New and Awesome Socionics Test

[Jeremy8419]

Exactly what "context on the subject matter" is incorrect? And just how do you see my response to taking your suggested test? More assumptions.

Your reasoning is here is circular. You have set up a set of false equivalences under which you and only you can be correct. You and only you can know what everyone else here knows and thinks - better than they do themselves. If anyone disagrees with you, you question their type and/or call them ignorant. It is noteworthy that I have never seen you admit to being wrong.

Moreover I was discussing gender, which applies both within and without the context of socionics, or any personality typing system for that matter. As someone already observed, we are what we are. All these systems don't change anything, they are simply our attempts to try to make sense of it in a way that is helpful.

You're better served going look into things related to biology and sex to see why you aren't classifying sex, than looking into personality theories, as it is something very, and precisely, concrete.

 

[Coriolis]

You're better served going look into things related to biology and sex to see why you aren't classifying sex, than looking into personality theories, as it is something very, and precisely, concrete.

Again, you seem to be assuming: (1) I have not done so; and (2) I am looking for something "very, and precisely, concrete". You cannot know what will best serve me unless you know my purpose.

Plus you have not addressed my other questions.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Again, you seem to be assuming I have not done so. Plus you have not addressed my other questions.

Don't have a reason to read or reply to the other questions, because they offer you nothing of value. Many people display stances on sex one way or another, but someone agreeing with your stances about sex does not mean that they are not processing sex in ways that are within the norms of society; it just means that they have a personal reason for displaying such stances. You, however, are simply outright not processing sex, through no fault of your own nor lack of effort, nor lack of intelligence, nor anything of the sort. You simply are very specifically not able to process sex. You are either aware of such and are attempting to utilize personality theories to learn such, which is not possible, since you would have already done so by your own volition long ago, or you are not aware of such. There are no means to "fix" this, nor will there ever be such, as it is part of your individuality. However, there are ways to guard yourself against having such exploited in ways that prevent negative outcomes for yourself throughout life. If you are aware of such, then I recommend abandoning personality theory, which is nothing more than an endless rabbit hole of rationalization, and see about taking some courses on effective management of such on a day to day basis.

 

[Coriolis]

Don't have a reason to read or reply to the other questions, because they offer you nothing of value. Many people display stances on sex one way or another, but someone agreeing with your stances about sex does not mean that they are not processing sex in ways that are within the norms of society; it just means that they have a personal reason for displaying such stances. You, however, are simply outright not processing sex, through no fault of your own nor lack of effort, nor lack of intelligence, nor anything of the sort. You simply are very specifically not able to process sex. You are either aware of such and are attempting to utilize personality theories to learn such, which is not possible, since you would have already done so by your own volition long ago, or you are not aware of such. There are no means to "fix" this, nor will there ever be such, as it is part of your individuality. However, there are ways to guard yourself against having such exploited in ways that prevent negative outcomes for yourself throughout life. If you are aware of such, then I recommend abandoning personality theory, which is nothing more than an endless rabbit hole of rationalization, and see about taking some courses on effective management of such on a day to day basis.

It is not for you to determine what is of value to me. You are under no obligation to answer my questions, of course, but if you decline it is for your own reasons. The questions you ignored are: "Exactly what "context on the subject matter" is incorrect? And just how do you see my response to taking your suggested test?" Am I to assume you think this all boils down to sex, too? That would be consistent with the value you place on it in the context of personality systems, though no more correct.

The highlighted is another baseless assumption, rendering all that follows irrelevant.

 

[Jeremy8419]

It is not for you to determine what is of value to me. You are under no obligation to answer my questions, of course, but if you decline it is for your own reasons. The questions you ignored are: "Exactly what "context on the subject matter" is incorrect? And just how do you see my response to taking your suggested test?" Am I to assume you think this all boils down to sex, too? That would be consistent with the value you place on it in the context of personality systems, though no more correct.

The highlighted is another baseless assumption, rendering all that follows irrelevant.

You're rationalizing. Rationalization is by definition a defense mechanism. Spending hours on end each day rationalizing is spending hours on end each day placing yourself into a self-defense mindset, which is very unhealthy. It is no different than an abuse victim trying to overcome their trauma by recreating their previous abuse over and over. It's not healthy, and I don't like knowing that it's happening to you. The opposite of defense of fear is reaching out for help, and help is always there when you're willing to accept it.

 

[Coriolis]

You're rationalizing. Rationalization is by definition a defense mechanism. Spending hours on end each day rationalizing is spending hours on end each day placing yourself into a self-defense mindset, which is very unhealthy. It is no different than an abuse victim trying to overcome their trauma by recreating their previous abuse over and over. It's not healthy, and I don't like knowing that it's happening to you. The opposite of defense of fear is reaching out for help, and help is always there when you're willing to accept it.

