Jacobus ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

Jacobus

Sakinorva Databank

in Users

Jacobus ~ Sakinorva Databank

Jacobus

Sakinorva Databank

Users

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

INFJ 5

INFP 2

4w5 5

4wb 2

1w9 1

3w4 1

4w3 1

sx/sp 4

EIE 5

IEI 3

EII 1

VELF 4

ELVF 2

EFVL 1

EVLF 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 44

10

7

10

4

4

9

8

1

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}

You may not modify this entry's picture.

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/12/02 (Wed) 21:22:23 #8594
	phsc it's funny how you think I'm "cringe" (already out of date on that one) when you come across as an obnoxious entitled child in every one of your posts. you don't like how I'll occasionally post a mean comment but nearly every post you've made on this site is just you playing rule keeper/hall monitor and badgering other people over typings or posts that you don't like. who on this site likes you, rather than tolerates you? fg?

Editing post #8594 by Jacobus phsc it's funny how you think I'm "cringe" (already out of date on that one) when you come across as an obnoxious entitled child in every one of your posts. you don't like how I'll occasionally post a mean comment but nearly every post you've made on this site is just you playing rule keeper/hall monitor and badgering other people over typings or posts that you don't like. who on this site likes you, rather than tolerates you? fg?
Replying to post #8594 by Jacobus

Flower-like INFP 4 2020/12/02 (Wed) 15:17:56 #8592
In response to post #8587. But you are missing the point of Socionics, you may be the most academically minded, which is most suited to LII, but aren't there fifteen other types? Just because you don't understand the 'ultra specific' or more dramatic/mythical descriptions that are not suited to you (which is perfectly fine), it may not necessarily mean that more incorrect people wont misunderstand them correctly. But I do sympathise, an example of descriptions gone awry is the strannik website, the one for ELFV is just an essay about masochism. Expressing one's thoughts on the internet does definitely differ from 'real life', because first, there is no possibility of hand gestures, of any gestures, of tone, of action, of eye contact, of context, of handwriting, of the possibility to debate the very thing that you are debating through (the internet), people's writing is also naturally deprived of these things because the emotional potency of language has been lessened due to the option of using an emoji, and on the forums 'debates' are drawn out for desert-long days, miscommunication and Discord prevail, you are forced to order your thoughts in organized ways rather than allow them to be spontaneous, you do not share the surroundings of the other - who is the other? and people's relationship to the screen and experience of the screen as one source (at any time or of all time) are different. That post about 'expression' was just that I was trying to perform that 'expression' can be more complicated and diverse than just writing out 'silly' posts on the internet. The content of it doesn't really have any meaning. "Or that is has nothing to do with expression and is set aside and so as a rule no expression will follow from it?" This means that somebody properly fills out a form. And how would you know that Jacobus doesn't behave according the the rules of good form in society when on the internet there are barely any rules of good form? Or, as I said above, there is no context, I am sure that you live in Brazil and I am sure that Jacob, probably from the US, doesn't, the 'societies' are different (even though America is the World). To be detached is not a bad thing when it is right to be detached. Why would he open himself up to eternal strangers?

Editing post #8592 by Flower-like But you are missing the point of Socionics, you may be the most academically minded, which is most suited to LII, but aren't there fifteen other types? Just because you don't understand the 'ultra specific' or more dramatic/mythical descriptions that are not suited to you (which is perfectly fine), it may not necessarily mean that more incorrect people wont misunderstand them correctly. But I do sympathise, an example of descriptions gone awry is the strannik website, the one for ELFV is just an essay about masochism.<br>Expressing one's thoughts on the internet does definitely differ from 'real life', because first, there is no possibility of hand gestures, of any gestures, of tone, of action, of eye contact, of context, of handwriting, of the possibility to debate the very thing that you are debating through (the internet), people's writing is also naturally deprived of these things because the emotional potency of language has been lessened due to the option of using an emoji, and on the forums 'debates' are drawn out for desert-long days, miscommunication and Discord prevail, you are forced to order your thoughts in organized ways rather than allow them to be spontaneous, you do not share the surroundings of the other - who is the other? and people's relationship to the screen and experience of the screen as one source (at any time or of all time) are different.<br>That post about 'expression' was just that I was trying to perform that 'expression' can be more complicated and diverse than just writing out 'silly' posts on the internet. The content of it doesn't really have any meaning. "Or that is has nothing to do with expression and is set aside and so as a rule no expression will follow from it?" This means that somebody properly fills out a form.<br>And how would you know that Jacobus doesn't behave according the the rules of good form in society when on the internet there are barely any rules of good form? Or, as I said above, there is no context, I am sure that you live in Brazil and I am sure that Jacob, probably from the US, doesn't, the 'societies' are different (even though America is the World). To be detached is not a bad thing when it is right to be detached. Why would he open himself up to eternal strangers?
Replying to post #8592 by Flower-like

