Te/Fi in the context of economics

[Ezra]

I was in a politics tutorial today, and we were discussing the economists who involve themselves in political thought in some way or another, such as Hayek and Nozick. I realised how perfectly the pursuit of the economist characterises Te. There's a complete disregard for anything that is ineffective or inefficient, and the whole concept of economics is completely action-orientated. And this is just why it needs Fi. Fi is the opposite of economics, effectiveness regardless of morality and the like. It introduces the notion of morality, forcing the Te to consider such phenomena as the environment and other human beings. Political philosophy is about creating an ideal system by which to live from a moral standpoint, and effective action gives little concern to this. And this is precisely why Te and Fi work so well with one another.

[Hitta]

I was in a politics tutorial today, and we were discussing the economists who involve themselves in political thought in some way or another, such as Hayek and Nozick. I realised how perfectly the pursuit of the economist characterises Te. There's a complete disregard for anything that is ineffective or inefficient, and the whole concept of economics is completely action-orientated. And this is just why it needs Fi. Fi is the opposite of economics, effectiveness regardless of morality and the like. It introduces the notion of morality, forcing the Te to consider such phenomena as the environment and other human beings. Political philosophy is about creating an ideal system by which to live from a moral standpoint, and effective action gives little concern to this. And this is precisely why Te and Fi work so well with one another.

Um, Economics is a -Ti/+Te subject. Will you please for the love of anything sacred quit saying that ENTjs are economical? There is not a single socionics type description that says this. All the descriptions have the ENTj as being risk taking and prediction oriented. They know how to play the market and take big risks. They in no way are "economical" or care about economics. If you think you are an ENTj and you consider yourself economical, reconsider. You are probably ESTj.

[munenori2]

Yo, Ez. Should this explain why I thought my economics classes missed the point completely?

Seriously though, I don't know if I could ever motivate myself to a knowledge of economics. It's just so damn impersonal! F U numbers!

Edit: And graphs!!!1!1!!

[Phaedrus]

Economics in general is certainly a discipline -- Ezra is perfectly right about that. Hayek is a thinker, Milton Friedman is a thinker, game theorists are usually thinkers, etc. That is not the same thing as saying that types tend to be economical, of course. They certainly tend to be risk taking and market oriented as hitta says, much more so than types. So, where do you contradict each other?

[hellothere]

Should this explain why I thought my economics classes missed the point completely?

Why did you think that?

[Phaedrus]

Rick has Greenspan and Soros listed as ENTp's. Perhaps they aren't career economists, but Levitt is and Rick has him listed ENTp too. Karl Marx was an economist of sorts and he is frequently typed ENTp (and a good counterexample against normative/"ethical" economics necessarily being more Fi than Ti.)

At least Marx is proving the point, because he had a different perspective than the perspective that is typical of those who understand economics correctly. Marx was, and still is, totally wrong.

[Phaedrus]

In any case, I mentioned Marx mostly to address the normative/ethical issue.

Can you elaborate on that? What are you getting at?

[Phaedrus]

As an example, though not quite "economic" but closely related since it involves the concept of "utility" - I think Peter Singer when developing his normative ideas uses Ti in addition to Te and Fi[/typo]. I think Ezra's comments on Fi were too simple.

What does that have to do with Karl Marx? And can we agree that Peter Singer is an INTp?

[FDG]

While I may agree that among the most prominent economists can be easily found some nondubious representatives of the Ti-Fe axis, I would call the bunk of nowadays' economics - both research and practice - to be extremely centered on gamma NT's. When I speak about the "bulk" what I mean is

http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

Having read articles from many of these sources (some skimmed, I have to admit - wouldn't have had the time otherwise), I can attest to the rather striking fact that probably a percentage over 60 of these people are...ENTjs.

