Freud's Legacy of Enmity Towards Typology

[tcaudilllg]

The idea that people do not have clearly defined personality types -- and the fear of being labeled or "boxed into" a rigid typological system -- stems from Freud. According to Freud and Jung: Years of Friendship, Years of Loss, Freud sought to undermine Jung, who he saw as a threat to his prominence, by spreading a prejudice against Jung's typology. This has lead to what we have today in a cultural prejudice against typology in the west.

[Logos]

I do not think that it is just Freud. Many people I've talked to are uncomfortable about being defined to such an extent or feel that the significance of their individuality () is being reduced or some how lessened. I suppose you can say that the Freudian movement is responsible for this, but I think that such a claim would require a much more substantial argument.

[aestrivex]

The idea that people do not have clearly defined personality types -- and the fear of being labeled or "boxed into" a rigid typological system -- stems from Freud. According to Freud and Jung: Years of Friendship, Years of Loss, Freud sought to undermine Jung, who he saw as a threat to his prominence, by spreading a prejudice against Jung's typology. This has lead to what we have today in a cultural prejudice against typology in the west.

this is perhaps the most insane thing you've ever written. congratulations!

[Expat]

I do not think that it is just Freud. Many people I've talked to are uncomfortable about being defined to such an extent or feel that the significance of their individuality () is being reduced or some how lessened. I suppose you can say that the Freudian movement is responsible for this, but I think that such a claim would require a much more substantial argument.

I agree.

Interestingly, I got another kind of objection from an INFj -- he did not want to agree to the notion that ESTps couldn't "reform"

[consentingadult]

Just ask yourself: am I really a specific type, or am I just desperate for an identity? Also ask yourself what the reason is you are hanging out here: is it to really learn something about yourself and exchange intellectual information, or are you again for desparate for identity, and in addition to that, desparate for a feeling of intellectual/emotional connectedness to other people? Or just desparate for a feeling of being significant and important (since I already know who of you is going to object forcefully instead of giving my post a thought).

Most of you here are quite young, but intelligent. At some stage in your life, you might discover that people like Erasmus, Freud and Sartre, who stated that most people are just actors playing assumed roles, not being their true selves, were actually right. The stronger you believe that you are A SPECIFIC THING (a specific type in any typology, but also any other role you care to assume and identify with, be it bus driver, scientist, father, waiter, American, etc. etc.), the more you are fooling yourself and limiting yourself in your freedom to tap into your creativity and be the only thing you really are: JUST YOU!

And one other thing: did any of you ever see MRI scans pointing out which parts of the brains are responsible for the Socionic cognitive functions? I guess you didn't, simply because they do not exist, as opposed to other cognitive functions that have been identified and proven to exist in a specific part of the brain. The Socionic cognitive functions are just abstract models. And don't protest with the results of Russian research, since any of them that I read about violate the principles of double-blind testing.

Hell, most of you don't understand Jung: he meant all this stuff just as abstract model, a tool for explaining pathological traits, and MBTI and Socionics added more significance to it than Jung ever meant. As did many people with his theory of archetypes and focus on development of their personality as an archetype, restricting their personalities and increasing their pathological behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_a...in_of_negation

[KSpin]

Just ask yourself: am I really a specific type, or am I just desperate for an identity? Also ask yourself what the reason is you are hanging out here: is it to really learn something about yourself and exchange intellectual information, or are you again for desparate for identity, and in addition to that, desparate for a feeling of intellectual/emotional connectedness to other people? Or just desparate for a feeling of being significant and important (since I already know who of you is going to object forcefully instead of giving my post a thought).

Most of you here are quite young, but intelligent. At some stage in your life, you might discover that people like Erasmus, Freud and Sartre, who stated that most people are just actors playing assumed roles, not being their true selves, were actually right. The stronger you believe that you are A SPECIFIC THING (a specific type in any typology, but also any other role you care to assume and identify with, be it bus driver, scientist, father, waiter, American, etc. etc.), the more you are fooling yourself and limiting yourself in your freedom to tap into your creativity and be the only thing you really are: JUST YOU!

