I've realised are pretty much dominated by LIIs.
I've realised are pretty much dominated by LIIs.
Who else comes up with theories? Also, what Fe is to be gained from challenging an existing system which has consensus? That right there rules out ILE participation.
some theories are much better than others on here
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
tcaud is one of the best examples of an exemplary LII on this forum. i don't know where in gods green earth you could get EIE from, but this just proves what Phaedrus and I have been saying for a while now
it has to be an information processing limitation. .. that their point of view doesn't allow them to take the necessary facts into consideration. rather,what they perceive is subject to false conclusions of how these impressions are relevant to the bigger picture .. that their mode of perception disallows them from seeing the picture as a whole at all, maybe .
Let's take the situation a step further, and observe that Augusta, like as not, was on the Left, not the Right. Is it any wonder that so many people on this forum, then, are ignoring Augusta as a source of information on socionics? And let us not dismiss the destructive influence of Dmitri Lytov, who has probably twisted our viewpoints of what the east considers socionics to be. Rick isn't guiltless in this regard, either. (though of course he did undertake to translate Augusta's work and thus, has our respect. And let's not beat around the bush: Dmitri has done a lot, too. I guess we ought to say that people who didn't really buy into Augusta shouldn't really be speculating about what socionics is apart from what the people who do buy into her say it is. Instead they should be working on more detailed type descriptions. That would help a lot; cultural manifestations of type would be revolutionary in terms of intellectual empowerment).
I must be Right then, cause I ignore the obscurantist Augusta.
Machintruc: yes, probably ISTj. Far more interested in concrete data than in general ideas. A funny detail is that my ISTj brother is stereotype promoting (even racistic) in a (solely! he is a good guy) jocular way just the way he is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this is common in ISTjs.Originally Posted by Salawa
Tcaudilllg: I respect his self typing. Also his tendency to theoretical reasoning points to an NT type. That being said there have been some signs that point to ENFj. These being:
- the fact that several of the people he has been at odds with (to the point of demonization in some cases) are frequently typed ISxp: Rocky, Dee, Jessica, Bionicgoat
- this general description of ENFj, which could have been written specifically about him:
- Gulenko's description (http://www.socionics.com/prof/enfj.htm) highlighting a characteristic appreciation for leadership and authority in ENFjs. Tcaudilllg has created entire theories on leadership. The topic clearly inspires him very strongly.Originally Posted by socioniko.net ENFj
- I rarely meet anyone to whom this description applies as strongly as to him; to give an example: he recently suggested that mothers could sense the political orientation of their unborn children (a mystical phenomenom if anything is; tcaudilllg being the only person I know coming from whom this kind of suggestion does not surprise me in the slightest):
- tcaudilllg has asked the VI advice of a pair of Russian socionicists before. The result was ENFj.Originally Posted by Gulenko's ENFj
- just about all of tcaudilllg's theories are written in the form of narrations, which ENFjs are characteristically known for being talented at creating. We can question wether his writings are theories at all, instead of simply narrations on an abtruse topic. (see Gulenko's ENFj description, link above).
- tcuadilllg is an extremely prolific contributor of theoretical material on this forum. His overproductive style points away from an energy-conserving Ij temperament. The sheer quantity and length of his materials raise the suggestion that they have not been created from a mindset that is strongly economic with energy. A google search of his name results several pages with activities of his on the internet.
Now, I have no trouble at all taking this data as signs that there is truth to tcaudilllg's claim that he has an ENFj "slave type". I'd be curious, though, as to how someone who rejects dual-types would view the information.
I've got an ENFj gf and I can say with absolute certainty that we are NOT IDENTICALS.
Anyone who denies dual-type theory is so grounded in their own misconceived principles that they can barely grasp socionics at all.
But let's hear your take: what is INTj-ENFj compared to ENFj-INTj? I will make this important point: I don't live in a world of theories; I live in a world of emotion. But I feel it is my duty to explain why people feel the emotions they do, and for that I need theory. People are ruled by their emotions; theory liberates them from emotion on the one hand, and purifies its pursuit on the other, rationalizing it. Today we do not live in such a world but that is the world I want to bring about.
