A way to understand Carefreeness/Farsightedness

[machintruc]

According to Reinin :

Carefree = EN + IS
Farsighted = ES + IN

According to Talanov :

Carefree = Sensing has a low level of excitation (higher sensitivity)
Farsighted = Sensing has a high level of excitation (lower sensitivity)

Therefore :

This explains why Introtims may still be stimulation-seeking. When Rick wrote that Introtims had a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher, he was wrong.

Carefree types are more sensitive to external stimulation. They feel the need to have less than Farsighted types, which feel the need of more external stimulation than Carefree types.

btw, MBTT was wrong too.

[Phaedrus]

If that is Talanov's view, and you have drawn the correct conclusions from it, you seem to go against Jung and all the empirical research done in this area. Rick, MBTT, and Jung are most likely right here. You and Talanov are most likely wrong.

[machintruc]

If that is Talanov's view, and you have drawn the correct conclusions from it, you seem to go against Jung and all the empirical research done in this area. Rick, MBTT, and Jung are most likely right here. You and Talanov are most likely wrong.

I found that EN and IS types were more tolerating lack of psychological stimulation than IN and ES types. It's only an hypothesis.

[redbaron]

I like your hypothesis and I think there might be something to it.

[Phaedrus]

If that is Talanov's view, and you have drawn the correct conclusions from it, you seem to go against Jung and all the empirical research done in this area. Rick, MBTT, and Jung are most likely right here. You and Talanov are most likely wrong.

sorry, but Talanov did way more "empirical" research that you can ever imagine. in the case of Aushra and others, i do not believe so at ALL. did Jung say anything about this?

Yes, his view was similar to the common view on this -- that, as expressed by Rick, Introtims have a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher. It is "common knowledge" that introverts are at risk of getting a stimulation overload when exposed to too much outer stimuli, whereas extraverts are at risk of falling asleep when not exposed to at least some outer stimuli. That is also Jung's view, and I think that it has a biological basis, which I also think is confirmed by empirical studies, though I don't have an exact link to provide. If Talanov has made empirical studies on this that contradict that common view, it is of course both very strange and also interesting. It doesn't sound plausible, though. Jung's view (= the commonly accepted view) on this makes much more sense to me at the moment.

[marooned]

Research has found that extroverts are more stimulus seeking than introverts...

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicin...Shows-11092-1/

Unless Socioncis differs on its definition of "introversion" and "extroversion."

I think I also read somewhere that the amygdala (emotional center of the brain) is more sensitive usually in introverts...

[Jonathan]

According to Reinin :

Carefree = EN + IS
Farsighted = ES + IN

According to Talanov :

Carefree = Sensing has a low level of excitation (higher sensitivity)
Farsighted = Sensing has a high level of excitation (lower sensitivity)

Therefore :

This explains why Introtims may still be stimulation-seeking. When Rick wrote that Introtims had a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher, he was wrong.

Carefree types are more sensitive to external stimulation. They feel the need to have less than Farsighted types, which feel the need of more external stimulation than Carefree types.

btw, MBTT was wrong too.

Before we get too excited about this, we really should try to define the terms here.

First, what does Talanov mean by excitation? Does he mean the same thing as others when they use that term? It's not clear.

Second, even if he means the same thing as Rick meant by "optimal level of stimulation," then how is that contradictory? They could both be right...for example, carefree introtims may have the lowest optimal level of stimulation, followed by farsighted introtims and carefree extrotims, and then with farsighted extrotims having the highest optimal level of stimulation.

Third, what was the nature and method of his research? The actual method of the study is absolutely essential in interpreting the results. This also goes for someone else's study on "introverts" and "extraverts."

When you look at research as a black box and just take the "conclusions," with inadequate sense of definitions, what you have is mud. It's pretty meaningless, actually.

And when you say that MBTT is wrong, that's quite popular to say of course on a Socionics forum. Most people would agree that MBTT (or any theory) is wrong about some things. But what are you saying it's wrong about? If you don't say what it's wrong about, then the statement that it's wrong is also meaningless.

Are you implying that MBTT's understanding of introverted/extraverted behaviors maps directly with carefree/farsighted? If that's what you mean, then say it directly. Nevertheless, I suspect that if you're implying that, you're going way beyond Talanov's statement.

