Which quadra do you think is the most dishonest overall?

[Suomea]

...

[strrrng]

I voted beta as a joke, but no quadra is more inherently dishonest than another.

*delete* lol

[Ezra]

Uh oh.

This thread should never have existed.

[consentingadult]

I voted beta as a joke, but no quadra is more inherently dishonest than another.

*delete* lol

I agree. First of all, people have different definitions of 'honesty'. From my perspective, Betas easily 'lie' or 'deny facts' ("no honey, that wasn't me you saw fucking your best friend!") when it suits their purpose, but Betas probably would consider Deltas as dishonest for not being straightforward and direct nd probably hypocritical as well. Our Socionic values certainly have a lot to do with what we consider to be 'honesty' and 'integrity'.

[Slacker]

People are voting for this? And voting Beta. *sigh* If it's negative, it must be Beta, right?

You know, my ENFj dad thinks ISTps are the most dishonest people in the world. There are three people he just will rant and rant about because he thinks they're dishonest opportunists. My husband is not one of the three but it's possible he thinks that way of him too and is just quiet about it with me.

My point is that every quadra sees dishonesty differently and in someone else.

[Jimbean]

This is not type related!

[consentingadult]

LIE (in spite of their initials) are some of the least likely to misrepresent objective information. It might have something to do with -Fi DS and craving the respect of their quadra-mates. More certainly, such misrepresentation could be a deathblow to their credibility and ability to maintain legitimate desired business relations. The LIE make very many transactions and at the highest risk.

I do not think I am LIE. I do not think I am even Gamma. But I do think this is a more than likely correlation here. The other Gammas may be more "creative" in their honesty though.

But I ahve known LIE business men who, when confronted with the fact of having to pay an invoice, would do everything possible to prevent having to pay it, and pulling every legal trick in the process (Se hidden agenda). Now legally, this is not lying, but is certainly isn't honest dealings according to Alpha, Delta and possibly also Beta princples. So. in their own way, Gammas can be 'dishonest' too.

As a rule, at the first sign of Se in an LIE, I retreat and refuse to do business with them.

[Jimbean]

The way someone can be dishonest is type related, but overall whether someone is dishonest or not is not type related.

[consentingadult]

This is not type related!

Oh yes, it is! Dishonesty is most easily observable in people who behave pathologically, and there is no doubt in my mind that personality pathology finds its roots in a person's temperament, i.e. in a person's Socionics inclinations.

(Pleased note, that not all pathological behavior falls in the domain of personality pathology, so not all pathological behavior is Socionics related).

Jimbean, if you still disagree, let's hear a good rationale for it, and leave the simple declarations to Phaedrus.

Edit: I missed your last post, seems like we do agree after all

[consentingadult]

I did prelude the post by specifying "objective information" and made no such claim for the entire Gamma Quadra. What I thought is noteworthy about the LIE though is how unambiguous its brand of honesty will be. (This contrasted with the "creativity" noted elsewhere.) It may not make it any "better" an honesty (considering the entire human impact. Gamma is quite harsh when it comes to the subjective impact.) But it does suggest that, at least in this way, most anyone can rely on the LIE's brand of honesty under most any circumstance. What you see is what you get (which your own strategy fits well with.) That's a rather unique characteristic, at the very least significant in differentiating the LIE from other Se-valuing types a number of posters seem to confuse it with.

This is all true... from a GAMMA perspective!!! I'm pretty certain that e.g. Alphas are very vulnurable to what you call "its brand of honesty". In fact, I've seens Alphas, especially the SF's, burn their fingers in their dealings with these 'unambiguous' LIEs. They are so unambiguous, that Alphas simply miss the pointers.

This is not in defence of Alphas, who in turn have the habit, imho, to make other people responsible for their own shit, which could be considered 'dishonest' in the eyes of an Gamma.

Every type is capable of some kind of dishonesty, and no kind of dishonesty is 'better' than another. I might be mistaken, but I read your post as a rationalization of Gamma/LIE 'dishonesty'.

