Attn: Expat and any others

[Ezra]

...who think that if people got inside the mind of an LIE (and maybe a Te ego) they would recoil in disgust; be sick at what they get up to mentally; attack a cat in fury or whatever.

Why do you think this?

[Expat]

I meant some people who say they are Te-ego types but are Te super-ego types in my opinion.

Not everyone.

[Ezra]

Ahhh. Well, that's obvious. Fair enough.

Why would they? Apart from the fact that they, by definition of Model A, are repelled by their third and fourth functions.

[normal]

Ezra, you want to be LIE too?

[Gilly]

That's the only Socionics-relevant explanation, Ezra. You've got it

[Joy]

Fe valuing types may be disturbed by the way Te types think of (or rather, don't think of) Fe > Te.

[Ezra]

Ezra, you want to be LIE too?

I think I might be.

[Gilly]

I object

[Creepy-bg]

ezra, I doubt you're LIE. I think you're beta. not alpha/gamma/delta; ashton explained to me where he was coming from with the LSE typing but the more I think about it the more I don't think it's quite right... also I think socionix has a tendency to type people they don't like as delta rational subtypes. not trying to talk shit, this is just an observation. for that matter, from what I've been able to observe from those who type a lot of people (niffweed/salawa/ashton/others with userlists/etc. included), they all seem to have typing biases that skew reality a bit. this is not meant as an attack either... it makes sense because everyone sees everything a little differently... indeed, a little birdie told me some others seem to have their own system that is not even compatible with classical socionics anymore...

anyways (that was a little off-topic), this thread is useful...

not totally true... Ashton sez I'm INFj

[Ezra]

Why don't you think I'm an LIE?

[Creepy-bg]

he doesn't type you as rational subtype (which would be ), he types you as the irrational subtype,

(:



ETA: also want to make clear that I think it's a tendency that's not necessarily true in every case...

ahhhh yeah forgot about that part...

socionics is for little bitches anyways.

[Logos]

Is Gamma the "In" Quadra nowadays?

[aestrivex]

for that matter, from what I've been able to observe from those who type a lot of people (niffweed/salawa/ashton/others with userlists/etc. included), they all seem to have typing biases that skew reality a bit. this is not meant as an attack either... it makes sense because everyone sees everything a little differently... indeed, a little birdie told me some others seem to have their own system that is not even compatible with classical socionics anymore...

what kinds of biases do you perceive me as having? just curious.

[Ezra]

I disagree, glamourama. I don't believe I'm a Beta NF, because I know I'm good at both Te and Ti.

[Logos]

I disagree, glamourama. I don't believe I'm a Beta NF, because I know I'm good at both Te and Ti.

Not that I disagree, but how do you know? Just curious.

[Park]

Not that I disagree, but how do you know? Just curious.

I told him.

[aestrivex]

can you give me some examples of people i've typed where you think this bias is something of a factor (ie in leading to a mistyping)?

are there any such examples?

[Expat]

I think some gamma NTs here are very very selective about who they type as /, especially when typing other gamma NTs. I think that's an obvious, bad bias that they have. sometimes it seems that it's to the point of not wanting to type anybody "stupid" as gamma or especially gamma NT.

It's funny that you say that, because not too long ago Gammas were accused of doing the opposite, that is, of "recruiting" newcomers as Gamma (with the implication that the bias was in typing people as Gamma).

Also, how do you know that we don't see some Gamma NTs as "stupid"?

expat himself even recognized the possibility of a bias when he said he sees fewer logicals, fewer extroverts, and fewer gamma NTs (compared to alpha SFs at least) in a recent post of his.

It's funny. Of course I "recognize the possibility of a bias"; would my opinions carry more weight with you, then, if I never recognized the possibility of a bias, or of being wrong? "No I am never biased, and I am never wrong?" Have fun talking to Phaedrus then. Or to the socionix gang.

That's one of the things I find frustrating about Ti super-id types; that any fair-minded admission that we can't be certain about some things is turned into an admission of -- weakness? As in "gotcha, you admitted you could be wrong!".

So, okay, I will never again admit that I might be biased. I am always right, always objective, infallible. Happy?

and I'm especially unconfident about this part but: I think, there's a tendency to view as what their "own" is, and they don't use (at least not well), so can miss out on little nuances underneath... I think is better at that sort of thing... is about "facts" and the "external reality", after all, so they aren't going to find those things important.

And your point is?

[Expat]

yes I realize you have explained your rationale on typing her this way, but I still think it's biased... associating / with close-mindedness...

From the point of view of , seems indeed "close-minded"; just like seems the same from the point of view of . Since is irrelevant to niffweed, all the more reason for him to see as "close-minded". Nothing surprising about this; he's just blunt about it (again the low regard for ).

I don't agree with his typing of Jessica as LSI, but that's by the way.