And one other thing: did any of you ever see MRI scans pointing out which parts of the brains are responsible for the Socionic cognitive functions? I guess you didn't, simply because they do not exist, as opposed to other cognitive functions that have been proven to exist. The are just abstract models. And don't protest with the results of Russian research, since any of them that I read about violate the principles of double-blind testing.

Hell, most of you don't understand Jung: he meant all this stuff just as abstract model, a tool for explaining pathological traits, and MBTI and Socionics added more significance to it than Jung ever meant. As did many people with his theory of archetypes and focus on development of their personality as an archetype, restricting their personalities and increasing their pathological behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_a...in_of_negation

I'm afraid I disagree. Sorry!

[consentingadult]

Just ask yourself: am I really a specific type, or am I just desperate for an identity? Also ask yourself what the reason is you are hanging out here: is it to really learn something about yourself and exchange intellectual information, or are you again for desparate for identity, and in addition to that, desparate for a feeling of intellectual/emotional connectedness to other people? Or just desparate for a feeling of being significant and important (since I already know who of you is going to object forcefully instead of giving my post a thought).

Most of you here are quite young, but intelligent. At some stage in your life, you might discover that people like Erasmus, Freud and Sartre, who stated that most people are just actors playing assumed roles, not being their true selves, were actually right. The stronger you believe that you are A SPECIFIC THING (a specific type in any typology, but also any other role you care to assume and identify with, be it bus driver, scientist, father, waiter, American, etc. etc.), the more you are fooling yourself and limiting yourself in your freedom to tap into your creativity and be the only thing you really are: JUST YOU!

And one other thing: did any of you ever see MRI scans pointing out which parts of the brains are responsible for the Socionic cognitive functions? I guess you didn't, simply because they do not exist, as opposed to other cognitive functions that have been proven to exist. The are just abstract models. And don't protest with the results of Russian research, since any of them that I read about violate the principles of double-blind testing.

Hell, most of you don't understand Jung: he meant all this stuff just as abstract model, a tool for explaining pathological traits, and MBTI and Socionics added more significance to it than Jung ever meant. As did many people with his theory of archetypes and focus on development of their personality as an archetype, restricting their personalities and increasing their pathological behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_a...in_of_negation

I'm afraid I disagree. Sorry!

By all means: be my guest, it's your life, your problem, not mine! But such a waste...

[KSpin]

By all means: be my guest, it's your life, your problem, not mine! But such a waste...

Rofl. How is it a waste? I know plenty of people that believe in a greater being upstairs, and yes, I consider this a waste, but a heck of a lot of people don't.

[Expat]

Your problem, consentingadult, is that your second-rank intellect does not enable you to understand the point of being interested in socionics -- it has nothing to do with an "identity". Whether or not functions exist in a way that could be detected with MRI scans is totally irrelevant, as is what Jung may or not have meant -- who cares what he meant or not? What he meant is not important, what is important is that he was on to something with his observations.

I would be very interested in hearing someone making an intelligent case that socionics is rubbish and a waste of time, but you are not up to it, that's the thing, as is clear from your strawman arguments.

[consentingadult]

Your problem, consentingadult, is that your second-rank intellect does not enable you to understand the point of being interested in socionics -- it has nothing to do with an "identity". Whether or not functions exist in a way that could be detected with MRI scans is totally irrelevant, as is what Jung may or not have meant -- who cares what he meant or not? What he meant is not important, what is important is that he was on to something with his observations.

Like I said: I already knew who was going to object forcefully, and in the process, insulting as well, which is the only way you seem to be able to respond: argumentation through intimidation. Again you are not giving another idea a chance, but I didn't expect something else of you.

I would be very interested in hearing someone making an intelligent case that socionics is rubbish and a waste of time, but you are not up to it, that's the thing, as is clear from your strawman arguments.

The behavior of Socionics-adepts is very much like people interested in astrology: they put the burden of proof for discrediting the theory onto the shoulders of the skeptics, instead of themselves proving they are right. That is putting the world upside down: In the first place, I don't have to prove Socionics is wrong, you have to prove, by scientifically valid means, that this THEORY is more than a hypothesis! Only after that we can get involved in a peer-review and confirming the theory, and not vice versa!

