One person's take on different people's ideas on the forum

[Jonathan]

*** WARNING: This post contains very lengthy, unedited, rambling, controversial, and hypothetical viewpoints about the ideas of other forum members. No offense is meant here; this thread is merely one person's digesting of what other people have said. It is an attempt to hone in on some of the central "unique" ideas that are associated with various forum members, and to find a common thread...some might say a rather bizarre and completely coincidental common thread... ***

Expat: While Expat has contributed a number of ideas, among the most unique is that there are a lot of people whose main emphasis appears to be Ti who are nevertheless IEI. This seems to solve the very common question "How I can identify so much with Ip, N, and Ti?" Expat tends to see many of these people as obstinate, although that may be an expression of his "supervisor" relationship with IEI. While this theory is useful in typing people in person who clearly show signs of Ni and Ip temperament, it may be more problemmatic online when any such indications are ambiguous. Interestingly, it seems that the sort of "unflinching" behavior that some people thought related to Ij temperament may be similar to the sort of "obstinate" behavior that Expat sees as indicating a Ti-focused IEI. Another question is whether some Ni types who seem to "give off Ti" may really be some sort of extreme Ni subtype of ILI. Nevertheless, the recognition of the IEI/Ti type as a particular kind of intellectual personality may be an important contribution. Perhaps more effort could be given to fleshing out what IEI-Ti types are like, and particularly high-functioning ones (not just the "obstinate" sort). It should be noted that despite Expat's apparent strong lack of acceptance/interest in Tcaud's theories, his ideas strongly parallel Tcaud's earlier conception of NiTi types. Even Expat's description of what he sees as the IEI/Ti's dysfunctional behaviors, particularly with regard to Te, seems similar to Tcaud's idea regarding undifferentiation of Je.

hitta: Hitta's system involves a number of hypotheses, but among the most interesting is the extension of Gulenko's "+/-" dimension in a way in which it seems close to "values/devalues," leading to what we might call the "left-shifting hypothesis" whereby each type seems at times "almost" like the type immediately to its left. While hitta doesn't fully postulate a complete theory of "left-shifting," his descriptions of LIIs focused on "unconditional love" and IEEs being mainly practical types show the influence of left-shifting. Unfortunately, the dynamic between hitta and the rest of the forum has eliminated any sort of objective discussion of how to test for evidence of left-shifting, etc. Some evidence could be found. One admittedly highly speculative example is that Rachmaninoff, who many Socionist consider LII in person, often wrote music that seems to evoke an Fi sense of interpersonal relationships. If we go further out on a limb here, we might even consider that some of the several people on the forum who insist that they're ILI but seem to Expat (and now some others) to be IEI are in fact "left-shifted" ILIs...that is, that their crea-Te, being "-Te," is an emphasized function that nevertheless exists to "protect" and eventually lead toward +Fe. This also leads to the question about whether the degree of "+" and "-" (and hence the degree of left shifting) may differ among individuals.

Smilex: Smilex's approach involved emphasis on Reinin dichotomies and the belief that types represent states of mind rather than stable, unchanging aspects of the personality. Unlike others who, like him, talk about type change and shifting among type "states," Smilex believed that type shifting is mostly within a temperament...especially involving shifting to the type immediately to the left or to the right. Among his most unusual ideas was that the process/result dichotomy led to an altered relationship between the accepting and producing functions. In process types, this relationship would be more or less as described by Augusta: One starts with the accepting function and seeks to "produce" a result in the space of the producing function. But a result type would "start" with the producing function in some manner. Interestingly, if one considers the "+/-" thing, this is equivalent to saying that one will start with whichever function in the ego block has a + sign. Hence, one will start with whatever function the type to one's left starts with; this could be seen as yet another form of the left-shifting hypothesis, although admittedly that's probably twisting it a bit past what Smilex had in mind.

