-

[Joy]

no no, i think all of that is right about me and all of ADHD in childhood fits:

ADHD

1. Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.
2. Often gets up from seat when remaining in seat is expected.
3. Often runs about or climbs when and where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may feel very restless).
4. Often has trouble playing or enjoying leisure activities quietly.
5. Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor".
6. Often talks excessively.

Impulsiveness

1. Often blurts out answers before questions have been finished.
2. Often has trouble waiting one's turn.
3. Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games).

since a couple of days ago it really hit me that i really might be an ESFP after all. i can feel i'm using an SeFi block a lot, NiTe block i can easily use with INTPs when discussing how things might develop, whether in the world or for such things as will the doctor write a note for you for you having missed work. i feel that i use an Ne bw Ti block too, mostly trying to construct systems/explanations to explain an idea about the way of things maybe, not sure.

i think my + blocks are more d NT and s SF than s NT and d SF as i actually dislike that sort of explaining or hmmm, maybe like... but since i'm mostly likely an SF, if judged from my usage of functions as described by me from experience and not using tests that point to g SF (ego/id) and c (supderid/superego) SF, i think i feel more insecure and as if conscious people even notice me talking about such b* in when cool people near can hear it? i always evaluate moral sides to things too and how things should be between people favours-wise, so e.g. even though by law you don't have to switch at a workplace, e.g. on factory floor, with someone from the same cell because doing same machine for 8 hours doesn't sound very good, especially if it's one crazy f*, people switch. sometimes Ti supervisors, e.g. ESTP of Ti quadra, would put people on static places for ever and keep shouting at you to get more parts done. this is inhuman. you must rotate, because it's normal workplace practice where people are treated in a human way. yes, you could argue you get your money for how hard you work, but i'm sure there are laws that forbid poor workplace treatment, and this, can easily be classified as such. not sure if it's Fi afterall, but i do always try to be nice to people, it's as if i want to see everybody loving me and everybody playing along as i want it to be, good and friendly. i think that's Fi. i'm also very good at doing physical work, and since i'm always hyper, i can do it superfast and efficient and easy. i love being switched to Se. like immersed in this underwater world where you observe things through an illuminator, everything is so clear and visible, it's right-now action, forcefulness, getting work done.

Yes, you sound ADHD.

I don't follow the part in red.

As far as your example about factories, I'm not sure that what you're saying suggests Fi. Perhaps extroversion? Maybe? I can't imagine anyone enjoying that. The way you said it may be a type clue though.

@ Joy: would it be possible for you to construct a Te/Ti comparison chart that i could see which activities i enjoy participating in (my + blocks i.e. c+ and g+ i.e. superid and ego blocks)?

I'm not sure. Different people like doing the same things for different reasons. Have you read the quadra descriptions in the wiki? Or the duality descriptions for irrational dual pairs (particularly ILE/SEI and SEE/ILI)?

(I'm still not following the c+ and g+ bit, btw. Where did you get that?)

[Minde]

taking total from i like the person and i want to read his or her post (doesn't mean i often do) (both on a scale 1-5):

10 winterpark
7 implied
5 discojoe
5 menunori2
5 bulletsanddoves
5 Quirk Satellite Divison
5 XoX
5 plantrootz
4 gilly
4 snegledmaca
4 health
4 thehotelambush
4 jessica129
4 astralsilky
4 BLauritson
4 liveandletlive
4 sunshinelively
3 hitta
3 Salawa
3 Rick
3 Kioshi
3 khamelion
3 tcaudilllg
3 labcoat
3 redbaron
3 nerv_damage
2 imfd95
2 logos
2 reyn_til_runa
2 Ms. Kensington
2 machintruc
2 minde

Just noticed this.

Does this mean I'm at the bottom of your acceptable people list or that I'm the person you least like out of everybody here (excepting, of course, imfd95, logos, Gilly, and Expat, who you already mentioned)?

[Rick]

My opinion on Dee's type -- assuming his initials are D.D. -- is SEI. When typing him I did not see any contradictions with this, nor do I see any here on the forum. In fact, everything seemed to point to SEI.

Your interest and preference for Ti is pretty obvious going by any description of Ti. If you were IEE, for instance, you would read about different categories and apply them to yourself in private, maybe asking specific questions here and there in public. You would be asking questions like, "how does the role function operate? what situations stimulate it? examples please" and you would answer, "thanks, that helped me a lot" or "I still don't get it because..."

Instead, you prefer to talk about Ti and try to apply it to yourself publicly. I personally can't make sense of your self-applications of categories because there are no proper examples -- just lists of definitions and brief "I do this" or "I am more like this." I often have the same problem with other alpha and beta types, unless they slow down a bit and explain themselves very methodically.