[Ezra]

This explains why Introtims may still be stimulation-seeking. When Rick wrote that Introtims had a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher, he was wrong.

Maybe Reinin or Talanov was wrong instead.

[machintruc]

Research has found that extroverts are more stimulus seeking than introverts...

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicin...Shows-11092-1/

Unless Socioncis differs on its definition of "introversion" and "extroversion."

I think I also read somewhere that the amygdala (emotional center of the brain) is more sensitive usually in introverts...

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Maybe Reinin or Talanov was wrong instead.

Both were right for me.

[Joy]

Therefore :

This explains why Introtims may still be stimulation-seeking. When Rick wrote that Introtims had a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher, he was wrong.

Not necessarily. A lot of dichotomies seem to overlap and hence contradict each other at times, but that doesn't mean that one is invalid or that a description of it is wrong.

In this situation, for example, Rick's description doesn't specify that the stimulation is sensory in nature.

[machintruc]

Therefore :

This explains why Introtims may still be stimulation-seeking. When Rick wrote that Introtims had a lower optimal level of stimulation, and Extrotims have higher, he was wrong.

Not necessarily. A lot of dichotomies seem to overlap and hence contradict each other at times, but that doesn't mean that one is invalid or that a description of it is wrong.

In this situation, for example, Rick's description doesn't specify that the stimulation is sensory in nature.

No, it doesn't ; and for that it may lead to confusion.

It's pretty much like when he said Extrotims had a louder voice. My voice is VERY loud and that doesn't make me an Extrotim. Maybe there's something he didn't explain...

[Joy]

I figured it meant any type of stimulation... conversation, sensory, activity, etc.

[Phaedrus]

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Why?

[machintruc]

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Why?

For being expressive and stimulation-seeking. Such behaviour is common for E5 ; they may have ILE-like or ESE-like behaviour (but sometimes, I may be somewhat pretty SEE-like...). I tend to speak very loud (even louder than average extros) and I like to command (rather than to obey).

I'm not like those quiet or asocial stereotypes. I'm thinking of ILI (especially an E4 ILI), which is THE stereotype for classical "introversion".

[Phaedrus]

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Why?

For being expressive and stimulation-seeking.

And why do you think that that is enough to classify you as an extravert according to "Classical Psychology"? Since they ("Classical Psychology", Jung, MBTT, Socionics ...) are all talking about the same empirical phenomenon, you are either an extravert in all these systems or you are an extravert in none of them. To classify you as an "Extrovert" is either an objective mistake, or objectively correct.

You don't seem to take this problem seriously. Otherwise you would not dismiss one branch of typology as unimportant in the way you do here.

[Kristiina]

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Why?

For being expressive and stimulation-seeking.

And why do you think that that is enough to classify you as an extravert according to "Classical Psychology"? Since they ("Classical Psychology", Jung, MBTT, Socionics ...) are all talking about the same empirical phenomenon, you are either an extravert in all these systems or you are an extravert in none of them. To classify you as an "Extrovert" is either an objective mistake, or objectively correct.

You don't seem to take this problem seriously. Otherwise you would not dismiss one branch of typology as unimportant in the way you do here.

BS! The definition of extraversion is different everywhere. It's the most different in socionics, where it doesn't even depend on sociability.

[machintruc]

Classical Psychology would classify me as an Extrovert.

Why?

For being expressive and stimulation-seeking.

And why do you think that that is enough to classify you as an extravert according to "Classical Psychology"? Since they ("Classical Psychology", Jung, MBTT, Socionics ...) are all talking about the same empirical phenomenon, you are either an extravert in all these systems or you are an extravert in none of them. To classify you as an "Extrovert" is either an objective mistake, or objectively correct.

You don't seem to take this problem seriously. Otherwise you would not dismiss one branch of typology as unimportant in the way you do here.

BS! The definition of extraversion is different everywhere. It's the most different in socionics, where it doesn't even depend on sociability.

Yes it does. For example most SEI's are unsociable.

[Phaedrus]

The definition of extraversion is different everywhere. It's the most different in socionics, where it doesn't even depend on sociability.

