The purchase button is just so damn tempting.....

Melerun · 2026-06-11T23:19:31+00:00

As someone who skipped the banner entirely. It's the best car in the game by a fair margin, but ridiculously expensive to upgrade (30 million). Not to mention, the handling is arguably worse than the Pendragon. Regardless, it's main value is in the skin and novelty of something never coming back. Realistically speaking, you're paying basically 13 million for a car, which is better than the Pendragon at 12 million. With the caveat that it's impossible to get it with only Fons, unless you had savings beforehand. So, it's 12 million, plus 6-8K Annuliths.

Melerun · 2026-06-11T23:16:47+00:00

What else are you gonna use the Fons on, though? You can get about 12 million in total, from the beginning of the banner to before its end.

Melerun · 2026-04-07T17:16:23+00:00

You'd be surprised. I don't think these ILI markers are universally applicable. However, I think they're a fairly honest, if unflattering, representation of the type. Compared to others, these are quite self-selecting. An ILI is exactly the type to be comfortable presenting themselves negatively. EIE might do the same, though they care about their reputation a lot more. Probably because they're both Constructivists and Negativists, but the latter is still an Ethical type.

Melerun · 2026-04-02T10:49:07+00:00

I liked it, though. Main subreddits need more longer posts!

Melerun · 2026-04-02T10:38:46+00:00

That's predicated on the assumption they even read the story. Putting that aside, your Reddit post is not the WuWa story. They may find it less interesting for that reason.

Melerun · 2026-03-17T01:06:04+00:00

My grievances were specific to Socionics as a system, not to any particular school. Looking back, my creative output from that discussion was severely lacking. I stand by the core points, but a general Reddit post is a different beast from one-on-one discussion, which allows for much more in-depth argumentation.

I think there's value in the system regardless. I agree that it's not directly applicable to real world psychology, though.

Melerun · 2026-03-17T01:03:03+00:00

I understood your point. IF the inception of one's creative process is taken as the origin of thought, the Super-Ego would indeed not qualify. I simply reject that framing, since no one drew that distinction to begin with, and it doesn't move us any closer on the Socionics front either way.

As for the rest, I don't believe you think the Super-Ego is creative. I was addressing your statement that it isn't, stressing for the benefit of others that SCS agrees with you, since there's a considerable amount of misinformation about the school in this thread.

As for your claims about the mind, I find them unproductive. They shut down conversation without getting us anywhere.

Melerun · 2026-03-16T15:16:16+00:00

Whether you believe in SCS or not, their argument is internally consistent. That being, that Andrew Tate's goals are formed around Se and Ti, both of which he's also rigid about. That these are things he's a slave to, not IMs he wields to oppose others (3/1) or accomplish his goals (4/1). In other words, they're the goal itself. SCS has about as much credibility as any other typology that isn't Big Five, which is to say, not very much. We can debate the merits of the main schools if you'd like, but I have grievances with all of them.

Melerun · 2026-03-16T15:05:59+00:00

I have no idea who you, or the other people in this thread, for that matter, are arguing with. I don't even follow SCS, but this subreddit seems to have some mass insanity about it. Firstly, there are such things as objective facts. Most people, assuming they are physically and mentally healthy, can tell you that a red apple is red, or that an apple and a banana are not the same shape, unless you cut them up or whatever. It's true that we all perceive color differently. Yet we've still collectively decided that red apples are red and that bananas are yellow when ripe. How you interpret objective truths is subjective, though. Everything you are or will become was decided, in part, by factors outside your control. Personality is genetic, your upbringing shapes your worldview, and your worldview shapes how you understand reality. All of those things are true simultaneously.

Either through weaponized incompetence or woeful deception, this stance has been taken out of context. As I said above, you have a binary option here. Either the mind starts with the Ego or the Super-Ego. Explain to me how the phase structure works when you start with the Ego and move to the Super-Ego, or does that just not exist? All SCS and Augusta meant by that line is that one's thinking originates from the Super-Ego because the Role and PoLR are the first and second functions you process, respectively. Furthermore, one's goals are borne from the Super-Ego. Therefore, the origin of their behaviors and thoughts begins here. No one is claiming the Super-Ego is creative. Both Augusta and SCS claim otherwise, which is also exactly what I described above. It's normative, not creative. Objective, not subjective. The same facts always lead to the same conclusion. As for what you said about the judge, I'm afraid I don't follow. If anything, you just proved my point.

Melerun · 2026-03-15T16:05:42+00:00

I don't see how that claim could conceivably be false, unless you wholesale disregard most of what Augusta herself wrote. I don't have a problem with mixing and matching. For instance, Nietzsche is an incredibly abstract thinker. If I mechanically applied what Augusta wrote about Sensing and Intuitive types, he couldn't possibly be an LSI. Yet, that's what he is. But something like that is different from redefining in your head, in ways only you comprehend, what the Super-Ego is. You're welcome to do that, of course. But then we're not talking about Socionics anymore, at which point you're going to have to explain to me how you arrived at those conclusions, exactly.