It seems like each new category or principle you've read about in some socionics article in Russian seems to hold new promise for you, but when actually applying them, you don't seem to be able to judge the comparative value of each principle/category. Also, you don't seem to hold onto or build upon any of the Ti knowledge you've gained, so it doesn't accumulate into a consistent system like types with Ti in their Ego. Others' use of Ti, however, seems to calm you down and entertain you.

I think this is consistent with Ti as a 6th function. An analogy would be, for instance, SEEs or IEEs who have gotten into stock market or currency trading and are faced with a myriad of different trading methods -- Elliott Waves, fractals, dozens and dozens of technical indicators, Japanese candlesticks, etc. etc. -- and can't refrain from trying all of them and talking about them endlessly, building their own new methods, etc. But they don't stick to anything and tend to completely scrap each method as soon as it makes its first error. They are enthralled with each method, but they aren't able to turn them into stable working technologies. That's what it seems like you are doing with socionics concepts and categories that you encounter. It's like each new 'theory' you come across sends you back to square one of self-diagnosis.

My sense is that you are overestimating the value of many formulations and categories and trying to copy the Ti-constructing style of so many socionics articles you have read. But it gets to the point where 90% or more of people can't understand anything -- even some Ti types. Judging by how things have gone so far, I don't think this route will produce any clarity for you. Or, at least, I cannot tell that you are closer to your goal than 6 months ago. However, you have learned about a ton of socionics hypotheses and other "stuff" in the process...

[Expat]

if that's the case, it would be an incredibly different manifestation of Ti hidden agenda - in comparison to the ad hoc rationalization of illogically-synthesized opinions (as has been discussed in relation to Phaedrus or in relation to the INFp type in general - particularly in dee's previous self-type thread.)

Yes, but I think it's a mistake to expect manifestations of hidden agendas to be equal in the details of how they manifest themselves in individuals. What we see is weak Ti, but valued. The same goes for the supposed IEIs that have been mentioned, with the difference being that they decided to settle on an specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty. I would guess, however, that the latter is more likely in Beta types (Ni not Ne).

but the emotional analysis has become so frequent (yet another example - what dee just said about Expat) i can throw the ENTp-Ne typing out.

Definitely.

but instead, is there reason to believe that Ti HA + judicious values is responsible for this? does Ne > Ni make all the difference compared to INFp rationalization? or could it be the nature of Si base? (is Ni without Te the INFp rationalizations' source and Ti HA only secondary to that tendency?)

I'm not sure that you can explain so systematically all different manifestations of weak functions in individuals, Rick has written on that recently on his blog. I would guess, though, that Ne>Ni does play a part.

[Minde]

it's nothing personal, so just ch illout dere....

Don't worry, I'm chill. Perfectly so.

[aestrivex]

Project much?

Who are these supposed IEI that have "decided to settle on a specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty"?

phaedrus, hitta, jarno, crazedrat, mikemex (who is EIE, i think).


you and snegledmaca do not really champion your ideas as "rock-solid in [their] certainty," but if you're IEIs, you also would be among the group that tends to use a lot of Ti.

[Expat]

And why would this be more likely in Beta types?

Everything really. Ni>Ne, Ti>Te, Se>Si, Fe>Fi.

[UDP]

Don't worry, I'm chill. Perfectly so.

Hey it could be worse - I'm not even on the list.

[ScarlettLux]

phaedrus, hitta, jarno, crazedrat, mikemex (who is EIE, i think).


you and snegledmaca do not really champion your ideas as "rock-solid in [their] certainty," but if you're IEIs, you also would be among the group that tends to use a lot of Ti.

Niffy ... really!? You really believe all those people are IEI and then mikemex being an EIE?

Oh, say it ain't so =[

[Gilly]

Everything really. Ni>Ne, Ti>Te, Se>Si, Fe>Fi.

Where does Fe come into this? Ti, yes, Ni and Se, yes, but Fe?

I guess I should also ask you to clarify whether you are talking about the defense of a system, or the specific people being discussed.

[Expat]

Where does Fe come into this? Ti, yes, Ni and Se, yes, but Fe?

I guess I should also ask you to clarify whether you are talking about the defense of a system, or the specific people being discussed.

Well I meant why Beta in particular, so as a system.

And you're right, Fe>Fi is less clear than the others.

[Gilly]

Yes, I understand "why Beta," but I'm curious as to where you see Fe coming in. I can't say I've particularly noticed Fe being used in defense of these systems; it mostly seems to be bad Ti.

[Expat]

Well, Fe would have more to do with the "public mobilization" in favor of the system than the system itself. So not really with the system, but why their defense of it would be more visible.

