What if I was an ENFj?

[tcaudilllg]

Now I'm not committing to calling myself an ENFj type... but, what if it were possible?

[Creepy-bg]

if you're honest about this then you've gained some respect in my book for being able to consider outside your box. I can't say whether you're right or wrong... because I honestly don't know. It's for you to figure out.

[tcaudilllg]

The reason I'm considering the possibility, is because there as an ENFj description on wikisocion that seems to match my inner experience of self precisely.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Socioscope_EIE

It's always been my impression that those things are true for everyone, though.

[Kristiina]

I have considered EIE for you, but I never felt like explaining or arguing it, so I never mentioned. Besides, I don't get your dual-type theory. From what I understood, you were already saying you're half EIE anyway.

EIE makes sense. EIE with strong Ti delusions, but EIE nontheless. Or actually... it's not that you have weak Ti - I just always found it odd the way you seem to show off with Ti. Every now and then, when you haven't posted in a while, you'll come up with a thread about logic and theories and something. Even if it doesn't help your theory further. You often seem to write to show that you are still the Ti type.(although I am never able to concentrate on your logic posts so maybe I'm misjudging) You should keep reading about EIE type.

Ti types also show off their Ti, but when Ti types write huge piles of empty threads then they are either totally far from real life altogether and they might as well be talking to themselves, or they use their Ti in an attempt to entertain people. You seem to write posts just to show that you are being Ti. It's like you try to make your posts sound like a geek wrote them.

[tcaudilllg]

I hardly believe it myself but I am indeed EIE. I can't escape it. I can't say that I've been living in delusion, because I haven't. Until recently I had no reason to question my typings on tests as INTj. Thing is, I've always had a very active imagination. Maybe part of it was due to my mother's influence, in that she's a communitarian and probably an LII... she may have raised me somewhat to exhalt my assumed persona of an individualist leader. But because not everyone, nor even most people, wanted to follow this persona and I myself didn't measure up to the task, I was alone most of my childhood. I had my imagination alone to keep me company, making up characters and playing them out over an imaginary timeline.... (though the characters were never complicated and were variations on characters I had observed elsewhere).

[marooned]

Tcaudilllg, I actually have been seeing you as EIE. (I tried to resist!) And I hate that I don't know how to explain this. For one, Ti dominants usually write in a clear concise manner (even if they write a lot, or have creative Ne)... It could reflect more about me, but I find I wish a Ti dominant would go through a few of your posts and make them more clear and concise so they're easier for me to read. (This isn't to say that EIEs can't or don't write in a clear and concise manner because some of them do!) I think you might need help putting everything in the "right" category, or structuring your thoughts and ideas. I see you as a sort of unbounded idealist, whose ideals are flying away scattered with no structures to guide them or hold them in place. Anyway I see you as having so many ideals and not knowing what to do with them all - it seems like this sort of FeNi passionate idealism that you really want to channel into something productive. But even though I often disagree with things you say (like how radical extremists should not be allowed to vote or hold office), I do often find myself identifying with the underlying spirit that fueled what you said. Bah. I think you need 1) Ti! 2) Se to push you back from the brink of madness!

[Gilly]

I hardly believe it myself but I am indeed EIE. I can't escape it. I can't say that I've been living in delusion, because I haven't. Until recently I had no reason to question my typings on tests as INTj. Thing is, I've always had a very active imagination. Maybe part of it was due to my mother's influence, in that she's a communitarian and probably an LII... she may have raised me somewhat to exhalt my assumed persona of an individualist leader. But because not everyone, nor even most people, wanted to follow this persona and I myself didn't measure up to the task, I was alone most of my childhood. I had my imagination alone to keep me company, making up characters and playing them out over an imaginary timeline.... (though the characters were never complicated and were variations on characters I had observed elsewhere).

Dude, props. Honestly I think you are on the right track here. EIE seems like a good option for you. To be honest I had never thought of it, but in perspective, it really, really makes sense.