But my post was not written for you (or people like you), anyway, but rather at those people around that have been around long enough and inquisitive enough to start questioning the validity of Socionics (or any other kind of typology for that matter). I just read a post by Joy, who (if I understand correctly) now ackowlegdes to be of no specific type at all. I hope my post will help people such as Joy to step out of this neurotic nonsense.

[Expat]

The behavior of Socionics-adepts is very much like people interested in astrology: they put the burden of proof for discrediting the theory onto the shoulders of the skeptics, instead of themselves proving they are right. That is putting the world upside down: In the first place, I don't have to prove Socionics is wrong, you have to prove, by scientifically valid means, that this THEORY is more than a hypothesis! Only after that we can get involved in a peer-review and confirming the theory, and not vice versa!

Again you miss the point -- we all agree that it's difficult to prove it. Either you understand it and see the types around you, and you can use it, or you don't, and you can't.

You lack the ability to see the types, so you think that those who can are neurotics or whatever. That is fine. I don't know what your issue is, really. I am insulting to you (although simply by stating what I think is true) because I think you deserve it. That is all.

[consentingadult]

The behavior of Socionics-adepts is very much like people interested in astrology: they put the burden of proof for discrediting the theory onto the shoulders of the skeptics, instead of themselves proving they are right. That is putting the world upside down: In the first place, I don't have to prove Socionics is wrong, you have to prove, by scientifically valid means, that this THEORY is more than a hypothesis! Only after that we can get involved in a peer-review and confirming the theory, and not vice versa!

Again you miss the point -- we all agree that it's difficult to prove it. Either you understand it and see the types around you, and you can use it, or you don't, and you can't.

You lack the ability to see the types, so you think that those who can are neurotics or whatever. That is fine. I don't know what your issue is, really. I am insulting to you (although simply by stating what I think is true) because I think you deserve it. That is all.

Yes, you are insulting me be saying "second-rate intellect", that is not a nice thing to say: it kills any discussion. I understand you are in Belgium/Germany, I am in the Netherlands, so we are close. I propose we get together, have a discussion, videotape it and put it on YouTube for all to see who really makes an effort to understand and admit the complexity of reality, and who has a second rate intellect.

[Expat]

Yes, you are insulting me be saying "second-rate intellect", that is not a nice thing to say: it kills any discussion. I understand you are in Belgium/Germany, I am in the Netherlands, so we are close. I propose we get together, have a discussion, videotape it and put it on YouTube for all to see who really makes an effort to understand and admit the complexity of reality, and who has a second rate intellect.

1) You are not interested in any discussion, since you have long decided that we are all "neurotic" and you come back here just to re-state that;

2) So, don't play innocent on the "being insulting" and "kill any discussion". Who do you think you are kidding?

3) What do I care about what whether "all" think it is you or I who has a second-rate intellect? "All" can think whatever they wish. I therefore declare that you win that "discussion" by defaut. I, Expat, declare that consentingadult has won the discussion and he's the one who "really makes an effort to understand and admit the complexity of reality", and I am the one who "has a second rate intellect".

Happy?

[consentingadult]

I once more ask: let's get together and have a discussion for all to see!

[Expat]

I once more ask: let's get together and have a discussion for all to see!

Wait -- and we're the ones who are neurotic?

[consentingadult]

I once more ask: let's get together and have a discussion for all to see!

[Expat]

Right, hhmm, so you're actually suggesting that we meet somewhere - perhaps in "neutral territory"? Luxembourg? - go to the trouble of setting up a video camera, record some sort of discussion which will be a rehash of the posts here, so that you can post it here on a forum where people like to discuss a subject you see as rubbish. To accomplish -- what? So that people will go, "wow, consentingadult trashed Expat, he's got such a first-rank intellect and is so open to discussion, now I realize how silly I was to be interested in that neurotic nonsense! Thanks consentingadult, you are my hero"

Have I got it right?

[aestrivex]

my ignore list is becoming quite populated these days.