[Animal]

I was all ready to post a really long response here, but then I realized... I don't understand a word of this thread.

[Gilly]

Well, Fe would have more to do with the "public mobilization" in favor of the system than the system itself. So not really with the system, but why their defense of it would be more visible.

I want to say this works, but I'm also inclined to say that it might just be Aristocracy.

[Gilly]

I want to say this works, but I'm also inclined to say that it might just be Aristocracy.

Now that I think about it, it is Fe, but specifically the Aristocratic variety.

[Expat]

Now that I think about it, it is Fe, but specifically the Aristocratic variety.

Which is the same as Beta Fe, which is what I was saying - but not clearly enough, I realize.

[krieger]

Dee is very likely what us supersocion theorists would describe as a 'feeler overlooking thinking'... A person that picks up ideas and structures as a matter of habit but is uable to understand their significance to his/her own life and efforts in a way that an NT would. We have speculated before that C.G. Jung is another such person.

I have tested the possibility that he was ENFp for a while (admitting that I arrived at that possibility in a very artificial way), and found out that does not hold up well, particularly when comparing his behavior to other ENFp's. The ISFp suggestion that I have heard from several knowledgable people does begin to sound plausible. His compulsive habit to make wild speculations is something that I think we'd do well not to ignore though. It's odd so see such behavior from an SF type.

[Ezra]

Perhaps it's worthwhile to note that he seems to irritate almost everyone on the forum with his inane speculations -- he is not "good" at what he does, and he hasn't found anyone who appreciates what he does. I don't think it is a socionic strength of his.

Agree. Implicitly.

[Gilly]

I'm hurt. I made it to your ignore list and you just forget me now? Not even a phone call?

[FDG]

I find dee's speculations to be funny, and many times he shows a lot of creativity in doing so. Yeah, they're also mostly composed by bullshit, but he's not annoying.

[Gilly]

I find dee's speculations to be funny, and many times he shows a lot of creativity in doing so.

Creative? He just makes shit up; that doesn't take creativity.

Yeah, they're also mostly composed by bullshit, but he's not annoying.

I'l give you that. Mostly.

[anndelise]

Time out you two.
There's quite a bit of possible misunderstandings happening from both sides, as well as an unawareness of previous issues that led to the "project much?" comment of Kioshi's.


Lead Up to the "project much" comment:
In the past, there has been much discontent from beta NiFe (and a few others) when it comes to Expat's descriptions and views of NiFe. His descriptions and views of them seem to stem from being a TeNi and (subconsciously) expecting NiFe to have a similar bias towards Te as he does. Basically, much of his descriptions have either attempted to give NiFe the motivations that a TeNi would have in using Fe, or attempted to define NiFe by their poor . . . appreciation . . . for Te. The bias, however, is kind of expected (most people have a bias towards their own type). This is where I believed the "project much?" comment stemmed from . . . from the frustrations Kioshi (and others) have felt regarding Expat's tendency to project TeNi values/motivations onto NiFe.

And the recent arguments claiming NiFe for phaedrus, hitta, etc haven't helped clear the air, either.

And surely Expat knew that even implying (intentional or not) that NiFe "settle on a specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty." and "the latter is more likely in Beta types (Ni not Ne)" . . . surely he knew that the mere implication of that would get a NiFe's goat. Kioshi took the bait.


Summary of Misunderstandings that lead to Personal Attacks
Despite the showing of the built up frustrations regarding Expat's view of NiFe in Kioshi's "project much?" comment, Kioshi asked Expat two very important (and non personal) questions:
* "Who are these supposed IEI that have 'decided to settle on a specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty'?"
* "Why would this be more likely in Beta types?"

Niffweed answered "phaedrus, hitta, jarno, crazedrat, mikemex (as FeNi)" and let it be known that kioshi and snegledmaca were exceptions to the "rock-solid in it's certainty" ….though with both of them having a blatant use of Ti. ((NOTE: interestingly enough, the self-claimed NiFe are the ones who are the exceptions to this "rock-solid in it's certainty", while it's a couple of other (Te) people who are rock-solid in their own certainty that the non-NiFe-identifers are actually NiFe.))

To Kioshi's second question, Expat's non-response was "Everything really."

ifmd95 jumps in by first addressing kioshi with a sarcastic(?) rhetorical question of "is this your couch or a forum?" inadvertently making it a personal attack by using "your couch".

ifmd95 then went on to give what he thought might be a decent answer to Kioshi's second question. The conversations regarding this particular aspect doesn't concern me as much as I think it would have gone better had not the personal attacks been a part of it (and perhaps can still be salvaged if both are willing to go back and ignore the personal attacks).