As I have tried to explain elsewhere, definitions of the words "extraversion" and "introversion" are totally irrelevant here. Regardless of how different theories prefer to define these words, they all refer to the same biological phenomenon. That phenomenon can be measured, so there is absolutely no need to quarrel about how to define it. It is absolutely obvious that all of them have the same "thing" in mind. You are either an extravert or an introvert -- in every theory, model, or framework that mentions this dichotomy.

[Kristiina]

The definition of extraversion is different everywhere. It's the most different in socionics, where it doesn't even depend on sociability.

As I have tried to explain elsewhere, definitions of the words "extraversion" and "introversion" are totally irrelevant here. Regardless of how different theories prefer to define these words, they all refer to the same biological phenomenon. That phenomenon can be measured, so there is absolutely no need to quarrel about how to define it. It is absolutely obvious that all of them have the same "thing" in mind. You are either an extravert or an introvert -- in every theory, model, or framework that mentions this dichotomy.

I use the word "definition" very broadly. I meant that introversion/extraversion has different meanings depending on the system. Indeed, in each system a person can be either extravert of introvert, as this is a dichotomy and there is no third option. But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another. Those words do not describe the same phenomenon. There are different phenomenons that just happen to have the same name.

[Joy]

The definition of extraversion is different everywhere. It's the most different in socionics, where it doesn't even depend on sociability.

As I have tried to explain elsewhere, definitions of the words "extraversion" and "introversion" are totally irrelevant here. Regardless of how different theories prefer to define these words, they all refer to the same biological phenomenon. That phenomenon can be measured, so there is absolutely no need to quarrel about how to define it. It is absolutely obvious that all of them have the same "thing" in mind. You are either an extravert or an introvert -- in every theory, model, or framework that mentions this dichotomy.

I believe understand the concept that you're explaining here, but I'm not sure I agree that it applies to introversion and extroversion. There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

[Phaedrus]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant. You don't understand these things, because you lack knowledge of them due to lack of study. Study more, and try to learn what this is all about instead of spreading your subjective, random opinions.

As ususal, the mistake you make is to not recognize the difference between meaning and reference. Check it out in a philosophical dictionary or a basic book on semantics.

[Phaedrus]

There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

The only reason we can't tell for sure whether they are introverts or extraverts is because our measurement methods are not perfect. It has nothing to do with which definitions we use. Definitions are almost always unimportant in science. Methods are what counts, not definitions. We observe and study empirical phenomena. We don't argue over semantics in the natural sciences, because that is totally trivial and a huge waste of time. Our definitions can never change the structure of the world, which is what we are interested in here -- the structural differences between introverts and extraverts at a neurobiological level.

[Joy]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated your opinions, then when someone disagreed you start insulting that person.

[Slacker]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant. You don't understand these things, because you lack knowledge of them due to lack of study. Study more, and try to learn what this is all about instead of spreading your subjective, random opinions.

As ususal, the mistake you make is to not recognize the difference between meaning and reference. Check it out in a philosophical dictionary or a basic book on semantics.

You are not some kind of authority on the definition of words. You sound like my 5-year-old daughter who insists on spelling the word "cow" K-O-W. She will argue until death that the word "cow" is spelled that way and she doesn't care what anyone else says about it LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

[Joy]

There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

The only reason we can't tell for sure whether they are introverts or extraverts is because our measurement methods are not perfect. It has nothing to do with which definitions we use. Definitions are almost always unimportant in science. Methods are what counts, not definitions. We observe and study empirical phenomena. We don't argue over semantics in the natural sciences, because that is totally trivial and a huge waste of time. Our definitions can never change the structure of the world, which is what we are interested in here -- the structural differences between introverts and extraverts at a neurobiological level.

Interesting, I just read this theory that describes people who enjoy peppermint as introverts and people who don't as extroverts.

[Joy]

There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

The only reason we can't tell for sure whether they are introverts or extraverts is because our measurement methods are not perfect. It has nothing to do with which definitions we use. Definitions are almost always unimportant in science. Methods are what counts, not definitions. We observe and study empirical phenomena. We don't argue over semantics in the natural sciences, because that is totally trivial and a huge waste of time. Our definitions can never change the structure of the world, which is what we are interested in here -- the structural differences between introverts and extraverts at a neurobiological level.