[consentingadult]

Right, hhmm, so you're actually suggesting that we meet somewhere - perhaps in "neutral territory"? Luxembourg? - go to the trouble of setting up a video camera, record some sort of discussion which will be a rehash of the posts here, so that you can post it here on a forum where people like to discuss a subject you see as rubbish. To accomplish -- what? So that people will go, "wow, consentingadult trashed Expat, he's got such a first-rank intellect and is so open to discussion, now I realize how silly I was to be interested in that neurotic nonsense! Thanks consentingadult, you are my hero"

Have I got it right?

Just say "yes" or "no" instead of walking circles around it. I think it's time for a serious debate about the validity of Socionics, a video is hot nowadays. It'll be fun!

[consentingadult]

my ignore list is becoming quite populated these days.

Yes, put your hands to your ears in case of something you do not want to hear.

[KSpin]

my ignore list is becoming quite populated these days.

Yes, put your hands to your ears in case of something you do not want to hear.

I don't want to hear your drivel. Thank you. Oh, and go away. Thank you.

[Expat]

Just say "yes" or "no" instead of walking circles around it. I think it's time for a serious debate about the validity of Socionics, a video is hot nowadays. It'll be fun!

What about this --

I say "yes".

Then I won't go.

So, by all usual rules concerning such events, you win by default.

Congratulations, I yield to your superior intellect and greater willingness to discuss reality.

You are free to say it here how I was too scared to face the challenge and therefore I am a neurotic fraud and a bad influence on the 20-year olds here.

[consentingadult]

Just say "yes" or "no" instead of walking circles around it. I think it's time for a serious debate about the validity of Socionics, a video is hot nowadays. It'll be fun!

What about this --

I say "yes".

Then I won't go.

So, by all usual rules concerning such events, you win by default.

Congratulations, I yield to your superior intellect and greater willingness to discuss reality.

You are free to say it here how I was too scared to face the challenge and therefore I am a neurotic fraud and a bad influence on the 20-year olds here.

I'm sorry to hear that. If ever you change your mind and want to get together, just let me know. The first beer will be on me!

[Expat]

Regarding the beer - my sincere thanks for the offer. But no thanks. You can join us in your next socionics European meeting, though.

Now, some serious comments --

Unless I am misrepresenting his views (and if I am, it's not intentional) consentingadult thinks that the concept of types makes no sense, at least for most people, and that if they are visible, it's because the individual is already neurotic. So, for instance, a person who behaves like, say, an INTj to the extent of being easily recognizable as an INTj already has some issues. And a person who looks for their own type is actually making a mistake since it will mean self-limitation, so if you decide you are an INTj you are actually preventing yourself from behaving like an ESFp, which you could otherwise do if not for your self-limitation.

I find it a legitimate point of view to have. I just disagree with it, based on what I have observed of people, whose types I can really see. Are they all neurotic? Perhaps *shrug* but I have to work with my own conclusions. At the end of the day, whether one wants to see the world with the help of socionics or not, it's a personal decision.

[KSpin]

Indeed. And unlike astrology, you cannot look at whichever description like and say "That's me". There will be some types that simply are not you, even if you have never studied into Socionics in your entire life.

Astrology may use ambiguity to get results, but socionics is definitely trying for the opposite.

[consentingadult]

It is not just neurotic, because in the view of psychoanalysis, everyone is neurotic. "Neurotic" is the "normal" mode of human existence. The idea is, that everyone needs "illusions" in order for life to make sense. You can believe that eating a bag of potato chips enhances your life, and on an emotional level, it does. But ultimately, all these things are illusions, things to hold on to. Seen that way, being neurotic makes sense. The argument people like Freud, Sartre and many other people are making, is that ultimately, all these 'certainties' are illusions. Many people beyond their mid-life crisis will be able to confirm that.

Now as for Jung, was he an idiot, or not? Of course not: he observed clients in his practice and noticed that they had specific issues. This is what ultimately led him to his theory of Psychological Type. It is very much like Personality Disorders: most of us do not have a personality disorder, but if you read the discriptions of those disorder, all of us should be able to see that we all display tendencies of these personality disorder (note: this only applies to neurotic. i.e. "normal" people, and not to people who's psychological disorder has a basis in biological issues, such as ADD/ADHD, shizophrenia, or psychosis). If is only when behavior starts becoming rigid and inflexible that psychologists are starting to call it "psychopathological".