Ok, so after ifmd95's initial (inadvertent) personal rhetorical question, kioshi asks if he's not allowed to question biases in a forum. Since ifmd95 made it personal with "your couch", kioshi responded with a personal (to him, not ifmd95) real (not rhetorical) question that again brings to mind all that frustration regarding Expat's blatant TeNi biases when it comes to describing/understanding NiFe. ((NOTE: the rest of Kioshi's post was very careful to remove personhood from the post, though it obviously comes from someone who identifies with NiFe, and it seemed designed to show that NiFe are not NiTe/TeNi and brings to mind once again the multiple counts of frustration some of the NiFe (and others) have felt in having some of the Te people project Te into their understandings and descriptions of the NiFe mind.))

Ifmd95's subsequent response started out ok, but then deteriorated to "you" criticisms by the end of the second paragraph, as well as giving motivation to Kioshi's comment (unfortunately without knowing the history behind the frustrations of Expat's views/descriptions of NiFe).

Kioshi then responds by saying that his "project much?" comment had nothing to do with Expat's motivations on Expat's person, but only on Expat's judgment.

Unfortunately, Kioshi also responded to ifmd95's comment regarding "the type" which Kioshi clearly identifies with that had added a "you" in the statement right afterwards, and implied that if NiFe had Te, then they (or even Kioshi himself) would have enough "objective restraint" to clarify things to themselves. . .
Whether ifmd95 intended to or not, he once again made it personal, (most likely due to an accidental in wording).

So now we have 3 counts of personal attacks by ifmd95, to which Kioshi finally responds with his own personal attack on ifmd95. (when you've placed a betan to this point, they can get quite aggressive in the edges they put into their words)
(by the way, the "inflated NT ego" was, I believe in reference to ifmd95's implication that if only Kioshi were more NT, then Kioshi could "objectively restrain" himself. . . . which I don't think ifmd95 intended to imply..but unfortunately did imply) ((NOTE: in this same post, ifmd95 once again implied the superiority of claimed NT reasoning, to which Kioshi gave a sarcastic response that if only NiFe used their Ni in the way NiTe use it, then they'd be more favorable to NTs… and once again points out the tendency that Ni is being defined with Te in mind and that NiFe are being defined as "not quite but should be like NiTe" (in other words, the Te projecting that keeps happening, that, unfortunately, ifmd95 also is/was doing in this thread.)))

Then, in the same post that kioshi finally made personal attacks, kioshi tries to get the personal attacks to stop. He wants to focus on the subject at hand (the tendency of Te biases to be projected onto Ni and NiFe). Kioshi tries to make peace almost immediately after being pushed to the point of finally responding to the attacks made on him (and NiFe).

Then ifmd95 responds by trying to explain himself.

Kioshi tries to show that he found ifmd95's comment of "sometimes when i'm drowning, it's my own fault for not seeing the land." humorous and offers up a more humorous statement that was said elsewhere by another person in another subject altogether. (which, ifmd95 wasn't aware of and thought kioshi was referring to the current people in the current subject, as well as interpreting it as a criticism instead of a sign of peace-making).

Kioshi then tries to explain himself as ifmd95 was trying to do. And then starts another post in an effort to sweep away the negativity of the attacks by both sides and bring the topic back to NiFe, the descriptions of NiFe, and his views AS an NiFe with Ti HA. Unfortunately, ifmd95 wasn't aware of the peace-making efforts of Kioshi's, and responded to both posts with personal criticisms.

((NOTE: it's interesting that ifmd95 criticizes Kioshi's descriptions of NiFe-AS-an-NiFe because it doesn't fit with the specific understanding of other's (Te's) views of Ni with Fe. Which actually kinda smells the same as "settling on a specific understanding of a system and declaring it rock-solid in its certainty."))


In conclusion, I do think that there's been a number of misunderstandings, a number of accidental personal attacks that snowballed, and I agree that there HAS been and STILL are lots of Te projections about Ni with Fe. However, I don't believe that clearing that last part up is going to get done in this thread, nor should it be. If anything, it should receive a thread of its own, and let dee's thread get back to being about dee.

[Blaze]

man this thread is making my head spin.

dee: i agree with rick's post about your type. your Ti is hidden agenda Ti. this is the reason your ideas don't make much sense to a lot of people and it explains why you are drawn to Ti theories. if you ask more questions of Ti dominant types, however, you'd find the answers you are looking for, plus use your own strengths better. you do seem to be SEI. i don't see IEI because they have intuition which helps them connect abstract dots better. you seem like you could be more practical and down to earth.

this thing that's going on between expat's comments, then ifmd95 and kioshi's endless interchange, and then anndelise's comments seems to be some sort of supervision and/or benefit ring playing out, which only serves to complicate things even further.

the point is this though: stop posting about Ti theory stuff. people aren't understanding it anyway and you will find the answers you seek by asking questions, watching, listening, and probably joking around a lot and lifting the tense moods around here.

now watch: my post will be ignored.