Tcaud: Despite having a reputation for pushing "far out" theories, Tcaud's researches are based on very basic, understandable extensions to Socionics. Initially, he attempted to flesh out Jung's conception of "undifferentiation." Later, he experimented with functional patterns that broke the rules of which IM elements can be blocked together. This theory was itself related to undifferentiation. For example, the NiTi type (I think he called them "INxp" or "INTx," but those notations seem ambiguous) would have undifferentiated Je. More recently, he has explored the idea that the information aspects may play different roles in different dimensions, or aspects, of the personality. For example, if viewed "in one way," a person may be one type, but if the information aspects were applied to another aspect, that person may be a completely different type. (Although this process could involve many different types for the same person, Tcaud has stuck with two.) This idea seems potentially promising as a way to explain contradictions people experience...for example, one may ask "Why is it that I identify functionally with this type, but all my interests line up completely with a different quadra?" While this is a promising idea, the sticking point for most people has been the difficulty regarding how one might be able to relate type-related clues to each of the two aspects, which he refers to as information "metabolism" and "exertion." Suppose, for example, we're trying to figure out if someone is type A or type B. We look at the person's behavior, speech, etc. Perhaps some things may point to type A and some to type B....but which observations should we consider to characterize the "metabolism" and which ones the "exertion"?

Phaedrus: Phaedrus often finds himself in the debate between those who emphasize the true fact that a theory may use any set of definitions (e.g., you could create a system where Te = liking the color blue if you wanted to) and those who emphasize the equally true fact that some definitions lead to more "useful" systems than others. He clearly holds to a strong version of the second position, suggesting that people who consider that one system is as good as another are relativists and wrong. However, he also sees this conflict as type-related, suggesting that people who value Ti are the relativists, whereas those who, like him, value Te, recognize the need to focus on empirical, external "truth." (Of course, holding that either position is merely an indication of type and therefore not any more correct than the other is at least a partial concession to what we might call "type-based relativism.") Among his most controversial proposals is the idea that different typologies that seem similar and use similar terminologies (inherited from Jung) are necessarily based on empirical observations that converge, and that the notationally simplest "mappings" between these systems are the correct ones. He has also proposed that when a functional understanding (e.g., IM elements, Model A) conflicts with this "empirical mapping" approach, the functional understanding should be discarded in favor of the hypothesis that the various systems are all recognizing the same empirical observations regarding groupings of people. This theory has some appeal but would require disciplined scientific studies for any kind of proof. It is Phaedrus's outspoken faith that these systems have the same empirical underpinnings, and the stalwart quest to find this empirical unity, that has led some people to conclude that he isn't ILI but is (at first people said) LII and more recently the type to the left of ILI, being IEI.

[Expat]

Expat: While Expat has contributed a number of ideas, among the most unique is that there are a lot of people whose main emphasis appears to be Ti who are nevertheless IEI.

Slightly sophisticated, yes -- unique, no.

This seems to solve the very common question "How I can identify so much with Ip, N, and Ti?" Expat tends to see many of these people as obstinate, although that may be an expression of his "supervisor" relationship with IEI. While this theory is useful in typing people in person who clearly show signs of Ni and Ip temperament, it may be more problemmatic online when any such indications are ambiguous. Interestingly, it seems that the sort of "unflinching" behavior that some people thought related to Ij temperament may be similar to the sort of "obstinate" behavior that Expat sees as indicating a Ti-focused IEI.

The many points you're missing - despite my having made at least some of them clear to you over PM, I believe - are those:

- Ni dominance is not very easy to spot online, same as Si dominance. Is there so much Ni in your own posts? The person here whose Ni dominance "pops up" most clearly online is reyn. I mean easy to spot spontaneously; not just when people are specifically talking about Ni.
- The same goes for IP temperament, although in videos I think I can spot it sometimes (but not with absolute certainty, of course). So in some cases I'm actually giving the person credit when they say that they are clearly IP.
- rather than this "obstinate behavior" thing, what I do see is strong Ti>Te preference, but also with less concern for Te than I would expect in LIIs, and something like what I described in my "pathetic Ti" description. Now, what I said there could be interpreted as "obstinate behavior", but it's not the same thing as "obstinate behavior" = Ti focused IEI.

Another question is whether some Ni types who seem to "give off Ti" may really be some sort of extreme Ni subtype of ILI.

Which is the same thing as saying "ILIs that are very similar to IEIs" - which is a sort of use of the subtype theory as a cop-out, because then the issue remains of where to draw the line.

Nevertheless, the recognition of the IEI/Ti type as a particular kind of intellectual personality may be an important contribution. Perhaps more effort could be given to fleshing out what IEI-Ti types are like, and particularly high-functioning ones (not just the "obstinate" sort).

As I have explained to you over PM, I think it's fairly easy to decide whether someone is IEI, ILI or LII, no matter how Ti-focused or what you decided to call "obstinate", after spending some time with them IRL. Online it's more difficult.

