Sign up for a Typing (Faustian Bargain included.)

[Dr Mobius]

I'd sooner consider myself a disintegrated 5 before a core 6, and frankly, I am always shocked when people completely overlook the fact that I struggle to communicate certain things and opt for symbolic representations instead. Many times, even the things I say that seem straightforward are actually being used to represent two things at the same time, which serves to privately please me in that I know most people won't even catch it.

But okay, thanks I guess.

I was under no illusion that my thoughts would be met any other way . E5; really your view on information is the inverse of e5s. I view you as a hidden typologist; frequently lamenting the lack of knowledge and skill of others, while commenting on your own breadth and depth of knowledge. Yet rarely do you display it; the implications of which are interesting. It implies a power relationship to knowledge. A hierarchal approach where to hand it away would diminish your value. It’s the inverse of e5s for which knowledge is safety; if they feel welcome enough the knowledge will always be freely given.

Interesting do you mean symbolism or personal meaning? I define symbolism as tethering concepts to something smaller for efficiencies sake; there is a reason physics has raided the Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Sanskrit alphabets it is incredibly useful. They work on universal understanding if you and you alone are only one to understand then I define that as imbued personal meaning. I would not consider it reasonable to expect people to pick up on that.

Wait are you talking about when you merge the thoughts from an original thread (your participation optional.) in with the second thread that you are posting in? Because that is obvious; there is just no way to address it without starting a fight. I doubt you mean that as it as subtle as a sledge hammer to the face.

If you want you could sent me an example I’ll parse it for any meaning I can extract and you can show me what I’ve missed?

Good job seeing past my false self-pres veneer. I actually think there is even less of it in reality. Would be interested to you hear your brief take on the difference between the two Sx types, if you are not too busy with all this.

Entropy and enthalpy; the natural state of sx is connection. Work is required to combat it; an energy balance that needs to be maintained. Connections versus almost connections. The repressed sx has the same need, but also a need to fight it. And it slips every once and a while; almost connections.

 

[Galena]

Entropy and enthalpy; the natural state of sx is connection. Work is required to combat it; an energy balance that needs to be maintained. Connections versus almost connections. The repressed sx has the same need, but also a need to fight it. And it slips every once and a while; almost connections.

*burned*

The two Sx types I actually meant there were Sx/Sp and Sx/So - sorry I didn't state that clearly, but also thanks for this!

 

[Peter Deadpan]

@Dr. Mobius - It seems to me that you haven't read many of my posts of substance. I've already had conversations with others about my relationship with knowledge/intellectualism or what have you, and I just don't really have the energy or time to repeat these efforts, nor am I good at even remembering where they are to link to.

As for symbolism, perhaps metaphor is a better word choice, but one thing that irritates me in these typing arguments is semantics. Just because you (representing anyone, not just you) interpret something I (or anyone) say doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

I do enjoy intellectualism and the sharing of knowledge amongst people who are as interested/invested into a subject as I am, but that is rare, even (and especially) here. I find most people's "research" into typology here is laughable, even though they mean well. It's not that I'm laughing *at* them for their lack of understanding, but it does become laughable when they start spouting definitives with little evidence of actual substance. And personally, I loathe when people type others affirmatively because it shows:
1. An intellectual arrogance which may or may not spill over into narcissism (in a few individuals).
2. A lack of openness to new information: You already have your mind made up. This is the antithesis to an actual intellectual.

I'm not trying to be an intellectual snob, but I am without a sliver of doubt positive that I've put more time into researching and understanding typology than at least 90% of members here. I hold metrics of personality typing to a higher standard than most because I'd like it to gain traction as a science eventually. That's quite a distant goal but there are people who are attempting to get there, and that specific approach hasn't gained enough of a following for it to be something to even discuss with others here. That does not mean I am not satisfying my need for intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

I do appreciate that you have actually attempted to open up a dialogue about my type to some extent as I think that is an approach that few take, but one that would result in greater distance traveled. I suppose I could PM you links to posts that better represent me, but I think it's a healthier goal for me to stop feeling like I need to prove an identity to others.