Flower-like INFP 4 2020/11/27 (Fri) 12:55:02 #8585
Assuming the EIE-Fe subtype, there is also this: "The ethical subtype tries to behave according to the rules of good form in society. Are internally emotional, but usually modest and constrained in their emotional expression. Sensitive and vulnerable, alone in a shower may often experience dramatic emotions, but in front of strangers they restrain themselves. Find it difficult to relax due to internal strains, wounds, and overarching ambitions; while internally suffering from a set of complexes, externally they appear proud and aloof. Usually cautious and prone to think actions through beforehand; nervous with themselves but patient and persistent they are able to achieve their goals. Exacting in enforcing that their associates observe ethical standards of behavior and prone to rashly provide remarks and advice when they see people conflict with these ethical standards. Mood varies: cold, haughty, obstinate and exacting, then soft, sincere, affable and seemingly defenseless. Movements are smooth, sometimes demonstrative, when they want they can dress effectively, yet modestly for the occasion." But I will leave this now, I don't want to blemish Jacobus's page anymore, and I hope that I haven't.

Editing post #8585 by Flower-like Assuming the EIE-Fe subtype, there is also this: "The ethical subtype tries to behave according to the rules of good form in society. Are internally emotional, but usually modest and constrained in their emotional expression. Sensitive and vulnerable, alone in a shower may often experience dramatic emotions, but in front of strangers they restrain themselves. Find it difficult to relax due to internal strains, wounds, and overarching ambitions; while internally suffering from a set of complexes, externally they appear proud and aloof. Usually cautious and prone to think actions through beforehand; nervous with themselves but patient and persistent they are able to achieve their goals. Exacting in enforcing that their associates observe ethical standards of behavior and prone to rashly provide remarks and advice when they see people conflict with these ethical standards. Mood varies: cold, haughty, obstinate and exacting, then soft, sincere, affable and seemingly defenseless. Movements are smooth, sometimes demonstrative, when they want they can dress effectively, yet modestly for the occasion."<br><br>But I will leave this now, I don't want to blemish Jacobus's page anymore, and I hope that I haven't.
Replying to post #8585 by Flower-like

Flower-like INFP 4 2020/11/27 (Fri) 09:51:43 #8584
But I have not shown that I have any Ni on this website and yet I'm still typed unanimously as IEI. My intuitions do not belong not on this website not only because the internet itself is subject to my intuition (and this is the internet) but also because typology as a subject may do also (but I am not using this to demonstrate that I am an IEI, I am pretending to be one for the purpose of this comment). Just because Jacobus doesn't show Fe on this website doesn't mean that he doesn't primarily use it, just that he saves it for other things, for how could Fe be expressed on this website as opposed to dominant Ti which always has room to be expressed? Perhaps the expression is prior to being here, that presence on this website is itself an expression and that the expression does not come afterwards? The lack of expression or communication via communication is an expression of the internet's lack of communication? Or that is has nothing to do with expression and is set aside and so as a rule no expression will follow from it? Or that expression depends upon or takes into consideration the audience but there is no way to gage what the audience is? The irony is that the people more expressive on the internet may have a lesser view of what expression is. There is also a great difference between communication and internet communication, for instance, a 2L (this is unrelated to Jacobus) may have trouble expressing his thoughts on the internet because it is closer to written communication, though not entirely, and Socrates himself did not write anything but was instead written down, his style of thinking was communicative; Socrates would suffer on the internet. This principle may apply to many other aspects of many other types and also things that have nothing to do with typology.