And yet another point you have missed: I am not seeing just Ti>Te preference; I am seeing Fe>Fi preference. So it's not as simplistic as what you are describing.

The individuals we have discussed are keen to attribute emotional, "political", motivations to those disagreeing with them, in order to dismiss or neutralize their arguments. That is a use of Fe: what is relevant is not what people are actually saying, but the hidden implications and motivations behind what people are saying. Both Phaedrus and hitta are quick - especially when feeling "cornered" - to do this, as in hitta's certainty that niffweed17's motivations are about "making an impression on the forum", which is the reason "why anyone does anything", and Phaedrus saying that the only possible motivation to question his type is to want to attack him, or his "lone wolf" delusions -- people "attack him" because he's a "lone wolf. That kind of thing, which he may think it's ILI behavior, but it's an use of Fe and Ti.

It should be noted that despite Expat's apparent strong lack of acceptance/interest in Tcaud's theories, his ideas strongly parallel Tcaud's earlier conception of NiTi types. Even Expat's description of what he sees as the IEI/Ti's dysfunctional behaviors, particularly with regard to Te, seems similar to Tcaud's idea regarding undifferentiation of Je.

That is perhaps the most erroneous thing in your whole post. tcaudilllg, so I understand, referred to new types. I am not inventing any new type, Jonathan; if you think I am, this shows your limited knowledge and understanding of socionics, of what I have said, and even of what tcaudilllg has suggested. I am simply trying to give an explanation, totally consistent with a deeper understanding of classical socionics, for the behavior online of some individuals. This is all the more bizarre given your own comment on the "super-human" use of the 6th function in the "pathetic" thread.

Moreover, I do not think AT ALL that they have "undiferentiated Je"; this is totally unwarranted. I have said, all the time, that they have HUGE Fe>Te preference, as in Te PoLR.

[Expat]

It is Phaedrus's outspoken faith that these systems have the same empirical underpinnings, and the stalwart quest to find this empirical unity, that has led some people to conclude that he isn't ILI but is (at first people said) LII and more recently the type to the left of ILI, being IEI.

On this, an amusing exercise is to check Sergei Ganin's "INTj or INTp" article, point by point, and see which of the two Phaedrus resembles the most -- according to his own statements, repeated here many times.

One example (no, not quoted out of context - check the original article here):

Introverted feeling is love, affection, morality etc. It is important for an INTp to be involved with someone, to have an object of affection, to like people. If this doesn't concern you, you are probably a type other than INTp.

Whenever people raise the issue of his supposed Fi > Fe preference, Phaedrus dismisses it as unimportant, saying that INTps do not care much for either Fe or Fi. Well, Sergei Ganin sees that as essential to being INTp.

And the same goes for all the other points Ganin makes in that article -- it is quite amusing.

I am often critical of Ganin, but that one article is good -- of course, it is rudimentary socionics.

[Expat]

his descriptions of LIIs focused on "unconditional love" and IEEs being mainly practical types show the influence of left-shifting. Unfortunately, the dynamic between hitta and the rest of the forum has eliminated any sort of objective discussion of how to test for evidence of left-shifting, etc. Some evidence could be found. One admittedly highly speculative example is that Rachmaninoff, who many Socionist consider LII in person, often wrote music that seems to evoke an Fi sense of interpersonal relationships.

Man -- if you have to go for that kind of arcane "hightly speculative examples" -- isn't it more likely that hitta's descriptions are just plain rubbish?

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I figured you'd have issues with what I said.

I didn't mean to imply that your way of thinking is the same as Tcaud's or anyone else's (such as with his considering his conceptions to be "new" types).
You're right, I could have said things more precisely (there's always a danger in paraphrasing what someone has said), but the intent, rather than implying that you're saying the "same thing" was to state what I found to be some of the more unique (or semi-unique) points made by various people, and at the same time allow certain resemblences to come out....resemblences that may be superficial or mean nothing, but are nevertheless apparent. It doesn't mean that everyone I mentioned would agree on the same definitions or models (obviously).

Clearly Tcaud's and hitta's ideas are far more speculative than yours, and they seem less interested in understanding the existing models. I've pointed out many of the problems in both of their models, so yeah, you could dismiss hitta's model as "rubbish," but I nevertheless think that the hypothesis that people may, under certain circumstances, display behaviors that could be interpreted as those of the type to their left (because the one function in their ego block that's different from the type to their left is always "-") to be an interesting hypothesis to think about. Somehow, sometimes I like to entertain notions that (you could say) seem to be almost certainly wrong, just because they're interesting or show some sort of potential.