[Hitta]

Gammas are not economical in the least bit, nor have I ever seen a description that said that they were. Gammas spend spend spend. Phaedrus, you are not INTp, you are probably INTj, quit kidding yourself. Anyone that thinks that ENTjs are economical needs to review socionics type descriptions. ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions. Economical types are Alphas and Deltas. I am 100% certain I am correct, as well as I am 100% certain that the majority of the Russian socionists are correct on this. Economics is a -Ti/+Te field. -Ti/+Te is about analyticalness, reducing expenditure, being fundamentally sound. Alphas and Deltas strive for everything to be sound, and economical. They analyze things exceptionally well. To say that Gammas also analyze things well is a logical fallacy, a myth. Alphas and Gammas are supposed to be polar opposites, hell they use the opposite functions(whether you look at Model A or B). Logically they have to be black and white to each other. Gammas use common sense "on the go" logic. It is dumb to keep talking about Gammas in the light that you are currently talking about them in, because it is logically impossible for them to be this way, they have to be different than Alphas otherwise what would be the point of types? So, do me a favor and everyone quit being stupid.... K?

[FDG]

Gammas are not economical in the least bit, nor have I ever seen a description that said that they were. Gammas spend spend spend. Phaedrus, you are not INTp, you are probably INTj, quit kidding yourself. Anyone that thinks that ENTjs are economical needs to review socionics type descriptions. ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions. Economical types are Alphas and Deltas. I am 100% certain I am correct, as well as I am 100% certain that the majority of the Russian socionists are correct on this. Economics is a -Ti/+Te field. -Ti/+Te is about analyticalness, reducing expenditure, being fundamentally sound. Alphas and Deltas strive for everything to be sound, and economical. They analyze things exceptionally well. To say that Gammas also analyze things well is a logical fallacy, a myth. Alphas and Gammas are supposed to be polar opposites, hell they use the opposite functions(whether you look at Model A or B). Logically they have to be black and white to each other. Gammas use common sense "on the go" logic. It is dumb to keep talking about Gammas in the light that you are currently talking about them in, because it is logically impossible for them to be this way, they have to be different than Alphas otherwise what would be the point of types? So, do me a favor and everyone quit being stupid.... K?

GOOD LORD YOU IDIOT BEING INTERSTED IN ECONOMICS DOES NOT EQUAL BEING ECONOMICAL, SHIT FUCK GO BACK TO READ SOME BOOKS BEFORE SPOUTING THIS KIND OF CRAP, OKAY?

ECONOMICS IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING EXPENDITURE WTF?? THAT IS HOME ECONOMICS WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER. OR MAYBE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ROOT OF THE WORD "OIKOS" AND "NOMOS", HOWEVER I DO NOT THINK SO BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO STUPID. DIE.

[Hitta]

GOOD LORD YOU IDIOT BEING INTERSTED IN ECONOMICS DOES NOT EQUAL BEING ECONOMICAL, SHIT FUCK GO BACK TO READ SOME BOOKS BEFORE SPOUTING THIS KIND OF CRAP, OKAY?

ECONOMICS IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING EXPENDITURE WTF?? THAT IS HOME ECONOMICS WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER. OR MAYBE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ROOT OF THE WORD "OIKOS" AND "NOMOS", HOWEVER I DO NOT THINK SO BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO STUPID. DIE.

Um, fucktard, you haven't thought it through, to be economical(in the economics subject sense) you have to be analytical. Functionally, being interested in economics and being economical are the same thing. Economics is a precision subject, and analytical subject. Go fuck yourself with a screw driver.

[Phaedrus]

Karl Marx used Ti to formulate normative constraints. Singer as a utilitarian ethicist also formulate normative constraints. Singer's ethics - though based on significant amounts of Te (I agree with an INTp typing for Singer) - employ Ti too.

Ti may act as a moralizing force in merry quadras. The original post seems to imply that Fi alone does so in serious quadras. But with Singer I am trying to demonstrate - Te in practice isn't necessarily so ethically blind.

Considered togeather with Marx, another conclusion may be that economics itself is not so ethically blind. (Consider the subject of welfare economics and the different utility maxims economists have come up with.)

I don't know how to determine the truth of your theoretical explanations here, but I don't disagree with what you say; it is compatible with my empirical observations.