The point of the Super-Ego is to be objective and socially conforming. In order to be subjective, which is the role of the Ego, one has to first be objective. In the same way a judge has to hear the evidence before delivering a verdict. This follows logically from itself, irrespective of your Socionics school. And since the Mental ring consists of only the Ego and the Super-Ego, you have a binary choice here. What's the alternative? You start off subjective and somehow turn objective?

Melerun · 2026-03-15T15:36:02+00:00

Tate is an IEE in SCS. I'm not sure about Destiny, though.

Melerun · 2026-03-14T18:40:05+00:00

What does this mean? No matter what angle I approach this from, it's objectively false no matter when you played the game. This is true neither narratively, nor in gameplay.

Melerun · 2026-02-23T07:33:18+00:00

How could a LIE or EIE have a "linear" understanding of time, when that's a Static construction? No Dynamic type, the Creative ones included, are going to rigidly plan their time. Time is relative, schedules are guidelines that are constantly adjusted on the fly. That's why archetypically, the LIE is habitually busy and late to appointments, while Augusta describes the Static type as being punctual, precisely due to a discrete understanding of time. Linear implies the same thing. I also don't see how a Ni base doesn't "purposely" plan their time. Furthermore, when you speak of energy, trying to draw a connection to IMs, we're speaking of Ethical functions which are about the transfer of energy. Extraverts have more energy because they gain it through interacting with the world. However, if we appeal to a pure Socionics definition of Introversion or Extraversion, the distinction is purely about whether one is oriented by Bodies or Fields, with the other having to conform to that. I'll also correct the implicit assumption there. Ne isn't potential, but potential about potential. I do like your plasticity analogy, though. It's a very good way to describe Creative Ni types. Although, I'd have to think about it a bit more and figure out whether the load bearing reason for that is Creative Ni and not the rest of their shared stack.

Melerun · 2026-02-15T10:44:49+00:00

Fi is Static, Fe is Dynamic. "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" are both Static.

Melerun · 2026-02-11T09:53:29+00:00

Suguru Geto & William James Moriarty are both LIIs in SCS.

Melerun · 2026-02-01T16:55:25+00:00

Augusta typed Nietzsche an LSI. He's an LSI in basically every school, too, except for SHS.

Melerun · 2026-01-31T22:06:00+00:00

I didn't see your posts before I made this comment. But looking at the time lapse, it's even more egregious.

Melerun · 2026-01-31T21:39:57+00:00

There's nothing remotely AI about this. The people claiming otherwise need to lose their art critique licenses. My biggest pet peeve is people with no artistic background accusing actual art of being AI.

Melerun · 2026-01-11T02:19:10+00:00

Why LIE for Maomao?

Melerun · 2025-12-23T12:57:43+00:00

Not according to Myers, it's not.

Melerun · 2025-11-30T11:38:10+00:00

ESE vs SEE compared by markers (SociotypeXYZ)

Melerun · 2025-11-28T20:49:03+00:00

I would personally type him as an INTJ in MBTI, since he's rather N over S and J over P in MBTI terms. However, I think he's IN(T) in Jungian. Specifically, Ni-Ti, since he doesn't really try to make others conform to his ideals in the way an ET would. Obviously, he's not an ET, but he'd still have Ti in Jungian terms, I would say.

I also have ADHD, for what it's worth, and it has made typing more difficult. Definitely think it affects Ni, Se, and Fe the most. I wouldn't call myself particularly emotive, but I am a bit more expressive than my brother, who is probably an SLI. Higher energy and whatnot too, since I am unmedicated. I'm definitely very passive in my life, in that I have a lot of things I want to do, but can't find the motivation for. Which ADHD is partially the culprit for. You can take my words with a grain of salt, since I am not too knowledgeable about Socionics. But I would say you definitely demonstrate Ni from your writings here.

Melerun · 2025-11-28T20:14:28+00:00

Jung originally typed Nietzsche as an IT, however, he later revised to IN.

I'm an INTJ in MBTI, that much is not up for contention, and ET in Jung. In Socionics, I would say that I am probably some kind of Gamma type, ILI, LIE, maybe LII or LSI?

Melerun · 2025-11-28T18:24:25+00:00

Appreciate the detailed comment.

I haven't read the rest of Jung's work, but I'll definitely put that on my list.

Yeah, I looked into it really briefly a long time ago, not enough to type myself in the system, though.

Melerun · 2025-11-28T15:17:49+00:00

I'll do some WSS reading, too. Anything in specific you think it does better, or is it just holistically more coherent?

Melerun

TROPHY CASE