[Jimbean]

Oh yes, it is! Dishonesty is most easily observable in people who behave pathologically, and there is no doubt in my mind that personality pathology finds its roots in a person's temperament, i.e. in a person's Socionics inclinations.

(Pleased note, that not all pathological behavior falls in the domain of personality pathology, so not all pathological behavior is Socionics related).

Jimbean, if you still disagree, let's hear a good rationale for it, and leave the simple declarations to Phaedrus.

Edit: I missed your last post, seems like we do agree after all

What I said in my last post is what I have seen. Different people can lie, and if they do, they are dishonest in different ways. I have found no reason to believe that there is a correlation between the amount of dishonesty that a person may be inclined to and a person's socionics type.

[consentingadult]

What I said in my last post is what I have seen. Different people can lie, and if they do, they are dishonest in different ways. I have found no reason to believe that there is a correlation between the amount of dishonesty that a person may be inclined to and a person's socionics type.

Like I said: we agree. My repsons to your first post was written while you posted your last. I too do believe every type can be very honest (also in the perception of other types and quadras) if they are psychologically healthy.

[Ezra]

People are voting for this? And voting Beta. *sigh* If it's negative, it must be Beta, right?

THANK YOU.

Respect due to Slacker Mom, who evidently respects her opposing quadra.

[krieger]

I voted my own quadra for good sportsmanship.

[mikemex]

Define dishonest.

[Expat]

I object to this thread.

[Suomea]

Define dishonest.

Figure I'd just give the wikipedia definition..... much of which I find interesting.


Honesty is the human quality of communicating and acting truthfully related to truth as a value. This includes listening, and any action in the human repertoire — as well as speaking.

Superficially, honesty means simply stating facts and views as best one truly believes them to be. It includes both honesty to others, and to oneself (see: self-deception) and about one's own motives and inner reality. Honesty, at times, has the ability to cause misfortune to the person who displays it.

Western views on honesty

The concept of honesty applies to all behaviors. One cannot refuse to consider factual information, for example, and still claim that one's knowledge, belief, or position is an attempt to be truthful or is held in "good faith." Such willful blindness is clearly a product of one's desires and simply has nothing to do with the human ability to know. Basing one's positions on what one wants — rather than unbiased evidence gathering — is dishonest even when good intentions can be cited — after all even villains could cite good intentions and intended glory for a select group of people. Clearly then, an unbiased approach to the truth is a requirement of honesty.

Because intentions are closely related to fairness, and certainly affect the degree of honesty/dishonesty, there is a widespread confusion about honesty. There is also a general belief that one is necessarily aware that dishonest behavior is dishonest. But it's at the moment when one willfully disregards information in order to benefit (such as to justify their actions or beliefs) that one shows whether they are interested in the truth or whether they have a lack of respect for the truth, which is dishonesty, regardless of whether they mislabel it stubbornness or conviction. Socrates had much to say about truth, honesty and morality, and explained that if people really understood that their behavior was wrong — then they simply would not choose it. Furthermore, the more dishonest someone is, the less likely they are to understand honesty and to characterize their behavior as wrong. Unfortunately,the meaning of honesty has been marginalized to specific lists of behaviors that more often than not --change over time like fashion. The understanding that honesty requires an unbiased approach to the truth and to evidence gathering at all times (a timeless approach) collides with ideologies of all types. This would explain why honesty, although often discussed -- has failed to become a cultural norm. Ideologies and idealism inherently exaggerate and suppress evidence in order to support their perspectives. They essentially state that their way is the only right way to view the world. This erodes the practice and understanding of honesty and creates ongoing conflicts in all human relationships.


Studies of Confucius about honesty

Confucius recognized several levels of honesty, fundamental to his ethics:

Li

His shallowest concept of honesty was implied in his notion of Li: all actions committed by a person to build the ideal society - aiming at meeting their surface desires of a person either immediately (bad) or longer term (good). To admit that one sought immediate gratification could however make a bad act better, and to hide one's long term goals could cloud a good act. A key principle was that a "gentleman" must strive to convey his feelings honestly on his face, so that these could help each other coordinate for long term gain for all. So there was a visible relation between time horizon, etiquette and one's image of oneself even in the mirror. This generates self-honesty and keeps such activities as business calm, unsurprising, and aboveboard. In this conception, one is honest because it suits one's own self-interest only.