While I may agree that among the most prominent economists can be easily found some nondubious representatives of the Ti-Fe axis, I would call the bunk of nowadays' economics - both research and practice - to be extremely centered on gamma NT's.

And I completely agree with that too.

We seem to have an uncommon kind of consensus here. That doesn't seem to happen too often on this forum, so I find it interesting.

Perhaps even more interesting is that even though you, hitta, seem to think that we disagree in content and not just in words, I am not sure that is the case. On many things you say, I can't really find anything substantial that I clearly disagree with. You seem to be talking from an almost purely theoretical position, and you don't seem to have compared what you claim with reality. You seem to link some of your theoretical statements/descriptions with the wrong pieces of empirical reality, but it is hard to tell for sure, because you are so reluctant to discuss real life examples of famous person's with a supposed specific type.

Gammas are not economical in the least bit, nor have I ever seen a description that said that they were. Gammas spend spend spend.

Does that contradict anything I, or someone else, have said? In the practical sense of the word "economical" that you seem to be using here, I totally agree with you that INTjs are more "economical" in their behaviour than, for example, INTps. And I see that difference as in harmony with the differences between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra. INTjs are not risk takers, and they are reluctant to spend money.

In fact, most of the Alphas I have met in real life have shown a contempt towards gambling, financial risk taking, and accentuated market oriented perspectives in general. They have tended to not like the spirit of capitalism, and they have tended not to understand what I regard as the underlying mechanisms of a free market economy, which I strongly associate with Gamma. Personally, I also associate this Gamma perspective with game theory, Darwinism, socio-biology, empiricism, and a -based view on science in general.

Phaedrus, you are not INTp, you are probably INTj, quit kidding yourself.

Many people have said that, but I still can't see any good reason why that could be even possible. It doesn't make sense to me, not even according to your criteria. According to your descriptions of the differences between INTjs and INTps, I seem to be an INTp even if I disregard my own criticism of some of your statements in your INTj and INTp desriptions.

Anyone that thinks that ENTjs are economical needs to review socionics type descriptions. ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions. Economical types are Alphas and Deltas. I am 100% certain I am correct, as well as I am 100% certain that the majority of the Russian socionists are correct on this.

I agree with that. But isn't it obvious that this is no argument against what I, ifmd95, or FDG have said? As FDG correctly put it: being economical does not equal being economical -- surely you must agree with that logical distinction and its relevance in this context?

Economics is a -Ti/+Te field. -Ti/+Te is about analyticalness, reducing expenditure, being fundamentally sound. Alphas and Deltas strive for everything to be sound, and economical. They analyze things exceptionally well.

But still, you seem to confuse the concepts here. I don't understand why you do it. There is no need to.

To say that Gammas also analyze things well is a logical fallacy, a myth. Alphas and Gammas are supposed to be polar opposites, hell they use the opposite functions(whether you look at Model A or B). Logically they have to be black and white to each other. Gammas use common sense "on the go" logic. It is dumb to keep talking about Gammas in the light that you are currently talking about them in, because it is logically impossible for them to be this way, they have to be different than Alphas otherwise what would be the point of types? So, do me a favor and everyone quit being stupid.... K?

And you continue to view everything with your theoretical glasses on. When shall you start to check if your statements correspond with how these types are in real life? It's not impossible to do that, you know. There are many nearly indisputable examples of each type, whose attitudes and behaviours we can compare your theoretical predictions with.

You can't know for sure that your interpretations of those theoretical descriptions are correct, if you never go out in the real world and observe real life examples of the types in action, or read about them in biographies etc. And we can't know for sure that you have misinterpreted the theory either, if you refuse to discuss things in relation to (famous) people that we both have typed and whose type(s) we both have a strong opinion about. You still have the chance to comment on some, or all, of the famous people I have suggested a cerain type for -- for example Peter Singer, whom I see as an almost uniquely clear example of an INTp.

