correct ashtonian typings

[aestrivex]

it has come to my attention that a number of ashton's typings of forum members inexplicably vary from the stereotypes that generally define the typings that model X derives. this post is an attempt to correct these strange errors and provide the typing that corresponds to the appropriate stereotype. note that these typings apply only to forum members and that a partially new set of stereotypes need be applied in considering typings of famous people. here is the correct ashtonian typing, cross-referenced by other ashtonian typings.

in the typical ashtonian style, no explanation for these typings is given. some of them vary inexplicably from the existing precedents of cross-referencing, but all of them are made with an extremely high level of confidence:

# denotes a benchmark typing, used as a possible archetype of other typings
* denotes an incorrect typing among the ashtonian brass

Ne-ENTp   1981slater
Ni-INFp   aka-kitsune
Se-ISFj   allie
Fi-ENFp   anndelise
Ti-ENTp   archonalarion
Ni-ENTj#  ashton
Si-ISFp*  astralsilky
Te-ESTj   aut0
Ni-INFp   baby
Fe-ISFp   bee
Fi-INFj*  bionicgoat
Ti-INTj*  blauritson
Ti-ENTp   blaze
Fe-INFp   bulletsanddoves
Ti-ENTp   burntorange
Fi-ISFj   calenwen
Fi-ISFj*  carla
Fe-INFp*  chibikeba
Ne-INFj   christyb
Te-INTp#  cogsci
Ti-ENTp*  complicater-complexer
Ti-ENTp*  cone
Fi-ENFp   consentingadult
Fi-ISFj#  coolguy89
Te-ESTj*  cracka
Ne-INTj*  crazedrat
Te-ISTp*  cyclops
Fe-ESFj   dbmmama
Te-ISTp*  dee
Fi-INFj   diana
Ti-INTj   dioklecian
Te-ESTj#  director abbie
Ne-INTj*  discojoe
Se-ESFp   dolphin
Te-INTp*  drd252
Ne-ENTp*  eldanen
Te-ESTj*  electric
Ni-INFp*  eliphalet
Ti-ENTp   elro
Ni-INFp   esper
Ti-ESTp   ESTP
Ne-INFj#  eunice
Te-ESTj   expat
Te-ESTj   ezra
Te-ENTj*  FDG
Si-ISTp*  force my hand
Fe-INFp   garmonbozia
Ni-ENFj*  gilly
Ni-INFp   glamourama
Si-ISTp   heath
Ti-ESTp#  herzy
Ti-INTj#  hitta
Ti-ENTp   hkkmr
Ti-ENTp*  hostage child
Ti-INTj   hugo
Ti-INTj   huitzilopochtli
Fe-ISFp*  iannau
Ti-ISTj   idolatrie
Ti-INTj   ifmd95
Ti-ENTp*  implied
Fe-ENFj   jadae
Te-ISTp*  jarno
Ti-INTj   jason_m
Si-ISFp   jem
Si-ISTp   jessica129
Ti-ISTj#  jimbean
Ne-INTj   jonathan
Fe-ESFj#  joy
Ne-ENTp#  jriddy
Ne-ENFp*  juju
Ti-ENTp   jxrtes
Fe-ISFp   kamangir
Ne-ENFp*  kanerou
Si-ISTp   kensi
Fe-ISFp*  khamelion
Fi-ENFp#  kim
Ni-INFp   kioshi
Fe-ENFj*  krae
Se-ISFj   kristiina
Ti-INTj   labcoat
Fe-ISFp*  liveandletlive
Ti-ENTp*  logos
Si-ISTp#  lokivanguard
Ti-INTj   machintruc
Ti-INTj*  mariano rajoy
Ne-INTj*  mea
Ne-ENFp   meatburger
Se-ESTp   mercutio
Fi-INFj   minde
Ni-INFp   misutii
Ne-ENTp*  mn0good
Fe-ENFj#  mpiazza000
Fi-ENFp#  mr saturn
Ti-INTj   ms kensington
Ne-INFj   munenori2
Ti-ENTp*  mysticsonic
Ne-INTj#  niffweed17
Fi-ISFj   olga
Fe-ENFj   onetreehilluver
Fi-INFj*  oyburger
Ne-INTj   phaedrus
Si-ISFp   pinkcanary
Ni-ENTj   pitbull
Ti-ISTj   potatospirit
Ti-ENTp*  quirk satellite div
Ni-INFp   raisonpure
Ni-INFp   redbaron
Ti-INTj*  reyn_til_runa
Ne-INFj*  rick
Fi-INFj   ritella
Fi-ENFp*  ??????
Te-ISTp   rocky
Ni-INTp#  sarah
Fe-INFp   scarlettlux
Fi-ENFp   slacker mom
Ti-ENTp   slava
Se-ESFp*  smccosker
Te-ESTj   smilingeyes
Ne-INTj*  snegledmaca
Si-ISTp   songofsappho
Ni-INFp#  starfall
Ti-ENTp#  steve
Ni-ENFj*  strrrng
Fi-INFj#  subterranean
Ti-ENTp   suomea
Ti-INTj   tcaudilllg
Ne-INFj*  tereg
Ti-INTj   thehotelambush
Si-ISFp#  themime
Fe-ESFj   timeofurlife42
Ne-ENFp   tiny dancer
Te-ESTj   tom
Ne-INTj   UDP
Fe-ENFj#  unefille
Ne-INTj   warlord
Si-ISTp   winterpark
Ti-ENTp   XoX
Ti-INTj   ztcrawcrustle