And by the way, the bizarre "super human" comment was actually more in reference to the 5th (suggestive) function. Also, just to make clear: I'm not arguing about what anybody's type is in this thread.

[Blaze]

i like the idea of this thread.

[Expat]

And by the way, the bizarre "super human" comment was actually more in reference to the 5th (suggestive) function. Also, just to make clear: I'm not arguing about what anybody's type is in this thread.

I did not say, nor mean, that the "super human" comment was bizarre; I did say and mean that your comparing my suggestions of a focus on the 6h functions to tcaudilllg's NiTi type was bizarre, given that you had done something similar with that comment.

[Expat]

I nevertheless think that the hypothesis that people may, under certain circumstances, display behaviors that could be interpreted as those of the type to their left (because the one function in their ego block that's different from the type to their left is always "-") to be an interesting hypothesis to think about.

Then I suggest you explore that particular hypothesis without plunging into the manure of the rest of his theory.

[Gilly]

Johnathan, you come off as at least reasonably intelligent sometimes. How can you even begin to consider people like tcaud and Phaedrus as having legitimate propositions?

[Expat]

I didn't mean to imply that your way of thinking is the same as Tcaud's or anyone else's (such as with his considering his conceptions to be "new" types).

If you "did not mean to imply" that, then why did you say this:

despite Expat's apparent strong lack of acceptance/interest in Tcaud's theories, his ideas strongly parallel Tcaud's earlier conception of NiTi types.

Are you going to give the easy answer that "strongly parallel" is different from "being the same"?

[Gilly]

If you're going to compare Expat's typing of people as IEIs partly because of their use of Ti, the only possible crackpot you can compare him to is Ashton, who says that the HA is just as "strong" as the Dominant, but "less refined," which is somewhat true depending on your definition of the terms, but the way he uses it....no. In that sense, all functions are equally "strong" in people, just "less refined" according to what is commonly thought of as functional "strength." So its just different terminology.

[Expat]

Not really, because I have never said that the Ti even in those cases was "as strong", or even nearly so, as their Ni. Again the thing is that their use of Ni is less visible, especially online.

[Joy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't generally see Expat doing anything other than explaining concepts already existing in traditional Socionics (as opposed to tc who combines Socionics with new systems he's invented or phaerus who combines Socionics with other already existing systems).

[krieger]

Expat's claims that heavily NT oriented people like Pheadrus might be mistyped NF's is definitely worth putting in that list, IMO. Very controversial.

[Joy]

What does "heavily NT oriented" mean?

[Slacker]

Phaedrus is SO NOT "heavily NT oriented" LOL. More like heavily Ti and Se focused.

I should make a post about MY opinions about several people in the forum, but I think Gilly beat me to it a while back.

[snegledmaca]

Expat's claims that heavily NT oriented people like Pheadrus might be mistyped NF's is definitely worth putting in that list, IMO. Very controversial.

I'm pretty certain phaedrus is my identical (or at least activity). And I think expat's claim has merit to it. I was actually just like phaedrus a long time ago. But then I got brutally owned by an ILE (The nobody can hit you below the belt like somebody close to home is so true). Let's just say that I haven't even though about making ridiculous claims with nothing backing them up but my intuition after that. Well, not really not making them, making them is really in my blood, more like if somebody even as objects I back off. Back off miles away. Instantly drop it. Nothing is worth going through that again.

[snegledmaca]

Expat's claims that heavily NT oriented people like Pheadrus might be mistyped NF's is definitely worth putting in that list, IMO. Very controversial.

I'm pretty certain phaedrus is my identical (or at least activity). And I think expat's claim has merit to it. I was actually just like phaedrus a long time ago. But then I got brutally owned by an ILE (The nobody can hit you below the belt like somebody close to home is so true). Let's just say that I haven't even though about making ridiculous claims with nothing backing them up but my intuition after that. Well, not really not making them, making them is really in my blood, more like if somebody even as objects I back off. Back off miles away. Instantly drop it.

Back when you were into all those mathematical equations?