Editing post #8584 by Flower-like But I have not shown that I have any Ni on this website and yet I'm still typed unanimously as IEI. My intuitions do not belong not on this website not only because the internet itself is subject to my intuition (and this is the internet) but also because typology as a subject may do also (but I am not using this to demonstrate that I am an IEI, I am pretending to be one for the purpose of this comment). Just because Jacobus doesn't show Fe on this website doesn't mean that he doesn't primarily use it, just that he saves it for other things, for how could Fe be expressed on this website as opposed to dominant Ti which always has room to be expressed? Perhaps the expression is prior to being here, that presence on this website is itself an expression and that the expression does not come afterwards? The lack of expression or communication via communication is an expression of the internet's lack of communication? Or that is has nothing to do with expression and is set aside and so as a rule no expression will follow from it? Or that expression depends upon or takes into consideration the audience but there is no way to gage what the audience is? The irony is that the people more expressive on the internet may have a lesser view of what expression is.<br>There is also a great difference between communication and internet communication, for instance, a 2L (this is unrelated to Jacobus) may have trouble expressing his thoughts on the internet because it is closer to written communication, though not entirely, and Socrates himself did not write anything but was instead written down, his style of thinking was communicative; Socrates would suffer on the internet. This principle may apply to many other aspects of many other types and also things that have nothing to do with typology.
Replying to post #8584 by Flower-like

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/11/26 (Thu) 21:32:22 #8578
	Odd that you refuse to see me as INFJ given that you basically provided the argument for it yourself. Sure, Socionics and IDR functions are fundamentally different, but they still overlap in parts. You sort of recognize that the primary manner through which I view the world, at least by functions, is subjective intuition. I am never inclined to perceive things by their material/objective form primarily, but to try and look inside them (not in a literal sense, of course). I place everything in a context: I have a negative view of technological advancement because it is in opposition to moral-spiritual advancement; I have a generally positive view of monarchic and authoritarian governments because it is only by the will of a Great Teacher figure that the masses may be guided towards capital-t Truth (which itself is monadic in structure). The details fade away into the whole. You should already be able to see FeTi. In irl relations, I am empathetic and self-concealing. I concern myself with the emotional structure and atmosphere of the room; I avoid vulgarity and, if possible and desirable, I present my views in the most polite manner. When I'm sincerely angry or have contempt for someone are the exceptions, of course. There is no "reading the room" in comment sections on typology sites, so I don't feel the need to do any of that here. On a psychological level, I do not see my beliefs as being my own. Human knowledge and culture are mythical in nature (that isn't to say constructed), pointing to an ideal ur-form. Which parts of the overall mythic spirit the individual accepts or rejects is mostly due to their innate or self-created personal traits, but one's own beliefs still are not truly unique. Also: 1. I actually like tman, though I admit I rarely show it. 2. Yes, I am always right.

Editing post #8578 by Jacobus Odd that you refuse to see me as INFJ given that you basically provided the argument for it yourself. Sure, Socionics and IDR functions are fundamentally different, but they still overlap in parts. <br>You sort of recognize that the primary manner through which I view the world, at least by functions, is subjective intuition. I am never inclined to perceive things by their material/objective form primarily, but to try and look inside them (not in a literal sense, of course). I place everything in a context: I have a negative view of technological advancement because it is in opposition to moral-spiritual advancement; I have a generally positive view of monarchic and authoritarian governments because it is only by the will of a Great Teacher figure that the masses may be guided towards capital-t Truth (which itself is monadic in structure). The details fade away into the whole.<br>You should already be able to see FeTi. In irl relations, I am empathetic and self-concealing. I concern myself with the emotional structure and atmosphere of the room; I avoid vulgarity and, if possible and desirable, I present my views in the most polite manner. When I'm sincerely angry or have contempt for someone are the exceptions, of course. There is no "reading the room" in comment sections on typology sites, so I don't feel the need to do any of that here. On a psychological level, I do not see my beliefs as being my own. Human knowledge and culture are mythical in nature (that isn't to say constructed), pointing to an ideal ur-form. Which parts of the overall mythic spirit the individual accepts or rejects is mostly due to their innate or self-created personal traits, but one's own beliefs still are not truly unique.<br>Also:<br>1. I actually like tman, though I admit I rarely show it.<br>2. Yes, I am always right.
Replying to post #8578 by Jacobus