[anndelise]

attributing "projection" on the other hand attacks more than that. a projector projects his own feelings onto others. how can kioshi know Expat was projecting without presuming a lot about his feelings? that's emotive analysis, plainly posted by kioshi. that's what my "couch" comments referred to.

How can he know? Um, because Expat has a history of doing it? Expat's words and actions have been continuous despite even unemotional efforts towards correcting his obvious Te bias when describing IEI. (btw, please remember, EVERYONE has a bias..or two..or more, what matters, I think, is whether or not we're willing to take attempt to bypass those biases, which in the case of IEI and Te projecting....hasn't yet occurred.)

And, well, weren't YOU ALSO doing emotive analysis when you attributed emotions and motivations to Kioshi's comment?

(btw, what Expat keeps doing is a cognitive bias, not an emotional bias, Kioshi is aware of the difference, a person can project cognitive biases as easily as emotive ones)

*and to that extent, it was quite deliberate. i will attack a person for what they've posted if what they've posted wanders into emotive presumptions despite other available means to argue an unemotional topic.

In other words, they have to argue like an NT or you'll be willing to attack them?

i know a good amount of the history. enough of it to know that there are unemotional reasonings for Expat's typings. enough to think the "projection" business was a presumptuous distraction from them.

the "projection" thing wasn't about Expat's "unemotional reasonings", it's about Expat's and some other Te types continuous defining of IEI based on Te motivations and Te systems. When a person feels as if they are being continuously misunderstood and...well...degraded... emotions tend to come in. Now, admittedly it's not YOU who's being constantly misunderstood and degraded, so of course YOU can remain unemotional and don't feel the frustration. But really, who are YOU to determine whether or not someone else's emotions should be involved or not?

which wording? and whatever it was, i doubt it exceeded the qualifications i made about my first "personal attack".

it's the statement that went along the lines of 'if you can't explain it to others, how is the person explaining it to himself?' obviously that's not a direct quote, however, it did have the initial "you" followed by "a/the person". When a reader reads "you" in a page, it's almost automatic that it gets interpreted as personal. "you" often refers to someone specific when you are writing to one person; "you" often refers to the group as a whole when writing to a group; but "a/the person" or "one" reduces the risk of the writing being taken as personal.

bullshit, it was a conditional and general implication about the INFp type. i said so explicitly, and with counterexamples, and with if...then wording.

(btw: it's possible you are even making more of this than kioshi did.)

roflmao, obviously you're not that familiar with INFps and how seriously they identify with their types. As far as most of them are concerned, if a person is describing INFp, then those who identify as INFp assume (rightly so) that you are describing them, personally. This might be something worth keeping in mind in the future if you don't want your head bitten off by one of them.

as for making more of this than kioshi did, i was merely trying to help show both of you some of the misunderstandings that were occurring. he thanked me for pointing out some things he wasn't aware of. but if this is the kind of interaction you want to have with him, then by all means, let me know and i won't bother to try to help you with him again.

i did not mistake the #1 comment to refer to the current thread. i figured the #1 comment referred to my "seeing the land" comment. (as it was deemed #3.) it's possible the common thread in his "hall of fame" was humour. but when you consider the context and the similarity* between #1 and #3, i doubt humour and "peace-making" were what kioshi had in mind with his "hall of fame".

*although i still maintain there are differences between them too. i did not imply #1 necessarily.

doing a little emotive attribution yourself, I see.
how is it that you are allowed to "consider the context" and make an emotive attribution, but kioshi isn't allowed to "consider the context" and history and make what you claim to be an emotive attribution?

there was no suggestion that you had implied #1, at all. neither by kioshi nor by me.
which, you know, suggests that maybe, just maybe, they're connected by, oh, i dunno... the humour of it?

here's the irony i promised (all the more ironic given this additional "smells the same as" bullshit): in the past i have argued ad-nauseum that hitta (and also dee, another T vs. IFp dilemma) may be thinkers instead of INFp. the proof is in my post history.

actually, i hadn't thought that you'd been a pusher of phaedrus/hitta/etc as being INFps.
in fact, that wasn't even being referenced.
what was being referenced, however, was how your response to Kioshi's description of IEI-as-an-IEI and your quick dismissal of it and the reasons for dismissing it smelled the same as Expat's rock-solid comment that I had quoted. But as I pointed out to Kioshi in my post there, I did not think you realized that that was what you were doing, and that I seriously doubted that it was your intent to do so.