[marooned]

For me the problem area comes in with users like Hitta and Phaedrus (actually Dioklecian is confusing as well). As has been noted before, Fe ego types often see Hitta and Phaedrus as "bad at Fe" while Te ego types tend to see them as "bad at Te" (and Ti as well).

You can look at it on the surface alone. For instance, Hitta seems to use a lot of Ti, and if you don't look beyond that you could say, well Hitta uses Ti so much it's probably in his ego block. *Except* then logical types especially say that's Hitta's use of Ti is poor. Yes, he uses it seemingly all the time in his posts, but he does a poor job of it. Why? Ultimately his +/- system posts make no sense, don't match up with classical socionics, etc. Furthermore, any objection or criticism (or even question) about his system is met with circular logic, and simple reiteration of his previous points. Joy (and perhaps others) has mentioned that Hitta seems to have a small sample group of people irl that he bases his conclusions on... it goes on... all of these things say "poor use of logic."

Then we have Phaedrus. I thought Logos outlined the "problems" with what Phaedrus posts/debates/whatever quite well in the type consensus list on the wiki. It's Phaedrus' apparent inability to form a logical argument, to back up his points, to "see reason," or to even answer a question satisfactorily about why he thinks something that leads many to say his logic is poor. Expat has made many other points about this... for instance citing Phaedrus' tendency to use anything said by anyone in support of his views (even if that person for the most part would disagree with his views), or to cite specific select few "authorities" as references to back up what he says (without actually saying why), etc.

In these sorts of instances, minor biases in typing others may become significant, enough to tip the balance (perhaps the wrong way). Is Hitta LII (no, bad logic). Is he IEI (no, bad ethics). Which way do we tip it? I get the impression that Niffweed also relies on his belief that Hitta is Ni leading, which is one reason I don't think Niffweed's typing of IEI is fraught with bias. If you see Hitta as Ni leading (I have no opinion), then there are only two choices. If you further see him as Ti/Fe valuing, well, regardless of how good his logic is, there is only one option left.

I think my question is, what specifically do we mean by "bad logic" or "bad ethics." For instance, isn't a logical type one who consistently uses Ti and Te, does so with confidence, has high stamina to continue using these IM elements, while at the same time demonstrating less confidence/stamina/etc. in the use of Fi and Fe. If a person who is like this consistently posts logical fallacies, or consistently doesn't make sense, or whatever, then maybe their logic is bad... but does this mean they aren't a logical type? I think what I'm getting at is can't you be shit at logic (i.e. poor use of Te and Ti) and still be a logical type?

As an example, let's take . Let's try to find a practical application of in reality. I'll choose "predicting the future." An Ni type may see all sorts of trends, but is what they see correct? Not necessarily at all. But some Ni types could be better at predicting the future than others... does this mean they're better at Ni, or just that they're better at predicting the future? (For instance, there could be LSEs who are incredibly good at predicting the future, even though they have Ni PoLR... maybe they're using Te and Ti to logically predict the future...) So if there was someone who uses Ni all the time, is very confident in their use of Ni, but is always wrong in their time estimates and predictions (and very wrong), does this mean they don't have Ni in the ego block? No. It just means that they happen to be bad at something that could be seen as "Ni in practice," perhaps in the way that someone like Hitta happens to be bad at what could be seen as "Ti in practice." Part of me wonders if a Te bias in typing would be to look at the actual output of the person being typed: Hitta outputs a lot of bad Ti therefore he can't be a logical type. (Anyway, this is just something that crossed my mind... it could be nonsense.)

Then there's also this idea about the "deceptive power of Ni." Ni can see through to the crux of the matter, and the idea is once the Ni type has finally come to certainty on a matter, they can get stuck there, unwilling to change their view when they "see it so clearly." This idea seems to be applied especially to the combination of Ni and Fe (reinforced by the systematizing, logically "rigid" Ti). But, honestly, I think that anyone can get stuck on something they see so very clearly, regardless of type, especially if there are other contributing factors (such as the person being autistic). So if someone demonstrates a rigidity in their view, an inability to change their opinion in the face of compelling evidence, or whatever, I don't think this automatically means they must be Beta NF. (And I'm aware that no one has said that directly... but I wonder if it is underlying, even if unintended.)

Anyway, a lot of these things are tendencies that *could* be happening... I don't know for sure if they are or not. For instance, this post of Expat's in regards to Phaedrus doesn't appear biased to me, in that it isn't about how logical or not Phaedrus is, but is about how he seems to "metabolize" his information. That could be valid certainly.

I think the bottom line in a way is the "scope" of IM metabolism. What is it about and what isn't it about. It's like a network of how information is processed that does affect how one thinks, interacts, etc. as well as can be seen in the reasons why they put things certain ways, or go about things in certain ways, etc. Maybe sometimes we're taking its influence too far... I don't know. Maybe the lines between the functions and IM element usage aren't so thick... I don't know.

Those are my incomplete thoughts for the moment.

[Expat]

show me a gamma NT (that YOU believe IS gamma NT) on this forum that you think is "stupid".