Yi

Deeper than Li was Yi or righteousness. Rather than pursuing one's own interests one should do what is right and moral - based on reciprocity. Here too time is central, but as a time span: since one's parents spent one's first three years raising one, one spent three mourning them after they die. At this level one is honest about one's obligations and duty. Even with no one else to keep one honest or to relate to directly, a deeply honest person would relate to ancestors as if they were alive and would not act in ways that would make them ashamed. This was part of the moral code that included ancestor worship, but Confucius had made it rigorous.

Ren

The deepest level of honesty was Ren, out of which flowed Yi and thus Li. Confucius' morality was based upon empathy and understanding others, which required understanding one's own moral core first, rather than on divinely ordained rules, which could simply be obeyed. The Confucian version of the Golden Rule was to treat one's inferiors as one would want one's superiors to treat one. Virtue under Confucius is based upon harmony with others and a recognition of the honest reality that eventually (say in old age) one will come under the power of others (say one's children). So this level of honesty is to actually put oneself in context of one's whole life and future generations - and choose to do or say nothing that would not reflect one's family's honor and reputation for honesty and acceptance of truth, such as eventual death.

Buddhist teachings on honesty

Thanissaro Bhikkhu taught:

“Real honesty is being honest about what your possibilities are, what your potentials are. That's where true honesty lies. It stretches us. It’s not simply admitting where we are - that’s a beginning step, it’s not the end step. So be honest about where you are but also be honest about what your possibilities are. That keeps the challenge of the path always before us.”

[Expat]

Why's that?

I was being half-facetious.

Anyway, unless I'm mistaken, you had the idea for his thread because of the discussion on SEEs in the "crafting an image" thread. Well, the thing is, the way I meant it at least, the SEE wasn't really being "dishonest" since none of those "roles" were really lies; the SEE would be emphasizing different things about himself, but all of them being "true" as far as he was concerned.

[Park]

I object to this thread.

Objection Sustained!



lol

[Suomea]

Western views on honesty

The concept of honesty applies to all behaviors. One cannot refuse to consider factual information, for example, and still claim that one's knowledge, belief, or position is an attempt to be truthful or is held in "good faith." Such willful blindness is clearly a product of one's desires and simply has nothing to do with the human ability to know. Basing one's positions on what one wants — rather than unbiased evidence gathering — is dishonest even when good intentions can be cited — after all even villains could cite good intentions and intended glory for a select group of people. Clearly then, an unbiased approach to the truth is a requirement of honesty.

Because intentions are closely related to fairness, and certainly affect the degree of honesty/dishonesty, there is a widespread confusion about honesty. There is also a general belief that one is necessarily aware that dishonest behavior is dishonest. But it's at the moment when one willfully disregards information in order to benefit (such as to justify their actions or beliefs) that one shows whether they are interested in the truth or whether they have a lack of respect for the truth, which is dishonesty, regardless of whether they mislabel it stubbornness or conviction. Socrates had much to say about truth, honesty and morality, and explained that if people really understood that their behavior was wrong — then they simply would not choose it. Furthermore, the more dishonest someone is, the less likely they are to understand honesty and to characterize their behavior as wrong. Unfortunately,the meaning of honesty has been marginalized to specific lists of behaviors that more often than not --change over time like fashion. The understanding that honesty requires an unbiased approach to the truth and to evidence gathering at all times (a timeless approach) collides with ideologies of all types. This would explain why honesty, although often discussed -- has failed to become a cultural norm. Ideologies and idealism inherently exaggerate and suppress evidence in order to support their perspectives. They essentially state that their way is the only right way to view the world. This erodes the practice and understanding of honesty and creates ongoing conflicts in all human relationships.

[FDG]

I'm the most dishonest, and I'm so dishonest that by myself form an entirely new dishonest quadra, which of course due to transitivity is the most dishonest.