Once again, assumptions (perhaps some projection?) with no explanation. You seem to have some need that is fulfilled by pretending to understand everyone here and what you think are their problems. Yes, this would be an assumption on my part if I stated it categorically as you have been doing. It is hard to imagine someone posting as much as you post here, though, without gaining some personal benefit from it.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Once again, assumptions (perhaps some projection?) with no explanation. You seem to have some need that is fulfilled by pretending to understand everyone here and what you think are their problems. Yes, this would be an assumption on my part if I stated it categorically as you have been doing. It is hard to imagine someone posting as much as you post here, though, without gaining some personal benefit from it.

Still rationalizing.

 

[Coriolis]

Still rationalizing.

Sorry - your saying it doesn't make it so. I could say "still projecting", but I prefer not to make accusations when I know there are other possible explanations for your behavior.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Sorry - your saying it doesn't make it so. I could say "still projecting", but I prefer not to make accusations when I know there are other possible explanations for your behavior.

It doesn't qualify as projection, but you saying someone is projecting does qualify as rationalizing.

 

[Yama]

Problem with going by Functions, or really anything that is known, is that the observer may want to be a Function, and subjectively bend what is know into something which suits their desires.

And what's stopping people from "wanting to be a dichotomy"... and doing the exact same thing...?

 

[Jeremy8419]

And what's stopping people from "wanting to be a dichotomy"... and doing the exact same thing...?

They do that as well, if they are aware of them.

Edit: Correction, they can do that as well, if they are aware of them. Some types will specifically do such once made aware of what it entails, due to perceiving one as stature and those types valuing stature.

 

[Yama]

They do that as well, if they are aware of them.

In that case, how could dichotomy tests be better than function tests or vice versa?

In either case, this test in the OP got me wrong. I got EII which is extremely weird and the first time I've ever gotten a non-Fe result. Close though, since delta's my second strongest quadrant.

 

[Jeremy8419]

In that case, how could dichotomy tests be better than function tests or vice versa?

In either case, this test in the OP got me wrong. I got EII which is extremely weird and the first time I've ever gotten a non-Fe result. Close though, since delta's my second strongest quadrant.

Errr... I edited my post prior to you replying. Don't think it affects much about your response, but just a heads up.

We'll, I was referencing a test I gave (not the original one of the thread) which had three dichotomies to it, but was not directly read as a Socionics Dichotomy test, as it utilizes philosophical terms instead, which can be translated directly to Socionics if one has the knowledge of the appropriate dichotomies. There is some good information on Reinin Dichotomies out there, but the information on them readily available to English speakers is what I would consider borderline negligent, as they give contrary results on occasion to the actual information. Also, people have built up less bias on Reinin Dichotomies than the information elements (mbti version of functions) due to individual's history with MBTI.

 

[Coriolis]

It doesn't qualify as projection, but you saying someone is projecting does qualify as rationalizing.

Actually, here it is speculating. But I'm off to bed now. You can run free with your illusions, unhampered by reality checks from me. Good night.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Actually, here it is speculating. But I'm off to bed now. You can run free with your illusions, unhampered by reality checks from me. Good night.

I really don't think you get the concept of rationalization.

 

[Coriolis]

I really don't think you get the concept of rationalization.

I really don't see why you persist in trying to make this thread personal, about me, rather than discussing the actual thread topic. My disagreeing with generalized ideas you have presented does not consitute an invitation to make unfounded assumptions about me and then follow them to unsupported conclusion. I am still waiting for a decent critique of my actual statements on the subject. Perhaps all the personalizing is just a smokescreen because you are unable to provide one.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I really don't see why you persist in trying to make this thread personal, about me, rather than discussing the actual thread topic. My disagreeing with generalized ideas you have presented does not consitute an invitation to make unfounded assumptions about me and then follow them to unsupported conclusion. I am still waiting for a decent critique of my actual statements on the subject. Perhaps all the personalizing is just a smokescreen because you are unable to provide one.

Well, you outlawed the evidence, so...

 

[Coriolis]

Well, you outlawed the evidence, so...

What evidence? The merits of a theory or explanation are independent of the person asking to hear them. There is nothing about my personal background that you require in order to support your assertions. This is just a cop-out.

(Actually, I only "outlawed" baseless assumptions, but that hasn't stopped you from making those.)

 

[Jeremy8419]

What evidence? The merits of a theory or explanation are independent of the person asking to hear them. There is nothing about my personal background that you require in order to support your assertions. This is just a cop-out.

(Actually, I only "outlawed" baseless assumptions, but that hasn't stopped you from making those.)

Baseless? You have speaking patterns lol.

You outlawed what everyone in normal society would say when you talk about such. You living in a bubble? You found yourself a place in which you can remove everyone from your bubble that talks about the existence of your bubble.

 

[Coriolis]

Baseless? You have speaking patterns lol.

You outlawed what everyone in normal society would say when you talk about such. You living in a bubble? You found yourself a place in which you can remove everyone from your bubble that talks about the existence of your bubble.

Once again, you are making it about me. It isn't. If your ideas cannot stand on their own merits, then they cannot stand.

This discussion may be productive for you in stroking your ego somehow, but I have better things to do. You seem to think you have won something when people decide interacting with you is a waste of time, so feel free to credit yourself with another "victory". It's harmless enough.