Flower-like INFP 4 2020/11/26 (Thu) 13:45:58 #8576
Yes, but my reasoning will always be torn when it comes to these scholarly things. "Auditor as if constantly monitors revisee, drawing attention to his weak spot. The impression is that the auditor constantly wants to figure out what revisee is doing and how he is doing it. Revisee often gets the impression that he is being watched all the time alike a guinea pig. However, this does not mean that the auditor always verbally points out perceived shortcomings of revisee. Revisee internally feels that the auditor can do so at any time and, therefore, initially in his presence revisee exists in a state of tension. Auditor seems like a significant person; how he acts deserves attention. Revisee wants to earn recognition of the auditor, his praise is much appreciated. However, the revisor always underestimates the revisee and perceives his thoughts and actions as insignificant, which incites resentment in the revisee. At first, revisee may be encouraged by this and want to prove his usefulness to the auditor, but all attempts are unsuccessful. The revisor seems smug and petty; he finds faults, tries to teach and re-educate the revisee. Revisee seems interesting and capable, but he is missing something and seems to require help and suggestions. However, all advice proves useless; revisee does not accept it, which further increases the desire of auditor to re-audit. Revisee seems stupid not because he is unable (which is how it actually is), but simply because it's as if he does not want to listen. This periodically causes frustration for the auditor. These relations may be called "guardianship" of auditor over the audited, which can be very annoying for the later. Sensing his vulnerability, revisee is inclined to make attempts to escape this control, especially around other people: he one-ups the auditor, tries to argue with him, gives him orders. However, such attempts are fruitless. Auditor, as a rule, does not take offense but continues with his re-education attempts. Sometimes supervision couple is very tightly knit together. This is because both people can feel their social significance: the auditor as the guardian or the benefactor, without whose care and guidance the audited would be lost, and audited - as the object of care, whose value is recognized in this way. In relations of benefit, this feeling is much less expressed, because the benefactor does not make attempts to re-educate his beneficiary."

Editing post #8576 by Flower-like Yes, but my reasoning will always be torn when it comes to these scholarly things.<br><br>"Auditor as if constantly monitors revisee, drawing attention to his weak spot. The impression is that the auditor constantly wants to figure out what revisee is doing and how he is doing it. Revisee often gets the impression that he is being watched all the time alike a guinea pig. However, this does not mean that the auditor always verbally points out perceived shortcomings of revisee. Revisee internally feels that the auditor can do so at any time and, therefore, initially in his presence revisee exists in a state of tension. Auditor seems like a significant person; how he acts deserves attention. Revisee wants to earn recognition of the auditor, his praise is much appreciated.<br><br>However, the revisor always underestimates the revisee and perceives his thoughts and actions as insignificant, which incites resentment in the revisee. At first, revisee may be encouraged by this and want to prove his usefulness to the auditor, but all attempts are unsuccessful. The revisor seems smug and petty; he finds faults, tries to teach and re-educate the revisee. Revisee seems interesting and capable, but he is missing something and seems to require help and suggestions. However, all advice proves useless; revisee does not accept it, which further increases the desire of auditor to re-audit. Revisee seems stupid not because he is unable (which is how it actually is), but simply because it's as if he does not want to listen. This periodically causes frustration for the auditor. These relations may be called "guardianship" of auditor over the audited, which can be very annoying for the later. Sensing his vulnerability, revisee is inclined to make attempts to escape this control, especially around other people: he one-ups the auditor, tries to argue with him, gives him orders. However, such attempts are fruitless. Auditor, as a rule, does not take offense but continues with his re-education attempts.<br><br>Sometimes supervision couple is very tightly knit together. This is because both people can feel their social significance: the auditor as the guardian or the benefactor, without whose care and guidance the audited would be lost, and audited - as the object of care, whose value is recognized in this way. In relations of benefit, this feeling is much less expressed, because the benefactor does not make attempts to re-educate his beneficiary."
Replying to post #8576 by Flower-like

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/11/11 (Wed) 17:09:32 #8540
	Becoming more comfortable with 4w5 as my enneagram. A lot of my psychological traits can be chalked up to a desire for an untouchable uniqueness, and Naranjo/Chestnut description of sx 4 as using elitism as compensation for envy makes sense for me. But, I have a distaste for intimacy and I'm at my most 4ish when unhealthy which still seems a bit incongruous. The fact of the matter is that I'm not sure of the exact psychological origin for my way of thinking and behaving, so this is all something that's observed rather than intimately felt. If it changes again, whatever. I guess I can illustrate some things clearer by saying that the two famous figures I relate to the most are Yukio Mishima and Maximilien Robespierre. They were rather different in a lot of ways, but both showed the desire to conform to a personal ideal and to remake the world around them into something more beautiful and pure.