[tcaudilllg]

Tcaudilllg, I actually have been seeing you as EIE. (I tried to resist!) And I hate that I don't know how to explain this. For one, Ti dominants usually write in a clear concise manner (even if they write a lot, or have creative Ne)... It could reflect more about me, but I find I wish a Ti dominant would go through a few of your posts and make them more clear and concise so they're easier for me to read. (This isn't to say that EIEs can't or don't write in a clear and concise manner because some of them do!) I think you might need help putting everything in the "right" category, or structuring your thoughts and ideas. I see you as a sort of unbounded idealist, whose ideals are flying away scattered with no structures to guide them or hold them in place. Anyway I see you as having so many ideals and not knowing what to do with them all - it seems like this sort of FeNi passionate idealism that you really want to channel into something productive. But even though I often disagree with things you say (like how radical extremists should not be allowed to vote or hold office), I do often find myself identifying with the underlying spirit that fueled what you said. Bah. I think you need 1) Ti! 2) Se to push you back from the brink of madness!

On the matter of extremists: why elevate someone to power who means to hurt either you or others, and why risk it besides? All it would really mean is identifying the gene which causes the phenomena; scanning everybody for it; and if they have it, just face them with the facts. I mean those people know they are wrong -- they don't actually believe what they themselves say -- and for us to artificially restrain them would be beneficial for them, I think. Are you aware of the alternatives that are being worked on -- thought readers scanning for signs of malicious thought? I mean really, just cut them out of the running; give them something else to do; and be done with it. This is really a matter of practicality.

On the other hand you are an INFp, so let's here your take on the matter.

My thoughts are actually highly organized, but you have to pay attention to the narrative (or be a part of it) to understand how they stack on top of each other.

[tcaudilllg]

I do suspect my exertion type to be INTj... allow me to explain what I mean by that.

My sense of will seems to ebb and flow depending on how at peace I am with the world around me. I almost regret having to hold someone who has a radical notion to account sometimes because I know that answering it is going to create strife and diminish whatever esteem I may have with people who may or may not support the spirit, if not the letter, of the outlandish idea. This seems to me Se drawn from Si.

My position in society is grounded on fact. There is a temptation, when the facts seem to suggest a weakening of my own position, to assert my own "truth" of my own role. I feel tasked with moving my own position towards the universal acceptance of my believed-in role. This gives me a genuine sense of security in that others who are acting on the same belief system can be counted on to see a weakening of my own position as indicative of at least some threat to their own. So long as they see my problems are their problems, I won't be left alone. The catch to this is that I must defend my beliefs at every juncture, so as to create an impression that any attack, no matter against whom, will be defended against with a united front. I expect the same from other persons of different beliefs, and have modeled the tendency for conflict between beliefs in the theory of psychic domains.

[UDP]

What do you see yourself driven to do in "society", that is, when you're "doing things" - (not when you're at home or away from other people) - what do you see yourself doing? What, inherently, do you feel like is "your responsibility"?

This takes a while to come out, especially if you've been conditioned by your upbringing to be a certain way.


I think one of the things that people have problems with is that they don't have a variety of experiences in a variety of social situations - situations where you have to use different skills and assertiveness-es. Once you get more experience, it has become easier to tell what your real "role" is - IMO/IME.

If you see that happening, and you think it is pointing towards one type, then really consider it, even if it is a much different type than you originally thought.

[tcaudilllg]

What do you see yourself driven to do in "society", that is, when you're "doing things" - (not when you're at home or away from other people) - what do you see yourself doing? What, inherently, do you feel like is "your responsibility"?

This takes a while to come out, especially if you've been conditioned by your upbringing to be a certain way.


I think one of the things that people have problems with is that they don't have a variety of experiences in a variety of social situations - situations where you have to use different skills and assertiveness-es. Once you get more experience, it has become easier to tell what your real "role" is - IMO/IME.

If you see that happening, and you think it is pointing towards one type, then really consider it, even if it is a much different type than you originally thought.

Well my own theories are playing into my diagnosis somewhat. I recently developed political-orientation specific abstractions for both Ne and Ti. I absolutely don't see everything in terms of an ancient theoretical legacy... I don't care who performed what experiment or what ever; I care only about what the results were. That said I guess I've got some learning to do.... Every single INTj ambition must have been based on squalid conditions of some sort. To uncover our heritage we must trace back the motivations of our forefathers, using socionics as a key. All obeys the flow of duality.