Seriously, if the description of a phenomenon in a theory is one thing, and another theory describes a different phenomenon, why does it matter if they're referred to by the same terms?

And how is are the "structural differences between introverts and extraverts" measured "at a neurobiological level"?

[Kristiina]

There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

The only reason we can't tell for sure whether they are introverts or extraverts is because our measurement methods are not perfect. It has nothing to do with which definitions we use. Definitions are almost always unimportant in science. Methods are what counts, not definitions. We observe and study empirical phenomena. We don't argue over semantics in the natural sciences, because that is totally trivial and a huge waste of time. Our definitions can never change the structure of the world, which is what we are interested in here -- the structural differences between introverts and extraverts at a neurobiological level.

Te PoLR? I agree that definitions suck. Finding the right inner feeling of the meaning of a pheomenon is more important than phrasing it in a definition. I associate it with Fe>Te. But your version is quite extreme.

[Kristiina]

yeah, definitions are useful. I just don't personally find them any helpful. Bunch of words to try to create an image that would be the same for all people. At least for me. I know some people really like definitions. I have no reason to conform to your opinion that Te is vey useful and it's not about labels and blablabla. Te does not use labels. In stead it uses useless (my subjective evaluation) definitions to see similarities between individual occurances. It would be easier to just group the similar occurances, but Te uses very precise definitions to keep every occurance individual... I know you won't understand me anyway, so I'll stop repeating the same idea over and over.

[marooned]

I perceive introversion/extroversion as only indirectly having something to do with how sociable someone is. Well adjusted people, for instance, will probably be more sociable than maladjusted people. I think that introverts certainly can be very sociable people (though of course some more so than others).

Where I see the distinction is in how the person's energy works. I've noticed that people who I consider to be very extroverted often put together their thoughts outloud, or prefer to discuss matters with others as part of the process of forming their own ideas. They tend to think on their feet better, and I daresay, are often more verbally articulate. They are able to socialize with others for longer periods of time without getting drained of energy--in fact, their energy tends to drain when they are alone for too long.

Introverts can be very sociable in short spurts, or semi-long spurts, but don't seem to have the "stamina" to be social for as long as extraverts can be. Being around too much stimuli for too long, such as other people, loud environments, busy atmospheres, loud noises, etc. drains the introvert's energy... and then they need to be alone and "recharge." Unlike some extroverts, introverts may need to be alone to form their ideas, may not be so good at thinking on their feet, and may require ample time for reflection.

This is how I usually view the difference. It is also why I see myself as an introvert. I notice my energy begins to drain heavily when I'm surrounded by too much "stuff", be that people, busyness, etc. Eventually it starts getting overly tiring, overwhelming, or surreal... I feel more energetic when alone or in small groups of people, and more comfortable. Even when around others, I notice I periodically withdraw into myself and may seem rather "far away" in those moments. When my "energy" drains, I have to "get away" to get it back... I become rather irritable and don't have the energy to interact with others at these times, wanting to just be alone.

It doesn't seem that Socionics really focuses primarily on these dichotomies though. You're an introvert in Socionics if your base function is one the introverted IM elements. The dichotomy is secondary to that, seemingly, and may not even always align with common notions of introversion and extroversion...

I find myself partially agreeing with Phaedrus here though... the essence of introversion and extroversion is rather clear in my mind and I may have difficultly canning that notion (when I can see it so well). The part of what Phaedrus said that I found myself agreeing with was that all of these definitions are probably getting at the same "thing." So no matter what the specific definition of "introversion" and "extroversion" is in each system, it should be rather closely approaching/approximating the same phenomenon.

Then the question becomes, 'how off is my understanding of the essence of it from other understandings? Are we in fact all talking about the same thing? Is it that precise?'

The other thing is... that article I posted and I think some others like it seemed to be associating extroversion with being more sensory... it made me wonder if some of the differences noted had more to do with N/S... meh.