[consentingadult]

Do I understand correctly that these typings are only valid within the framework of Model X (meaning one could be a different type in Model A)? I must admit I have no insight into Model X.

[cracka]

Why does this matter, HERE, on this forum? He doesn't even post here, MANY people here don't even know who he is... So, with that said... WHY, does anything Ashton ever say or do end up here, on this forum. Why not bring it up in a place where he can actually speak his mind about these things?
Seriously, there's so much talk about Ashton here, it boggles my mind. I'm willing to bet that he's probably banned from the socionics workshop forum too, right? Where more serious discussion seems to happen... from what I've seen at least (That's just my opinion). My point here, I see no reason for this thread to be brought up here.

Even see in the original post it says:
"in the typical ashtonian style, no explanation for these typings is given."

Here's an idea... bring this up in a place/forum where he's able to post to actually get his explanation instead of just saying he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I assure you, I'm not defending his typings or the content of your post in the slightest... It's not my place to do so. Just bringing up the fact that this isn't the first time people say something here to discredit or talk shit about Ashton, who can't even respond and who really has NOTHING to do with this forum. If people really want to deal with Ashton and his socionic typing methods, Socionix is probably much more suited for doing so... at least he's there to counter or agree with your arguments.

[cracka]

congratulations. you have absolutely failed to understand the post and the context of the post. give yourself a high five.

congratulations. you have absolutely failed to understand the post and the context of the post. give yourself a high five.

[strrrng]

- it is stated there are 6 "information elements" organized into 3 dichotomies (Internal/External, Object/Field, Static/Dynamic)

What do you mean by this? Doesn't everyone acknowledge these 6 subsets of dichotomies?

[strrrng]

lol niff deleted his post

[tereg]

Why does this matter, HERE, on this forum? He doesn't even post here, MANY people here don't even know who he is... So, with that said... WHY, does anything Ashton ever say or do end up here, on this forum. Why not bring it up in a place where he can actually speak his mind about these things?
Seriously, there's so much talk about Ashton here, it boggles my mind. I'm willing to bet that he's probably banned from the socionics workshop forum too, right? Where more serious discussion seems to happen... from what I've seen at least (That's just my opinion). My point here, I see no reason for this thread to be brought up here.

Even see in the original post it says:
"in the typical ashtonian style, no explanation for these typings is given."

Here's an idea... bring this up in a place/forum where he's able to post to actually get his explanation instead of just saying he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I assure you, I'm not defending his typings or the content of your post in the slightest... It's not my place to do so. Just bringing up the fact that this isn't the first time people say something here to discredit or talk shit about Ashton, who can't even respond and who really has NOTHING to do with this forum. If people really want to deal with Ashton and his socionic typing methods, Socionix is probably much more suited for doing so... at least he's there to counter or agree with your arguments.

Well to be fair, other socionists that don't regularly post here are discussed here: Ganin, Lytov, etc.

I guess I think of Ashton as another person who has their own theories just as other more "well-known" socionists (in the sense they are known in the socionics community in the East) have their own views on the typology.

Edit: In other words I don't see the problem with general discussions that center around socionic theories that are generally attributed to other people.

[strrrng]

Well to be fair, other socionists that don't regularly post here are discussed here: Ganin, Lytov, etc.

I guess I think of Ashton as another person who has their own theories just as other more "well-known" socionists (in the sense they are known in the socionics community in the East) have their own views on the typology.

You're omitting the fact that he has an infamous status around here. So, the motivations for posting about him or his ideas will most likely be different than the motivations for posting other socionists' stuff.