[Hitta]

I don't know how to determine the truth of your theoretical explanations here, but I don't disagree with what you say; it is compatible with my empirical observations.


And I completely agree with that too.

We seem to have an uncommon kind of consensus here. That doesn't seem to happen too often on this forum, so I find it interesting.

Perhaps even more interesting is that even though you, hitta, seem to think that we disagree in content and not just in words, I am not sure that is the case. On many things you say, I can't really find anything substantial that I clearly disagree with. You seem to be talking from an almost purely theoretical position, and you don't seem to have compared what you claim with reality. You seem to link some of your theoretical statements/descriptions with the wrong pieces of empirical reality, but it is hard to tell for sure, because you are so reluctant to discuss real life examples of famous person's with a supposed specific type.


Does that contradict anything I, or someone else, have said? In the practical sense of the word "economical" that you seem to be using here, I totally agree with you that INTjs are more "economical" in their behaviour than, for example, INTps. And I see that difference as in harmony with the differences between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra. INTjs are not risk takers, and they are reluctant to spend money.

In fact, most of the Alphas I have met in real life have shown a contempt towards gambling, financial risk taking, and accentuated market oriented perspectives in general. They have tended to not like the spirit of capitalism, and they have tended not to understand what I regard as the underlying mechanisms of a free market economy, which I strongly associate with Gamma. Personally, I also associate this Gamma perspective with game theory, Darwinism, socio-biology, empiricism, and a -based view on science in general.


Many people have said that, but I still can't see any good reason why that could be even possible. It doesn't make sense to me, not even according to your criteria. According to your descriptions of the differences between INTjs and INTps, I seem to be an INTp even if I disregard my own criticism of some of your statements in your INTj and INTp desriptions.


I agree with that. But isn't it obvious that this is no argument against what I, ifmd95, or FDG have said? As FDG correctly put it: being economical does not equal being economical -- surely you must agree with that logical distinction and its relevance in this context?


But still, you seem to confuse the concepts here. I don't understand why you do it. There is no need to.


And you continue to view everything with your theoretical glasses on. When shall you start to check if your statements correspond with how these types are in real life? It's not impossible to do that, you know. There are many nearly indisputable examples of each type, whose attitudes and behaviours we can compare your theoretical predictions with.

You can't know for sure that your interpretations of those theoretical descriptions are correct, if you never go out in the real world and observe real life examples of the types in action, or read about them in biographies etc. And we can't know for sure that you have misinterpreted the theory either, if you refuse to discuss things in relation to (famous) people that we both have typed and whose type(s) we both have a strong opinion about. You still have the chance to comment on some, or all, of the famous people I have suggested a cerain type for -- for example Peter Singer, whom I see as an almost uniquely clear example of an INTp.

INTps aren't how you think they are, and I ain't viewing shit with my theoretical glasses. Read the damn type descriptions.

[Hitta]

INTps aren't how you think they are, and I ain't viewing shit with my theoretical glasses. Read the damn type descriptions.

INTjs believe in the free market more than INTps. INTps tend to be populists.

[Phaedrus]

INTps aren't how you think they are, and I ain't viewing shit with my theoretical glasses. Read the damn type descriptions.

I have read many, many different type descriptions many, many times, and according to my understanding of them, INTps are definitely how I think they are.

Do you agree that Peter Singer is an INTp or not? Look at the videos of him and state your opinion about his type, if you happen to have any. I say that he is a very clear example of an INTp. If you have a strong impression that he is another type than INTp, please say what type you think he is.

INTjs believe in the free market more than INTps.

Finally something definite to disagree on. I am very convinced that it is exactly the other way around. That I base on type descriptions and, more importantly, my typings of real life people and what kind of views they have in fact expressed.

This is very important and interesting. Of course it is not a proof of the hypothesis that you have the types INTj and INTp completely twisted so that what you mean by an "INTj" is exactly the same thing as what I mean by an "INTp", and there are indications in your writings that the solution to this mess is not that simple. It would be convenient if it was, though.