[Blaze]

loki you've defined introversion and extraversion pretty well in my mind. your definition in combination with rick's, where extraverts see their job as being to draw others out and introverts see their job as figuring out how to respond to people who try to draw them out, would flesh out this dichotomy pretty well.

it may not totally fit in with the socionics letters, but it has great face validity and is helpful in type diagnosis. introversion vs extraversion is probably one of the easiest things to notice about somebody, providing you've had a number of interactions with them in different situations.

[Joy]

By these descriptions, I wouldn't really know if I'm introverted or extroverted.

[marooned]

...your definition in combination with rick's, where extraverts see their job as being to draw others out and introverts see their job as figuring out how to respond to people who try to draw them out, would flesh out this dichotomy pretty well.

I forgot about Rick's definition. I agree, that's a big part of it.

introversion vs extraversion is probably one of the easiest things to notice about somebody, providing you've had a number of interactions with them in different situations.

I agree with this too... there are a few people it's tricky with though...

By these descriptions, I wouldn't really know if I'm introverted or extroverted.

How do you know which you are? Or, rather, how do you experience extroversion?

Finding the right inner feeling of the meaning of a pheomenon is more important than phrasing it in a definition.

This is why definitions can get in the way... it's sometimes difficult to put the inner meaning into words in the first place, and then once it is in words, people might use different words (which doesn't necessarily mean they aren't talking about the same thing)... I find myself trying to find the "right" words to get at what I see in my head... and then try to phrase things in a way to translate the "gist" of it, not necessarily making the words thoroughly precise to it...

[Phaedrus]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated your opinions, then when someone disagreed you start insulting that person.

I have explained this many times before on this forum in many different threads. And I told you were to find the information. This is not something that is open for discussion. You can't disagree on this if you understand it.

You are not some kind of authority on the definition of words.

In comparison to almost every other person on this forum I am an expert on semantics.

[Phaedrus]

There are people who aren't clearly one or the other, and whether they're an introvert or extrovert could differ depending on the definitions you use.

The only reason we can't tell for sure whether they are introverts or extraverts is because our measurement methods are not perfect. It has nothing to do with which definitions we use. Definitions are almost always unimportant in science. Methods are what counts, not definitions. We observe and study empirical phenomena. We don't argue over semantics in the natural sciences, because that is totally trivial and a huge waste of time. Our definitions can never change the structure of the world, which is what we are interested in here -- the structural differences between introverts and extraverts at a neurobiological level.

Te PoLR? I agree that definitions suck. Finding the right inner feeling of the meaning of a pheomenon is more important than phrasing it in a definition. I associate it with Fe>Te. But your version is quite extreme.

Finding the right inner feeling of the meaning of a phenomenon is even less important. Such considerations have no place in science. My version is not at all extreme. I am only trying to explain how science works. Definitions belong to language. In the natural sciences (which Socionics should be a part of) we study the world. Why it is a mistake to focus on definitions has been clearly explained by Karl Popper. I suggest that you read what he has written about this.

[Slacker]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated your opinions, then when someone disagreed you start insulting that person.

I have explained this many times before on this forum in many different threads. And I told you were to find the information. This is not something that is open for discussion. You can't disagree on this if you understand it.

You are not some kind of authority on the definition of words.

In comparison to almost every other person on this forum I am an expert on semantics.

How can you say this kind of stuff and not see that you value Se and Ti.

[Joy]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated your opinions, then when someone disagreed you start insulting that person.

I have explained this many times before on this forum in many different threads. And I told you were to find the information. This is not something that is open for discussion. You can't disagree on this if you understand it.

You are not some kind of authority on the definition of words.

In comparison to almost every other person on this forum I am an expert on semantics.

How can you say this kind of stuff and not see that you value Se and Ti.

I'm with you 110%.

[Joy]

By these descriptions, I wouldn't really know if I'm introverted or extroverted.

How do you know which you are? Or, rather, how do you experience extroversion?

Temperaments. "Proactive, restless" fits me perfectly, and "relaxed, go with the flow" and "calm, balanced" do not. However, my relationship history shows that I need to be with someone who's "calm, balanced". Every serious relationship I've had (besides a bad one with an EJ) was with an IJ, and attempts as building relationships with other temperaments have not gone well. I need somebody who's steady but not too laid back. I need somebody who balances me out (I can be pretty high strung).