Editing post #8540 by Jacobus Becoming more comfortable with 4w5 as my enneagram. A lot of my psychological traits can be chalked up to a desire for an untouchable uniqueness, and Naranjo/Chestnut description of sx 4 as using elitism as compensation for envy makes sense for me. But, I have a distaste for intimacy and I'm at my most 4ish when unhealthy which still seems a bit incongruous. The fact of the matter is that I'm not sure of the exact psychological origin for my way of thinking and behaving, so this is all something that's observed rather than intimately felt. If it changes again, whatever.<br><br>I guess I can illustrate some things clearer by saying that the two famous figures I relate to the most are Yukio Mishima and Maximilien Robespierre. They were rather different in a lot of ways, but both showed the desire to conform to a personal ideal and to remake the world around them into something more beautiful and pure.
Replying to post #8540 by Jacobus

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2020/08/17 (Mon) 13:16:20 #8444
	I don't think this is actually a 5 thing. 5s tend to have the problem of being to much in there own heads. If anything, viewing yourself as an outside observer is a 9 thing, particularity 9w1. Jacobus fits a type 6 or 7 description much more then she does a type 5. She not only has a fierce loyalism to a particular tradition (Christian/Buddhist Gnosticism), but she also overwhelmingly opposes anything she views as in opposition to that tradition (Check out her comments on Paganism and Transhumanism.) Of course, to an extent, this to be expected. Everybody has ideas they don't like, and many people have a religious tradition. But Jacobus tends to take it farther then I think most people would, in a very 6ish manner. As for type 7, Jacobus tends to have a lot of goals, I think she wanted to be a writer, a philosopher, a director, an actor, ext. Then when she was asked how she wanted to accomplish these goals, she said, and I quote, "you focus to much on the details." Nuf said there. I'm sorry so much of this seems kinda like heavy handed criticism, Ennegram is mostly based in flaws, so that's what I've had to focus on.

Editing post #8444 by Tman I don't think this is actually a 5 thing. 5s tend to have the problem of being to much in there own heads. If anything, viewing yourself as an outside observer is a 9 thing, particularity 9w1. Jacobus fits a type 6 or 7 description much more then she does a type 5. She not only has a fierce loyalism to a particular tradition (Christian/Buddhist Gnosticism), but she also overwhelmingly opposes anything she views as in opposition to that tradition (Check out her comments on Paganism and Transhumanism.) Of course, to an extent, this to be expected. Everybody has ideas they don't like, and many people have a religious tradition. But Jacobus tends to take it farther then I think most people would, in a very 6ish manner. As for type 7, Jacobus tends to have a lot of goals, I think she wanted to be a writer, a philosopher, a director, an actor, ext. Then when she was asked how she wanted to accomplish these goals, she said, and I quote, "you focus to much on the details." Nuf said there. I'm sorry so much of this seems kinda like heavy handed criticism, Ennegram is mostly based in flaws, so that's what I've had to focus on.
Replying to post #8444 by Tman

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/08/12 (Wed) 23:26:42 #8438
	In response to post #8436. I'm aware of how it sounds 4ish to a degree, very 4ish 1s aren't impossible (and vice-versa). I should clarify that the true self/ideal self distinction is more a realization that's the result of reflection rather than a constantly present tension or the like. I've never consciously felt a sense of brokenness or inadequacy, and really I'm not sure where one side ends and the other begins. Also, I've never really had a stressful life. My mother could have been around more and my father (and various guardian figures) could have been less critical of me when I was a kid, but so far I've had a rather boring life and I'm unhappy about that. Part of the problem is that I've always felt the need to dream about living other lives to escape to escape mundane reality. To make my dreams into reality, no matter what, is essentially my life-long goal.

Editing post #8438 by Jacobus I'm aware of how it sounds 4ish to a degree, very 4ish 1s aren't impossible (and vice-versa). I should clarify that the true self/ideal self distinction is more a realization that's the result of reflection rather than a constantly present tension or the like. I've never consciously felt a sense of brokenness or inadequacy, and really I'm not sure where one side ends and the other begins.<br>Also, I've never really had a stressful life. My mother could have been around more and my father (and various guardian figures) could have been less critical of me when I was a kid, but so far I've had a rather boring life and I'm unhappy about that. Part of the problem is that I've always felt the need to dream about living other lives to escape to escape mundane reality. To make my dreams into reality, no matter what, is essentially my life-long goal.
Replying to post #8438 by Jacobus

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2020/08/12 (Wed) 19:01:31 #8436
	In response to post #8435. The way you describe this sounds kind of 4ish. You describe yourself as feeling unable to live up to a standard which relates to the fours sense of brokeness, and especially the fact you feel the need to hide your "true self." However, it's important to keep in mind the the 4 is the 1s designation/stress point, and so it could just be due to long term problems in your life. Also, the fact that living up to an ideal is more important than finding your "true self" is very much more a 1 thing rather than a 4 thing. All of this fits with what I've observed of you, although I think you do have more of the fours desire to be special then you claim in this post.