Critical research into MBTI has already displayed that distribution on the 4 scales does not lead to a Bi-modal distribution of types, as the theory suggests, but to a Normal-distribution, i.e. most people are 'somewhere around the middle' of the scales. Now most Socionist will object that you shouldn't look at dichotomous scales, but to the functions. That would be a valid answer, if it were not that the existince of these functions hasn't been proved. Furthermore, and this is a typical problem with any kind of psychometrics, it always remains to be seen if there is a relation between the one (e.g. having a specific cognitive style) and resulting behavior. I have pondered for a long time how it was possible that MBTI got it all wrong about the leading functions for introverts, and nobody ever noticed! The reason is simple: the relationship between cognitive styles, as defined by Jung, has no relationship to behavior or psychological states. It is very much like concluding that people with big feet are more intelligent than people with small feet: the relationship (which in fact are both related to age) is not causal, only statistical.

Furthermore, lets take the Big 5 Model of personality into the equation: strong correlations of MBTI (now don't object about me bringing up MBTI, I'm just giving you something to think about, a pointer so to speak) have been demonstrated with the Big 5. And like has been shown with critical MBTI research, most people score in the middle of the Big 5 scales (extraoversion, openness to experience, altruism, conscientiousness and neuroticism, the latter being something different that neurosis, by theway). Conclusion: most people are not a specific type, they are 'in the middle' and flexible in thought, emotional experience and behaviour. This is also in line with Attachment Theory: most people with a secure attachment style, do not suffer from neurosis to a pathological extent. It's only those with insecure attachment styles that run a higher risk of developing pathological issues or even disorders of development or personality.

This is how you need to look at Jung's Psychological Types: surely there are people who are INTj or ENFp, but these people are having issues.

Let me elaborate with a personal story: over a year ago I considered myself to be ENFp. I have issues related to narcissistic, borderline and theatrical pathology, and I'm working my way out of it, which I have done with good results so far. My biggest issue left, is my lack of conscientiousness: I am a typical P (irrational), I lack structure, fullfillment and also on the Big 5 I still score outrageously low on conscientiousness. Actually, many of the P-behaviours are actually manifestations of passive/aggressive behaviour, which can be caused by many different reasons, but as many psychologist see it nowadays, for most people this is not inborn behavior: it can be addressed by means of cognitive-behavior therapy. This is what I'm starting right now, after having gone through a more psychoanalytic approach to resolve emotional issues: every kind of pathology requires its own type of therapy. Lets say, for example, someone is emitionally inhibited. This is typically the case with people who put strong emphasis on logic and reason (strong T-types). Cognitive therapy in that case doesn't help, because it strengthens the individuals tendency to be rational, thereby actually increasing their emotional inhibition, and the consequences of pathological behavior and psychology.

So certainly we can observe 'types' in other people. But with many individuals, the longer you look, the more confused you get about their type, unless you use selective thinking/focus in your dealings with other people.

I think both MBTI and Socionics have the danger of increasing pathological behavior, if there is any. For a while, I have been acting out my type, and reaped what I sowed. This is why I am saying: you are creating an illusion by thinking you are something specific, and it is a psychologically dangerous illusion!

Now for those who really want to start understanding themselves and other people, I would like to recommend the book Web Page NameSchema Therapy: A Practitioner's Guide by Jeffrey E. Young. I'm positive that most of you will be able to relate to the things it say to Psycholoical Type and put MBTI and Socionics in a totally new light. I'm not saying Socionics is rubbish, I'm saying it is a (very) incomplete understanding of human behavior.

Expat is right: I'm not capable of identifying anyone's type, but with the knowledge gained in the past year I can almost flawlessly identify pathological traits in other people within a matter of minutes. Jung was indeed onto something, like Expat said, but very much like Freud, he took things a little over the abtract top. Fortunately, many people have passed by to balance out our understanding of personality, and we're still growing :wink:

[consentingadult]

P.S. there is also a self-help equivalent of the Schema Therapy book, it's called Reinventing You Life. If ever you see it at your local bookstore, browse through it, just for fun!

[consentingadult]

I just found a nice quote from Jung himself:

there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency...the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the subjective factor, that’s all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little

Now, I rest my case. Questions anyone?