I'd say that a lot of what I'm doing is in fact a response to the surgency of radical institutionalism (under a conservative bent). Yeah I think that's it: I feel compelled to restore both of those forces to a sense of sanity. To do that, they must be made aware of the radicals which are inflaming them. They must be made aware of this on their terms. When that happens, the present threat to personal liberty will be assauged. (consider: conservatism's bid, under the auspice of a defunct interpretation of Judaic-Christian tradition, to prevent people on the Left, who desire the right to abort pregnancy, from legally possessing the option for such). America's present debacle arose due to advances in technology that made abortion feasible; the advent of genetics has allowed gays to make similar claims. Advances in technology allow the embrace of new personal rights that were previously infeasible. Consider, we only have modern democracy and capitalism because of the social innovations of Hobbs, Locke, and (Adam) Smith. Under the context of these revolutions in outlook, man felt comfortable moving toward greater equality and personal freedom on the one hand, and toward financial independence on the other. Traditions die hard (when they must), and in the context of particularly problematic and antiquidated traditions like Old Testament Judeo-Christianity, which have proved remarkably easy to abuse in the name of ideology, Western man's steadily detatchment from Moses' legacy towards a modern view of morality and self is threatened by reactionaries who see their way of life and even their own sense of self as being threatened. Socionics could largely replace that sense of self with something more palpable and, quite frankly, fair.

There's another, more personal reason: my will, my well being relies on acting harmoniously with others. At this time, harmonious action = moral capitulation in the face of radicalism. To strengthen my own will and maintain a place of stability and comfort in society, I have to basically expunge the threats to harmony. The radical is disharmony incarnate, therefore I am compelled by every single sense of my being to war with them until their threat is assauged. And the only way to beat them, is to regulate them into irrelevance.

[tcaudilllg]

I've just realized that my INTj exertion trait is the reason I enjoy playing RPGs. (particularly action RPGs) Every character in an action RPG has various potential actions. The execution of these actions frequently requires changes in the position of the characters. (even non-action RPGs require this in that you must move the cursor between options). Even when I have the option of setting the cursor to remember my last decision automatically, I usually eschew the option because I actually enjoy moving the cursor from one command to the next. Now that I think about it, I was born to play RPGs.

UDP, you should consider that you yourself could be an INTj exertion type, given that you enjoy RPGs about as much as I do. Let's not forget either that Descartes VIs with you, and of course he was the guy who developed a positioning system based on points....

[FDG]

Your writing style does bear resemblance to the writing style of Hegel, indeed (no offense meant).

[marooned]

On the matter of extremists: why elevate someone to power who means to hurt either you or others, and why risk it besides?

Well, of course, you don’t want someone in power who is going to hurt people.

All it would really mean is identifying the gene which causes the phenomena; scanning everybody for it; and if they have it, just face them with the facts.

But this goes too far! It will hurt people who haven’t done anything, and who we don’t know would do anything… I see it as a form of oppression... or leading down a slippery slope such that it's all too easy to fall there.

I mean those people know they are wrong -- they don't actually believe what they themselves say -- and for us to artificially restrain them would be beneficial for them, I think.

Hmm. I don’t think those sorts of people always know they are wrong. I don’t see the point in restraining someone when they haven’t done anything (yet).

Are you aware of the alternatives that are being worked on -- thought readers scanning for signs of malicious thought?

Aaah. The thought police! See this is what I mean. I do not want anyone scanning my genes or my brain for any reason (without my permission, or unless I'm unconscious and it's terribly necessary). I am not a radical extremist and I will never be one (never say never). So why should I have to be subjugated because of what I (or anyone) could possibly be, do, or become later?

I mean really, just cut them out of the running; give them something else to do; and be done with it. This is really a matter of practicality.

Okay, I agree in part… except for the methods you propose for finding them in the first place. I think that in the past any time “a group” of people has been singled out (in this sort of context) it has led to devastating consequences. You seem to be proposing sorting through the human population and siphoning it off into “radical extremist” or “non-radical extremist” categories, which I think can only lead to oppression and the very horrors you were trying to prevent in the first place (it will hurt people, in other words).

My thoughts are actually highly organized, but you have to pay attention to the narrative (or be a part of it) to understand how they stack on top of each other.

It’s possible I jumped too quickly to a conclusion based on not enough information.

[Phaedrus]

The reason I'm considering the possibility, is because there as an ENFj description on wikisocion that seems to match my inner experience of self precisely.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Socioscope_EIE

It's always been my impression that those things are true for everyone, though.

If you really believe that those things fit everyone, you must be an idiot. They are certainly not true of my type.