Cracka was complaining about the accumulation of "ashtonian gossip" that goes on here, basically.

[FDG]

Where did you take that list from?

Edit: now I understand better. Well, you're a complete idiot if you think you can type people better in a theory that you disapprove, rather than the creator of the theory himself. You're a complete fool, you deserve to be hit by a very ugly disease that will slowly kill your vital functions making you suffer for the longest time possible.

[cracka]

Well to be fair, other socionists that don't regularly post here are discussed here: Ganin, Lytov, etc.

I guess I think of Ashton as another person who has their own theories just as other more "well-known" socionists (in the sense they are known in the socionics community in the East) have their own views on the typology.

That's a valid point. I can't disagree with it at all, but if those people were regularly discredited as much as I've seen Ashton has (again, only my opinion on what I've seen here), at least they could come here and reply to anything said, while he doesn't even have that ability to do so.

[strrrng]

Where did you take that list from?

It was basically his own modeling of model X. Apparently he has the fundamental patterns of the "model" (or "ashtonian thought") figured out, and is able to predict the "accurate" typings of people within that paradigm based on them.

[tereg]

You're omitting the fact that he has an infamous status around here. So, the motivations for posting about him or his ideas will most likely be different than the motivations for posting other socionists' stuff.

Cracka was complaining about the accumulation of "ashtonian gossip" that goes on here, basically.

True, I concede that the stigma can't really be ignored.

If niffweed hadn't said the "in the typical ashtonian style" line, would this post still seem mocking? If this were just a base post about individuals that Ashton has typed compared to how other online communities have typed them, just in general, would there be a problem with a post like that? That's all I'm trying to say here.

[strrrng]

yes but Ashton called them "information elements." Aushra Augusta didn't write about 6 information elements, she wrote about 8 of them.




it may be minor but it is a difference.

Right. Well, I think he was using the term "information elements" in a different sense than it is commonly used. Because he believes in 8 functions, as in, psychic processes; the information elements he mentioned there, I believe, were illustrations of the sort of "objective" constituents that comprise the nature of each function.

[FDG]

It was basically his own modeling of model X. Apparently he has the fundamental patterns of the "model" (or "ashtonian thought") figured out, and is able to predict the "accurate" typings of people within that paradigm based on them.

As I said above, that is the most delusional thing I have ever witnessed. I think niffweed needs to go to a mental health clinic.

[cracka]

Cracka was complaining about the accumulation of "ashtonian gossip" that goes on here, basically.

Pretty much.

[Jarno]

Hey I'm an ISTP, now I can finally fix my bike!

[Banana Pancakes]

sigh, I've failed to make the list of why Ashton is wrong

[strrrng]

True, I concede that the stigma can't really be ignored.

If niffweed hadn't said the "in the typical ashtonian style" line, would this post still seem mocking? If this were just a base post about individuals that Ashton has typed compared to how other online communities have typed them, just in general, would there be a problem with a post like that? That's all I'm trying to say here.

I think the fact that niffweed posted it says enough. If it had been someone who is impartial to Ashton, and yes, not done so in such a subtly mocking manner, then it could have produced decent discussion.

But even then, the stigma still remains, and people still have their biases towards him.

I just think at this point, trying to discuss these two schools of thought is absolutely pointless.


And niffweed, don't think I don't see through your motivations for posting this one bit. It's pretty pathetic.

[cracka]

If niffweed hadn't said the "in the typical ashtonian style" line, would this post still seem mocking? If this were just a base post about individuals that Ashton has typed compared to how other online communities have typed them, just in general, would there be a problem with a post like that? That's all I'm trying to say here.

I most likely would have viewed this thread much differently in that case . So no, I don't think it would still seem as mocking, IMO.

[Creepy-]

Hey I'm an ISTP, now I can finally fix my bike!

lol

[cracka]

lol. Hi Ashton.

That actually is Diljs. (based on his IP) So no.:wink:

[strrrng]

That actually is Diljs. (based on his IP) So no.:wink:

Yeah. I deleted it lol. I just remember ashton making random accounts to post in threads before, so I made a hasty assumption. bleh.

[krieger]

What do you mean by this? Doesn't everyone acknowledge these 6 subsets of dichotomies?

I'm fairly sure everyone would agree that they exist "in theory," but doubt that they're as directly visible as a classical function would be... needing a lot more subjective interpretation to interpret them.

Also, my experience with Te types suggests they would mostly see them as unnecessary, superfluous and a product of Ti mental masturbation.