I decline to do that because I don't want to call "stupid", in public, people who have done nothing to deserve it in my view. I can, though, do the opposite and say which non-Gamma NTs I think are very smart, if that helps.

I'm GLAD you recognize the possibility of there being a bias. it makes you seem reasonable when you don't behave as if you are infallible. I seriously don't understand why you being are so defensive right now.

Okay. I misunderstood you then.

(I hope you don't think I got these ideas from talking to socionix, btw... these have been my own thoughts for a while...)

No, that wasn't what I meant.

I don't know what you are thinking, but, it seems to me that you think I used what you had said to attack you, when really, I thought it was reasonable for you to say that...

Not "attack", but as if you were arguing, "see, he admits himself that he's biased".

[Expat]

For me the problem area comes in with users like Hitta and Phaedrus (actually Dioklecian is confusing as well). As has been noted before, Fe ego types often see Hitta and Phaedrus as "bad at Fe" while Te ego types tend to see them as "bad at Te" (and Ti as well).

Yes.

You can look at it on the surface alone. For instance, Hitta seems to use a lot of Ti, and if you don't look beyond that you could say, well Hitta uses Ti so much it's probably in his ego block. *Except* then logical types especially say that's Hitta's use of Ti is poor. Yes, he uses it seemingly all the time in his posts, but he does a poor job of it. Why? Ultimately his +/- system posts make no sense, don't match up with classical socionics, etc. Furthermore, any objection or criticism (or even question) about his system is met with circular logic, and simple reiteration of his previous points. Joy (and perhaps others) has mentioned that Hitta seems to have a small sample group of people irl that he bases his conclusions on... it goes on... all of these things say "poor use of logic."

Yes, but it's not that his system "doesn't match up with classical socionics" as such. There's nothing wrong with creating another system, or improving on it - as long as you're aware of what you're doing. What is remarkable is how he "zooms in" on very specific articles by Gulenko etc and says that that IS "classical socionics", and links to (say) Augusta's articles that directly contradict things like his ENTj or ISFj descriptions are simply ignored.

Then we have Phaedrus. I thought Logos outlined the "problems" with what Phaedrus posts/debates/whatever quite well in the type consensus list on the wiki. It's Phaedrus' apparent inability to form a logical argument, to back up his points, to "see reason," or to even answer a question satisfactorily about why he thinks something that leads many to say his logic is poor. Expat has made many other points about this... for instance citing Phaedrus' tendency to use anything said by anyone in support of his views (even if that person for the most part would disagree with his views), or to cite specific select few "authorities" as references to back up what he says (without actually saying why), etc.

Yes.

In these sorts of instances, minor biases in typing others may become significant, enough to tip the balance (perhaps the wrong way). Is Hitta LII (no, bad logic). Is he IEI (no, bad ethics). Which way do we tip it? I get the impression that Niffweed also relies on his belief that Hitta is Ni leading, which is one reason I don't think Niffweed's typing of IEI is fraught with bias. If you see Hitta as Ni leading (I have no opinion), then there are only two choices. If you further see him as Ti/Fe valuing, well, regardless of how good his logic is, there is only one option left.

That's exactly it. The thing about Ni leading came mostly from the videos.

I think my question is, what specifically do we mean by "bad logic" or "bad ethics." For instance, isn't a logical type one who consistently uses Ti and Te, does so with confidence, has high stamina to continue using these IM elements, while at the same time demonstrating less confidence/stamina/etc. in the use of Fi and Fe. If a person who is like this consistently posts logical fallacies, or consistently doesn't make sense, or whatever, then maybe their logic is bad... but does this mean they aren't a logical type? I think what I'm getting at is can't you be shit at logic (i.e. poor use of Te and Ti) and still be a logical type?

I'd have to agree with you, that is, you can. But the same goes for poor use of Fe and Fi, and being ethical.

As an example, let's take . Let's try to find a practical application of in reality. I'll choose "predicting the future." An Ni type may see all sorts of trends, but is what they see correct? Not necessarily at all. But some Ni types could be better at predicting the future than others... does this mean they're better at Ni, or just that they're better at predicting the future? (For instance, there could be LSEs who are incredibly good at predicting the future, even though they have Ni PoLR... maybe they're using Te and Ti to logically predict the future...) So if there was someone who uses Ni all the time, is very confident in their use of Ni, but is always wrong in their time estimates and predictions (and very wrong), does this mean they don't have Ni in the ego block? No. It just means that they happen to be bad at something that could be seen as "Ni in practice," perhaps in the way that someone like Hitta happens to be bad at what could be seen as "Ti in practice." Part of me wonders if a Te bias in typing would be to look at the actually output of the person being typed: Hitta outputs a lot of bad Ti therefore he can't be a logical type. (Anyway, this is just something that crossed my mind... it could be nonsense.)

What you said makes a lot of sense imo, with one caveat -- is an irrational function, and an "internal" one, that is, it may lead to "predicting the future" or to having weird insights.