[Phaedrus]

I hardly believe it myself but I am indeed EIE. I can't escape it. I can't say that I've been living in delusion, because I haven't.

Of course you have been living in delusion if you really are an EIE and thought that you are an LII. You are most likely severely deluded right now when you think about what type you are.

Until recently I had no reason to question my typings on tests as INTj.

An EIE that identifies with Paul James's INTP type profile must have a serious brain damage. It must be impossible to be that deluded and brainwashed. You should type yourself by the four dichotomies. Always. Of course it doesn't make any sense whatsoever not to know whether you are an INTj or an ENFj. It's totally impossible to confuse these two types.

It seems clear, however, that you are just as wrong and deluded as Hegel was. You have a lot in common with that charlatan.

[Phaedrus]

Your writing style does bear resemblance to the writing style of Hegel, indeed (no offense meant).

I didn't notice this post of yours before I posted my previous one. But it is very true indeed.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I always found your posts really difficult to read, your thought patterns and ideas so foreign to my line of thought. I guess from an intertype point of view that makes sense if you are EIE, cause then you are my conflictor. (And i'm not trying to be offensive to you by saying this.)

[Kristiina]

I always found your posts really difficult to read, your thought patterns and ideas so foreign to my line of thought. I guess from an intertype point of view that makes sense if you are EIE, cause then you are my conflictor. (And i'm not trying to be offensive to you by saying this.)

omg, I must be SLI too.
(just kidding.)

Actually I have related to Tcaud posts about anything personal life related, but I just can't read the theory posts. I have enough theories of my own. I don't need any new ones. i sometimes read Ti-dominant theory posts. Those have just clear sentences about what IS, not how things could be interpreted.

[tcaudilllg]

Actually I have related to Tcaud posts about anything personal life related, but I just can't read the theory posts. I have enough theories of my own. I don't need any new ones. i sometimes read Ti-dominant theory posts. Those have just clear sentences about what IS, not how things could be interpreted.

How similar are your theories to mine? I actually think that all ENFjs are in fact personality theorists, a trait I think we gain through physical maturation. Under the transcendent function, we use Ne just as LIIs do, but for purposes of assessing character.

[tcaudilllg]

@Kriistina:
Am I right in thinking that your personality theories consists of "good nations" and "bad nations", and the notion that the "good ones" should bash the "bad ones"? I mean that bit about hating Russians was waaay over the top.

[kensi]

Of course you have been living in delusion if you really are an EIE and thought that you are an LII. You are most likely severely deluded right now when you think about what type you are.


An EIE that identifies with Paul James's INTP type profile must have a serious brain damage. It must be impossible to be that deluded and brainwashed. You should type yourself by the four dichotomies. Always. Of course it doesn't make any sense whatsoever not to know whether you are an INTj or an ENFj. It's totally impossible to confuse these two types.

It seems clear, however, that you are just as wrong and deluded as Hegel was. You have a lot in common with that charlatan.

i have to disagree. Type is very complex and it is always about refernce points. different things are visible from different refernce points.

[cracka]

So you're not my dual anymore? Darn.

[kensi]

Now I'm not committing to calling myself an ENFj type... but, what if it were possible?

T-Caud is there a pic of you anywhere on this site?

[Phaedrus]

i have to disagree.

You are not allowed to disagree. Not even once have you come up with a good argument for anything related to type in the forum discussions.

Type is very complex and it is always about refernce points. different things are visible from different refernce points.

Completely wrong. Type is very simple, but you don't understand that.

[Kristiina]

How similar are your theories to mine? I actually think that all ENFjs are in fact personality theorists, a trait I think we gain through physical maturation. Under the transcendent function, we use Ne just as LIIs do, but for purposes of assessing character.

Very basically, stfu.
I don't have a theory of good nations and bad nations. Russia just sucks. If you don't like that I think that, it's none of my problem. People in this forum are such softies. I just say what I think and everyone's going nuts. First with fat people (yes they smell and it is their fault that they eat tons of food), then with races (I do like different races, but I like cultural histories even more. People should not migrate to other countries in such numbers that the local culture is threatened) and I do hate Russia (duh, doesn't everyone?).

I have a theory that people actually agree with me, but they don't have such strong opinions and they don't want people to think they're politically incorrect.