As a final note essentially for the purposes of full disclosure, I am well aware that I sort of have 2 sides to me and that what shines more brightly is my playful and defensive side, but it's extremely important to note that internal motivators aren't necessarily easily identifiable from the outside, especially in countertypes. I have, however, shown plenty of my pained darker side here and if you close your eyes and cover your ears, you might be able to smell the shame I try to mask with perfume.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think I'll start a thread on this sometime, but here:

"The shameful person fears being found out or exposed for their deep feelings towards oneself, although this tends to be an invalid thought process.

Guilt is defined as a deep feeling of remorse for an act which may or may not have occurred in the past. Therefore, guilt becomes a past experience which is renewed in the present moment."

Core shame (in Sp mode) is basically living with a voice in your head which repeats "I'm a terrible person, everyone can see that I'm fucked up, I must hide this".
Sx 4 will just compete to be the best, thereby "winning" by transferring the shame to another (because they can view the other as lower and thus more shameful).
So 4 marinates in the shame because it gets them the recognition they desire. It's like a twisted stroking of the ego, but it's done while crying. This keeps them at the inferior level thus proving their defectiveness.

It's ridiculously easy to hide authentic shame behind jokes about how awful oneself is. It almost becomes not real (from the outside) because people just laugh it off, but it becomes a hidden act of self-abuse. Sp 4s endure a lot of silent suffering, but they don't really want people to know and they loathe pity and reject the elitist nature of 4s. That's why you'll hear them complain a little but have it be non-dramatic in tone and usually followed with something like "but it's okay". In reality, they crave being seen-through by a special other and fully accepted with all their flaws so that they can feel okay.

 

[Sacrophagus]

@Dr. Mobius - It seems to me that you haven't read many of my posts of substance. I've already had conversations with others about my relationship with knowledge/intellectualism or what have you, and I just don't really have the energy or time to repeat these efforts, nor am I good at even remembering where they are to link to.

As for symbolism, perhaps metaphor is a better word choice, but one thing that irritates me in these typing arguments is semantics. Just because you (representing anyone, not just you) interpret something I (or anyone) say doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

I do enjoy intellectualism and the sharing of knowledge amongst people who are as interested/invested into a subject as I am, but that is rare, even (and especially) here. I find most people's "research" into typology here is laughable, even though they mean well. It's not that I'm laughing *at* them for their lack of understanding, but it does become laughable when they start spouting definitives with little evidence of actual substance. And personally, I loathe when people type others affirmatively because it shows:
1. An intellectual arrogance which may or may not spill over into narcissism (in a few individuals).
2. A lack of openness to new information: You already have your mind made up. This is the antithesis to an actual intellectual.

I'm not trying to be an intellectual snob, but I am without a sliver of doubt positive that I've put more time into researching and understanding typology than at least 90% of members here. I hold metrics of personality typing to a higher standard than most because I'd like it to gain traction as a science eventually. That's quite a distant goal but there are people who are attempting to get there, and that specific approach hasn't gained enough of a following for it to be something to even discuss with others here. That does not mean I am not satisfying my need for intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

I do appreciate that you have actually attempted to open up a dialogue about my type to some extent as I think that is an approach that few take, but one that would result in greater distance traveled. I suppose I could PM you links to posts that better represent me, but I think it's a healthier goal for me to stop feeling like I need to prove an identity to others.

As a final note essentially for the purposes of full disclosure, I am well aware that I sort of have 2 sides to me and that what shines more brightly is my playful and defensive side, but it's extremely important to note that internal motivators aren't necessarily easily identifiable from the outside, especially in countertypes. I have, however, shown plenty of my pained darker side here and if you close your eyes and cover your ears, you might be able to smell the shame I try to mask with perfume.