Here is a proposal: Why don't we ask tcaudilllg what he thinks of this? (I assume that we both agree that tcaudilllg is clearly an INTj.)

Please comment if you read this, tcaudilllg. What do you think are the typical views of INTjs and INTps on the free market?

[Hitta]

I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain that Tcaud is INTj.

+Ti/-Te is about collectivism, betas and gammas tend to believe in regulated "living together" economies. -Ti/+Te is about individualism and being individualistic. And as I have said before, INTp does not equal INTP, quite being sasquatch ballsack and understand this. Individualism means analysis, or deduction. Individualism requires one to break about from the group just like what one does when analysis occurs. In analysis things are broken down into single parts and understood. This is the core of what -Ti/+Te is. +Ti/-Te is about implication or collectivism. Collectivism is common sense logic. It is about creating rules for people to live by to better themselves. Collectivism is regulation, or implication. True anarchy is individualistic, or without rules on the individual. That is why -Ti is referred to as disjunctive or anarchical logic.

[Hitta]

Also, I have no clue what type he is. If he is libertarian or a pure capitalist he is probably an Alpha thinker. I am not very good at VI.

[Phaedrus]

And as I have said before, INTp does not equal INTP, quite being sasquatch ballsack and understand this.

I have explained this in detail some times before, and I dont' feel like doing it again. I have explained how and why the "Ti" in INTPs describes an attitude and world outlook, and how both INTJs and LIIs are known as "builders of systems". Take any INTP type description you want, from MBTT or Keirsey, and ask the "ILIs" on this forum and/or elsewhere if they identify with that INTP description or not. You will find that a clear majority of ILIs in fact identify more with INTP type descriptions than any other type description from MBTT.

And whatever you may think of the functional analyses of descriptions of thought process in MBTT INTP type profiles, in their described behaviours INTPs and ILIs are identical -- in every single respect. And in their described behaviours, INTJs and LIIs are very similar too. And that is no coincidence.

[Ezra]

Marx was, and still is, totally wrong.

I'm interested to here your reasons as to why you think this, Phaedrus.

ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions.

I'm pretty sure a level of predictive ability and risk-taking are prerequisite for any successful economist, so it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that many LIEs would enter into the world of economics.

[Phaedrus]

I'm interested to here your reasons as to why you think this, Phaedrus.

Why? Don't you already why Marx is wrong? It happens to be common knowledge.

[Hitta]

I have explained this in detail some times before, and I dont' feel like doing it again. I have explained how and why the "Ti" in INTPs describes an attitude and world outlook, and how both INTJs and LIIs are known as "builders of systems". Take any INTP type description you want, from MBTT or Keirsey, and ask the "ILIs" on this forum and/or elsewhere if they identify with that INTP description or not. You will find that a clear majority of ILIs in fact identify more with INTP type descriptions than any other type description from MBTT.

And whatever you may think of the functional analyses of descriptions of thought process in MBTT INTP type profiles, in their described behaviours INTPs and ILIs are identical -- in every single respect. And in their described behaviours, INTJs and LIIs are very similar too. And that is no coincidence.

You've been brainwashed by Ganin.

[Hitta]

I'm interested to here your reasons as to why you think this, Phaedrus.



I'm pretty sure a level of predictive ability and risk-taking are prerequisite for any successful economist, so it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that many LIEs would enter into the world of economics.

To Ezra: ENTjs and INTps aren't analytical. They are reflective, but they don't try to understand things. They accept the common sense interpretation of things. They have a strong conviction to be loyalists. They usually have strict moral standards that they place on others, and will often disassociate themselves from the people that do not follow their standards. Whoever follows their standards though, they will follow to the ends of the earth. Gammas standards aren't usually bright unique ideologies, they usually follow the strict standards of the set balance of forces. Hell, there has to be types that fit these descriptions. All possible types of people must fit into the 16 types of socionics for socionics to be a fit system. Gammas are the follower loyalists. Their Enneagram types are usually 5w6,6w5,6w7,and 7w6. They are not in the least bit shades with the 4 Enneagram type. INTps and ENTjs usually believe in spirituality. This is their prided ideology. They will follow their religion strongly.