Believe it or not, I was trying to give you some credit and benefit of the doubt, was I wrong to do so?

Would you prefer to have kept the misunderstandings going?

[Ezra]

dee, I've an idea.

Make a video of yourself.

[anndelise]

I know this was directed to kioshi and not me, and that really this part isn't much my business so feel free to ignore this if ya want...

i don't understand how you can do either without presuming what's "inside" the person (and beyond the objective argument). how else can you know Expat was " unconsciously assuming" anything, instead you just misunderstanding his argument or being short of information?

we're on a forum that supports a system designed to ..well..'look inside people' ...
when we tell someone our type, we help give them a look inside ourselves
when we tell someone else their type, we presume what's inside them
when someone gives us a look inside themselves (their type) and we reject it and instead state that they are a different type, we are presuming to know better what's inside them than they do

when someone offers us a peek into themselves, into their minds, but we dismiss it and insist on some theoretical idea instead, we are presuming what's inside that person

when we read what someone writes, or listen to what they say, it's human nature to presume certain aspects of what their saying...it's part of how we find meaning in what's given to us

expat's (anyone's) arguments about phaedrus (anyone) being IEI (any type) are presuming that he knows what's inside phaedrus
expat's continuous descriptions of IEI that IEI themselves refute is expat presuming that he knows what's inside IEI better than the IEI themselves

yet kioshi's the one your nitpicking on for looking "inside"

[aestrivex]

expat's (anyone's) arguments about phaedrus (anyone) being IEI (any type) are presuming that he knows what's inside phaedrus
expat's continuous descriptions of IEI that IEI themselves refute is expat presuming that he knows what's inside IEI better than the IEI themselves

no it isn't. expat's not claiming that he understands phaedrus' inner motivations better than phaedrus does, but rather than phaedrus is badly misinterpreting socionics theory and doesn't understand what these inner motivations mean.

this is a discussion that has been had before, along the lines of "can you really type somebody over the internet?"

basically, if you set this precedent that expat's observations about phaedrus (you can argue with his functional interpretations all day long, but you're not doing that) are illegitimate because expat cannot get inside phaedrus' head, then you suggest that other people are inherently untypable and that socionics is useless. which is fine, if that's what you're suggesting, but, if so, then get the hell out of here; cuz you don't have any idea what anybody's type is better than anyone else (except arguably your own; but i would disagree with that as well).

[aestrivex]

IMO anndelise's allegations of any bias on the part of IEI-assigners fail. completely.

[Dioklecian2]

If you had taken my advice you wouldn't have top waste all this time

[anndelise]

no it isn't. expat's not claiming that he understands phaedrus' inner motivations better than phaedrus does, but rather than phaedrus is badly misinterpreting socionics theory and doesn't understand what these inner motivations mean.

this is a discussion that has been had before, along the lines of "can you really type somebody over the internet?"

basically, if you set this precedent that expat's observations about phaedrus (you can argue with his functional interpretations all day long, but you're not doing that) are illegitimate because expat cannot get inside phaedrus' head, then you suggest that other people are inherently untypable and that socionics is useless. which is fine, if that's what you're suggesting, but, if so, then get the hell out of here; cuz you don't have any idea what anybody's type is better than anyone else (except arguably your own; but i would disagree with that as well).

ANY time ANY one attempts to refute what someone else BELIEVES about themselves (I'm not talking actual actions, but the interpretations of the actions and motivations), about a topic, and about what is actually going on in their own mind (which is NOT an objectively observable thing, btw), then that person who's attempting to refute IS presuming that they know more about the other person's mind than the person themselves know. Period.

You can try hiding behind "logic" and "inferences" and "deductions" and so called "objectivity" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that "minds" and "motivations" and "beliefs" are NOT "objectively observable" phenomena.

At any time that we attempt to type ANYone, whether it be over the internet, over the phone, in person, or even in bed, we are projecting our own understandings onto our own inferences/deductions and thus it is NOT "objective". We may even try to connect our understandings to some voice of authority, but even that authority is limited by their own understandings and their own inferences/deductions, etc. Why so many of you NTs can't deal with the fact that no matter what you do, there is a certain set of subjectiveness that is involved, and you can't get away from that no matter how hard you try. It's called BEING HUMAN.

NFs are at least aware of the subjectiveness of these things, and try to work with them instead of pretending that they don't exist.


Not once during this discussion have I argued against expat's claims of IEI for phaedrus etc.
That was never the subject of my posts here.

What IS the subject of my posts here includes a reference to previous issues kioshi, other infps, have had regarding some of expat's views of IEI.