*tilts his head*


We are the people of hidden humility and equanimous sagacity. We care not about being seen. We see us. We seek what's within us. Our tranquil profundity continuously expanding, and the more it is revealed, the more the orotund of our crashing waves is humbled, growing calmer, wiser.

Knowledge we have and we have not. We care not about standing amidst the crowd and shout the alphabet we learned in the morning. We care not about meddling in every discussion of subjects we master to prove we are its masters. One might speak of feats we have accomplished, not knowing we are the hero of their story, and still, we won't feel compelled to tell them we are. We will listen, smile and nod our heads. We do not wait for the world to echo our existence. If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

We choose to act like fools, we choose to speak highfalutin distancing idioms that cannot be encrypted only by those who are meant to, we share our knowledge with those we see fit in the time we see fit, we do what we want and we do not care.

Shedding the light through a special prism that will unveil all hidden meanings, that, we know, is not held by everyone, and in rejoice we celebrate.

In our prime, we are people who have nothing to prove. We know ourselves.
Those who will know us, have known us in themselves.


May who have the acumen understand.


*grabs her hand*
*makes her sit besides him*

People are crazy motherfuckers.

 

[Dr Mobius]

*burned*

The two Sx types I actually meant there were Sx/Sp and Sx/So - sorry I didn't state that clearly, but also thanks for this!

My definition of sx/sp is the standard hot/cold on again off again dynamic. It’s consistent enough that I don’t feel the need to play with it.
Sx/so I consider the ultimate adjusters . They habitually connect; then spend a significant amount of time almost rewriting that connection. The development is always interesting to watch.

@Dr. Mobius - It seems to me that you haven't read many of my posts of substance.

I have I wouldn’t have stepped into the landmine of typing you otherwise. Some people you can use their lighter posts because they dress up larger concerns. Your unsubstantial posts tend to be a little bit caustic self-depreciating and dark in general; not necessarily that useful for typing.

As for symbolism, perhaps metaphor is a better word choice, but one thing that irritates me in these typing arguments is semantics. Just because you (representing anyone, not just you) interpret something I (or anyone) say doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

Normally I would agree; but its less about being pedantic and more about common lexicon. If you use words in an unusual manner it leads to communication breakdown and confusion. It’s more equivalent to users whose primary language isn’t English and the breakdowns they suffer.

I'm not trying to be an intellectual snob, but I am without a sliver of doubt positive that I've put more time into researching and understanding typology than at least 90% of members here. I hold metrics of personality typing to a higher standard than most because I'd like it to gain traction as a science eventually. That's quite a distant goal but there are people who are attempting to get there, and that specific approach hasn't gained enough of a following for it to be something to even discuss with others here. That does not mean I am not satisfying my need for intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

Which is fine; its less to do with your actions and more to do with attitude and thought processes that spawned them. You have made a judgement call on the worth of your knowledge. Using that as a metric evaluated the knowledge worth of those around you. Using that as a cost/benefit analysis; which again is perfectly reasonable. But it is the antithesis of e5; they value understanding. Knowledge is the vehicle that gets them there; but not the end goal. The goal being having great enough understanding that nothing can ever get them. It’s why we have that rambling professor image of them.

I assume you’re talking about Objective Personality being the scientific approach? As someone who has seen many iterations of the same concept; objective truth, scientific method and always phrenology. Be careful at some point there will be a schism in the leadership and it will go from being kind of cult like to being disturbingly cultish. Holy shit $80 for an interview $340 for a month, and $19 per month to read their crap. Damn that is going to be a bloodbath when it goes south.

but I think it's a healthier goal for me to stop feeling like I need to prove an identity to others.

Fair enough

As a final note essentially for the purposes of full disclosure, I am well aware that I sort of have 2 sides to me and that what shines more brightly is my playful and defensive side, but it's extremely important to note that internal motivators aren't necessarily easily identifiable from the outside, especially in countertypes. I have, however, shown plenty of my pained darker side here and if you close your eyes and cover your ears, you might be able to smell the shame I try to mask with perfume.