Then there's also this idea about the "deceptive power of Ni." Ni can see through to the crux of the matter, and the idea is once the Ni type has finally come to certainty on a matter, they can get stuck there, unwilling to change their view when they "see it so clearly." This idea seems to be applied especially to the combination of Ni and Fe (reinforced by the systematizing, logically "rigid" Ti). But, honestly, I think that anyone can get stuck on something they see so very clearly, regardless of type, especially if there are other contributing factors (such as the person being autistic). So if someone demonstrates a rigidity in their view, an inability to change their opinion in the face of compelling evidence, or whatever, I don't think this automatically means they must be Beta NF. (And I'm aware that no one has said that directly... but I wonder if it is underlying, even if unintended.)

Well, actually I (and I think niffweed) are indeed inclined to the view that the combination of Ni, Fe and Ti, especially when little "balanced" by Te and Si, can lead to being very convinced about their beliefs, about what "they know to be true". It is for that reason that socionists tend to type all major religious leaders as Beta NFs. As well as romantics, all sort of visionairies, artists, poets, etc.

[marooned]

Yes, but it's not that his system "doesn't match up with classical socionics" as such. There's nothing wrong with creating another system, or improving on it - as long as you're aware of what you're doing. What is remarkable is how he "zooms in" on very specific articles by Gulenko etc and says that that IS "classical socionics", and links to (say) Augusta's articles that directly contradict things like his ENTj or ISFj descriptions are simply ignored.

That fleshes it out better.

What you said makes a lot of sense imo, with one caveat -- is an irrational function, and an "internal" one, that is, it may lead to "predicting the future" or to having weird insights.

Agree. I was trying to zero in on one thing about Ni that could be used to guage its "output" in reality for the sake of the example.

Well, actually I (and I think niffweed) are indeed inclined to the view that the combination of Ni, Fe and Ti, especially when little "balanced" by Te and Si, can lead to being very convinced about their beliefs, about what "they know to be true". It is for that reason that socionists tend to type all major religious leaders as Beta NFs. As well as romantics, all sort of visionairies, artists, poets, etc.

And this is a part I'm not so sure about. But I don't have anything of any substance to say... Although I can understand why this combination of Ni/Ti/Fe can lead to a state where one is of supreme conviction (especially when we add in Se valuing to the mix), and unyielding certainty in their beliefs about what they see so clearly and "know" to be true, I don't think this means that everyone who is being that way necessarily arrived there from Beta NF kookiness. Of course it would take a lot of a particular sort of energy/focus to make your whole life about your strong convictions, and to be able to influence others to follow you... I think I'll stop, cause I'm not coming up with anything right now.

[Expat]

And this is a part I'm not so sure about. But I don't have anything of any substance to say... Although I can understand why this combination of Ni/Ti/Fe can lead to a state where one is of supreme conviction (especially when we add in Se valuing to the mix),

Yes.

and unyielding certainty in their beliefs about what they see so clearly and "know" to be true, I don't think this means that everyone who is being that way necessarily arrived there from Beta NF kookiness.

Sure. But for instance, Gamma, with Ni/Fi/Te with added Se into it, can also be unyielding in their beliefs, but they will be related to Fi, rather than Ti.

So rather than having a supreme conviction on a structure, ideology, worldview, etc, Gammas will rather have a supreme conviction that someone is evil or that a few things are unforgivable, no matter what the reasons or how much time goes by.

[Expat]

This is as good a place to mention this as any.

It's not that I see some types as "stupid". What I do think is that people of a certain type will seem stupid, arrogant, and a combination of the two, if for some reason they are focusing too much on their super-id functions. An example of a LIE focusing too much on and , nowadays, is Nicolas Sarkozy in my opinion.

[misutii]

This is as good a place to mention this as any.

It's not that I see some types as "stupid". What I do think is that people of a certain type will seem stupid, arrogant, and a combination of the two, if for some reason they are focusing too much on their super-id functions. An example of a LIE focusing too much on and , nowadays, is Nicolas Sarkozy in my opinion.

Ok, I remember your post on the hidden agenda and how people are perceived as pathetic and it was well explained. In fact all your theoretical/analogical explanation threads were well written and I'm sure Loki and glamourama agree. Where we seem disagree with you, however, is in the application of socionics in regards to a few individuals.

Take glamourama, Loki, and I for example. If you read enough of our posts you'll notice we display a certain amount of insecurity when we try to use (and form and express logical conclusions). I find IEIs in general seem to do this and this leads to IEIs making overly wordy explanations in our posts. Now compare our use of to that of Phaedrus and Hitta and that's where it becomes difficult to see where your coming from in typing them IEI. They're not self-conscious in the least when using their logical functions and both of them have been on the forum long enough that if they do experience a certain amount of doubt/anxiety when having to logically explain themselves it should have displayed itself by now. But it hasn't.

I guess it would be interesting if we could have different types express how they perceive themselves when using their super-id functions to see if there's any patterns.