Kioshi makes ONE simple comment TO expat referencing those issues, and ifmd jumps down his throat. One of my points to ifmd is that ifmd allows for himself to make assumptions of kioshi's motivations/meanings yet bitches at kioshi for making assumptions of expats motivations/meanings. what, ifmd can do it, but heaven forbid kioshi or any non-NT do it??

Not once have i claimed that any of this is "good" nor "bad". Nor that we "should" nor "shouldn't" do it. In fact, I've suggested that because it's such a major factor of being HUMAN, then it's to be EXPECTED that people have biases, whether they intend to or not, whether they know about it or not. But in fact it's the self-claimed NTs who say "oh you shouldn't be assuming what's inside someone's head" while AT THE SAME TIME they themselves ARE assuming what's inside someone's head. Perhaps the motto for most of you NTs would be "Don't do as I do, do as I say." eh?

Nor did I once suggest that people are inherently untypable. But to pretend that there is NO subjectiveness involved when typing someone else is to be....i don't even know if there even IS a term for the stupidity of it. And hiding behind self-justifications and wanna be objectivity is just...argh...willfully ignoring the human-ness of it all, themselves, the other person, and the subject at hand.

There's a reason I used to have a quote that linked to this forum that said "Taking the person out of personality".

[anndelise]

IMO anndelise's allegations of any bias on the part of IEI-assigners fail. completely.

of course, cuz you fucking NTs are gods and have NO biases and are exceptions to any and all aspects of humanity and the human mind

fucking wanna be robots!

[aestrivex]

ANY time ANY one attempts to refute what someone else BELIEVES about themselves (I'm not talking actual actions, but the interpretations of the actions and motivations), about a topic, and about what is actually going on in their own mind (which is NOT an objectively observable thing, btw), then that person who's attempting to refute IS presuming that they know more about the other person's mind than the person themselves know. Period.

i stopped reading right here.

if you think this, you fail. utterly and completely.

[Expat]

I don't like the way quotes works in this forum.

Anyway, I won't address everything that anndelise and Kioshi have said; I can't be bothered.

In the past, there has been much discontent from beta NiFe (and a few others) when it comes to Expat's descriptions and views of NiFe. His descriptions and views of them seem to stem from being a TeNi and (subconsciously) expecting NiFe to have a similar bias towards Te as he does. Basically, much of his descriptions have either attempted to give NiFe the motivations that a TeNi would have in using Fe, or attempted to define NiFe by their poor . . . appreciation . . . for Te. The bias, however, is kind of expected (most people have a bias towards their own type). This is where I believed the "project much?" comment stemmed from . . . from the frustrations Kioshi (and others) have felt regarding Expat's tendency to project TeNi values/motivations onto NiFe.

What anndelise wrote above is totally unwarranted, in fact, it's sheer unmitigated rubbish -- and if there is anyone doing any "projection", it's anndelise herself. But this kind of accusation "you're projecting", "no you are" resembles more an Abbot and Costello routine, not to say kindergarted, and gets us nowhere.

I do not "expect NiFe to have motivations of TeNi when using Fe or whatever" -- unlike others here, I do not claim to have major original insights in socionics. I do claim to understand classical socionics better than most people here. Whatever I say about IEIs, or any other type, is based on my understanding of classical socionics.

All my opinions on all types are consistent with classical descriptions of the types and the functions, and of their ordering in model A. When I say that IEIs prefer Ti to Te, and have Ti as their hidden agenda, and when focusing on Ti too much may behave "pathetically" - all I'm doing is interpreting classical concepts. It's nothing really new or original.

Now, when discussing socionics, an argument that is utterly ridiculous is "the IEIs don't agree with what you are saying, hence you are wrong". I have no reason to take for granted that the supposed IEIs - and I say "supposed", because I think nobody's type is beyond question - are even understanding what I am saying, or if what I say really doesn't apply to IEIs in general.

Also, whatever I say about Fe in IEIs (or Betas generally) can be deduced even from reading the common socionics descriptions, such as Filatova's, Stratievskaya's, and socioscope's; besides Augustas description of the dualities, etc.

Of course those bits of the theory may be wrong; or perhaps I am interpreting them incorrectly. We can discuss that. But I can't take seriously argumentations like anndelise's above, which boil down to "he can't really understand IEIs because he's LIE". If that is the level of argumentation we're going to have, there is no point in talking about socionics at all.

And surely Expat knew that even implying (intentional or not) that NiFe "settle on a specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty." and "the latter is more likely in Beta types (Ni not Ne)" . . . surely he knew that the mere implication of that would get a NiFe's goat. Kioshi took the bait.

What is this? "Surely Expat knew"? "Kioshi took the bait"?

So, I am writing things "surely knowing" that some IEI "will take the bait?" To which purpose? To accomplish what?

Again, talk about "projection".