Ah okay this makes sense; you think I’m typing you as ESXP (bright playful) and e6 (defensive). No on all fronts; typing e6s by defensiveness is a terrible idea. You must work under the assumption of a common emotional spectrum; no one has special right to any part of it. I type by energy or more specifically the distance between a person and their problems. Head types are detached from them, heart live in them, and gut exist in an electron cloud. Your problems are discrete entities; they are things that exist outside of you and effect you.

As for ESXP that was process of elimination. The lack of Ne in any position ruled that out. I then went to NFJ but typically when they change type a demeanour shift happens. Which left me with SPs, ISPs where ruled out because of lack of wild tertiary Ni.

I do not consider ESXP e6s to be bright and playful. Melancholic and biting is more their thing. Fascinating do people view you as bright and playful? Even when you’re being playful there is always a caustic edge to it; definitely not how I would describe you.

 

[Dr Mobius]

[MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION] don’t feel any pressure to respond. It’s largely me clearing up my poorly phrased initial posts; had I been fully cognisant of how distressing you find this I would have omitted you.

One last thing because I always feel obligated to give this speech; it’s a very common narrative for those who have never had any intellectual validation to tie their flag to typology. It is a bad idea at some point the realisation that it isn’t enough will break the illusion; the fallout is devastating. Typology is a tool: You use a hammer, the moment that hammer starts talking back at you making demands is the moment you throw it away and run as far and fast away as possible.

No one ever listens to it. So, I’ll also say that when you’re picking yourself up post fallout remember that you are more than this. It is not everything you are and that it’s invalidity does not invalidate you.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION] don’t feel any pressure to respond. It’s largely me clearing up my poorly phrased initial posts; had I been fully cognisant of how distressing you find this I would have omitted you.

One last thing because I always feel obligated to give this speech; it’s a very common narrative for those who have never had any intellectual validation to tie their flag to typology. It is a bad idea at some point the realisation that it isn’t enough will break the illusion; the fallout is devastating. Typology is a tool: You use a hammer, the moment that hammer starts talking back at you making demands is the moment you throw it away and run as far and fast away as possible.

No one ever listens to it. So, I’ll also say that when you’re picking yourself up post fallout remember that you are more than this. It is not everything you are and that it’s invalidity does not invalidate you.

You're dramatizing my current reaction to this far more than I am. I am aware of when my interest in typology becomes unhealthy, and in such times I take a step back. General neurosis doesn't necessarily connect with type either.

Your problems are discrete entities; they are things that exist outside of you and effect you.

This couldn't be further from the truth. My problems eat me up inside because I am the problem, and an even bigger problem is I feel worse about myself than I do about others.

You really don't understand me, but that's fine - I'm used to it. I apologize for perceived sensitivity/reactivity. Part of that stems from my not fully understanding your tone and the way you are wording things (I thought you were being more intentionally aggressive/criticizing than you seem to be acting now). Either way, it's water under the bridge.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I would like to briefly add though that this is exactly what I was talking about elsewhere here: When people take the time to open a dialogue about their own typing, attempting to make clear differences in perception, they are essentially 9 times out of 10 accused of taking it too seriously (a bit ridiculous given the purposes of this site), or accused of being sensitive/reactive.

I been fully cognisant of how distressing you find this I would have omitted you.

You're assigning emotions to me that you are presuming I'm experiencing based on text on a screen. Any element of debate from my end is automatically taken this way which tips the scales in your favor regardless of what I say.

It's super easy to set up situations like this against others, but no one wants to actually admit "okay yeah, I can see what you are getting at and how my actions contributed to this false dynamic".

 

[Dr Mobius]

Either way, it's water under the bridge.

Fair enough; see you around.

 

[EvangelineEmma]

Can you type me, please? If you can, please check out my new thread where I detail more aspects of my personality if you want more insight on me 🙂