[FDG]

what you should understand is that it's all about self-confidence. this usually means control over things, humans, nature. every unexplored realm provokes fear to the LIE. it is not curiosity but not necessarily profit although it comes from the unexploited resources he discovers and controls (eg. Gates).
LIEs are leaders, why? because they never test alone unclear waters. "team, check over there and report me back".

I can testify that this is completely untrue. I could never be able to let somebody else take the highest risk. If I am the one in charge, then this also means that I have to be the one making sure that what we want to do is reachable, and if this involves taking the highest risk, then I'll do it. I often explore roads by myself in order to bring my cycling team to new places; I often (try to) solve the most complex part of an assignment if I am in a group of people that counts on me for doing it.

What you should not expect me to do, and where I may behave the way you describe here - letting other people do something and then report it for me - is if there's something I think is manageable by the person I ask to do it. Perhaps sometimes this leads to unexpected outcomes - say the person didn't have enough instructions, or wasn't familiar with the task, or maybe the task was more complex than I expected.

I agree with the greatest majority of imfd's post instead, with a little exception:

That sounds like some sort of Ne POLR manifestation. The LIE does _seek_ a Ne POLR.

I do think that this is true, but only when the Ne polr is combined with Fi; because in every other possible way it would probably more correct to say that a LIE also takes the necessary action to protect the Ne PoLR (and thus the Se creatives) from possible pitfalls deriving from too much certainity (or fear of uncertainty). A good example would be checking out by ourselves if an alternate way of doing something that we think as "better" has actually significace or not

let me give you a real example: i am taught from time to time by "experienced" LIEs that i'm too naive and i should know when and how to lie to reach goals.

I got told by an ILE that "you should cheat on your girlfriend, because they already know that we are pre-programmed to spread our seed". Does this mean anything about ILE as a type in general? Of course no, absolutely nothing.

Do I lie? Yes, it happens. Usually, it's when I take some risk which I know will be perceived as big by the person on the receiving end, but that I *think* as being not particularly big. (often when I go mountain-climbing alone in a place which isn't well renowed (and those are my favourite places where to hike and climb) I have to defer telling it to my mother or my girlfriend, for example. Or maybe when I lose a small amount of money trading, etc etc)

[Kristiina]

oh, ok, i believe you're right.


i think we don't need to argue about this anymore as long as we agree you're an ILI or at least use Te+Ni. you don't have your type in your signature, so i just wanted you to know that i noticed. i usually think Ti quickly notice "what can be" and Te "what cannot be", so intersecting both assertions a final (->| Ti) and accurate (-> Te ->) conclusion can be reached. of course the debate can last forever if a refinement level is not agreed.

lol, I like this! And it's so true. Ti final and Te accurate.

Although - what can be and what cannot be - Those could be part of positivism or negativism.

I'd say that Ti sees what can and cannot be in all similar situations, Te sees what can and cannot be in a very specific situation.

[FDG]

i have given you a large number of examples and arguments that correspond to reality, the one with my LIE relative being only a small part of the research. general rules of a science (psychology is one of the most relevant examples) are built on a large number of observations from different perspectives. do you think your single futile example can demolish this overwhelming evidence and "absolutely nothing" is true? actually this attitude denies your credibility as a honest debater.

Sigh. I was being sarcastic. The point you make here is exactly the point I was making: you were generalizing the behavior of LIEs from "some" examples - which I am sure are less than those that have been scrutinized by professional socionists -; which is an incorrect logical procedure. So, I proceeded to exemplify an erroneus generalization of the same kind with ILE as basis, and if you agree with me that it's not correct to do so, then you agree that your example was incorrect too.

FDG, you've already proven me you are too subjective for a LIE, so i'll not take your testimonial as an absolute truth. the last example that comes to my mind is http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...124#post434124 . i can show you more if required.

Sigh. Now seriously, how can't you recognize when somebody is being serious and when somebody is joking? Do I have to put a million smiles in every post of mine in order to make you understand that sometimes words aren't meant to be analyzed in detail? Of course that description isn't good for an ENTP, and of course it's not good for an ISFJ either. I was joking.

And finally, typing me as ESI is one of the worst typings I have ever seen on this forum. I am not even sure why a very smart person like ifmd is wasting time arguing with you.