Socially I've always gotten along best with introverts generally speaking, too, though many of my best friends have been SEE. (Relationships with SEE's have never really seemed like a good idea though. They're great friends, but not self-contained enough to suit me well in a relationship.)

[Phaedrus]

But a person can be an extravert in one system and introvert in another.

No. As I just explained, you can not.

Those words do not describe the same phenomenon.

Wrong. As I also just explained, they in fact describe the same phenomenon. You are just ignorant.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated your opinions, then when someone disagreed you start insulting that person.

I have explained this many times before on this forum in many different threads. And I told you were to find the information. This is not something that is open for discussion. You can't disagree on this if you understand it.

You are not some kind of authority on the definition of words.

In comparison to almost every other person on this forum I am an expert on semantics.

How can you say this kind of stuff and not see that you value Se and Ti.

It could be illuminating for many, if you presented the arguments for LSI as you see them. You obviously have an incorrect image of what I am like, based on how I come across to you on this forum. You totally ignore everything I say is the truth of what I am like IRL and prefer to stick to your own image, which you believe represents the truth of my type.

So, what are the typical signs of ISTj that you believe are so obvious in my posts?

[Slacker]

The typical signs of ISTj that you display are Ti and Se. Although others have told me you're probably INFp because they think that while you obviously VALUE Ti and Se, you are not good enough at logic or a good enough thinker to have Ti as your leading function. As I'm not a thinker, I'll let the thinkers think what they think. But my feeling is that you're ISTj.

Ti signs: Having an idea in your head and working outside information around that idea or discarding it. Willing to take two words out of a paragraph if those two words fit your idea, even if the rest of the paragraph contradicts it. If anything disturbs the way you have this system arranged in your head, it has to be wrong. You are worse about this than most Ti types but that's probably the pairing of Ti and Se. People with Ti and Ne are more open minded than you are by a LONG LONG LONG LONG shot.

Se signs: Look at any post you write and your authoritative tone is so obvious it's scary. YOU MUST BELIEVE ME OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I am the ONLY one who seems to be able to understand this. I am THE AUTHORITY on semantics. Etc.

Ne PoLR signs: Not recognizing that different people can read the same information, consider it, and come to different conclusions. That these people coming to different conclusions doesn't mean you're smart and they're stupid but simply that they drew different conclusions. Not being able to consider other possibilities than your own, and at times appearing quite irate at the suggestion that you should.

I think this "tell me how you see I'm ISTj" is a Ti trap where you will look through what I write and search for logical inconsistencies to try to show the world that I am stupid. I don't care if I'm sometimes logically inconsistent. I don't even care if I'm stupid. Your preference for Ti and Se is so glaring that almost every single person here sees it in flashing neon colors. It isn't just me, and it isn't that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for the information, SM. Now, how would you -- hypothetically -- explain the feeling of yours that I am an ISTj, given the assumption that I am not an ISTj? Let's pretend that you know for certain that I am not an ISTj, but you have forgotten how you came to that insight. Can you then provide a reasonable explanation why it is a mistake to see me as an ISTj, despite all those indications of that type?

A few comments for a start:

Se signs: Look at any post you write and your authoritative tone is so obvious it's scary. YOU MUST BELIEVE ME OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I am the ONLY one who seems to be able to understand this. I am THE AUTHORITY on semantics. Etc.

To my knowledge you have never said that you think that I am a leading type. If you think that I am an ISTj, then I would have as creative function. But what you describe here is not a typical characteristic of either ISTjs or INTjs, is it?

Ne PoLR signs: Not recognizing that different people can read the same information, consider it, and come to different conclusions. That these people coming to different conclusions doesn't mean you're smart and they're stupid but simply that they drew different conclusions. Not being able to consider other possibilities than your own, and at times appearing quite irate at the suggestion that you should.

How do you know that I don't recognize that? There is a big and very important difference between being able to recognize different viewpoints and believing that they all deserve equal merit.

Your preference for Ti and Se is so glaring that almost every single person here sees it in flashing neon colors. It isn't just me, and it isn't that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

Is that really true? How many people actually agree with Slacker Mom here? Is there anyone who disagrees with her on that?