First, the "Ni not Ne" think is elementary socionics, and if you don't understand the point I was making, and attribute it to some malicious trick to "bait" IEIs or whatever, there is no point in even discussing this. Believe what you will.

Second, the "rock-solid" thing is clearly meant to apply to IEIs (or SEIs) who are over-focusing on their hidden agenda, as per my "pathetic HA" thread, a concept that is totally consistent with classical socionics. It does not apply to all IEIs and that should be obvious.

Third - and there I may be at fault - two things got confused, either by myself when explaining it, or by others expanding on my views:

1) one is the way IEIs tend to go for Ti understandings (it's a valued function, duh). Both Kioshi and snegledmaca do this, however, I did not mean to include them in the "rock-solid" thing.

2) another is the rock-solid thing, which I meant to apply to IEIs overdoing it in Ti: that would mean Phaedrus and hitta, if they are IEIs.

* "Who are these supposed IEI that have 'decided to settle on a specific understanding of a system and declare it rock-solid in its certainty'?"
* "Why would this be more likely in Beta types?"

Niffweed answered "phaedrus, hitta, jarno, crazedrat, mikemex (as FeNi)" and let it be known that kioshi and snegledmaca were exceptions to the "rock-solid in it's certainty" ….though with both of them having a blatant use of Ti. ((NOTE: interestingly enough, the self-claimed NiFe are the ones who are the exceptions to this "rock-solid in it's certainty", while it's a couple of other (Te) people who are rock-solid in their own certainty that the non-NiFe-identifers are actually NiFe.))

I do not care much about who is "self-claimed" or not. And the rest of your "point" is related to what I just explained. Precisely because they have mistyped themselves, they go for excessive Ti - in my opinion.

To Kioshi's second question, Expat's non-response was "Everything really."

Now you are stooping to character assassination. I went on to say - and discussed it further with Gilly - that "everything really" meant Ni>Ne, Se>Si, Ti>Te and Fe>Fi. It is contemptible to imply that I didn't say anything but "everything really".

In conclusion, I do think that there's been a number of misunderstandings, a number of accidental personal attacks that snowballed, and I agree that there HAS been and STILL are lots of Te projections about Ni with Fe. However, I don't believe that clearing that last part up is going to get done in this thread, nor should it be. If anything, it should receive a thread of its own, and let dee's thread get back to being about dee.

It should be clear by now that I think that the person with most, and biggest, "misunderstandings" and "projections" is anndelise herself.

anndelise and kioshi -- go on about "projections" all you want. I will continue to write what I think is correct (and change my mind whenever I think I should).

And that's it.

no it isn't. expat's not claiming that he understands phaedrus' inner motivations better than phaedrus does, but rather than phaedrus is badly misinterpreting socionics theory and doesn't understand what these inner motivations mean.

this is a discussion that has been had before, along the lines of "can you really type somebody over the internet?"

basically, if you set this precedent that expat's observations about phaedrus (you can argue with his functional interpretations all day long, but you're not doing that) are illegitimate because expat cannot get inside phaedrus' head, then you suggest that other people are inherently untypable and that socionics is useless. which is fine, if that's what you're suggesting, but, if so, then get the hell out of here; cuz you don't have any idea what anybody's type is better than anyone else (except arguably your own; but i would disagree with that as well).

The bolded part is relevant to the other points made here, too.

[anndelise]

i stopped reading right here.

i'm already well aware of your willingness to jump to conclusions and ignore other available information that doesn't suit your preconceptions

[aestrivex]

i'm already well aware of your willingness to jump to conclusions and ignore other available information that doesn't suit your preconceptions

i must admit, i do like it when conclusions follow from reasonable observations. it makes so much more sense that way.

[anndelise]

i must admit, i do like it when conclusions follow from reasonable observations. it makes so much more sense that way.

yes, like your expectations for me to provide you with a logical reason as to why i'm not a logical type

[aestrivex]

yes, like your expectations for me to provide you with a logical reason as to why i'm not a logical type

lol. yes, i think i can safely admit that i expect you to give me sensible answers that make logical sense. if you think that means that i'll only take answered argued over the most diligently researched Te, that's your business. it's also not as though ethical types are incapable of using logic.



actually, i would only place a certain amount of weight on any arguments you provided at all. but, no, i will admit that i place no emphasis whatsoever on this kind of pseudo-moral outrage that you're spewing right now.

[Animal]

If you had taken my advice you wouldn't have top waste all this time

Yes, I agree. Listen to Dioklecian.

[aestrivex]

actually, tanehem said that you said that you didn't understand the functions a la "internal statics of fields" and blah blah. could you elaborate on that point? what about them do you not understand and what about it do you want to understand?