Lol, I still am. I just don't post any of my models. Couldn't bare the criticism. No, before on another site. I made some claim on I think religion/belief or some such thing. The guy riped me a new one. Somehow, don't know how he did it, he made my thinking be wrong. It's like I became retarded or something. Well, no not really, gah, can't really explain it, somehow just by thinking alone I was wrong. Like, as if I moved I would've done something wrong. Taken a breath. Can't explain it except it felt as begin roped, gagged and raped (Not that I would really know how that felt, just trying to think of some metaphor where complete dominance is involved. It took me a month to get over it and I was physically shaking for a week and couldn't really sleep for a couple of days).

EDIT: Well, not really that I couldn't bare the criticism, more like I totally wouldn't be interested in it. I would be interested in people accepting and building/expanding upon my model, not telling me it's wrong. That would be like the exact thing I do not want to hear, do not care about. I do not care if I am wrong, I just want to be right. People should be telling me how to be right, not in what ways I'm wrong.

[Ezra]

Phaedrus is SO NOT "heavily NT oriented" LOL. More like heavily Ti and Se focused.

SM, you need to be more objective. Instead of taking the "I don't like Phaedrus and since I am IEE he must be my conflictor" approach, stand back and look at it. If he was an LSI, why is it that I don't like him, sympathise with him, enjoy reading what he has written, or regard anything he has written with any level of seriousness?

Actually, sorry, I've done exactly what I just told you not to do.

[aestrivex]

Why does Expat get all the credit (blame?) for typing Phaedrus et al as IEI?

because IEI is not a common typing for phaedrus (at least, was not until recently; god only knows what people think phaedrus is nowadays) and because expat has presented a fairly detailed argument for why this sort of Ti-ish jumble of intellectual bullshit might be proposed by an NiFe type.


i don't know exactly what any of this means. i haven't fully grokked the idea of phaedrus as an Fe type, even as expat explains it; expat's arguments for an Fe-biased perspective make sense, but the way that phaedrus comports himself does not tend to suggest to me that he has any emotional awareness. however, i suppose that this is also compounded by the fact that he doesn't do a damn thing besides talk about theory; this seems to be a characteristics of some of these Ni/Ti blend people (i tend to think of as snegledmaca, hitta, phaedrus, kioshi).



i used to think all of these people were LIIs. now i don't have a damn clue about any of them. further compounding the matter, apparently some people think they're LSI. i don't think that's likely, but it's not a possibility i've thought about hardly at all.

[mikemex]

One big and missing point of view here is mine.

I don't think socionics is true. By this I mean, the mind isn't composed by a set of predefined blocks that stack on top of each other in an specific way.

To explain why do I think so, we have to review two basic assumptions of socionics: that there is a certain amount of types and that everybody fits inside one of them.

Let's see the first assumption: there is a certain amount of types.

The main difference between a computer and a brain (not only human) is that a computer has a finite set of states, while a brain is in essence infinite.

This is because a computer is a static element which simulates dynamism. Although a computer can perform different operations, the truth is that the data buses, the logical and arithmetical units and other parts of a microprocessor are wired the same way always. So if you let a computer run forever, it will eventually reach all possibilities and start running in circles.

A brain, not only the human brain but all of them, has a characteristic that computers doesn't have: it's a truly dynamic element. A brain can do something a computer will never be able to: to process some information, rewire itself and process the same information yet getting different results.

To be explicit, a brain is a perpetual recycling machine. Each time it changes, a new set of possibilities is established and it never runs long enough to deplete it, because it changes again, over and over.

So, can you imagine a dynamic element structured like a static one? I can't. And I can't because it makes no sense. I can only explain such way of thinking by the abuse of statistics, like in many other areas of knowledge. Some people tends to believe that anything which is statistically significant has a direct correlation with reality, while in fact it doesn't.

The trick goes as follows: one can pick up any dichotomy, divide a large group into sections, then apply another dichotomy and further divide it and so. In the end we end up with smaller groups that share certain characteristics and that are ordered in an orthogonal way. So if you ask a member of a group to make a choice, you're likely to get the same response from other members. The degree of agreement will be in direct relationship of the "quality" of the dichotomies you used to build the group.

This explains the interrelationship aspect of socionics, but it proves nothing about the way we process information and it causes an endless (and useless) discussion on why members of a type are similar and different at the same time. Summarized, it goes like:

* The groups are only consistent to the degree of dichotomies applied to them. Outside the dichotomies the characteristics of an individual are in essence unpredictable.
* Given enough dichotomies one ends up with groups of a single individual (which is cycling thinking).

I'll add more later.