Editing post #8436 by Tman The way you describe this sounds kind of 4ish. You describe yourself as feeling unable to live up to a standard which relates to the fours sense of brokeness, and especially the fact you feel the need to hide your "true self." However, it's important to keep in mind the the 4 is the 1s designation/stress point, and so it could just be due to long term problems in your life. Also, the fact that living up to an ideal is more important than finding your "true self" is very much more a 1 thing rather than a 4 thing. All of this fits with what I've observed of you, although I think you do have more of the fours desire to be special then you claim in this post.
Replying to post #8436 by Tman

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/08/12 (Wed) 17:54:01 #8435
	The reason I type myself as 1w9 (and EIE) right now is because I've always had a sort of Galahad complex where I need to fit a personal ideal of perfection and purity. It's not to the extent that I have some sort of moral OCPD, but it is partly why I've found it difficult to establish close relationships with others and why I'm basically celibate. Another symptom is the feeling that my "true self" (a rather vague thing anyway) doesn't matter as much as being this ideal, so I must mask my perceived weaknesses whenever necessary. In a way, I'm an outside observer of my own self.

Editing post #8435 by Jacobus The reason I type myself as 1w9 (and EIE) right now is because I've always had a sort of Galahad complex where I need to fit a personal ideal of perfection and purity. It's not to the extent that I have some sort of moral OCPD, but it is partly why I've found it difficult to establish close relationships with others and why I'm basically celibate. Another symptom is the feeling that my "true self" (a rather vague thing anyway) doesn't matter as much as being this ideal, so I must mask my perceived weaknesses whenever necessary. In a way, I'm an outside observer of my own self.<br>
Replying to post #8435 by Jacobus

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/03/30 (Mon) 16:53:36 #7829
	I've never liked the idea of living in one place and working one job for the rest of my life. Too much stability becomes monotony, which is dangerous. I'd rather be a whaler, or a Foreign Legionnaire, or a missionary; anything in which I am free to cut all ties to the past. There's something heroic about exile, drifting from place to place without hope or desire to create any lasting connections. Greatness is a measure of how much a person is willing to sacrifice. Alexander was as much aware as anyone that his insatiable quest for an abstract glory would doom both him and his empire. Like Achilles, he fought on, knowing that future generations would love him for his madness.

Editing post #7829 by Jacobus <p>I've never liked the idea of living in one place and working one job for the rest of my life. Too much stability becomes monotony, which is dangerous. I'd rather be a whaler, or a Foreign Legionnaire, or a missionary; anything in which I am free to cut all ties to the past. There's something heroic about exile, drifting from place to place without hope or desire to create any lasting connections. Greatness is a measure of how much a person is willing to sacrifice.</p> <p>Alexander was as much aware as anyone that his insatiable quest for an abstract glory would doom both him and his empire. Like Achilles, he fought on, knowing that future generations would love him for his madness.</p>
Replying to post #7829 by Jacobus

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/10/23 (Wed) 18:25:37 #7294
	I'll also reiterate myself by saying that I only use this site to pass spare time, and that you (and fg, now) are reading things into my posts. I have always been, and will continue to be, perplexed at how I have been misinterpreted and made to seem what I am not. I can be dramatic, yes. I have always been the type to be quick to anger or to fall into a sudden change of emotion. This is not one of those times, however. This whole thing is just too insignificant for me to put much effort into it, despite my urge to defend myself from these insults in some manner. I have never intentionally been dishonest or acted as something that I am not. My self-typings remain mostly firm, though it is not impossible that I may change in my view of myself in the future. If the both of you feel the need to become combatitive over an imagined system of personality, very well. This will not help to deflect the image you have created for me, but I find that the feeling of you two on my back would be a tad too much of a nuisance for me. I sincerely apologize if I harmed any of you in some manner. It's not improbable that I will return, even return soon, but for now, adieu.