[Phaedrus]

For me the problem area comes in with users like Hitta and Phaedrus (actually Dioklecian is confusing as well). As has been noted before, Fe ego types often see Hitta and Phaedrus as "bad at Fe" while Te ego types tend to see them as "bad at Te" (and Ti as well).

Yes, hopefully everyone can agree on that description of the situation. You, some other Fe ego types, and some ILIs, are right about the absence of Fe in mine and hitta's posts. And I think that the main reason why some Te ego types, like Expat, ignores that fact, and instead focuses on what he perceives as an indication of weak Te, namely the correct observation that at least I am not very good at systematizing my thoughts and present them in a structured way. I am much better at seeing general patterns based on vast amounts of information collecting than I am at actually explaining in words what it is that I see. I am very good at remembering and understanding facts, but I am bad at remembering and performing procedures.

My brain also functions in another way that is probably slightly different from Expat's. Faced with a problem that is to be solved he and I probably activate the same area of the brain, but in most people's brains other areas that could be useful in solving the problem are immediately also activated. That means that their brains start to clean up right away, they automatically sort the information, the information is immediately interpreted in a process that helps them to understand what they see and hear.

But in may brain that process is slower. I often remember what I see and hear uninterpreted, as I perceive it in the first place. The information is stored "uncleaned" so to say. That means that I can often remember exactly, word for word, what a person has said because I can still "hear" the exact words and sounds. And, in the same way, when I read something, my memory is much more photographic than that of the average person. My memories are therefore more concrete and less muddled than most people's.

The downside of this is that I naturally spend more time collecting information before I interpret it, before I try to make sense of it. And since the information is stored in that way in my brain, it is more difficult for me to shape it when I shall try to explain it to other people. I have to impose a structure on it if I am going to be understood. I have to find the correct words in which to explain it. I have to translate what I can see and hear into words. I see the words, I see the general patterns, and I also see the conclusions very clearly, and I hear the sounds -- but I do that in a way that is different from how most people do it, because, as I said, most people's brains automatically sort the information in preconceived, preinterpreted "packages" that are more easily presented and understood by other people.

Many of these differences are actually described in the ILI type profiles. The tendency to collect more information before coming to a conclusion is a general tendency among irrational types. Sergei Ganin writes that "[b]eing natively intuitive, INTps are not quite able to swallow big chunks of information. They choke on it." And according to Jung, Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey the introverted intuitives are often misunderstood, they see things in their minds that they are poor at translating to common language. (In MBTT this is also attributed to Ni, because they haven't changed their understanding of that aspect of Jung's description of introverted intuition, but they incorrectly attributes it to INTJs and INFJs.) We have also had many discussions in the past about what it is like to "think in pictures", and what we naturally assume here, that types with leading N are picture thinkers and that leading T types are think in another way, seems to have been confirmed by people's experiences.

Then we have Phaedrus. I thought Logos outlined the "problems" with what Phaedrus posts/debates/whatever quite well in the type consensus list on the wiki. It's Phaedrus' apparent inability to form a logical argument, to back up his points, to "see reason," or to even answer a question satisfactorily about why he thinks something that leads many to say his logic is poor.

For example Ludwig Wittgenstein had the exact same problems with being understood as you describe here, and as I have tried to explain above. But he is not therefore assumed to be an ethical type. He is commonly either typed LII or ILI. Expat is clearly making a typing mistake here and elsewhere, when he interprets what he can observe as indicating an absence of Te in the ego block. He simply doesn't understand the differences between accepting Te and creative Te correctly.

Expat has made many other points about this... for instance citing Phaedrus' tendency to use anything said by anyone in support of his views (even if that person for the most part would disagree with his views), or to cite specific select few "authorities" as references to back up what he says (without actually saying why), etc.

Yes, and many people seem to believe that that indicates that I rely on authorities, when the truth is the opposite. I am much less dependent on what others think than most people, and I am almost totally indifferent to who has said what and what kind of position that person has. I am interested in finding the truth, and I only rely on my own ability to judge whether someone's claim is correct or not. It is much more correct to say that I have a problem with authorities. I don't really understand why Expat and others can misinterpret the situation so gravely.

In these sorts of instances, minor biases in typing others may become significant, enough to tip the balance (perhaps the wrong way). Is Hitta LII (no, bad logic). Is he IEI (no, bad ethics). Which way do we tip it?

It is totally, completely, and absurdly obvious that hitta is a logical type, and it really irritates me that some people on this forum are so incredibly ignorant and blind to the truth that they can seriously suggest that he is an ethical type. They act like newcomers, complete beginners that know almost nothing about the types.

I get the impression that Niffweed also relies on his belief that Hitta is Ni leading, which is one reason I don't think Niffweed's typing of IEI is fraught with bias. If you see Hitta as Ni leading (I have no opinion), then there are only two choices. If you further see him as Ti/Fe valuing, well, regardless of how good his logic is, there is only one option left.

