowardness

Editing post #7813 by fg <p>anonymous vote on someone's type is cowardness</p>
Replying to post #7813 by fg

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2019/10/30 (Wed) 19:47:57 #7333
	Simply the idea of someone saying "I'm Humble!" I'm not saying I don't realy think FG lacks humility, I was just ammused by the dicsnoect of act and content, which most likly hadn't ocured to him.

Editing post #7333 by Tman <p>Simply the idea of someone saying "I'm Humble!" I'm not saying I don't realy think FG lacks humility, I was just ammused by the dicsnoect of act and content, which most likly hadn't ocured to him. </p>
Replying to post #7333 by Tman

	phsc 2019/10/30 (Wed) 16:21:52 #7331
	why

Editing post #7331 by phsc <p>why</p>
Replying to post #7331 by phsc

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2019/10/30 (Wed) 16:18:20 #7330
	I just thought it was funny.

Editing post #7330 by Tman <p>I just thought it was funny.</p>
Replying to post #7330 by Tman

	phsc 2019/10/30 (Wed) 12:38:55 #7329
	theres the 0 option too my thyssenic boy the use of text emoji makes me cringe also self awareness != being humble, but that also does fit the HONESTY aspect of it cuz it isnt only about being humble

Editing post #7329 by phsc <p>theres the 0 option too my thyssenic boy</p> <p>the use of text emoji makes me cringe</p> <p>also self awareness != being humble, but that also does fit the HONESTY aspect of it cuz it isnt only about being humble</p>
Replying to post #7329 by phsc

	Thyssen ILI 2019/10/30 (Wed) 12:19:00 #7328
	:( Also, in this case, the opposite of 3 would be 3... as it’s the equilibrium of all the numbers that you can vote for HEXACO(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Editing post #7328 by Thyssen <p>:( Also, in this case, the opposite of 3 would be 3... as it’s the equilibrium of all the numbers that you can vote for HEXACO(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)</p>
Replying to post #7328 by Thyssen

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI 2019/10/29 (Tue) 19:49:20 #7327
	I think anyone who votes them selves as "humble" on this website should have the opiste voted for them permanently as an automatic response. ;P

Editing post #7327 by Tman <p>I think anyone who votes them selves as "humble" on this website should have the opiste voted for them permanently as an automatic response. ;P</p>
Replying to post #7327 by Tman

	phsc 2019/10/15 (Tue) 18:12:11 #7241
	What test? you're clearly a L first in this system fg, but it seems like tests are very innacurate, if you are talking about the one straw sent in the saki server, it also gave me and straw V first, while straw is probably E first and I am clearly L first, it doesn't seem to be very accurate in a general way.

Editing post #7241 by phsc <p>What test? you're clearly a L first in this system fg, but it seems like tests are very innacurate, if you are talking about the one straw sent in the saki server, it also gave me and straw V first, while straw is probably E first and I am clearly L first, it doesn't seem to be very accurate in a general way.</p>
Replying to post #7241 by phsc

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/10/15 (Tue) 18:04:22 #7240
	i got VLFE (i toke the test 2 time). I don't know this system very much so i can't tell.

Editing post #7240 by fg <p>i got VLFE (i toke the test 2 time). I don't know this system very much so i can't tell.</p>
Replying to post #7240 by fg

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/09/28 (Sat) 08:48:17 #7164
	why S? phsc

Editing post #7164 by fg <p>why S? phsc</p>
Replying to post #7164 by fg

Teru Mikami 2019/08/04 (Sun) 17:54:36 #6900
bruh

Editing post #6900 by Teru Mikami <p>bruh</p>
Replying to post #6900 by Teru Mikami

Teru Mikami 2019/08/04 (Sun) 17:53:48 #6899
looks like someone's splitting personalities again. get better bro

Editing post #6899 by Teru Mikami <p>looks like someone's splitting personalities again. get better bro</p>
Replying to post #6899 by Teru Mikami

	phsc 2019/08/04 (Sun) 17:53:28 #6898
	stop falling for his baits pikup but then jt is pikup too fuck

Editing post #6898 by phsc <p>stop falling for his baits pikup</p> <p>but then jt is pikup too</p> <p>fuck</p>
Replying to post #6898 by phsc

	Brainer ISTP 9w8 sp/sx 2019/08/04 (Sun) 17:44:34 #6896
	No you're wrong. ESTPs have Fe. ESFPs have Fi. You're wrong. ISxPs we are too introverted to lack social awareness. I didn't talk about mirroring. I don't care about your Lloyd bullshit. ESFPs are quite socially aware. ESTPs have Fe

Editing post #6896 by Brainer <p>No you're wrong. ESTPs have Fe. ESFPs have Fi. You're wrong. ISxPs we are too introverted to lack social awareness. I didn't talk about mirroring.</p> <p>I don't care about your Lloyd bullshit. ESFPs are quite socially aware. ESTPs have Fe</p>
Replying to post #6896 by Brainer