[Jonathan]

I didn't mean to imply that your way of thinking is the same as Tcaud's or anyone else's (such as with his considering his conceptions to be "new" types).

If you "did not mean to imply" that, then why did you say this:

despite Expat's apparent strong lack of acceptance/interest in Tcaud's theories, his ideas strongly parallel Tcaud's earlier conception of NiTi types.

Are you going to give the easy answer that "strongly parallel" is different from "being the same"?

By parallel, I meant that one can see a parallel....i.e., the idea that there's a certain type of person where Ni and Ti predominate (or are the functions that are most observable at least), and where neither Te or Fe seem to be particularly strong, emphasized, developed, visible, etc.

By not "being the same," I'm acknowledging what you said about how Tcaud sees it as a "new type" whereas you don't, or that Tcaud in his conception attributed the apparent weakness or lack of skillfull display of either Te or Fe as "undifferentiation" whereas you see it as Te PoLR and Fe not appearing "strong" for some other reasons.

So, I'm simply acknowledging that there can be parallels, that one can draw analogies or interesting mappings between different ideas, without the two sides necessarily agreeing in terms of where they're coming from.

[Jonathan]

Why does Expat get all the credit (blame?) for typing Phaedrus et al as IEI?

because IEI is not a common typing for phaedrus (at least, was not until recently; god only knows what people think phaedrus is nowadays) and because expat has presented a fairly detailed argument for why this sort of Ti-ish jumble of intellectual bullshit might be proposed by an NiFe type.

Well, it's odd that this is presented as one of Expat's unique ideas as he is neither the only nor the first poster to have that idea -- even for precisely the same reasons -- about Phaedrus (and he is also not the most "ruthless" typer of IEIs).

I'm not trying to detract from the arguments that he's made, but it's probably unfair on him to just put it as some crazy idea of his.

Maybe other people have come up with similar ideas to Expat's (besides others I mentioned)...I don't know. I heard that Gulenko had come with a "Ti subtype of IEI" but I haven't heard much about it. On the forum, this particular point of Expat's seems to stand out as the main and most interesting thing he says that goes beyond merely explaining "classical Socionics." It's an interesting idea, and he seems to be the main exponent of it, at least on the forum.

[Jonathan]

Johnathan, you come off as at least reasonably intelligent sometimes. How can you even begin to consider people like tcaud and Phaedrus as having legitimate propositions?

Anybody could have a legitimate proposition. (I guess maybe I'm being "democratic" in the Reinin sense. ) I'm not suggesting that all these people I mentioned have the same level of knowledge of Socionics. However, some of the people with the more "way out" ideas have really managed to have unique things to say that have stimulated much of the conversation on the forum, despite what you might think of them. I guess it would be boring if people only stated the obvious or already-known things, or if nobody were allowed to speculate unless they had mastered every detail. I am annoyed when some people don't make an effort to learn the mainstream theory or fail to be able to distinguish their own speculations from it. But I think these people have every right to mention their ideas, and I don't think we should evaluate people's ideas by who said them.

[Jonathan]

(I guess maybe I'm being "democratic" in the Reinin sense. )

Are you sure Democratic? I thought perhaps Constructivst.

Admittedly I'm not a Reinin expert; maybe someone more into Reinin could verify (I have to get on to other things tonight).

[Megan]

(i tend to think of as snegledmaca, hitta, phaedrus, kioshi).



i used to think all of these people were LIIs. now i don't have a damn clue about any of them.

I still think of most of them as INTjs because when I can manage to struggle through the complexity of their writings it does end up sounding like / ideas mainly. I have honestly not seen any arguments that convincingly show that these people are INFps or even ethical types but who knows.

[FDG]

I just hope Mikemex avoids trying to add things to the convo

[mikemex]

A true scientist has no certainties about anything. It doesn't matter how well proven something is, it can always be proven false later. And I don't even see a single solid proof of the existence of socionics.

As long as you take socionics for granted, you all are at risk of being members of a psychology based cult, based on faith and not reason.

Again, a true scientist spends his time trying to prove himself wrong. Just think about that.

[FDG]

Man, I read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery twice, thank you. I don't need you to enlighten me. That's exactly why I don't like your posts, guru of my fucking cock.

[Expat]

By not "being the same," I'm acknowledging what you said about how Tcaud sees it as a "new type" whereas you don't, or that Tcaud in his conception attributed the apparent weakness or lack of skillfull display of either Te or Fe as "undifferentiation" whereas you see it as Te PoLR and Fe not appearing "strong" for some other reasons.