If hitta really is Ni leading, there is only one option left. Then he is an ILI. There is absolutely no way that he can be an IEI.

I think my question is, what specifically do we mean by "bad logic" or "bad ethics." For instance, isn't a logical type one who consistently uses Ti and Te, does so with confidence, has high stamina to continue using these IM elements, while at the same time demonstrating less confidence/stamina/etc. in the use of Fi and Fe.

Of course.

If a person who is like this consistently posts logical fallacies, or consistently doesn't make sense, or whatever, then maybe their logic is bad... but does this mean they aren't a logical type? I think what I'm getting at is can't you be shit at logic (i.e. poor use of Te and Ti) and still be a logical type?

Conceptual logic is not the same thing as Te or Ti (I don't know how many, many times I have said this), but they are related. It seems to be an obvious an empirical fact that logical types (Te or Ti in ego block) are generally better at conceptual logic than ethical types. But it could have controversial consequences, because being good at conceptual logic is also related to high IQ. So, does it mean that logical types -- on average -- have higher IQ than ethical types? We don't know for sure, because we lack the empirical evidence to back up that claim, but it seems rather likely actually. (People like to see this as a prejudice, but it is quite possible that it is not just a prejudice. Further research is needed before we know for sure.)

As an example, let's take . Let's try to find a practical application of in reality. I'll choose "predicting the future." An Ni type may see all sorts of trends, but is what they see correct? Not necessarily at all. But some Ni types could be better at predicting the future than others... does this mean they're better at Ni, or just that they're better at predicting the future?

They are of course better at predicting the future. And it could actually mean that they will use their Ni less than a person who is worse at predicting the future correctly. Why? Because in order to get it right you need to have a correct view on reality, and that means that an ILI who is often correct about the future will use his Te a lot. The more you know about the world, the better you will be at predicting what will happen.

Anyway, a lot of these things are tendencies that *could* be happening... I don't know for sure if they are or not. For instance, this post of Expat's in regards to Phaedrus doesn't appear biased to me, in that it isn't about how logical or not Phaedrus is, but is about how he seems to "metabolize" his information. That could be valid certainly.

My response to Expat's post in the same thread should be enough to explain Expat's misinterpretations, shouldn't it? Take a look at my post and see if you understand what kind of mistake(s) Expat is making.

[Expat]

Take glamourama, Loki, and I for example. If you read enough of our posts you'll notice we display a certain amount of insecurity when we try to use (and form and express logical conclusions). I find IEIs in general seem to do this and this leads to IEIs making overly wordy explanations in our posts. Now compare our use of to that of Phaedrus and Hitta and that's where it becomes difficult to see where your coming from in typing them IEI. They're not self-conscious in the least when using their logical functions and both of them have been on the forum long enough that if they do experience a certain amount of doubt/anxiety when having to logically explain themselves it should have displayed itself by now. But it hasn't.

Well, I disagree about your last point, I think the doubt/anxiety is there, and a common way of dealing with doubt/anxiety is by denying it totally, which is precisely my point about "pathetic" and "stupid/arrogant": these are not "healthy" focuses on the super-id, but over-the-top, precisely due to the underlying doubt and anxiety. I mean, come on. Is it healthy to continually take refuge in statements like "I know more about this than anyone here" or even "I know more about this than anyone else in the world?"

The point where we disagree is precisely that I think that you, Glamourama and Loki are examples of healthy uses of your functions, not of over-compensating focus of your super-id. That's why I don't think it makes much sense to compare your uses of .

[Phaedrus]

Well, actually I (and I think niffweed) are indeed inclined to the view that the combination of Ni, Fe and Ti, especially when little "balanced" by Te and Si, can lead to being very convinced about their beliefs, about what "they know to be true". It is for that reason that socionists tend to type all major religious leaders as Beta NFs. As well as romantics, all sort of visionairies, artists, poets, etc.

This is a gross over-generalization that will cause mistypings if not accepted critically. What is correct in it is that is indeed related to being a romantic, a visionary, an artist, a poet, etc. And it is also true that the most typical romantic and poetic type is the IEI, because there is a general and very clear difference between NFs and NTs that is explained in the socionic Clubs.

NFs are naturally drawn to art, religion, psychology, New Age mumbo jumbo, etc., whereas NTs are naturally drawn to science, mathematics, philosophy with a "cold" touch to it (in contrast to the kind of "philosophy" NFs might be drawn to (this is hard to put into words)).

But the ILI is another leading type that, in a sense, is a natural born poet or artist or even romantic, especially if being of the intuitive subtype. The differences in output if compared with the IEI are rather obvious.

The ILI writer will tend to write science fiction (Stanislaw Lem) or intricate stories with enigmas, stories that lack the "human touch" that you will find in the writings of IEIs. In comparison with the IEI, the ILI writer will focus much more on structure and logic, and you will also find a focus on the darker sides of human existence.