Editing post #7294 by Jacobus <p>I'll also reiterate myself by saying that I only use this site to pass spare time, and that you (and fg, now) are reading things into my posts. I have always been, and will continue to be, perplexed at how I have been misinterpreted and made to seem what I am not. I can be dramatic, yes. I have always been the type to be quick to anger or to fall into a sudden change of emotion. This is not one of those times, however. This whole thing is just too insignificant for me to put much effort into it, despite my urge to defend myself from these insults in some manner. I have never intentionally been dishonest or acted as something that I am not. My self-typings remain mostly firm, though it is not impossible that I may change in my view of myself in the future.</p> <p>If the both of you feel the need to become combatitive over an imagined system of personality, very well. This will not help to deflect the image you have created for me, but I find that the feeling of you two on my back would be a tad too much of a nuisance for me. I sincerely apologize if I harmed any of you in some manner. It's not improbable that I will return, even return soon, but for now, adieu.</p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #7294 by Jacobus

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/10/23 (Wed) 16:34:58 #7292
	stop the act. this pseudo-sympathetic bullshit with an insidious attack on your opponents judgmental ability rather than making an argument is a proof of a lack of intellectual honesty. the 'i don't take it seriously" does not make sense with your attitude of drama queen. The sincerity of "take a joke" is unprobable if we use induction, you never was a kind of troll (like teru used to be), or never close enough of phsc for doing an amical joke with him, the most probable reason behind it is a tentative of trade of compleasant typing . that attitude is disgusting, rather than opposite with strengh or diplomacy, you try a cunning method of pathologisation of your opponents and hidden corruption masked by a fake sympathy. Pathetic.

Editing post #7292 by fg <p>stop the act. this pseudo-sympathetic bullshit with an insidious attack on your opponents judgmental ability rather than making an argument is a proof of a lack of intellectual honesty. the 'i don't take it seriously" does not make sense with your attitude of drama queen. The sincerity of "take a joke" is unprobable if we use induction, you never was a kind of troll (like teru used to be), or never close enough of phsc for doing an amical joke with him, the most probable reason behind it is a tentative of trade of compleasant typing . that attitude is disgusting, rather than opposite with strengh or diplomacy, you try a cunning method of pathologisation of your opponents and hidden corruption masked by a fake sympathy. Pathetic.</p>
Replying to post #7292 by fg

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/10/23 (Wed) 16:00:33 #7290
	Phsc, I don't think you're mad, but you don't understand me. That's fine, because being misunderstood is not necessarily a bad thing, although it does defeat the purpose of this page a bit. I'm not sure as to how you extrapolated this supposed information about me from my posts. You have mentioned before, I believe, that you are lacking somewhat in social and emotional awareness. If you still see this quality in yourself, then I believe that is the reason that you read certain personality traits into my posts where there are none. Quite frankly, you seem to take this site and this community much more seriously than I do. I simply don't feel the need to explain myself exactly, or to be perfectly clear, or to bother myself with the affairs of online strangers. My posts (on here, on discord, wherever) can be ironic, and personality is something too amorphic for me to waste time attempting to find an air-tight reasoning for everything. Every typing on here is primarily impressionistic, for long-dead historical figures that's even more so. There's never a need to become angry or argumentative over personality types. And I know that you aren't ISTP. Take a joke.

Editing post #7290 by Jacobus <p>Phsc, I don't think you're mad, but you don't understand me. That's fine, because being misunderstood is not necessarily a bad thing, although it does defeat the purpose of this page a bit.</p> <p>I'm not sure as to how you extrapolated this supposed information about me from my posts. You have mentioned before, I believe, that you are lacking somewhat in social and emotional awareness. If you still see this quality in yourself, then I believe that is the reason that you read certain personality traits into my posts where there are none. Quite frankly, you seem to take this site and this community much more seriously than I do. I simply don't feel the need to explain myself exactly, or to be perfectly clear, or to bother myself with the affairs of online strangers. My posts (on here, on discord, wherever) can be ironic, and personality is something too amorphic for me to waste time attempting to find an air-tight reasoning for everything. Every typing on here is primarily impressionistic, for long-dead historical figures that's even more so. There's never a need to become angry or argumentative over personality types.</p> <p>And I know that you aren't ISTP. Take a joke.</p>
Replying to post #7290 by Jacobus

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/10/16 (Wed) 03:19:25 #7246
	I don't believe I'm ELVF. I have no nervousness or insecurity. I value the emotions highly, particularly compassion and empathy, but I do not believe they should be given free rein, which can lead to cowardliness or effeminacy. It's difficult to explain why I believe I have 1st Will without sounding arrogant. Frankly, I have always felt that I deserve fame and prestige, so I am constantly seeking to ensure that I deserve fame and prestige.