Jonathan, stop misrepresenting my views. I have said very clearly why I see Te PoLR, as well as strong Fe (as creative Beta Fe, for that matter).

If you do not agree, it's fine; but if you are going to write about what I have written, don't misrepresent it. Unless you are unable to understand it, in which case you should add a disclaimer to the effect "I don't understand why Expat says they have strong Fe".

[Expat]

Expat's claims that heavily NT oriented people like Pheadrus might be mistyped NF's is definitely worth putting in that list, IMO. Very controversial.

If you put it in those silly terms, no wonder it's "controversial".

i don't know exactly what any of this means. i haven't fully grokked the idea of phaedrus as an Fe type, even as expat explains it; expat's arguments for an Fe-biased perspective make sense, but the way that phaedrus comports himself does not tend to suggest to me that he has any emotional awareness. however, i suppose that this is also compounded by the fact that he doesn't do a damn thing besides talk about theory; this seems to be a characteristics of some of these Ni/Ti blend people (i tend to think of as snegledmaca, hitta, phaedrus, kioshi).



i used to think all of these people were LIIs. now i don't have a damn clue about any of them. further compounding the matter, apparently some people think they're LSI. i don't think that's likely, but it's not a possibility i've thought about hardly at all.

If that makes some of you happy: the people the controversy is about may well be LIIs imo. That would be my second choice.

As for "Ni/Ti" blend: I don't think it's necessary to think of that, despite all the nonsense Jonathan has tried to attribute to me. When do you spot Ni - just Ni - in people's posts directly? Is there a lot of Ni in niffweed17's posts? Or Jonathan's? Or Phaedrus's? Sneglegmaca's, Kioshi's? Do you read the posts of any of those people and say, "ah, it's full of Ni?"

As I have said, the only person here - at least recently, in as far as I have cared to notice or remember - who writes stuff that often seems to have "spontaneous Ni" is reyn_til_runa.

We are all discussing a theoretical subject with some references to empirical examples, in an online medium. It's relatively easy to make an estimate, after some observation of people who write often and freely, whether they prefer Fe to Fi or Te to Ti, because those are the functions most often used in direct communication.

To those who say - like Jonathan, who seems to be going through one of his phases like "Ni is planning, socionics collapses" - "I am only seeing Ti in people who you claim are Ni dominant" - tell me then, how would you expect to see the Ni so obviously? Jonathan mentioned the use of Ni-related words and expressions. How many of those are visible in Jonathan's own posts?

It's just silly.

[Expat]

i haven't fully grokked the idea of phaedrus as an Fe type, even as expat explains it; expat's arguments for an Fe-biased perspective make sense, but the way that phaedrus comports himself does not tend to suggest to me that he has any emotional awareness.

That's where I disagree.

[Expat]

Let's elaborate then on what is meant by "emotional awareness" - as in Fe.

One aspect of it is what most people seem to be thinking of: whether someone else (whether an individual or group) is happy, sad, angry, offended, annoyed, pleased - as measured by dynamic characteristics, not static ones.

Alpha Fe is generally at an optimal state when it provides positive Si perceptions - Fe that leads to cozy sensations in a given moment: joy, happiness, a smile, the feeling of being welcome, of being liked, of being in a good mood. That is the Fe + Si state that Alphas usually aim at, and which - not unnaturally, since socionics was primarily designed by Alphas - people first associate with plain "Fe".

For that matter, Deltas value Fi but are also comforted by things like people smiling, a cozy atmosphere, etc. But that is due to Si, no Fe.

In the case of Fe EJs, the person's most natural mode is to proactively steer their own Fe, as well as that of the immediate surroundings (since both are connected). In the case of Fe IPs, their most natural state is to receive the Fe input that is affecting their Si or Ni perceptions.

Beta Fe is a different thing, since it is at an optimal state when it provides input that favors the Ni perceptions. That can be a lot of things, since Ni is a very "individual" thing. Very often it means that the emotional response of others - Fe - is that what will make Ni feel it's on "the right path".

As Kristiina has eloquently described elsewhere, one manifestation is the perception that others accept the person's intended social role - one example is of the EIE enneagram 3 "achiever", where "achievement" is measured by others' perception of it. That is, that others do view the EIE as "achiever".