The ILI composer (Beethoven) will also focus on structure, and the ILI philosopher will tend to write in an aphoristic style that perhaps could be a natural consequence of their problems with structuring their material. We see this tendency rather clearly in the writings of Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein. Rick has typed Wittgenstein as LII, and that typing might be correct, but if we reason along the lines that I am doing here, we would type him as ILI, because he fits the traditional stereotype of the "wild" genius perfectly, and in that respect he is clearly similar to Beethoven.

Wittgenstein was frequently misunderstood, he couldn't structure his material properly, he made a lot of seemingly unrelated observations and critical remarks, he had mood swings, he is seen as a prophet, writing in a poetical style, seeing things that are strange, unexplainable. One of his main themes is the idea that some things can not be said, only seen. He writes a lot about the pragmatic aspects of language, and yet that was his Achilles' heel. He was pushy and aggressive in a way that also suggests ILI rather than LII.

The same focus on the problems with being understood is to be found in the works of Samuel Beckett, whom Rick also has typed as LII. Both Beckett and Wittgenstein could be mistyped by Rick, and if they are, they are mistyped for the reasons I am trying to explain here. The world outlooks of both Beckett and Wittgenstein are pessimistic, cynical, deterministic, and that is also true of Schopenhauer. They are all passive observers of the world, and they don't have a "system" that they want to impose onto the world, like LIIs do. If you contrast these three thinkers with Kant, the differences are striking. If we go by type descriptions, we would probably not type Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, or Beckett as LIIs. They seem to fit ILI better.

[Phaedrus]

Is it healthy to continually take refuge in statements like "I know more about this than anyone here" or even "I know more about this than anyone else in the world?"

Would you say that Wittgenstein's behaviour was "healthy"? He did exactly what you describe here. So, by your own standards, you would not type him ILI but more likely IEI. But such a typing is absurd, because it is completely contradicted by the type descriptions. IEIs simply are not like you describe them. The kind of behaviour you have in mind is ILI behaviour, not IEI behaviour, and that should be obvious to you. Why isn't it?

[aestrivex]

yeah... here's a few things...

(anndelise)

maybe this is irrelevant, but: an alpha NT giving logically contradictory arguments 100% of the time?? sounds doubtful to me. maybe I'm biased because I value , but yeah... that doesn't sound very alpha NT to me. they cover all grounds. they care about their "system" working and being logically sound.

i think you misunderstood the point; my point is that most of her arguments tend to focus on her identifying logical contradictions in other people's statements. not that her arguments are illogical themselves (although i often think they miss the point, but that's not why i made the typing).

anyway i talked to anndelise recently and got somewhat of a different impression; i plan to try to talk to her further.

(hkkmr)

this typing is not wrong but you are associating negative things with ...

you could make that association, i suppose, but again i think these comments have more to do with my perceiving hkkmr as an asshole and not what i saw that led to the typing.

(jessica)

yes I realize you have explained your rationale on typing her this way, but I still think it's biased... associating / with close-mindedness...

well, i sort of see this but again i think i've explained why i associate this kind of behavior with TiSe.

(kioshi)

this one is interesting because, also seems largely absent with people like phaedrus (to me, at least), yet you have no problem typing him as IEI.

the whole Fe-INTx deal deserves further commentary. see below.

(mikemex)

I don't see what's clear at all about mikemex being /. all we know is that he's kind of crazy... there is no reason to believe that the dude isn't /

this one, actually, is probably the best example that there is of an anti Ti/Fe bias. you may be right.


also of note is that most of these typings (except hkkmr, which i don't believe belongs in this category) are one's that i'm not really all that sure about. more on that momentarily.

[aestrivex]

Take glamourama, Loki, and I for example. If you read enough of our posts you'll notice we display a certain amount of insecurity when we try to use (and form and express logical conclusions). I find IEIs in general seem to do this and this leads to IEIs making overly wordy explanations in our posts. Now compare our use of to that of Phaedrus and Hitta and that's where it becomes difficult to see where your coming from in typing them IEI. They're not self-conscious in the least when using their logical functions and both of them have been on the forum long enough that if they do experience a certain amount of doubt/anxiety when having to logically explain themselves it should have displayed itself by now. But it hasn't.

consider hitta's posts of "why is this forum so hostile to new ideas and change? you people are stifling and mean."

not necessarily something he does frequently, but i think that hitta sort of lives in his own world where he's totally unconcerned with actually making his theories comport with reality; at the same time, i think that behind the facade these kinds of "this forum is against me and all visionaries" does show his lack of confidence -- to an extent.

[marooned]

You, some other Fe ego types, and some ILIs, are right about the absence of Fe in mine and hitta's posts.

Well, actually, I'm not entirely decided about this. I don't understand the IM elements well enough yet and I could be missing some things about Fe. I have sometimes seen what I think is Fe in both your and Hitta's posts, but right now it seems like a sort of insophisticated use of Fe. And who knows, maybe I confuse Fe and Fi sometimes.