[KSpin]

I just found a nice quote from Jung himself:

there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency...the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the subjective factor, that’s all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little

Now, I rest my case. Questions anyone?

We've never said anything else, prick.

[consentingadult]

I just found a nice quote from Jung himself:

there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency...the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the subjective factor, that’s all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little

Now, I rest my case. Questions anyone?

We've never said anything else, prick.

Then why are you so insistent on types? And don't call me prick, please. If throwing insults and saying "I don't agree with you" without giving any real arguments and or willing to enter into a discussion, an exchange of ideas, I suggest you don't open your mouth, but keep quiet.

[KSpin]

I just found a nice quote from Jung himself:

there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. They are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency...the tendency to be more influenced by environmental factors, or more influenced by the subjective factor, that’s all. There are people who are fairly well balanced and are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little

Now, I rest my case. Questions anyone?

We've never said anything else, prick.

Then why are you so insistent on types? And don't call me prick, please. If throwing insults and saying "I don't agree with you" without giving any real arguments and or willing to enter into a discussion, an exchange of ideas, I suggest you don't open your mouth, but keep quiet.

What you quoted is nothing new. Socionics never claims that one person is 100% introverted or extroverted. To be so, would mean an introvert completely ignoring the outside world, and to be 100% extroverted would be to ignore your inner self. Like Jung said, they are only preferences, and to be completely 100% either way would require you to get in an asylum. And people that are well balanced? Sure, they just need to use the functions to pick their type, rather than the dichotomy.

[Expat]

That whole argumentation is a strawman.

[consentingadult]

That whole argumentation is a strawman.

I assume you're referring to my story here. Well, there is always a possibility that such is the case. I invite you then to go over my argumentation and counter all my arguments point by point.

Another question: why is this that many of you feel the need to attack me personally (second-rank intellect, prick) instead of my arguments? Why is it that my reasoning is not countered with arguments, but with empty phrases such as "strawman argumentation"? It sounds like attempts to silence me and make me shut up, so you can continue having your discussions without critical input, so nobody feels their self-concept and view of reality threatened? Could it be that some of you are experiencing cognitive dissonance? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further reading: Social Psychology 2nd edition by Eliot R. Smith and Diane Mackie, Chapter 4: The Self, in particular the paragraph titled "Defending The Self: Coping with Stresses, Inconsistencies and Failures".

[KSpin]

That whole argumentation is a strawman.

I assume you're referring to my story here. Well, there is always a possibility that such is the case. I invite you then to go over my argumentation and counter all my arguments point by point.

Another question: why is this that many of you feel the need to attack me personally (second-rank intellect, prick) instead of my arguments? Why is it that my reasoning is not countered with arguments, but with empty phrases such as "strawman argumentation"? It sounds like attempts to silence me and make me shut up, so you can continue having your discussions without critical input, so nobody feels their self-concept and view of reality threatened? Could it be that some of you are experiencing cognitive dissonance? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further reading: Social Psychology 2nd edition by Eliot R. Smith and Diane Mackie, Chapter 4: The Self, in particular the paragraph titled "Defending The Self: Coping with Stresses, Inconsistencies and Failures".

Maybe if you looked into Socionics and the way you're phrasing your posts, you may see the reason why I dislike you.

[consentingadult]

Maybe if you looked into Socionics and the way you're phrasing your posts, you may see the reason why I dislike you.

How can you possibly know you dislike me? You've never met me! Most people I meet in real life tell me I'm an okay guy, so your statement must says all about you and nothing about me. That you don't like me, must be cognitive dissonance indeed!

Now don't misunderstand me, I don't dislike you (plural). Liking has nothing to do with it.

Now, lets get back to substantial discussion: what is it exactly about my phrasing that you so dislike? Enlighten me, I'm always willing to learn, teach me about the art of proper communication...

[KSpin]

Maybe if you looked into Socionics and the way you're phrasing your posts, you may see the reason why I dislike you.

How can you possibly know you dislike me? You've never met me! Most people I meet in real life tell me I'm an okay guy, so your statement must says all about you and nothing about me. That you don't like me, must be cognitive dissonance indeed!