Given the right kind of information, it would probably very easy to proove that tcaudilllg is in fact an INTj. He is probably not outwardly expressive in the way an extrovert is in real life, or socially capable as a feeler would be. We do not have sufficient information to conclude these things, but tcuadilllg does. That is why his self-typing is very important in this case.Originally Posted by Salawa
is something that still doesn't sit well with me, though, as so far we have not had any reason to believe that conflict between types would exist "crossed" between master and slave type. Tcaudilllg has a clear repeating tendency to get in conflict with Si dominants, and this can not be explained by the fact that he is INTj.Originally Posted by LabZilla
(the only person of those four who is not ISxP with extreme likelyhood would be Dee, the others have typed themselves as such and have never been suspected to be anything else)
The degree of sophistication and complexity of thought you display around here points away from that type. I entertain the existence of "sensing overlooking intuiting" dual-types, however, so I don't consider it impossible that you are one.Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
Here's something to know when you want to decide between LSI and LII: as you know LSI is an ST type, whereas LII is an NT type. Part of the traditions that user smilingeyes has established on this forum is that ST types are HALF-socially-open, whereas NT types are FULLY socially-closed. This is one principle that I have seen very strongly corroborated by my experiences. The typical NT attitude is one that lies detached from the environment, lurking in the shadows, whereas that of the ST is one engaged in whatever is going on around the person. Now what this means is not that the NT never affects his environment. What it means is that when an NT does affect his environment he does so fully of his own accord, not influenced by any sort of external authority or established way of doing things. An NT who is outside of his ordinary "lurking" mode affects his environment to the fullest possible effect. He makes the really big ripples, bigger than those that any ST could produce.
So... ask yourself which of the following characterizes you better:
- a person who is normally engaged in whatever is going on in the environment; simply furthering the causes that were naturally there, not challenging the "normal" way of doing things and working at whatever has been known to give a desired effect in the past.
- a person who first lives in a detached mode, analyzing and mentally correcting the way things are being done around him, then showing his face and launching himself into the world; presenting the result of his thoughts: a supposed "ideal" way of acting that is better than anything that existed before.
(one pitfall here is that the ISTp type is also known for a certain kind of "lurking-launching" behavior)
In JUDGING types, an NT is a Result type (unfocussed), whereas an ST type is Process (focussed). This has to do with how, when a person is continually perfecting things, a better way of doing things that is found, disrupts any processes that are active because the current process needs to be aborted to make place for the new. So every time the NTj finds a new method, he needs to "reboot" his activities. The STj can maintain a constant state of focus (call it "blissful ignorance"; the STj employs the known method better than the NTj, but is unaware that there were better methods in the first place).
See if that helps...
As a general observation: you have things in common with user Tcaudilllg. If he goes back to calling himself an INTj-ENFj (which would restore my conviction that he is that type), I'd assess you to be either ISTj-ENTj or INTj-ENTj (ENTj instead of ENFj mainly because your "tough" attitude suggests double-T). If you want I can make some predictions as to your relation with some of the members on this forum based on that guess.
Actually perhaps you are correct; I will have to consider the matter further. I believe that I have been at least INTp, INTj, and ISTj at various points in my life. I was probably best socially adapted as INTp. The j types are slow and much less specifically responsive. However I cannot live as INTp for extended periods of time b/c I feel like a slave to the circumstances and I am easily led/conditioned. As an ISTj my intuition runs rampant and I have trouble controlling it or else it is inaccessible; I am also less in tune with the meanings of things that do not interest me and with temporal discretion, but I can mobilize rather quickly (especially physically). As an INTj I grow lazy and too comfortable leaving me in a somewhat precarious physical condition, but perhaps I can overcome this deficiency with my wits if I am not sucked into the oblivion of -valuing. This is quite a predicament indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions earlier.
Last edited by Nexus; 09-30-2008 at 08:30 AM.