They are necessary for a bottom-up understanding of the functions. Anyone who wants to analyze the functions to see how they work, what the functions have in common and what they don't, will end up with those sub-dichotomies. You can call them something else, but you can not deny their significance.

Personally I largely reject the Object/Field dichotomy and think Judging/Perceiving should be a fundamental dichotomy in that list instead of a derived one. That is to say, I believe Object/Field does not nearly have as much descriptive strength as Static/Dynamic, Judging/Perceiving and Internal/External (athough that last one is also tricky... I prefer to just use Sensing/Intuiting/Logic/Ethics).

What it comes down to is this: Introverted Judging functions and Introverted Perceiving functions are called "introverted" for wildly different reasons. The first is "subjective" (introverted) because it is an unprovable belief, the last is subjective because it is picked up in a direct way by the subject and not shared with others (it is the internal experience of a person). These two notions of subjectivity are so different that you have to wonder wether they should be called under a shared name at all.

[Lotus]

yes, exactly. the terms don't hold the exact same meanings between the two.

If the difference between the two is semantics, then why bother talking about it? You made it sound like he was removing two information elements from the theory or something.


@ Niffweed: Again, there's no such thing as "Ashtonian Socionics." I know that you're fully aware of this, yet you continue to use the term for reasons I don't understand. Yay, it's really hilarious to mock something you don't even understand. Might as well be misleading and passive-aggressive too, eh? Seriously Niffweed, what is the point of this? You say you don't care about typings from Ashton/Socionix/etc., yet you make threads like these? And if you're going to "correct" his typings, then at least do it right for Christ's sake. He doesn't type people using a formula, so why are you turning this into some sort of math problem?

And if this is supposed to be a joke, you've failed in that regard too. Congrats.

[Banana Pancakes]

Yeah. I deleted it lol. I just remember ashton making random accounts to post in threads before, so I made a hasty assumption. bleh.

banana pancakes/diljs =!= ashton

Although I do plan on playing him in Socionics: the Movie.

[Creepy-female]

fyi, niffweed has freely admitted before to not being able to grasp the concept of information elements. What this thread is supposed to be in the light of that I have no idea.

[Lotus]

no, that was not my intent. strrrng understood better what I was saying.

the articles on SocioniX don't call Si, Ne, Ti, Fe, Ni, Se, Fi, and Te information elements, it calls them simply "functions." Ashton was calling the Internal/External, Object/Field, Static/Dynamic dichotomies the "information elements" which constitute the 8 "functions."

Okay, but I still feel like this is pointless. If you've ever spoken to him, he's not really attached to things like semantics and such. Those articles you're quoting from were originally just posts, not some official information regarding Model X or whatever. It's Socionics, the same Socionics we discuss here. So he used a different term in one post, so what? You know what he's referring to, so writing it up as if it's a theoretical difference is very misleading, imo.

[Ezra]

Do I understand correctly that these typings are only valid within the framework of Model X (meaning one could be a different type in Model A)?

Yes.

also not sure if it really matters much, but Ashton recently re-typed me as Fe-INFp; that list has me Ni-INFp.

OH MY FUCKING GOD! OF COURSE IT MATTERS! THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US!

Why does this matter, HERE, on this forum? He doesn't even post here, MANY people here don't even know who he is... So, with that said... WHY, does anything Ashton ever say or do end up here, on this forum. Why not bring it up in a place where he can actually speak his mind about these things?
Seriously, there's so much talk about Ashton here, it boggles my mind. I'm willing to bet that he's probably banned from the socionics workshop forum too, right? Where more serious discussion seems to happen... from what I've seen at least (That's just my opinion). My point here, I see no reason for this thread to be brought up here.

Even see in the original post it says:
"in the typical ashtonian style, no explanation for these typings is given."

Here's an idea... bring this up in a place/forum where he's able to post to actually get his explanation instead of just saying he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I assure you, I'm not defending his typings or the content of your post in the slightest... It's not my place to do so. Just bringing up the fact that this isn't the first time people say something here to discredit or talk shit about Ashton, who can't even respond and who really has NOTHING to do with this forum. If people really want to deal with Ashton and his socionic typing methods, Socionix is probably much more suited for doing so... at least he's there to counter or agree with your arguments.

*General agreement is had all around*

congratulations. you have absolutely failed to understand the post and the context of the post. give yourself a high five.

Conflictor situation viewing FTW.

What do you mean by this? Doesn't everyone acknowledge these 6 subsets of dichotomies?