To Phaedrus: ENTPs and INTPs are very similar in MBTI, so why in the hell in socionics would the mirror types be opposites of each other? Why would an ENTp and an INTp have similar attributes when they don't even use similar functions. The biggest problem with MBTI is that the INTJ and the INTP sound similar. They are both categorized as free thinking individuals, with the INTJ being the organized one and the INTP being the unorganized one. IF you know anything about how functions work, and how INTps and INTjs use opposite functions, you would know that MBTI is a failure from the get go in its type descriptions. INTps and INTjs can't be similar. There also has to be something significant that they resent about each other(not saying that an INTp will hate an INTj and vice versa). Their functioning is opposites so they will oppose the other. If the INTp were the analytical, original seeking ones, the INTj would have to be the common sense, normative conforming ones. I know for certain that this can't be the case, because I know plenty of ENTps that are both analytical and original seeking. This would mean that INTjs are original seeking and analytical because they share functions. This would then mean that INTps would have to be conformists and common sense thinkers because they HAVE TO BE OPPOSITES to the INTj and ENTp. Alpha and Gamma are opposing quadrants. They use opposing functions. They MUST have opposing tendencies. If you can't understand this, you're just not trying.

[Ezra]

Why? Don't you already why Marx is wrong? It happens to be common knowledge.

No, I don't already why Marx is wrong. Why don't you explain yourself instead of coming back with these pointless remarks which demonstrate nothing but your own ignorance on the matter?

To Ezra: ENTjs and INTps aren't analytical. They are reflective, but they don't try to understand things. They accept the common sense interpretation of things. They have a strong conviction to be loyalists. They usually have strict moral standards that they place on others, and will often disassociate themselves from the people that do not follow their standards. Whoever follows their standards though, they will follow to the ends of the earth. Gammas standards aren't usually bright unique ideologies, they usually follow the strict standards of the set balance of forces. Hell, there has to be types that fit these descriptions. All possible types of people must fit into the 16 types of socionics for socionics to be a fit system. Gammas are the follower loyalists. Their Enneagram types are usually 5w6,6w5,6w7,and 7w6. They are not in the least bit shades with the 4 Enneagram type. INTps and ENTjs usually believe in spirituality. This is their prided ideology. They will follow their religion strongly.

Half these facts aren't related to any function. What are you ascribing loyalty to? Individual moral standards, with contradictory inability to be idiosyncratic? Tendency towards spirituality. Augusta mentions none of this. Instead of throwing out random facts and information, you need to start relating it back to functions and types ("I think Se because she shows..." or "he is clearly Ti because he..."), otherwise even I may stop listening to you.

On the Enneagram, how can either of these types fit into 6w7 or 7w6? Have you read the descriptions of these two Enneagram types? It's laughable to think that you would ever find an LIE or ILI 6w7 or 7w6.

[Phaedrus]

You've been brainwashed by Ganin.

You seem to have been spanked by him and are now out for revenge.

[Hitta]

You seem to have been spanked by him and are now out for revenge.

lol... how exactly am i out for revenge, I'm tell YOU that you are wrong

[Phaedrus]

To Ezra: ENTjs and INTps aren't analytical.

That is correct in a sense. One important difference between types and types is that the former can be described as analytical, whereas the latter are more correctly described as synthetical. This difference has been described by Jung, and it is also in perfect agreement with how these types are described in Socionics and MBTT (along the lines of ABCD=ABCd of course).

INTps and ENTjs usually believe in spirituality. This is their prided ideology. They will follow their religion strongly.

What do you -- personally -- mean by the word "spirituality" or "spiritual"? This is one of the most misleading, most confusing, and less well defined words in the socionic vocabulary, so I want to know how you use it. That's the only way I can try to understand what you have in mind when you talk about these types. If you don't define it, I haven't got a clue whether I agree with what you say or not.