[olduser]

betas lie outright while deltas lie when they say they give a shit but they actually don't give a shit about anything but food and expensive outdoors activities.

[JRiddy]

I am using an enormous annoying font. This thread sucks because the question assumes that dishonesty is based on socionics. Please remove your head from your ass. Thank you for not smoking.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Hostage Child I enjoyed that post.

People just want the truth. You can't trust somebody without the real truth. The problem is people will lie for power. (Or to get out of responding to their ability) Any type. polr notwithstanding. It's so sad and evil and wrong. But human nature you know.

You just find the best schlubs that get ya and go on from there. *shrug* We all gossip about shit we know nothing about.

[crazedrat]

beta is full of shit, there is no question about it. if i was a serial killer i would probably primarily target betas. gamma will lie to get you to fuck off, alpha will lie to get you to suck their dicks, but beta will lie to make you suck their dicks then fuck off. ...delta gets nothing, as usual. they are really too stupid to maintain lies. my sisters ESTj husband has gotten caught cheating 6 or 7 times, and every time he gets caught via his cellphone

[Mariano Rajoy]

The problem is people will lie for power.

So, Beta then?

[Mariano Rajoy]

I am using an enormous annoying font. This thread sucks because the question assumes that dishonesty is based on socionics. Please remove your head from your ass. Thank you for not smoking.

So, it is a J/P issue, not a quadra issue?

[implied]

So, Beta then?

lol

[JRiddy]

So, it is a J/P issue, not a quadra issue?

Yes

[07490]

well Socionics isn't everything, but I was going to say something similar - every quadra is to some extent more likely to be dishonest about, ignoring of, and/or disregarding of certain information than others, I think. I wanted to write examples of what these might be for each quadra, but the ideas are a little too hazy right now for me to be able to write them so concretely.

just like the +/- descriptions of the types on socionics, I think it would be interesting to have those descriptions for the quadras as well - they would be pretty broad though.

This is a great idea, they typically oraganized this theory into making people believe in Socionics.com I know what most of you here think, and you guys think that socionics.com is not acurate. but I think it is very well organized how they put the intertpe relationship chart, +/- profile and each typing. The overall of the site makes readers alot easier to understand Socionic especially beginner. If they add the quardra theme and make it the way they did for typings and the relationships, I think we can understand Quardra better than indivduals(with only his prior experiences in his Socionics view) posting on wikisocion without any real expert opinion on socionics, and just an assumption of the indivdual that might not be a generally accepted view and might not fit into eveytype or quadra.

[Amber]

lol

....

Alpha: dishonest in the sense of a bubble that swells with potentiality and fun, but can have little->nothing to do with reality
Beta: most dog-eat-dog in a rather straightforward way imo
Gamma: can backstab on special occasions and can selfishly sever relationships
Delta : most passive-aggressive... hence dishonest by holding up "high ideals about humanity" while own actions may or may not fit words

(...supposed to be about ei very general impression, not specific ppl)

[suedehead]

Beta.

[xerx]

I know an SLE who cheated off an Asian guy on a math test and still managed to fail. And it's like, wtf, really?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol I think the results of this thread just prove this forum has/(had? this thread is like 7 years old) a very strong delta bias like other forum members have originally pointed out, as Betas are kinda viewed as annoying psychopathic clowns nobody would invite to a party.

I guess I'm not Beta then (or socionics is stupid and full of shit... yeah that's more likely) as I am known to be if anything WAY way way TOO honest.

[Words]

lol I think the results of this thread just prove this forum has/(had? this thread is like 7 years old) a very strong delta bias like other forum members have originally pointed out, as Betas are kinda viewed as annoying psychopathic clowns nobody would invite to a party.

I guess I'm not Beta then (or socionics is stupid and full of shit... yeah that's more likely) as I am known to be if anything WAY way way TOO honest.

?

[wacey]

Betas for now:

SLE will lie to get ahead.

IEI will lie to cover up their tracks.

EIE will lie to get you to believe them.

LSI will lie to get you to leave.

[lemontrees]

not all asians are good at math ;_____________________;