That is what is meant when socionics texts refer to the "actor" EIE. The EIE is acting out roles -- but the EIE also believes that the roles are real, or wants to believe that, and gets validation when others believe it, too.

That, however, does not necessarily have anything to do with the Si coziness of Alpha Fe -- although it also often has, of course. Still, that is the main reason why Beta NFs often do not identify with Fe descriptions at first -- because they are more the "cozy" Fe kind.

In the case of IEIs, whose natural state is of Ni IP, they will be less likely to try to steer the emotional environment in a Fe EJ manner; and even less likely to do it in an Alpha Fe EJ manner.

The "emotional state" of which IEIs are aware - or concerned with - is if the longer-term emotional attitude of the environment (ie mostly other people) is such as to make them feel positive with regard to Ni. Usually this has the following manifestations: is that guy my enemy, is he my ally; is he going to cooperate, etc etc. And this also has the aspect of, as in above, do they see me the way my Ni perceives it to be the right path?

And before you say anything, just think -- isn't that how the IEI can be most helpful to the SLE dual?

[Phaedrus]

(I guess maybe I'm being "democratic" in the Reinin sense. )

Are you sure Democratic? I thought perhaps Constructivst.

He is both.

[Phaedrus]

(i tend to think of as snegledmaca, hitta, phaedrus, kioshi).



i used to think all of these people were LIIs. now i don't have a damn clue about any of them.

I still think of most of them as INTjs because when I can manage to struggle through the complexity of their writings it does end up sounding like / ideas mainly. I have honestly not seen any arguments that convincingly show that these people are INFps or even ethical types but who knows.

If you still have that INTp as your neighbour, Megan, and you two have not turned into enemies by now, you have an excellent opportunitiy to compare our writings with how he thinks, argues, and perhaps also writes. What does he identify with? Does he understand what we are talking about? Is there really anything in his ideas that does sound clearly less / and more / ?

[Phaedrus]

The "emotional state" of which IEIs are aware - or concerned with - is if the longer-term emotional attitude of the environment (ie mostly other people) is such as to make them feel positive with regard to Ni. Usually this has the following manifestations: is that guy my enemy, is he my ally; is he going to cooperate, etc etc. And this also has the aspect of, as in above, do they see me the way my Ni perceives it to be the right path?

I don't disagree with that analysis of how IEIs are. But what I can't understand is why people don't see that my behaviour is totally different from what Expat describes here, and also that my motives are none of the above. What Exapt (correctly) attributes to IEIs is so alien to what I am really like, that I am totally convinced that we would get a much deeper and more correct understanding of Socionics if we tried to analyze the causes of Expat's misinterpretation of the manifestations of my type.

The more Expat tries to explain why he thinks that I could be an IEI, the more obvious it becomes that I absolutely cannot be one. In every one of his "tests" designed to determine the relevant type differences I turn out as not an IEI. The IEI hypothesis just doesn't make any sense to those who really know me, and I am certain that Jarno feels pretty much the same way about Expat's analysis of his type after their meeting in Germany.

The LSI hypothesis, which has been suggested by some members here, is even more absurd. How many of you believe that the Earth is flat? I would say that those two hypotheses are about equally plausible.

[consentingadult]

Man, I read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery twice, thank you. I don't need you to enlighten me. That's exactly why I don't like your posts, guru of my fucking cock.

I would like to point out some articles on Wikipedia to you. I'm sure you'll have no trouble understanding, since you actually read Popper!

Wikipedia on "Suppression of dissent":
Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. When dissent is perceived as a threat, action may be taken to prevent continuing dissent or penalise dissidents. Government or industry[1] may often act in this way.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent)

Wikipedia on "Personalization of Issues" in Pseudoscientific groups:
Personalization of issues

* Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[42]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[43]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[42]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudos...tion_of_issues)

[Expat]

Here's to another visit by consentingadult who pops up on occasion just to make again his point that this is some kind of deluded sect, etc.

Man -- we do get your point. Is it necessary to show up here every 2 months or so just to repeat it?

[Expat]

Speaking of which, referring to my "Fe" post above -- that is precisely why Gamma is indeed "the unfriendliest quadra". Neither of the friendly functions, Si and Fe.

[Phaedrus]

Speaking of which, referring to my "Fe" post above -- that is precisely why Gamma is indeed "the unfriendliest quadra". Neither of the friendly functions, Si and Fe.

Exactly -- and another good reason why I cannot be an IEI.