The biggest problem with MBTI is that the INTJ and the INTP sound similar. They are both categorized as free thinking individuals, with the INTJ being the organized one and the INTP being the unorganized one.

The problem is exactly the same in Socionics. If you compare the LII and the ILI type descriptions, you will find that in many respects they are described as almost identical. It's very irritating, but it's the truth.

INTps and INTjs can't be similar.

So why are they described as similar by socionists? I agree that they are clearly differnt if you look at them in more depth, but at the surface level they are indeed very hard to separate for an outside observer. We can see examples of this all the time. Rick, for example, is clearly confused about them and makes mistypings now and then. He doesn't understand the essences of these two types correctly.

There also has to be something significant that they resent about each other (not saying that an INTp will hate an INTj and vice versa).

There is. The descriptions of quasi-identity (for example Ganin's, based on Gulenko) are right to the point, I think. I don't hate INTjs, but I strongly dislike some aspects of the leading mentality. I think that LIIs have an incorrect approach to and understanding of science, that they lack an empiricist attitude, that they are too easily brain-washed (probably more by themselves than by others), etc. But I think that they are interesting as discussion partners, and I don't have any problems with them IRL, except from some problems with work cooperation.

[Phaedrus]

No, I don't already why Marx is wrong. Why don't you explain yourself instead of coming back with these pointless remarks which demonstrate nothing but your own ignorance on the matter?

Read the chapter on Marx in Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. It is one of the best explanations available. This is a side issue that I don't want to spend too much time on, and you should read Popper's book anyway at least once during your lifetime, so why not do it right now?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Economics is not generally about being economical you know. Understanding economics does not make a person a penny-pincher.

Yeah. Most of my professors share with us their horror stories in matters of spending and investment (many are ENTjs)

[mikemex]

Both alphas and gammas are interested in economics: alphas from an academic point of view and gammas from a practical one.

LIEs often do not verbalize their thoughts about economics, often they "just know" (and do). It's like the perfect example of intuition.

[FDG]

Both alphas and gammas are interested in economics: alphas from an academic point of view and gammas from a practical one.

You clearly have no clue about the economics academic scene then. This only confirms my suspicion that you mostly talk out of your ass. The great majority of the best economists are ENTjs and in a minority INTps.

To hitta: you're forgetting two possibilities:
- that creativity and originality are not type related
- that two quadras that are opposed can share some common characteristics and be different in others, not opposite in everything

[mikemex]

You clearly have no clue about the economics academic scene then. This only confirms my suspicion that you mostly talk out of your ass. The great majority of the best economists are ENTjs and in a minority INTps.

My LIE friend is economist and works as a professor in the university. But that doesn't make him an academic, at least not in my eyes. Our conversations are highly stimulating for both because I quickly grasp and reduce his information into concepts, something which he doesn't seem to do easily. That's Te > Ti and Ni > Ne.

[FDG]

[quote=mikemex;322781]My LIE friend is economist and works as a professor in the university. But that doesn't make him an academic, at least not in my eyes. [/qupte]

And what would the requirement be then? What about the people with the highest number and highest valutation of academic economic papers? I think that those can be rightfully considered academics.

Our conversations are highly stimulating for both because I quickly grasp and reduce his information into concepts, something which he doesn't seem to do easily. That's Te > Ti and Ni > Ne.

You're still placing yourself in a superior position. You should stop doing it because it only reduces your credibility.

[Phaedrus]

either Phaddy is an ethical type or i'm gonna blow the pigs brains out (not calling Phaddy a pig).

Poor pigs ...

[mikemex]

You're still placing yourself in a superior position. You should stop doing it because it only reduces your credibility.

I don't think in terms of "positions". I simply notice properties. While I admit that I tend to concentrate in the negative ones of other people, I do also notice the positive ones. However, I'm a perfectionist and much more concerned about the areas where there is room for improvement, this is, weaknesses. I often observe people as if they were things to improve.

Ever since I was a child I've deeply disliked other people for misunderstanding my observations. I do not compare myself to others out of self interest. In fact, I feel largely uninvolved in most of what I say.