I don't.

Where did you take that list from?

Edit: now I understand better. Well, you're [illogical] a complete idiot if you think you can type people better in a theory that you disapprove, rather than the creator of the theory himself. You're a complete fool, you deserve to be hit by a very ugly disease that will slowly kill your vital functions making you suffer for the longest time possible.

Blue = agree
Red = Fabio ramblings
Green = disagree

it may seem minor but it is a difference.

+1000

[Ezra]

It's Socionics, the same Socionics we discuss here.

Errr, no it's not.

[Lotus]

it's not pointless, because it's different from Socionics. regardless, even if I'm wrong on that point, the rest of what I wrote about still stands and is enough to show that the interpretation of Socionics written about on SocioniX is not the same as the original Socionics theory.

The differences aren't really valid, imo. I'm skimming over it... you listed "finding problems with model A," as one? How is that against Socionics theory? What about the "professional" Socionists in Russia using stuff like Model B or T, or whatever they have now. Socionics is a theory, not a model. Another thing—if you're strictly using Aushra Augusta's descriptions of the IEs as a guide to Socionics, then your "understanding" is nothing more than a trivial cluster of false associations. Some of the stuff I've read is a complete joke. If it was truly that general I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time here. And as far as Subtypes go, a lot of people use them. What's the difference, the degree of which they're used? That's ridiculous.

what I quoted was from a pinned thread called "SocioniX Articles: Theoretical Discussion", which most people would probably assume is "official" information. if any write-ups in that thread are not supposed to be taken that seriously, please let me know now.

Official for what? Every time you write a post do you want people to consider it "official" Socionics knowledge? To be honest, the reason those posts are collaborated into "articles" like that is because so many people have asked about it. I don't know how many times I've seen someone say, "Wow, this is good stuff. Are there any more posts like this?" Unfortunately a lot of good posts have been buried within the forum, so I personally decided to dig them up myself and combine them into one thread. It's purpose is for the convenience of those who have asked, not much more. I believe I said all this in the threads, but I haven't looked in months; so tell me if it's not labeled properly.

no. read this post again. call that theory the same "Socionics" if you wish, but it is quite different and I was trying to make that clear.

Alright, but look around. No one has the same "interpretation" of Socionics. Honestly glam, even your own user list has a disclaimer about it on the top. Why? Because when people want to argue you can say, "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree since we have different interpretations." And the difference in these interpretations vary, obviously. Yet we consider all these various "interpretations" to still be Socionics, yeah? Why is Ashton any different?

it is a theoretical difference, even if it is seemingly minor. information elements are obviously a major part of Socionics.

No. It's a difference in semantics, which you don't seem to be getting. Information elements (Ne, Si, Se, Ni, Te, Fi, Fe, and Ti) are a major part of Socionics, I agree completely. There is a huge emphasis on them in those articles as well. So what if he referred to them as "functions" a few times? He's still referring to the same thing. I don't get why you're so adamant about it being otherwise.

[Ezra]

Allie, you're seriously fucked in the head, both you and dolphin are. dolphin has the worst conceptual understanding I've ever encountered. You either don't understand what glamourama is trying to say to you (which is unbelievably fucking obvious), or you're trying not to, because you don't want to dispell the obvious myth that you are an ESI. I mean, Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on when you think you are your conflictor? Next we'll have Minde running about with the signature "SLE-Se" and Expat going "I am SEI. Where's your Te, you fuck? Get against the wall".

[strrrng]

@ Niffweed: Again, there's no such thing as "Ashtonian Socionics." I know that you're fully aware of this, yet you continue to use the term for reasons I don't understand. Yay, it's really hilarious to mock something you don't even understand. Might as well be misleading and passive-aggressive too, eh? Seriously Niffweed, what is the point of this? You say you don't care about typings from Ashton/Socionix/etc., yet you make threads like these? And if you're going to "correct" his typings, then at least do it right for Christ's sake. He doesn't type people using a formula, so why are you turning this into some sort of math problem?

Niffweed, you are worthy of the worst condemnation I have in my heart. I have watched you maneuver throughout your virtual reality for the past year! You are the self-proclaimed gatekeeper of knowledge, which isn't exactly surprising, given your E-type and instinct, but execrable, nonetheless.

Look at this. He loves this. He makes a thread to incite reactions, so that people can debate over the theory and he can remain in the shadows, laughing. I am not fooled.

@glam: you are arguing a moot point. I already clarified what Ashton meant when he used those terms, so you can stop harping on them as if they're a fucking paradigm shift in the theory itself.