Editing post #7246 by Jacobus <p>I don't believe I'm ELVF. I have no nervousness or insecurity. I value the emotions highly, particularly compassion and empathy, but I do not believe they should be given free rein, which can lead to cowardliness or effeminacy.</p> <p>It's difficult to explain why I believe I have 1st Will without sounding arrogant. Frankly, I have always felt that I deserve fame and prestige, so I am constantly seeking to ensure that I deserve fame and prestige.</p>
Replying to post #7246 by Jacobus

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/02/07 (Thu) 21:11:22 #5197
	Hi, I'm Jacobus. I don't work; I have a mother complex; I have some mood disorder that I can't quite pin down but wouldn't get treated anyway; I want to be a writer, actor, director, musician, philosopher, political theorist, and painter all at once; I've been trying to give myself visions; and I want to die before 30, or at least 40, depending on how much I get accomplished.

Editing post #5197 by Jacobus <p>Hi, I'm Jacobus. I don't work; I have a mother complex; I have some mood disorder that I can't quite pin down but wouldn't get treated anyway; I want to be a writer, actor, director, musician, philosopher, political theorist, and painter all at once; I've been trying to give myself visions; and I want to die before 30, or at least 40, depending on how much I get accomplished.</p>
Replying to post #5197 by Jacobus

date	username	vote
20/11/26 15:17	Flower-like	INFJ
20/05/01 18:05	fleetingpetals1	INFP
20/02/13 15:13	Thyssen	INFJ
20/01/08 23:12	Tch	INF
20/01/28 02:20	Jacobus	INFJ
21/01/02 20:47	Tman	INFJ
19/05/30 10:38	fg	INFJ
19/05/06 21:31	Teru Mikami	INTJ
19/02/08 16:02	Taco110	INFJ
20/11/19 23:25	LadyX	INFJ

date	username	vote
25/08/07 20:57	nicotineseries	INFP
25/08/07 13:47	Woll Smoth	INFP
20/06/10 11:23	Flower-like	INFJ
20/04/20 01:08	fleetingpetals1	INFJ
19/11/25 20:30	Tman	INFJ
19/10/23 18:26	Jacobus	INFJ

date	username	vote
25/08/25 07:40	nicotineseries	4w5
19/11/25 22:00	Thyssen	4wb
20/11/20 01:18	Jacobus	4w5
20/08/12 16:26	Tman	4wb
19/10/16 04:42	fg	4w3
19/02/09 03:08	Phantom	4w5
19/02/08 16:02	Taco110	4w5
19/05/06 21:31	Teru Mikami	1w9
20/11/19 23:25	LadyX	4w5

date	username	vote
20/08/16 23:47	LadyX	sx/sp
20/08/12 16:26	Tman	sx/sp
19/11/25 22:00	Thyssen	sx/sp

date	username	vote
20/11/20 01:20	Jacobus	416
20/11/19 23:25	LadyX	451
20/05/02 14:55	Tman	416
19/11/14 22:52	Thyssen	461

date	username	vote
25/08/25 07:40	nicotineseries	EIE
25/08/07 13:47	Woll Smoth	EIE
20/10/19 02:07	Flower-like	EIE
20/03/30 15:31	fleetingpetals1	IEI
20/02/16 17:35	Thyssen	IEI
20/11/15 15:45	Tman	EIE
19/10/23 18:26	Jacobus	EIE
19/10/16 03:21	Diobono	IEI
19/05/23 05:57	fg	EII

date	username	vote
25/08/25 07:40	nicotineseries	VELF
20/07/27 04:57	Flower-like	VELF
20/05/29 01:58	fleetingpetals1	EVLF
20/07/02 17:51	Tman	ELVF
19/10/24 11:12	fg	EFVL
19/10/18 00:02	LadyX	VELF
19/10/15 23:03	Thyssen	ELVF
19/10/15 20:07	Jacobus	VELF

date	username	vote
19/10/18 00:02	LadyX	HEXACO