My theories are different as I don't feel the need to make theoris that can't be used. I have had very seldom purely theory theories (e.g. when I was trying to understad positivism and I tried to categorize it... failed btw). My socionics theories are usually fairly simple - e.g. introverted extrotims do best when they hang out with introverted introtims. That's because those let the extrovert talk and show off more. And most of my theories deal with stomata anyway.

[tcaudilllg]

Preaching death on people just because they live in another country is NOT useful.

[kensi]

You are not allowed to disagree. Not even once have you come up with a good argument for anything related to type in the forum discussions.


Completely wrong. Type is very simple, but you don't understand that.

yes i am like anyone else. Why would i go out of my way on deaf ears.....have you?

no not completely. Type designation is simple but not type itself.......apparently not.

[Kristiina]

Preaching death on people just because they live in another country is NOT useful.

Yeah, and americans all love and cherish Iraqis. All that they did was taunt and belittle americans. They don't constantly make hints that your freedom only exists because they let it. And that the only reason they aren't attacking you yet is because they have other things to do at the moment. People from USA are not allowed to judge my feelings for russia and neither are you (whereever you're from).

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah, and americans all love and cherish Iraqis. All that they did was taunt and belittle americans. They don't constantly make hints that your freedom only exists because they let it. And that the only reason they aren't attacking you yet is because they have other things to do at the moment. People from USA are not allowed to judge my feelings for russia and neither are you (whereever you're from).

You mean American conservatives. American liberals never wanted the war in the first place.

[Kristiina]

You mean American conservatives. American liberals never wanted the war in the first place.

isn't that like half the population?

Here only the teenagers have never lived in an occupied Estonia. Older people ever remember the war and the kidnappings. Rare few people even survived Siberia and are still alive to talk about it. Occupation and Russian war crimes aren't an urban legend. It's a reality. And there's only a lake and a border separating us from them, not like between USA and Iraq. So I don't understand why you even brought up my opinions of Russia as if I'm supposed to be extremely tolerant towards all this.

[krieger]

Snap the fuck out of it tcaud. You're INTj.......

DON'T throw everything you've done and believed in for the last 3 years out with the garbage. If you do that, you'll never trust yourself again. Put another way: if you trust your ability to figure things out you CAN'T think you have been that wrong, and if you don't, you're in for suicide. This isn't like crosstype theory, you know. Crosstype theory was half right. This ENFj bullshit is plain wrong. The only reason people here are confirming it is because they pathetically dislike you and think it will make you change.

You're not like Kriistina. You're not easy to get along with, or a socially receptive person that is open to every standpoint for the sake of being without enemies. You will never concede a thought or opinion because of political sensitivity. You will never let an ISTj decide what is best for you because he has the better grasp of logic. Put another way: why do you shut my "Ti" out when I say you're on the wrong track? What's offering the resistance? Where do YOU get your confidence in your understanding of things that is so strong that you would challenge mine with it?

What is it in INTj-ENFj that doesn't offer you the undestanding of your identity that you thought it did before? How on earth can you explain the experience of coming to terms with extroversion around age 23? What type is your girlfriend and why are you no longer sure she both ISN'T your identical and IS ENFj? WHY do you test as an INTJ when you're extrovert and feeling? Why are you trying so hard to define and catagorize your experiences if you're not INTj?

[unefille]

Wow, that was crappy reasoning from someone with supposedly 'strong logic'.

You're not like Kriistina.

Hardly indicative, neither am I.

You're not easy to get along with, or a socially receptive person that is open to every standpoint for the sake of being without enemies.

How is this related to being ENFj again? Or:

You will never concede a thought or opinion because of political sensitivity.

Oh right, it's because

You will never let an ISTj decide what is best for you because he has the better grasp of logic.

I forgot that being an ethical type came with its own lobotomy.

Put another way: why do you shut my "Ti" out when I say you're on the wrong track? What's offering the resistance? Where do YOU get your confidence in your understanding of things that is so strong that you would challenge mine with it?

Because he thinks you're wrong and he's confident in his own intellect?

WHY do you test as an INTJ when you're extrovert and feeling?

Because the MBTI is a piece of crap that stereotypes what it means to 'think'? And for that matter, I test as INTJ and don't doubt that numerous ENFjs test as INTJ on that system.

Why are you trying so hard to define and catagorize your experiences if you're not INTj?