And I think that the main reason why some Te ego types, like Expat, ignores that fact, and instead focuses on what he perceives as an indication of weak Te, namely the correct observation that at least I am not very good at systematizing my thoughts and present them in a structured way. I am much better at seeing general patterns based on vast amounts of information collecting than I am at actually explaining in words what it is that I see. I am very good at remembering and understanding facts, but I am bad at remembering and performing procedures.

From my perspective you're actually pretty good at systematizing your thoughts and structuring them... I think perhaps people sometimes think you have provided the wrong structure (i.e. "categorical errors")... Also when you begin to argue in circles, that gives the appearance that your thoughts aren't structured very well I suppose... hmm. Not sure.

I would associate retaining an exact memory of facts and things word-for-word with Te... or with autism... or with both.

My memories are therefore more concrete and less muddled than most people's.

Right now I would associate that with autism. Yes I know AS =/= autism necessarily... but still.

I have to impose a structure on it if I am going to be understood. I have to find the correct words in which to explain it.

You do seem to be rather good with semantics from my point of view.

Conceptual logic is not the same thing as Te or Ti (I don't know how many, many times I have said this), but they are related.

I think I would agree.

It seems to be an obvious an empirical fact that logical types (Te or Ti in ego block) are generally better at conceptual logic than ethical types. But it could have controversial consequences, because being good at conceptual logic is also related to high IQ. So, does it mean that logical types -- on average -- have higher IQ than ethical types?

I doubt it. I think how good one is at conceptual logic is probably more closey related to their IQ than it is to their socionics type (whether logical or ethical). I won't even go into the biases associated with IQ testing itself.

[marooned]

Take glamourama, Loki, and I for example. If you read enough of our posts you'll notice we display a certain amount of insecurity when we try to use (and form and express logical conclusions).

I think I am especially insecure about this on this forum because I know people will mercilessly rip what I say to pieces if I am not careful. I would really rather avoid that. Also my confidence tends to decrease when I perceive "intellectual arrogance" surrounding me... I have no desire to compete with those who wish to be intellectually competitive.... I'd rather let them rip and tear at each other while I get the hell away from them. I can actually be quite logically confident in certain scenarios... for instance in classes, once I know I'm on the same page, and this is confirmed by various things like grades, tests, the professor, interaction with or observation of others, etc. then I feel much better. I feel confident thinking inside the box once I know where the box is... when I don't know the boundaries of the box that's when I become very uncertain and float about lost.

[Phaedrus]

From my perspective you're actually pretty good at systematizing your thoughts and structuring them...

That's probably because you are also an leading type. From a leading type's perspective, we are probably both seen as rather unstructured.

I would associate retaining an exact memory of facts and things word-for-word with Te... or with autism... or with both.

Correct analysis. I would too, and so would Socionics.

Right now I would associate that with autism. Yes I know AS =/= autism necessarily... but still.

Correct again. That's why Socionics also associate the ILI type with autism. These type traits are not set in stone, it's about tendencies. The most extreme example of an autistic brain is Kim Peek's. He exhibits all of the type traits that I have described to an extreme extent. From a Socionics perspective he would be a type, but from Expat's perspective he wouldn't, because Peek doesn't seem able to systematize or understand the enourmous amount of facts he has stored in his brain. He seem's unable to draw any conclusions, but at the same time he has shown very clearly that his brain connects seemingly totally unrelated facts in unexpected ways, which indicates that he sees a lot of general patterns that he can only "explain" indirectly.

You do seem to be rather good with semantics from my point of view.

Yes, that's one area in which I consider myself to be close to an expert. Just like Wittgenstein, I am less good at pragmatics, though.

[marooned]

I should add, Phaedrus, that I *do not* see a reason to correlate any type strongly with autism, and I think that's silly.

[Phaedrus]

I should add, Phaedrus, that I *do not* see a reason to correlate any type strongly with autism, and I think that's silly.

It is not. You are clearly wrong about that. Some types cannot be autistic, and some types are in themselves slightly autistic, for example the ILI.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think that some people with autism will test out as ILI, but they may not be ILI or any type, it is just that ILI looks like the closest fit.

[Phaedrus]

I think that some people with autism will test out as ILI, but they may not be ILI or any type, it is just that ILI looks like the closest fit.

Not all people with autism are ILIs, but no ESE is autistic. ESEs can't be autistic, and some other types can probably not be autistic either. And the ILI type is in itself described as slightly autistic in Socionics. There is no way around that fact. You just have to accept it.

[emeye]

Not all people with autism are ILIs, but no ESE is autistic. ESEs can't be autistic, and some other types can probably not be autistic either. And the ILI type is in itself described as slightly autistic in Socionics. There is no way around that fact. You just have to accept it.

If ILIs are autistic (HFAs,) then LIEs are Aspies (failed extraverts.)

In that case, I do not envy SEEs and ESIs.

Fortunately, the above proposition/statement/whatever-you-call-it is probably only trivially true (falsehood implies anything.)