First of all, I want to apologise for having to subject the entire forum to my outrage at the way I was treated by Maria on stickam. Secondly, in this case, I'll prohibit the use of the kind of arguments she directed at me for why I was not an SEE (namely "I just don't see it" and "you don't act like Danielle does". However, I will use comparisons to emphasise certain aspects of her personality that just don't fit at all).
1. Her valuing of Ti This, to my mind, is practically unadulterated. Maria will often give off the air that she actually values what others are saying, but in reality, she only does this on the basis that it fits in with her own ideas. She is unwilling to consider anything beyond what she believes any given type should act or sound like. She believes she understand what Ti is, and so you're met with "you're wrong" if you try to explain phenomena using a function other than Ti that she believes is attributable to Ti. I managed to piece together some kind of definition of Fi from her, and there was essentially nothing there that Augusta had actually explicitly stated about Fi, clearly implying that Maria has no idea what Fi is (where she gets her definition of it from I don't know). Bottom line is, if she feels that others acknowledge that she is an ILI, then she feels she is safe. When someone threatens said safety, she has a major problem with them.
2. Her poor use of logic Call me a hypocrite, but at least I recognise my own sporadic style of argumentation. Maria will throw suggestions out there like there's no tomorrow, with no clear, linear way of thinking evident. Often the suggestions will be so ridiculous that her credibility for typing anyone is called into question. In comparison to niffweed, who will happily explain his rational for what he thinks, Maria refuses to do so; she wants to hear your argument first. Why? Because she doesn't have one, and she thinks that if you provide her with one which is slightly flawed, she will attack it if it doesn't fit in with her worldview. It is a way of her feeling more confident in her ability to argue a point well. niffweed is what I call a constructive arguer or debater (I would also say that Isha, reyn_til_runa and BLauritson would no doubt take the same route as niffweed in a debate); he will make a case, hear your own, and then make a decision from there. Maria is what I will call a destructive arguer; she'll ruthlessly stonewall you until she gets her point made, and refuses to provide any kind of counterargument beyond *sigh* and "no no no no no, you don't understand!".
3. Irrational behaviour I'll start by saying that Maria's kicking me out of her stickam room was completely unjustified. However, because I'm reasonable, I understand that a lot of other people would do that under the kind of pressure she couldn't handle. The fact of the matter is, it's almost unthinkable that someone like niffweed would resort to that course of action under the same circumstances in which Maria found herself. If, for example, Ashton walked into the room, he would leave. Why? Because he realises that he no longer wishes to associate himself with someone who provides niffweed with absolutely no reason to associate himself with them. There are two differences between how he would go about it and how Maria did.
Firstly, niffweed realises that other members of the chat may wish to speak to Ashton, whereas he - evidently - does not. (Expat is another example of someone who would "walk out" so to speak, if Ashton arrived on the scene (being the16types.info).) In this way, he is being completely reasonable: "I do not wish to speak to Ashton so I will leave". Isha would've done the same; I am willing to bet my life on it, ifmd95 . Others can make their own mind up about him. Did I receive this option? Of course not. Maria's solution to my (entirely civilised and rational) challenging everything she came out with was to kick me. Simple as that. There's no democracy there. It's despotism in its purest form: ou will leave, because I do not want to speak to you.
Secondly, there is the actual action itself; the fact that it was irrational. I'm not talking about irrational in the socionics sense, otherwise niffweed and any other ILI host of a chat would've done the same. But niffweed has been a host before on many occasions, and he has never imposed his will on someone else in the way Maria did. I'm not criticising her for suffering from the pressure; although my earlier irrational attack of her was about her being weak in the face of adversity, it was completely irrational and heated, and so in this case will be discounted. What I'm trying to get across is that an ILI would not act in the way she did. Even if niffweed felt pressure (and I can tell you now, the same kind of pressure I was giving Maria, Gilly was giving niffweed tenfold a night or two ago), he would not act in this way. He would take the pressure (as he did with Gilly), and calmly explain how Gilly was mistaken in his views.
4. Unwillingness to explain anything and her uncharacteristic reactiveness This, along with her kicking me, was the most infuriating thing of all about Maria's conduct. This is what truly put the cherry on top for my judging her as what I have judged her as. Again, inevitably, I will have to use niffweed to illustrate my next point. As I explained in the third argument for Maria's not being an ILI, niffweed - instead of banning Gilly for his heated arguments - coolly heard him out and explained how his viewpoint was flawed. (To prove that I am not sucking up to niffweed, I actually disagreed with what he and thehotelambush were arguing, and agreed with Gilly.) Gilly was far more vehement in his viewpoints; far more forceful in getting his views heard than I was with Maria, and niffweed took it. He took it because niffweed is comfortable with another's use of Se. Simply put, Maria, in contrast, could not handle my use of Se. It wasn't about my shouting or being aggressive, because she was getting just wound up as I was, it was because nothing she said was remotely productive or useful, and she couldn't hack the fact that I had no reason to believe or agree with anything she was saying. Maria reacted aggressively to a direct perceived (note, perceived) threat in the form of myself. niffweed recognised that no one was threatening him, for the very easy explanation that there was no threat. Gilly was arguing a point (as I did) and niffweed took it on board. Maria blocks me out of her worldview and abuses her powers. Explanation? There wasn't one. I was acting in no way different from how I normally act.
5. Inability to see the relevant details of an argument or point This is something which most ILIs would scoff at when taking it in conjunction with themselves. They are masters of this; extremely adept in being able to see what is relevant and what isn't. Not four hours ago, Isha was generous enough to help put me things into perspective for my socionicsworkshop.com list of why I could be an SLE and why I could be an SEE (for those of you who are unaware and interested, here is the link*). Basically, we went through systematically and eliminated any sentiments which belonged to Se reasoning alone (and thus did not aid the case for either SLE or SEE, but rather for Se along). She asked me a variety of questions, which I answered accordingly; what Isha did was let me come to my own conclusion by guiding me in a given direction. This, I might also note, is something else which ILIs are very good at doing; shifting things into perspective for someone with their Te creative. Maria, on the other hand, has no perspective. She has no arguments to voice, and fails dismally at attempting to put someone else's rational into perspective. What she does do is say that x is the case because - and this is the part that is unrevealed by her - she "gets the feeling" or thinks something "would be the case". Okay, I do this, but this is just another argument for weak logic for me. Why would someone who is strong in logic use this same rationale? They wouldn't. I showed her the page, and she basically proceeded to become vocally aggressive towards me, which in turn meant I had to raise my voice to actually get my point through her blockade.
*Here, Maria claims that I called her "autistic". She keeps bringing this up every time I consider strong Fi in myself. Firstly, I never claimed she was autistic. What I did was completely with the best intentions joke about how she, with poor Fe, could now see that Leon was happy because he was smiling, and now he has a sad face, so he is sad. Her extreme sensitivity here was simply not justified by the joke that was not at all meant to offend. Someone like niffweed or Isha would have merely laughed it off. She claims that "past a certain point i don't understand why one's dual would be essentially pounding on the polr of said dual". The fact that she calls it "pounding" simply serves to show that she totally overreacted to my harmless joke which I apologised profusely for. I made a single joke - this is a single, isolated case, people - from which she drew enormous claims about (that is, my type). Another reason to showThe fact that she justifies it as her having valued Fi and my having weak, unvalued Fi is simply ridiculous; it serves as another reason why Maria has no idea what Fi is.