This demonstrates and -valuing - tracking behaviour over time, recognising patterns and drawing categorical conclusions from these observed patterns. Hardly indicative against ENFj.

For a 'logical' type, your reasoning was primarily based in an emotive mode of argumentation. Whilst a lot of what you said could be, on some level, connected to ENFj characteristics, the way in which you phrased your questions was highly incendiary, insulting to ENFjs and sought to probe at any sensitivity tcaud may have with respect to his intellect. In short, your post might as well have been: 'If you admit you're ENFj, you're admitting that you can't think.' A charmingly reductive approach to type, if nothing else.

[krieger]

Whatever. I'm not claiming for any of it to be logical. The aim of the post is to convince tcaudillg with whatever words would get the job done. If I insulted anyone in the process I kindly request them to bring up the maturity to read the post in context.

The only reason I'm posting this here is because I've already barraged tcaud with stuff like this over the PM and none of it seems to hit home with him when it isn't in a place where he can just dismiss it like it didn't exist because no one else can see it.

[unefille]

Whatever. I'm not claiming for any of it to be logical. The aim of the post is to convince tcaudillg with whatever words would get the job done. If I insulted anyone in the process I kindly request them to bring up the maturity to read the post in context.

The only reason I'm posting this here is because I've already barraged tcaud with stuff like this over the PM and none of it seems to hit home with him when it isn't in a place where he can just dismiss it like it didn't exist because no one else can see it.

For what it's worth, I'm not offended by your post, so much as stunned by the bad reasoning. Have you considered that the reason tcaud has ignored your PMs has been due to fact that your argument (if it was phrased as it was above) is essentially null and void?

[krieger]

The reason why it looks like the post does not hold convictive weight from your perspective is because just about everything that is said in it builds on experiences that tcaudilllg and I have shared in the last few months. The problem with your interpretation of the post is that you read it as argumentation when in fact it is an attempt at making tcaudilllg come back to terms with some things that we have held as constants for as long as we have been cooperating. The message is simply "REMEMBER!!".

Consider the fact that tcaudilllg isn't just claiming to be ENFj. He is claiming that EVERYTHING he believed in the last 3 years, even the most fundamental things were wrong. This is pretty much a full destruction of his mental integrity. My argument is that he can never trust himself again if he believes he could previously have been this wrong.

I'm sorry if the odd way of communicating between the two of us looks confusing from an outside perspective.

[Kristiina]

The reason why it looks like the post does not hold convictive weight from your perspective is because just about everything that is said in it builds on experiences that tcaudilllg and I have shared in the last few months. The problem with your interpretation of the post is that you read it as argumentation when in fact it is an attempt at making tcaudilllg come back to terms with some things that we have held as constants for as long as we have been cooperating. The message is simply "REMEMBER!!".

Consider the fact that tcaudilllg isn't just claiming to be ENFj. He is claiming that EVERYTHING he believed in the last 3 years, even the most fundamental things were wrong. This is pretty much a full destruction of his mental integrity. My argument is that he can never trust himself again if he believes he could previously have been this wrong.

I'm sorry if the odd way of communicating between the two of us looks confusing from an outside perspective.

it's hard enough as it is to change type. You're not making it simple either. After a major type-change everything seems false at first - can't trust anything that you deduce from theory. After a while it will start giving new solutions and asnwers. Things that never made sense before are suddenly so clear. Finding the right type is worth the effort.

btw, I was gonna comment your reasoning against EIE, but Unefille did that just fine. I repeatedly lol-ed at her posts on the topic.

[jason_m]

INTj > ENFj. The fact is, tcaudilllg is more prone to displaying well thought out opinions and abstract theories than "excitation, mood, emotional expression, romanticism, anxiety, emotions of people, and enthusiasm."

Jason

[kensi]

INTj > ENFj. The fact is, tcaudilllg is more prone to displaying well thought out opinions and abstract theories than "excitation, mood, emotional expression, romanticism, anxiety, emotions of people, and enthusiasm."

Jason

how are you supposed to tell though online

[jason_m]

how are you supposed to tell though online

You can't know for sure, you can only estimate, but something tells me that tcaud isn't as passionate, enthusiastic, and good at noticing the subtle emotions of other people, as much as he is logical and theoretical. He would have to confirm this, however.

Jason