-

[anndelise]

Originally Posted by anndelise PM1
you don't mind hashing things out the hard way if that's what you think will most effectively set your record straight
yet you weren't willing to let kioshi even attempt to hash this particular issue out with expat himself (your interfering with the projecting part gave expat an out from having to respond to it himself, since you were basically responding for him (though I don't think you were intending to respond for him))

Expat has often "jumped in" with clarifications and elaborations in past threads, whenever i have argued "parallel" to him and his argument. in my experiences "taking an out" is often the opposite of what happens.

it may be often the opposite of what happens in your experience, but there seems to be a pattern holding of Expat not responding to Kioshi (actually leading back to one particular and possibly inciting event). Even in this thread he responded to Gilly, but not to Kioshi, and he attempted to argue and justify himself with ME (who we all know already sux at arguing), but he still has not responded to Kioshi.

Alas, if pattern holds true though, Kioshi's about as burned out on this thread as I am.


(btw, I do recognize that I don't read EVERYthing on this forum nor EVERYthing that Kioshi reads. I find often find him hard to read. So if someone were to point out specific times that Expat has indeed responded to Kioshi directly since that one incident which was almost a year ago, then I'm open to altering the pattern I've noticed to include those responses.)

[anndelise]

anytime guys lol

I DID put in a request for a split dee, I'm sorry this tangent went as far as it did.

[aestrivex]

My problem is now and has always been: When Expat claims that someone's intentions are "obviously x", is he typing their intentions, or is he typing the intentions he attributes to them? And if the intentions he attributes to them are incorrect, is he willing to correct himself?

to look at it by saying that he types people by "intentions" at all is usually the wrong way to go about it. on some basic psychological level, yes, all people differ in their motivations. but most of the time, i would assume, he doesn't try to type people by getting into their heads and trying to think of what they might do.

instead, think about the eight IM elements, as different patterns of information. socionics is the study of the interactions of these different kinds of information. if you can recognize the different kinds of information that different people produce as output, then you are not typing their "intentions" per se.

i think this is actually a very important point (if i'm misinterpreting your point completely, then feel free to bash my head in), because this is not an unheard of issue, but i do not think that people who claim that you can't type somebody because you can't get into their head and understand the functions as psychological processes really understands the concepts behind what socionics says about information metabolism.