[Ezra]

Niffweed, you are worthy of the worst condemnation I have in my heart. I have watched you maneuver throughout your virtual reality for the past year! You are the self-proclaimed gatekeeper of knowledge, which isn't exactly surprising, given your E-type and instinct, but execrable, nonetheless.

Look at this. He loves this. He makes a thread to incite reactions, so that people can debate over the theory and he can remain in the shadows, laughing. I am not fooled.

LOL

Isn't that the kind of thing an EIE does? Using their Fe and Se HA to create a scene?

@glam: you are arguing a moot point. I already clarified what Ashton meant when he used those terms, so you can stop harping on them as if they're a fucking paradigm shift in the theory itself.

They fuckin' are! Come on!

Six functions, what the fuck is that? There are eight functions.






(In that order. )

It's not a moot point to argue that what the actual functions are in socionics are not what Ashton calls whatever the fuck he calls them, or vice versa.

Anyway, even if you got your point across, Allie doesn't see straight for shit when it comes to socionics.

[Ezra]

i don't think Allie interacts with Ashton's theories as say, Steve does, who appears to more independenty refine, ellaborate the system and connect it with others. she does appear to help straighten some of Ashton's logics out within existing assumptions. they could be Mirrors.

There's no reason why Steve exists, to be honest.

[strrrng]

LOL

Isn't that the kind of thing an EIE does? Using their Fe and Se HA to create a scene?

LOL... maybe dee was right about niff being ENFj.

They fuckin' are! Come on!

Six functions, what the fuck is that? There are eight functions.






(In that order. )

It's not a moot point to argue that what the actual functions are in socionics are not what Ashton calls whatever the fuck he calls them, or vice versa.

Anyway, even if you got your point across, Allie doesn't see straight for shit when it comes to socionics.

Ashton never said there were 6 functions. What the fuck are you people talking about? All he did over at socionix, was deconstruct the 6 sub-dichotomies to give a more bottom-up perspective on the constituent parts of the functions. That's a lot more lucid for, say, a beginner, than just telling them what the functions do. So, glam wasn't arguing what the functions were; she was harping on a misinterpretation of semantics. Christ lol. Ashton may be loony; but he's not dumb enough to claim there are only 6 functions.

[Steve]

There's no reason why Steve exists, to be honest.

I exist to keep saying that you're Te ESTj

[Steve]

i don't agree with many of his conclusions and he uses more subjective data than i would prefer, but i think he at least suffices as an example of Ne interaction across differing systems.

Which connections/Ne stuff are you referring to that I do? Which differing systems?

[DirectorAbbie]

# denotes a benchmark typing, used as a possible archetype of other typings
* denotes an incorrect typing among the ashtonian brass

Ooh, I got a #. Thanks, android! So...this means I's the stereotypical ESTj-Te. I though so myself. I know a short freshman boy at my school who is as well. He's so similar to me it's scary.

[Ezra]

LOL... maybe dee was right about niff being ENFj.

Major LOL.

LOL if that were the case.

Ashton never said there were 6 functions. What the fuck are you people talking about? All he did over at socionix, was deconstruct the 6 sub-dichotomies to give a more bottom-up perspective on the constituent parts of the functions. That's a lot more lucid for, say, a beginner, than just telling them what the functions do. So, glam wasn't arguing what the functions were; she was harping on a misinterpretation of semantics. Christ lol. Ashton may be loony; but he's not dumb enough to claim there are only 6 functions.

Yeah but even if this is the case, Allie is still wrong that Ashton's socionics is what most of us non-nutters study.

I exist to keep saying that you're Te ESTj

Of course. A truly pointless existence.

[Creepy-female]

Allie, you're seriously fucked in the head, both you and dolphin are. dolphin has the worst conceptual understanding I've ever encountered. You either don't understand what glamourama is trying to say to you (which is unbelievably fucking obvious), or you're trying not to, because you don't want to dispell the obvious myth that you are an ESI. I mean, Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on when you think you are your conflictor? Next we'll have Minde running about with the signature "SLE-Se" and Expat going "I am SEI. Where's your Te, you fuck? Get against the wall".

You don't know fuck about my conceptual understanding. Showing me the descriptions of Wiki "Se" to "prove" to me you're SLE doesn't do jackshit. Have you ever bothered to ask an IEI, a real IEI, exactly what they're about, besides all that victim aggressor erotic shit out there that's got great appeal for the internet peoplez? Ezra, you don't want Ni. You don't see it when it hits you in the face.