Now don't misunderstand me, I don't dislike you (plural). Liking has nothing to do with it.

Now, lets get back to substantial discussion: what is it exactly about my phrasing that you so dislike? Enlighten me, I'm always willing to learn, teach me about the art of proper communication...

Yes, but you've never met me. Therefore your point is moot. In fact, you seem either INTj or ENTp.

[Expat]

Another question: why is this that many of you feel the need to attack me personally (second-rank intellect, prick) instead of my arguments? Why is it that my reasoning is not countered with arguments, but with empty phrases such as "strawman argumentation"? It sounds like attempts to silence me and make me shut up, so you can continue having your discussions without critical input, so nobody feels their self-concept and view of reality threatened? Could it be that some of you are experiencing cognitive dissonance? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further reading: Social Psychology 2nd edition by Eliot R. Smith and Diane Mackie, Chapter 4: The Self, in particular the paragraph titled "Defending The Self: Coping with Stresses, Inconsistencies and Failures".

I have already countered your arguments regarding Big Five, dichotomies, etc, the last time you showed up here. I may do so again, for the benefit of others, because I know you will continue to miss the point.

And you have little right to complain about the way we argue, due to the way you, yourself, argue here. Who cares what other people think of you IRL?

[consentingadult]

Maybe if you looked into Socionics and the way you're phrasing your posts, you may see the reason why I dislike you.

How can you possibly know you dislike me? You've never met me! Most people I meet in real life tell me I'm an okay guy, so your statement must says all about you and nothing about me. That you don't like me, must be cognitive dissonance indeed!

Now don't misunderstand me, I don't dislike you (plural). Liking has nothing to do with it.

Now, lets get back to substantial discussion: what is it exactly about my phrasing that you so dislike? Enlighten me, I'm always willing to learn, teach me about the art of proper communication...

Yes, but you've never met me. Therefore your point is moot. In fact, you seem either INTj or ENTp.

Glad that you've figured that one out. Feels a lot better, doesn't it? Now you have a perfectly good reason why I'm a prick, you've dissoved your cognitive dissonance and your self-concept is no longer being threatened. You can breathe with ease now!

[KSpin]

Maybe if you looked into Socionics and the way you're phrasing your posts, you may see the reason why I dislike you.

How can you possibly know you dislike me? You've never met me! Most people I meet in real life tell me I'm an okay guy, so your statement must says all about you and nothing about me. That you don't like me, must be cognitive dissonance indeed!

Now don't misunderstand me, I don't dislike you (plural). Liking has nothing to do with it.

Now, lets get back to substantial discussion: what is it exactly about my phrasing that you so dislike? Enlighten me, I'm always willing to learn, teach me about the art of proper communication...

Yes, but you've never met me. Therefore your point is moot. In fact, you seem either INTj or ENTp.

Glad that you've figured that one out. Feels a lot better, doesn't it? Now you have a perfectly good reason why I'm a prick, you've dissoved your cognitive dissonance and your self-concept is no longer being threatened. You can breathe with ease now!

I was always breathing easy. I just find you humourous now.

[consentingadult]

Another question: why is this that many of you feel the need to attack me personally (second-rank intellect, prick) instead of my arguments? Why is it that my reasoning is not countered with arguments, but with empty phrases such as "strawman argumentation"? It sounds like attempts to silence me and make me shut up, so you can continue having your discussions without critical input, so nobody feels their self-concept and view of reality threatened? Could it be that some of you are experiencing cognitive dissonance? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further reading: Social Psychology 2nd edition by Eliot R. Smith and Diane Mackie, Chapter 4: The Self, in particular the paragraph titled "Defending The Self: Coping with Stresses, Inconsistencies and Failures".

I have already countered your arguments regarding Big Five, dichotomies, etc, the last time you showed up here. I may do so again, for the benefit of others, because I know you will continue to miss the point.

And you have little right to complain about the way we argue, due to the way you, yourself, argue here. Who cares what other people think of you IRL?

I recall that argument indeed, it was all logic and not based on any empirical data. With logic disconnected from empirical data, you can basically prove anything.

Try to do it like me: reference psychological literature not connected to Jung, Socionics or MBTI to substantiate your point of view.